Hide Article Text (OCR)
UJJ4H--?11, VTOTQ.ce : pat.,ic Cornier, dated effect in itive cap-#ret to shments, ture, and i some of practice, ivc led to nice and irect that be called of every :h case to :er, shall the ship, and the it when-s may be take this cessity of : punish-xmfining e custom hich dis-to be the nself ac. xard hisfrigate, t.t sailed i Baynes,: will.be 1 permit.i. Risk, i Netley, t., Lieut. :ked, and ch vessel oisaioned le depar-jd on the in a few n on the completetenccs of rter deck ig of the i accord. :d.i; J. A.to Odin; Alban.— looter.— wick, toembarkwould state it.Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.Stiles v. Guy.—Liability op Co-bxecutors,—This suit was instituted for the administration of the estate of John Tuckey who had appointed Anthony Guy, since de« ceased, bis confidential solicitor, Richard Tuckey, his nephew, and Richard Tuckey, his son, executors and trustees of his will. It appeared that Anthony Guy was the acting executor, the other two executors not interfering until theywere called upo^ by the legatees to require Guy to render anthiaccount and have the funds invested. In consequence of the accounts not having been satisfactorily rendered, this bill was filed in 1829; aud Anthony Guy, by his answer, admitted assets in his hands to the amount of 6,100/. An order was served upon Guy requiring him to pay the money before November 6, 1829, but upon negotiations taking place the time was enlarged to the 5th of January, 1830. In the meantime, however, Guy became a bankrupt, and a supplemental bill was filed against his assignee, seeking to make the co-executors liable for the loss. The co-executors set up as a defenoe: first, that Guy could never have paid the money in his hands if proceedings had sooner been taken against him; secondly, that the adult parties interested in the lunds had acquiesced in the money remaining in Guy’s hands ; and thirdly, that the enlargement of the order far Guy to pay the 6,100/. into couit was made without their knowledge or consent; and that, as the money was thereby lost, they were discharged. The cause wai heard, and a decree made in December, 1832, by which inquiries were directed as to the facta alleged by the co-executors.— The Master reported that none of the adult parties had acquiesced in the money being left in Guy’s hands; and that if the .time allowed him for paying the money had not been enlarged beyond the 6th of November, still he would have been unable to pay the amount. The case now came on upon exceptions to that report, and upon further directions. A variety of letters were produced which had passed between the parties, and other evidence, and it was contended that the trustees were not liable for the funds^which had been lost.—Mr. Bethel!, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Bevir, and Mr. Pitman appeared as counsel in the case.—The Vice-Chancellor said, upon a fair construction of the letters and evidence, his opinion was that no acquiescence whatever had been shown on the part of the legatees; all they had required ^vas that the money should be paid, in order to save the necessity, of * chancery suit. Under these circumstances he should direct the defendants, the co-executors, to pay the money into court which was claimed by the legatees.Business of the Court.—-The Lord Chancellor has given notice that he intends to sit until the 10th of August, at which period the long vacation will commence. There will be no sittings after tne present term till the first seal, which will be on the 24th of this month. The Lord Chancellor has directed that after the end of this term the court will rise every Saturday at two o’clock, and ^ will not sit on Mondays until eleven o’clock, but will continue to sit on Mondays until four. _m T»r:.
Newspaper Details
London Express
London, Middlesex, GB
Mon, Jun 05, 1848
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 15 Mar 2025
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
