HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0800 and id is 1 raw text is: 2 BEAV. SU. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. IRONMONGERS' COMPANY
a trust deed executed thirty-[311]-four years ago, twenty-four years after the death
of the cestui que trust, twenty-two years after the death of the trustee, and twelve
years after the bill filed and apparently abandoned. Although,\there is no statutable
Bar, yet, after the extreme degree of laches-the want of the c6mmonest diligence in
prosecuting the suit, no decree ought now to be made. The Court never assists a
party who does not shew reasonable diligence in bringing forward his claim; Hercy
v. Dinwoody (2 Ves. jun. 87). In Wood v. Briant (2 Atk. 521) the Court refused an
account against an administrator, durante minore wirate, after the expiration of twenty
years from the testatrix's death. At this distance of time it'must be assumed that
nothing is due. If, however, a decree should be made, then in analogy to the action
for mesne profits, the Court will not give an account of rents and profits for more
than six years: Reade v. Reade (5 Ves. 744).
Mr. Pemberton, in reply. Time is no bar in this suit. Lord Ossory, a trustee,
by his solicitors, acted ten years under the deed. The only laches to be attributed
to the Plaintiff are the eleven years which occurred between Lord Warwick's death
and filing this bill; this is not sufficient to deprive him of his right to have an
account which has never been delivered or settled.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdale]. This bill was filed in August
1828, and prays simply an account of all sums of money received on account of the
rents of the estates comprised in the deed, and of the application of those monies-
the commonest sort of bill that could well be; and the Plaintiff who represents the
Earl of Warwick, the party entitled to the [312] surplus of the monies after the
performance of the other trusts, would be clearly entitled to the account; but it is
said, there ought to be no account granted by reason of the laches of the Plaintiff,
and the length of time which has elapsed. The Earl of Warwick died in the year
1816: it is said he never made any complaint ; the probability, therefore, is, that he
duly received the allowance of £1000 a year, but it is not even stated that any
account was ever rendered to him or to his executors. Has it ever been held that
the mere delay in making a demand for the twelve years from the expiration of the
trust, or ten years after the death of the trustee, the accounting party, where no
account has been rendered, and therefore no presumption of acquiescence exists, of
itself constitutes a bar to a trust account ? No such case has been cited, and I think
no such case has ever occurred. The suit being instituted in 1828, was not prosecuted
nor set down for hearing till the month of January 1839. I certainly think there
have been very great laches on both sides, very great laches in the Plaintiff in not
prosecuting this cause to a hearing, and very great laches on the part of the
Defendants, in not procuring the bill to be dismissed. The cause, however, during
the whole of that time has been in Court, and I must therefore look at the matter as
I should at the moment when the bill was filed, and regarding it in that light, I do
not think that the Plaintiff is barred from having an account. I ought to direct that
the Master be at liberty to state special circumstances with a view of furnishing the
ground, which possibly may be thereby afforded, of presuming the discharge of many
of these matters.
[313] ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE IRONMONGERS' COMPANY. (BETTON'S CHARITY.)
Feb. 12, 13, 14, 1840.
[S. C. 2 My. & K. 576 ; 3 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 11 ; 4 Jur. 145 ; (on appeal) Cr. & Ph.
208; 41 E. R. 469; 10 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 201; 5 Jur. 356; and in House of Lords,
10 Cl. & Fin. 908; 8 E. R. 983; on point as to costs, 10 Beav. 194. Discussed,
In re Prison Charities, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 146. See Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate-
General of Bengal, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 115.]
Bequest of residue to a company, to apply the interest of a moiety unto the
redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Barbary, one-fourth to charity schools
in London and its suburbs; and in consideration of the care and pains of the
company, the remaining one-fourth towards necessitated decayed freemen of the
company. There were no such British slaves to redeem, and a reference was made
to the Master to approve of a scheme for the application of the fund thus unapplied,
having regard to all the charitable bequests in the will. Held, that the application
1201](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0800&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)