522 CHANCERY REPORTS.

1860. purstlantto the said order, be made perpetual. And it

Cà.XJ4M@l. -
. isfurtherordered,that therespondentJamw Robingon do
TURNKR
pay the petitioner Robert Turne: the cost,
s incurru by
'.
RoBm sox'
. him in this matter,save and excepù tlle costs of appeal.
Ohe
r v. Anditisfurtherordered,thateachparty.doabidehisown
'
eogtaofthisappeal.
Couvto.fAppealAeurfxg Book,l.,$ Qt7.

FRRNCII p GAAHAM .
J'
upz 6,l4. LIn Chanèevy.j
G.an4 H , Tsx following wete the material faets of tbis eaae, Whieh céhœ
-qteesJ a
xttument on l forethe Ctmrt ujon a eauBe petition an4 aëdàvit:. By azèjtlv-
thesolidtoon '
ofp, tlt e ment,bearing date the10th ofApril 1835,the sum of :70% *.,
teonlf0rlife j
oftlte settle-cured )yajudgmet)tofTrinltyTerm 1834,*asassignedtoEdward
ment,lentthe
trust+ dson HydeFrenèh and the respondentHenry vorrensgrajjam,w goli .

14lecorlty citor,upbn tfustfortàe petitîoner Digby Freneh,with remainde:

wye
f lk
atled.totawa
G. lly.s for the petitioner B ridget
,thewife of Digby French,for lifejwith
#solicitor,aud
m the trans- remainderforthechildren ofDigbyant l BridgetFrench,asthereiù
action of the
ban no other men'tioned. The settlemefit contained a power to raise:300 fe
solicltor was
employed for thebeneftofDigby French,and to callin tb::' ;0% and investthe
the lenders.
and no suf i- samein thefunds,ord$lend same outatinterest,upoà the bestand
c
:i
etnit
a onin
ov
fes
j
zt-
t ,, Thissum of:700was shortly afterwards
le mostapprovedsecurity. ,
was madm-
Ipu, thatthe Paid (f ,and was lentjby the trustees,to Daniel M :Nevi
' n, the re-
tr
coampe
steel
s
lawe
bltreto paymentthereofj)ejng secured by a mortgage, dated the 15th dây
replace the ofAugust1842 ofa chargeof:1969 which hadbeen provcd.in tlle
trtlstfund. ' '
'
n atlmth suitofBeytanh.m Coneannon,and of certain land:in the county
beingsolvent
H.wasbounk ofGalway,with a judgmentagaiàstDaniel MdNevip,as eolla-
t
o l'
mmcep
tyl
aceo
' (1nô tera,
l security. In 1845,D aniel M .Nevin was anxious to pay og'
, an
G.
moit
eb
tye otber the:74): zortgage, an4 accordingly the sum ofz70(,was lodged
.
That G.
wasyotentltld tobeinf
ltmniiledbytheRnantfarlifq,theonv:ofinveegsting
thetltlehavmg
- been castuponln-m. '
ThatE.wasentitledtoberecoqped,bythttenantforlife,tlz amountofhig
mmety.
 CHANCERY REPORTS. $:3.

. to themwedit ofEdward HydeFreneh and Henry TorrensGraham, 1860.

