A WARNING TO TRUSTEES.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1675, 31 March 1883, Page 2

A WARNING TO TRUSTEES.

Thk cds'e^Lally and 1 another v. Edgecumbe | and . another, deniurrer to defendants' plea Mas faken before Mr vftuitice Gillies at the Supreme Court ' Auckland on, Thursday :— Mr A. O'Neill in support of the plea, Mr'Cfoleman appeared ,in support, of demurrer. This was an important ca&e'as regarded' the liabilities of trusteed, more especially those of friendly societies. They nature of the case in kei but iix the. following clause in the declaration : — "This deed, made the 20th day of December, 1880, between 'Richard 'LajutFi>'(f<irfvlnan), ' S^ea^r (bnoUrtw^ m 4 George

Hamilton, WaikjttKV.fn jiji the Provincial District of Auckland, and colony,, of Ne^, Zealand, f as „tv«3t^9B. for the tinie.being.of, tlie Loyal Hamilton! Lodgo or Independent Order of Oddfellows, M.Uj, T^0, ,6Q89t,, ,»nd 'hereinafter teyiiedUie^mortgagorer, 'of the first p ( art ; James yyombna', of^LnmUt'on (contractor), trustee jof tlje t sajfl lodge , (.resjgned), of, this "'secptul' part'; l?rederick William" L^ljy, (gentleman ) t| ' Willfap Eugene OuiJhwairoijba'rrister-at-la^v). and \Viuiam Cole|nat^ I|erm'ed t .liiort^agcs. The d ( e,e(i wi^esse'tli Ifcnat, in 'consideration 6f the sum of seven hundqed and fifty .pounds {£Ji>o) leirf ,at 9 per cent. interest by the mortgagees to the mortgagors, the mortgagors do, and each of , jthpi^ dpthj [hf-reby ,convey,, , ossure, t aiid cQiifinn ; to\ jtlio .mortgagees, tbo piece of land described, witli ( ajil' rights and appurtenances thereunto belonging. 1 ' T^e ,, following the, (irst covenant of "the deed :— l. Where not in'cousistent with the context (.and /subject matter, and term mortgagors shall include their successors in office for the time being, and also their heirs, executors, and administrators, and assigns. The money was to be paid 'on the 24th of February, 1881, and they now claim to recover £839 1756 cl — Mr O'Neill contended that the liability could not extoml to the heirs, administrators, assigns, &o. — Mr Coleman> contended that the language of the deed was express, and the liability of heirs and assigns was specially provided for. The only question was, not whether the trustees were liable, but, whether they could in any case be exempted' — His Honor, in delivering judgment, said : The plea is that the trustees are not liable on their, covenant. But usually trustees me personally liable, without thcie are express , words freeing them from such personal liability. It is one of the fundamental doctrines in regard to tiustces that they are personally liable for what they do, unless in expiess term& they free themselves in the contract. Nothing is more common thnn to sco special provisions in a deed to the effect that the trustee shall not be held personally liable. In the present case it .appeared as if the solicttOKfor the plaintiff was careful that a quy^pi of this kind should not arise, as is^^hown by inserting that clause, " their heirs, administrators, and assigns." The plea! it, therefore, bad, and jiulgment must be for the pruntiM'on demurrer.