COMMISSION TO TRUSTEES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1289, 12 November 1896, Page 32

COMMISSION TO TRUSTEES.

The Chief Justice had before him on Friday morning two matters arising out of the estate of Farquhar Gray, deceased, of Taratahi, Wairarapa. The was a motion to vary or rescind an order made by His Honor last year, whereby he ordered that the trustees and executors should be paid 5 per cent, commission on the first .£IOOO, 2i per cent, on the balance of the total value of the estate, and 5 per cent, per annum on the annual value of the estate during the existence of the trust. Mr Tripp, on behalf of the widow and beneficiaries, contended that the executors should only be allowed a commission on the personalty for the work done as executors, and that they could not ajmly for commission as trustees on the corpus of the estate until the trusts were completed. Mr Bunny, for the executors and trustees, contended to the contrary. The second application was a summons to determine whether the trustees, being paid an annual sum by way of commission, could employ an agent at the expense of the estate to collect the rents. Mr Tripp contended that the collection of rents was part of the duty of the trustees.

His Honor held that in the first case the executors were entitled to commission on the personalty only, and allowed them 5 per cent, on the personalty, about £SOOO. As to the other question, His Honor held that an executor can employ an agent where reasonably necessary to collect rents, but that the fact of such employment should be taken into consideration in estimating the amount of the commission, and he allowed the trustees 5 per cent, on the moneys collected by themselves, and 3i per cent, on the moneys collected by an agent where such employment was reasonably necessary.

The Stipendiary Magistrate on Friday delivered his decision in the case of Cook and Gray v. T. Hudson. The facts were that Abbot, Oram and Co. received a promissory note for £75 from Hudson, the note being made by Mrs M. A. Bowen and endorsed by Hudson. Abbot, Oram and. Co. proved in Mrs Bowen's bankrupt estate, and received 10s in the £,, having assigned the promissory note to Cook and Gray. The latter now sued Hudson on the promissory note, giving credit for the amount which Abbot, Oram and Co. had received. Mr Robinson, for the defendant, contended that Cook and Gray could not sue, as Abbot, Oram and Co. had proved in Mrs Bowen's estate. His Worship, however, over-ruled the objection, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for .£37 10s, with costs. Mr Tripp appeared for the plaintiffs.