i clcncery.
n theProvineialBank ;and about the same timeadeed ofrelease
l y'u xcx
was sentto Mr. Grabam fol'execution, and exeenteâ by Mr. #)
Hyde French and M r.Grallam,who retained the sam' e. Tite GRAHAM.
trustees, after tlle lodgment of the f700,permitted the entire staument.
charge of 11969 to be paid to Alr. MdNevin. Subseque'ntlp '
in M areh l846,Mr.M lNevin ag4eed to take back the sum ot
i;00,on the security on which ithad been previ .ous
ly beld,sav'
e
the charge of . El960;and,accordinglp on the 7th of Alay 1846,
'
thesum of . f700 was paid,by the'trustees,to M r.M sNevin, and
the dee; ofl'elease was eaneelled.
M r.M sNevin's'landsweresoldin the Incumbered EstatesCouz.t; '
and on settling the scheduleof incumbrancqg there,M r.Commis-
sioner Longûeld 'held.that the mortgage, having been rele>sed,
eoulflnot beset agailtup againstintervening eharges,and,aeeordz '
ingly,postponed the claim of Alessrs.Freneh and Graham,en foot-
ofthib f;00 charge,to a settlement of 1846,in consequence ' of
which the funds were insuëcient to pay og this sum of :700,or
any part thereof. Alr.Edwar: H yde Freneh died in 1851,an4
his personalrepresentative was M issM ary French the respondent.
Thepetition in thiscmse wasfled by Alr.and Mrs.Digby French
antl their children. It charged that the respondent M r.Grahalw
who was a solieitor,had.
,atthe timeof the secon.
: loan to Mi'.
M tNevin,and fora eonsidezable tim . previous thereto,aetedasthe
solicitor for himselfand his co-trustee,and also for the petitioner '
Digby French. Tlzat no investig .ation of title was m ade on the
occasion ofthesecond loan,noropinion bfCounseltaken;and that
Digbz Frenclkhad cautioned Graham against lending the money
again,unless he was sure that the former securities remained
eFeetual. '
M r.Graham,by hisanswerlg aëdavit,alleged thathe had not
acted as solieitor in the transactions,and that his services were
#
wholly gratqltous. '
The zespondent M iss Freneh alleged that she had heard her
, father say,and believed it tc be true,that the petisioney Digby
 *4 'CHANCERY REPORTS.
1860. Freneh haflglven Edward Hyde French a letter indemnifying him
Cltancery.
againstal1riskin advancing the<t00 on there-lendingtransaction.
x'
ssxcz
T. x '
rhe petitioner's aëdavlt,in reply,stated thatno solicitor,eave '
GRAHAM. M r.Graham,hadactedon behalfofthepetitionersortbeirtrustees,
statement. butit(lid nottraverseMissFrench'sallegationsabovc-mentioned.
'

' Mm SerjeantLawson,Mr.Charle'Kelly and'Mr.Woodloe% for

the petitioners. ''
drplmenl. No other solicitor having acted,Mr.Graham must be held k)
have been solieitor for the trusteesan4 the petitioners. Tbatin
itselfwas a grave impropriety: Warlng v. Waving(c);Mont-
povldr.y v. Waving(bj. The errorbeing followed by a loss,the
trusteesareclearlyresponsible:Lentevv.Zester@); DQ v.Bnv-
Jovd(tl); Fenwia v. Gveenmell@); Stvettin v. Ashmall(/. ).
Graham's liability isin thedouble capacity ofsolicitor and.trustee.
The trustees arejointlyliable. I
(
fMr.Hyde French's asset,
sare
entltled to any itdemnity,it is only against M r. Graham,who
misled him.
' . &
M r.Bremater,Mn Chatterton and M r.Twlgg,for tke resplmd-
'
entGraham.
Hisliability isonly thatof> trustee,notthatofa solicitor. He
wasi'
nduced to lend on thissecuritp on the pressing solieitationsof
'
thepetitionerDigbyFreneh;to theextent,tbereibre,ofhisinterest
in tbetrustfnnd,Mr.Grabam is entitled toindemnity:Tvayord
#.Boehm (gj;Bromne v.Mauudt(hj;Ilaby v.Ridaalgâ ,(f);
Bvewev v.Swirlea(z)
.. '

