The Gazette 1952-1955

At what stage does the liability o f sureties on an administration bondfo r the due administration o f the estate o f a deceased person terminate ? According to the Lord Chief Justice giving judgment in the Queen’s Bench Division London, the liability of sureties ceases when the estate has been realised and the debts paid. Thereafter the administrators hold the estate as trustees for the next-of-kin and not as personal representatives. In the case before the Court the plaintiff was sole next-of-kin of her father who died while she was a minor. Her husband was appointed administrator and guardian until she should attain 21 years of age and obtained letters of administration in that capacity. The defendants who were the solicitors with carriage of the administration entered into a bond as sureties. The defendants received the purchase money of part of the estate and paid it to the husband. All debts, funeral and testamentary expenses were duly paid but the husband mis­ appropriated part of the residue and disappeared. The Court agreed with the submission of counsel for the defendants that the object of the bond was only to ensure the due winding up o f the estate until the residue was ascertained and in the admini­ strator’s hands and that as soon as the moneys were all received and the debts paid the administration was finished and the administrator’s character changed from that of an administrator to that of a trustee. To hold otherwise would mean if the beneficiary had been a very young child that the sureties would remain liable over a long period o f years without being able to control the action o f the trustee or relieve themselves of liability. The only person entitled to receive the moneys to whom the defendants were bound to account was the administrator. The estate was then clear and the administration was at an end. fHarvell v. Foster, and Another.—The Times Newspaper, 12th March, 195 . 4 ) - ^ **-rr A ,z > RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE. “ Area ”—Definition considered— R. v. Arm­ strong ” (Scarborough Quarter Sessions)— (The Solicitor, April, 1954). Case of the Landlord’s Cats (Westminster County Ct.) (S.J., 27th March, 1954). Devolution an Intestacy of Registered Land ( l.L .T ., 27th March and 3rd April, 1954). Expropriation in International Law (Bin Cheng) (The Solicitor, April, 1954).

of a person who dies intestate. By Section 2 the Act applies on intestacy where a man leaves a widow but no issue. By Section 3 the property will belong to the widow absolutely and exclusively if its net value as defined by Section 8 does not exceed £4,000. Copies of the Act, price 6d, may be obtained from the Government Publications Sales Office, G.P.O., Arcade, Dublin. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. Where a purchaser under contract to purchase a house with the aid o f an advance from a Building Society having been allowed into possession before completion o f the purchase and mortgage puts a tenant into possession o f part o f the premises before completion can the tenant acquire rights under the Kent Acts against the purchaser's mortgagees who complete the mortgage and make the advance without knowledge o f the tenant's existence ? Yes. The purchasers in the case before the English Court o f Appeal contracted to buy property in September 1946. At the end of October the vendors moved out and by arrangement the purchasers were given possession of part. In fact they moved into one portion o f the house and granted weekly tenancies o f the other which came within the provisions o f the Rents Acts. The question was whether the mortgagees who subsequently granted a loan without knowledge o f the position could eject the tenants on the ground that they had a paramount title as mortgagees. The Master of the Rolls said that as between the mortgagors and the tenant there was a tenancy by estoppel, and that if. the mortgagors acquired a legal estate before the charge, for however short a time, the estoppel would ripen and the mortgagees’ claim would necessarily be defeated. The mortgage in the present case which was drafted by the mortgagees’ solicitors described the property as “ now vested in the mortgagors free from incumbrances.” The mort­ gagees could not complain of the truth o f recitals which they had caused to be inserted in their own mortgage and there was no evidence in the present case o f fraud or deception on the part of the mort­ gagors or the tenants. The Court could not accept the argument that the conveyance and the mortgage were one transaction and that there was no time during which the mortgagors had any legal estate independent of a mortgage. The Building Society’s appeal was dismissed with leave to appeal to the House of Lords. (Church o f England Building Society v. Piskor.—The Times Newspaper, 26th March, 1954).

General and Special Powers of Appointment—“ Re Bransbury ” and te Re Churston Settled Estates {S.J., 20th March, 1954). 8 5