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/ssactsengr0859 and id is 1 raw text is: this case is whether it., ifficiently appears that the Defendant stood in 'a. fiduciary
character with regard td Edenden. . '
Although it may be true' that Edenden was to some extent 'capable of. acting for
himself, yet it cannot be said' that. he was in full possession of .his faculties; for it
appears from the evidence, not. only that'he was in a 'state of intoxication during a
portion of almost every [449] day,:but that,- when he was perfectly sober, there was
a degree of imbecility about him:' ' When he went to receive his annuity, the Defendant
(under whosd care he had been placed by his father) accompanied. him; and he handed
over the money to the Defendant to keep for him. Therefore, the Defendant received
the money in' a fiduciary charactdr; and, having so received it, he became liable to
account for it.
It maybe true that there are certain classes of persons whom a Court of Equity
will not compel 'to account; such as servants entrusted with money for the payment
of tradesmen's: bills; but they are merely the channels through which the money is
to pass. Here, however, the Defendant was,. for five years, in the habit of receiving
and paying money on Edenden's account; and, ifI 'were not to hold that such
conduct made 'him liable to account,.I should subvert the principles upon which this
Court has acted ever since the time of Lord Eldon.
Therefore, .there must be a decree for an account from the death of Edenden, the
father, with costs; but, as the Plaintiff has entered into a great deal of unnecessary
evidence, he must pay the costs of that evidence.
[450] NEATE V. PINK. Ex pagte T. FLETCHER and J. B. YATES, of Liverpool,
Merchants. Dec. 1, 1846.
[S. C. on appeal, 3. Mac. & G. 476; 42 E. R. 344 (with note to which add Hand v.
Blow [1901], 2 Ch. 728).]
Jurisdiction. Petition. Practice.
A testator died .seised of a moiety of a plantation in Jamaica. A. and B., the.
owners of the other moiety, granted a lease of it to the trustee and executors of
the testator's will. He died before the lease expired.. After his death certain
persons resident in Jamaica were appointed receivers and managers of.the testator's
estates, in a suit in this country, for the execution of the trusts of the will ; and a.
merchant in London was appointed consignee and receiver of the produce of the
estates. The managers and receivers took possession of the entirety of the
plantation, and shipped the produce to the consignee, but did not pay A. and B.
any rent. A. and B., though not parties in the suit, petitioned in it to be paid
the arrears of rent due to them, out of the funds in the cause, which had arisen
from the balances paid in by the consignee.
The Court directed a preliminary inquiry, with a view to granting the prayer of the
petition.
John Hiatt, the testator in the cause, was the owner of one moiety of a plantation
in Jamaica, called Fellowship Hall; and Fletcher and Yates were the owners of the.
other moiety. After the testator's death they granted a lease of their moiety to
John Pink, who was in possession of the other moiety as the trustee of the testator's
will. Pink died before the lease expired. On his death, his executors entered into
possession of the entirety of the plantation, and, for some time, paid the rent
reserved by the lease; but, afterwards, they discontinued to pay it. Whilst they
were in possession, the suit mentioned in the title to this case was instituted by
parties interested under the testator's will; and in pursuance of an order made in it
certain persons residing in Jamaica were appointed managers and receivers of the
testator's estates, and John Horsley Palmer, a merchant in London, was appointed
receiver and consignee of the profits and produce of those estates. The Plaintiffs
then instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery in Jamaica, under which the receivers
and managers appointed as before mentioned were let into possession of the whole
693
15 SIM. 4,9.1
N EATE.X.'.T INK](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0859&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)