Hide Article Text (OCR)
LAW INTELLIGENOE.—THIS DAY.CHANCERY COURT.This dy being the commencement of Hilary Ter n, the various oourta of Iaw and equity were re-opened at the u8-.iaJ hoar.(Befoie the Lord Ck^jscellor.)BRIGHT V. LEGERTON.This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of lit L’.ollo, whereby hl» Honour had dismissed the bill of the plaintiff, which sought to make the trustees of cer* tain property bequeathed by bis grandfather, William Riignt, in 1822, and sold in 1839. aod in which he was Invested, responsible for rent of the property between the death of his grandfather, in 1822, and the sale in J»o9. which rent he alleged might hare been recorered but for the wilful default of the trustees. The appeal was argued a’few weeks ago, whenMr. 11. Palmer and Mr. Nalder appeared for the appellant ; and Mr. Follet, Mr. Selwya, Mr. Bagahawe, Mr. J. T. Humphry, Mr. Grenslde, and Mr. G, L. Itnssed for the respondents.The Lord Chancellor, Jn giving judgment, said the first question discuwed at the hearing of the appeal was, whetner a letter by a solicitor (Mr. Meggy) purporting to offer terms for the settlement of the claim of the plaintiff, in accordance with his Instructions, was .a proof that such solicitor had been so employed by the plaintiff. His Honour the Master of the Rolls was of opinion that the letter was a proof of such solicitors retainer by the plaintiff, but he could not agree with that opinion. A solicitor was not a public officer of the court, and his simple assertion that he acted under a particular retainer could not raise a presumption that it was his duty to make an entry or a declaration so as to make it evidence for or against the person for whom he professed to act. His lordship was of opinion that the letter of Mr. Meggy was improperly admitted as evidence against the plaintiff. Bat wholly irrespective of that letter, hla lordship was of opinion that the Master of the Bolls was fully justified in c iamisalng the bUL The property in question was sold by the trustees In 1839, in accordance with the will of the plaintiff’s grandfather, and they proceeded to distribute the proceeds under the direction of the will. No bill was filed by the plaintiff till 1859, and even then the plaintiff did not charge the trustees with fraud.The Court was of opinion that the plaintiff’s claim was hatred by laches and acquiescence. The plaintiff came of age in 1839. It appeared that he had been living on the estates, and had continued to live in the neighbourhood ever since. In such circumstances, the court could not permit a cestui quc trust to impeach the conduct of hia-i trustees, against whom no fraud was alleged, and to reopen their accounts, which were settled twenty yeirs ago. The appeal would {be dismissed, but without costs, as it was of Importance that the decision of the Master of the Roils should be reviewed with reference to the letter of the deceased solicitor.
Newspaper Details
Evening Star and Dial
London, Middlesex, GB
Fri, Jan 11, 1861
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
University O.
IA, USA 25 Jan 2025
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
