DISPUTE OVER A WILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18773, 29 July 1924, Page 9

DISPUTE OVER A WILL.

MATTER OF ADMINISTRATION PARTNERSHIP IN BUSINESS. 'V: 'V .•' -p t ACCOUNTS TO BE TAKEN. . /it A dispute concerning the administration of the •will of John De Rensy, who died in 1915, formed the subject of a judgment delivered i& the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr, Justice Stringer. Plaintiffs were Thomas George De Renzy, jun., Mary Wilson De Renzy, Elizabeth De Renay, Janet Logan De Renzy and Emily M. Jessop, beneficiaries under the •will (Mr. Leary)j and defendant was William Hope De Renzy, trustee and executor (Mr. Ecdean).

Plaintiffs' statement of claim charged defendant with having committed various breaches of trust in the administration of tho estate, and they sought for the rendering of certain accounts and requested that an inquiry bo held.

His Honor pointed out that many of the issues ia dispute had been settled by the parties by mutual agreement. In delivering judgment His Honor said that deceased and defendant were brothers and carried on business together in partnership. Deceased was contemplating a trip abroad find they then made certain arrangements in jconne-jfcion fwith the busiiies3 to provide for the contingency of the death of either during the absence of deceased. Accordingly an agreement was drawn up in May, 1915, which provided that th« survivor should have the option (to r Oe exercised within three months after the death of the deceased partner) of purchasing the deceased partner's interest in the business at a sapn to bo arrived at from the amount credited to the party upon tho last balance-sheet. Defendant failed to exercise the option and the assumed purchase by defendant in October, 1916, was therefore abortive i)t being clear that, having failed to exercise his option ho was as a trustee incapable of acquiring the trust estate for his own benefit, On the assumption that he had acquired the interest, of deceased in the business, as before mentioned, defendant carried on tho business until he wound it up in October, 1918. Tho question therefore arose as to t'k* legal responsibilities of defendant to plaintiffs as beneficiaries under the will. Plaintiffs therefore had the optifcn of taking such share of the profits of the business made since tho dissolution by the death of deceased as the Court might find to be attributable to the U3e of the share of deceased in the partnership assets, or to interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum on the amount of such share. In order, however, to enable plaintiffs to determine which of these alternatives wag the more advantageous to themselves, it was necessary that an account of the profits of the business should be taken. It seemed to follow logically that if and when a partial payment of the share of tho A deceased was made the proportion of profits attributable to such glare must abate pro tanto. The lease of the business premises was held by the partners in equal shares as tenants, in commoia, and., prior to the death of deceased, it had been customary to credit each partner with the sum of £2 per week as for rent. From November, 1916, and so long as defendant remained the owner of the lease, His Honor saw no reason why he should not bo allowed might be shown to be a fair and reasonable rental for the premises. With regard to the salaries to the partners, His Honor thought the proper course would be that, up to ithe date of the dissolution by the death of deoeaaed, the eame salaries should be credited to each partner as in previous years, but that after the dissolution no salary should b« allowed. The case was adjourned for further consideration, tho parties being at liberty to apply to tho Court for direction npon any point. •