M r.H.StHamiltoi an4 Mr.Stephens,for the representatives

ofMr.HydeFmnch:Nailv.Puntev(f);Fullerv.Knlght@)t
(0 31r.Cb=.Rep-33l. (bt 61r.Chan.Rep.533.
(c) 6b'.Chan.Rep.âl.
5. (d)19Beav.409.
(e) 1@Beav.415. (.f$BDrew.9.
(pj3Atk.440. (l)51r.Chan.Rep.351. 1
.
(z
) 7DeG.,M.& G.1G. (â)QSma.& GX.223.
(l) 5Sim.5#. @ )6 Beav.1k5.,
 CH ANCERY REPORTS.' 525 .
TLe Louo CsAxcxrLoR. 1860.
I chgvtcery.
n thiscase there hasbeen clearly abreach oftrustcommitted,
T'xxx'cl
accom panied by m uch carlessness and negligence; but I must .
acqt*litthetrusteesofevervt
m hi
nc
u likemalasde
R n. Therewasasum GRARAM. .%
of. fC00,included in.M r.French's settlement,which,in the ineep- Jttdgmont.
tion ofthesetransactions,waswell secured by the mortgage of an
estate sul cientfor the purpose,and.by an assignment ofx eharge.
fornearly f2000,payableout of thefundsin thecauseofBeytaglz
v.Concannon. Tlle settlement authorised a loan,upon approved
security;and so matters stood until the money was paid oF by
M r.M qNevin,and restored to the hands ofthe trustees,towhom
itwasproperly payable. I musttreat the lodgmentto theirtredit
asa paymentto them ;and'the money remained quite :afe,'
akd at
their disposal,untilM r.M d
N evin negociated with them for a new
loan,Jowhich the trusteesagreed. Allthrough,thisis spoken of
asa new loan,and notasa,rescission of the original payment,even
ifsuchathinjcouldbe. Inthemeantlme,however,Mr.M1Ne 'vin
lladdealtwith hispropertp hadsubjectedthewhnle,oraeonsider-
. able portion ofit,toastrictsettlement,for fulfand valuableconsi-
deration,and.had.made the residueofit a fund for indemnifying
the settled portion againstallchargesthen aFecting it. The pro-
perty in factbecame so m uch entangled that,from being an ample
security, it rested totally on the covenant of Daniel Charlea
M sN evin. It is impossible to consider this a fltting security for
the inyestment of trust funds. In point of fact,itwas utterly
valueless,and.themoney wasJostby thistransaction. .
In thatstateoffacts,itseemstom ethat the trustegsarerèspon-
sible. Mr.Graham having taken on himselfto be hisown adviser
and the adviserof his co-trustee,they cannotbeheld less responsi-
b1e than they would have been had they obtained the advice of
Counsel,in the ordinary way, which never would have absolved
them if they ha4 fallen into such amanifest error. M r.Graham
' '
contendsthat M r.Digby French is bound to recoup him ;andm r-
haps he m ight be,save for this,that M r.French cast on him the
.onttu ofconsidcring and advising in this transaction ;so thatitis
notpossible heretoseparate hisposition astrustee from thatofpro-
 J:6 CHANCXRY .
REPORTS.
1860. fessional adviser. Hecannotsfe, I have given you advice which
chanary. has m isled you,bnt D u are j)Ound to indem nify me'for the 1-
''
vttslcs which thatadvice h@: occasjone( ) to me as ycur trustee. On theô
p. .
ORAHAM. contrarp itisa question whetheran action fornegligence might not
Judqmeut. have been maintained againstM.r.Graham,and,thereforeitseemsto
mq that he is neteptitled to be in any way indemnifed by Mr.
. Di
gby French.
Thvreis,bowever,considerablediëculty,in my mind,respeeting
Mr.EdwardHydeFrenck theothertrustee. Hewasnotaprofl-
àional man; he rested on the skilland character of M r.Graham,
andj'at the same time,he stood in the ordinac position ofa'
trust'ee who has been inth ced to commita breaeh oftrust,at' the
reqnessofone ofhiscentîdsçv: tr- t. I willassume thath. e knew
everyshing which M r,Graham or 3I 'r.Digby French knew ;butif
Ijewasinduced l)y M r.Digby French to coneurin thisloanjit then
begomes precisely similar to the com mon case of m oney lentto l
tenanffor life. Thatisnotan answertoa suitagainst thetrusle,
butit gives him a right t, o be recouped as against the tenantfor
life. Hqre,certainly, there are letters from Digby French,which
leatlto thelbferencethathedi4 induce hisbrother to join ipthe
new transaction; and there are paragraphs iq M iss French's &ë-
davit, which.not. being answered,must be taken to be true,and
would bepvimafaeie conclusive thatsuchwas the realstateof
facts. Ifno further inquiry bepressed for,I'm'usttake them tobe
true. Theprimary conseqpeneqofthiswll1be,thatifM issFreneh
%.
admits assets,she must be ordered to bring in the amount. The
order m ust be onboth,to bring in theentiream ount;and then,as
to one moiety of the interest,M iss French will be entitled tf it
fortkwith,and shewillbe entitled to beindemnifed,even sofaras
theprineipal,outof any interestM r.Digby French hasin thefund
.

