Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 74

E

E

Three Trustees attended at an insurance office to receive [unclear: payment] of insurance moneys by crossed cheques for which they signed [unclear: recei]—two handed it over to a third, named Reid, to invest. This wrote to the two he had done, but had not. An action was brought against the latter two. The clause in this Will was verbatim with [unclear: the] clause of exoneration in the Jones' Will.

The Lord Chancellor, Westbury, in Appeal, said:—"He [unclear: c] sidered the defendants had not committed any breach of trust sanctioning the temporary investment of the fund in the name of [unclear: R] as to disentitle him to the benefit of the indemnity clause. The [unclear: R] part of the indemnity clause in the Will did not give the Trustees [unclear: u] protection against the misapplication of the trust funds or from [unclear: se] to the due carrying out of the trusts of the Will; the remaining [unclear: pot] of the clause, however, which had probably been drawn by a [unclear: per] well acquainted with the rules of the Court, was evidently intended [unclear: n] protect Trustees from the usual liability both as to the mode of [unclear: invs] ment of the Trust property and also from any misapplication might be made of it by one of the Trustees. The effect of this [unclear: part] the clause was in his Lordship's opinion to discharge any one [unclear: of] Trustees who handed over the Estate to another Trustee from [unclear: liab] in the extent of misapplication. It was clearly competent [unclear: for] testator to define the duties of his Trustees, and to say that [unclear: the] should not incur the ordinary liabilities incident to their office, [unclear: and] so the Court had no right to invest such Trustee with a [unclear: reapon] beyond that which the testator had thought it right to impose on [unclear: t] In the present case a testatrix had expressly discharged the [unclear: Tru] from any obligation of seeing to the due application of the [unclear: t] moneys and had absolved them from any [unclear: hability] as to a [unclear: misappli] by a co-trustee. No case was made out against them of personal [unclear: m] appropriation and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor in respect of [unclear: h] indemnity clause being correct, the appeal must be dismissed."