« AnteriorContinua »
Husband, Lane v. esiA-656 Macdonald, Hall v. Hale I ore busigad to dedo nemo12 09 --, Young v.
Young v.91-1-34 dima, llama Mackerell v. Fisher---604
Covoru daima Maitland v. Rodger
-110-18492 Mansfield (Earl of), Attor-O
Manton v. Roe76-8A-915 353 Marjoribanks, Knight v.-198 899,9qori Marshall, Gardner v..aq-1575 notolgere Martin v. Maugham bb) (-230 word noguose Maugham, Martin v.380 aiwels broller2 Kols Targus imgHotaniwa
Meares, Green v.--- llev526 Medley v. Horton 18-65-yo-222 Meux, Lord Rendlesham v. - 249 463 Miller, Hansen v. ode
Mitchell, Emmott v.---432
Montgomery v. Calland - 79
Morrall, Knight v.) 398
Newport, Turner v.
357 Nicholson v. Wilson
84 Nightingale, Barnacle v. 456
The testator's personal estate being insufficient to pay his debts, his real estates were ordered to be sold, and the proceeds applied in payment of his debts remaining unsatisfied.
The Vice-Chancellor held that the Defendant, who was one of the unsatisfied creditors and also a trustee and executor of the will, was entitled to retain his debt out of the proceeds of the sale; and that his right was not prejudiced by the proceeds having been paid into Court (a).
Mr. Campbell appeared for the Plaintiff.
1844: 19th January.
Retainer. Trustee. Debt. Debtor and creditor.
A trustee of real estates sold the testator's for payment of debts, is entitled to retain a debt due to him
from the testator, out of the proceeds; and his right is not prejudiced by the proceeds having been
Mr. De Gex and Mr. Winstanley appeared for the paid into Court.
(a) See Loumes v. Stotherd, 1 Sim. & Stu. 458; Player v. Foxhall, 1 Russ. 538; Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Russ. 29; Langton v. Higgs, ante, Vol. V. p. 228.
1844: 19th Jan.
WALSH v. GLADSTONE.
C. R. BLUNDELL, esq., the testator in the cause, appointed John Gladstone, Robert Gladstone, and Thomas Robinson to be the executors and trustees of his will; and gave, to each of them who should prove and act, a legacy of 3007.; but, if any of them should die without having acted, or should refuse or decline to act, the legacy or legacies intended for him or them, were to go to the trustee or trustees who, under the power for that purpose contained in his will, should be appointed in his or their place. The will afterwards provided that, in case all or any of the said trustees, or any trustee or trustees to be refuse or decline appointed under that proviso, should die or be desirous to act, the lega
3007. to each of
cies intended for them, were to go to the trustees, who, under the
Power to appoint new trustees.—Construction.-Trustee.
itiller v Priddon / Del. Maen. & Gor. 344. E of Lonsdale v Beckett 4 DeG. VS. 74.