tobqbrougbtin.
Then thequestion t
vise-s.whatwill betheresultofthatar-nge-
mûnt up% Mm Graham ? and I cannos see that if M m Edwarl
. Hy4e.Frqnck's w etsbq absolved by thead ofDigby Frencb,% ;
. furtherormorestrinjentdecreeought,on thataccount,tobemade
w againstM.r.Graham. Asto the principal,that mustbebroughtin
 CHANCERY REPORTS
.. 5Q2
'both; but as to onemoiety of the interest,M isaFrvnch isenti- 1860.
rd toretain it- . - . cu pcvty.
ThecaseofRaby v.Rideltalglt(c)certainlyseem&to havegone A'
XXXCH . t.
greatlength in relieving trustees,as againsttheeentuiçfz.
,truat' ORASAM.
komskstrusteestodowhatamountstoabreachoftr
#ust. It Jidgt
yept.
zsa casein which executors,nothaving an expresspowertolend
treal seetiàity,invested the fund on mottgage,by thewieh ofa
nantforlife,whohad requested them nottoinvestin stoek but
kmortgage. Ofcourseitwasquiterightto charge thetenantfor
'
e with the increased interestwhich had been received by him ;
ltitwasgoing very farto make hiswllolefuturelifeestqterespon-
b1e to replace the trust fund which had been lost,theCourtnot
qciding thatthe loan upon mortgage atall was a breaeh oftrust.
'ithad decided that,I could have better understood theprinciple,
$thetenantforlife llad aetually interfered to prevent thetrustees
nding on Government security:but Lord JusticeTurnersays:.. --
Theirstquestionwhicharisesuponthisappealis,whetùer,under
le trustsofthiswill,the trusteeswerejustifledin layingoutthe
'ustmoney upon mortgage ata11? Thatisaquestion which may
Imitofsom e dië cultp and isone upon which Idesireto give no
mclusive opinionp''and then heconsiders the courseto be ' taken
5against the tenant for life. H ere the petitioner Digby French
8,s,by his own conduct,become boun; to .indemnify pne ofxthe
'ustees;but I do not think that this gives any right to shiftan
lcreased responsibility upon the other.
fc)7D:G.,M.& G.1G .
GenevalS'
ecrfpg BoA,.
26,$ 180.
 1860.
Sep.24.
GENERAb
OMDMRS. CHAy/ERY.

GENAkAL ORD:RS.

% :'
'
n e 24/: day o.ffmf- âer1860.

TM RigV Hon.'MAz>RE BRAD;S Izord High '

ChancellorofIre-
.

land,by and with tlleM vice and assistanceoftheRightH onorable

FsAwcls BzzwcKslmxx, Lord Justice of Appeal, and the Right
Honorable TsoMA.s BExlty CusAclc SMITH, Master of the Rolls,
' (10th hereby orderand:direct,in mannerfollo'wing,thatis to say:- '
N o.1.
THAT the 168th GeneralOrder pf the 27th X arch 184% the
frst General Order ofthe 5tllApril 1842,and the flfth General
Orderofthe 13th June 1856,berescinded,saveastocostsincurred '
V fore thedateofthisOrder.
N o.II.
Tsx costsofthe attendanceofCoqnsel before the M aters 8hall
onlybeallowed upon taxation,in thecasesspecled in theSchedule
annexed to these Orderg. '
NJ.111. ,

'W sxRx,ln cases which have occurred before the date of tbese
Orders,Solicitors have inadvertently omitted to procure the M'>
ter's approval of Counsel's attendance,atthe time of such attend-
ance,the M asters shall be at libertp if they t' hink flt, upon a
summons for that purpose, to make an order for the allowance
of the costs of auch attendance; prcvided such order be made'
before the 25th day of Decembcr next:the Solicitor to bear th6
eœts ofsueh gumm ons and order.
 CHANCERY REPORTS. 529'
No.1V'
. 1860.
TIR Taxing-M asters shallallow the eosts of the attendanee of Sep.24.
GENEMAL
two CounselbeforetheM mster,in proceedingsaswellupon General
IIMDTEItS.
CausePetitions as under the 15th section ofthe Chancev Regu-
lation Act, when the proceedings shall appear to the M aster to
involve a question oflaw or offaet,of such diëculty or weight
as to justify such attendance; and the Master's opinion to that
eFect shall be stated in the rulings made upon the hearinp'' '
'
N.
o.V.
EACH M aster shallcause a special memorandum öf evel.y''
cli
!
in which the attendance of two Counselshallbe soallowedk.to.'
be
s,ade in abook to be kept in his ofsce fir that jurpose.
N o.V 1. .
TH>:eertifcateoftheM aster,direetedby thè35th General'
order
ofthe 31stJt
lly l851,shallbesuëcientlyevidenced by anattàstid
copy oftheM aster'sruling,tothe eFectrequired by thesaid Order.

M AZIERE BRADY)C.
''
F.BLACKBURNE,,L.JLA.'
T.B.CUSACK SMITH, M.R.

' J.
.

Sclteduiefpmhkhfk/erdpïze 0rd6r8rd
/er.
PART y'
ntsp COXTAINING CAsEsrxlmx '
PM 15TR slcrrxox o/ 'Mx
.
CnxxcxRv Rxocxal
rlox Ac'
r18t0.
1. Rummonsen.
1.On theârsthearing beforetbeM aster.
Q.On CausePetition an4 Diseharge.
3.Forheariâg on EvidenceormatterofLaw.
4.Forleaveto Re-hear.
5.On Re-llearing.
6.ForStcurity for Costs.

11.M otions ozzNotieeorEx pavte.

1.To Substitute Service,ortohave
#
Service deemed good.
vox,
.l0. . .6:
 J30 CHANCERY REPORTS.
?

. 1860. 2.'
P0 appointReeeiverfor (heGrsttime.
.
Sep.24. . 3.TodischargeReceiver.
GSNXR-:s
oxbrltI. 4. ForInluneti
on.
.

J.TodissolveInjuncticn.
6.ForNeExeat.
1.Todischarge NeExeat.
8.Tdbringin M oney.
9.Topay outM oney. A
l0.Toextendtimeforfnalorder(unleR on eonsent).
1l.Foyleavetosueordefend infovmapauperls.
12.For leave that a W ife,respondent
o may defend the suitapart
from htrHusband.- '
l3.ToappointGuardiartcd lltem foralunaticoril hl eile.
.

l4.Forproduction ofDocuments. ,

l5.TomakeconsentaruleofCourt(exceptwàereitmay be.
done
bySide-barRule,No.23).
l6.Tosetasideorsuspend proceedinga.
l7.To'
val'y oramend an Interlocutory Order.
l8.ForanAttachment(exceptwhereaSidp-barrulewillsuëce-
l
Nos.l7,41and42).
19.Fora Seqpestration.
20.To stay or dismiss an Infant's Cause Petition,if not for his
beneft.
21.Tobeexaminedpro fzlldrd'çâ'e.
9- ..
22.To ad,d partiesundertbe48* oftheOrdem of19th May 1S5t.
23.To gbow causeagainstconditionalorder.

PART sxcoxp,coxTwxxlxgPxocxEm xGsrxox. 1,xs 15TH SxcTxox

ov '
rIxz CxxAxcsRv Rxcusu zox AcT 1850.
' Summonses.
1.Totakedirection,underdecretalorder;butnotunder interlocu-
tory order,ororderon petition not under 15thsection of the
. *
Chancery Regulation Act. '
2.O.n statemtntsundertheTrusteeAet1850,sec.38.
'
 CHANCERY REPORTS. 531
3.On Cbaq ean;Dischargein contestet
lc%es. 1860.
4. ForhearingE vidence,ormatterofLaw . sep.sj.
5. TosettleDraftReport. GXNARAL
ORDERs.
6.0nobjectionstoDraftReport.
%.To disehaq e Receiver for misconëuct,uader tbe 29th of t%e
Orders of 19th M ay 185:. *
8.For direction of Master as to specialc%e on behalf of pelvons
.
under disabilitp under the 11th seetion of the Chaneev '
Regulation Act 1850..

PART
.
TEI
..
RD,CONTAINING CASES COMMOK TO AI.
T.CLASSEB (11/
yasOCEEDINGSBETOus vus xwa sw
1.Motion on Notiee. -

1.ForOralExaminationofPartiesand W itnessesbeforethe Mastfr.

II.#kmmonaes.
1.To inspectabstractofTitle.
2.Toargueo'bjeetion:toTitle.
3.To settlea D eed.
4.To settlePersonalInterroga/riesq
5.Toax'gueexceptionstoanswersto same.
6.To expungeScandaland Prolixity. '
t.To take theCarriageofProceedings. .

8.ForleavetofilefurtherCharge or'D isekarge. .

9.General Summonsupon claims uqder'the 56th and 52th Ordm'
,
of 19th of M ay 1852. ' '

111.M otlou on Notieevpder the15fâ Seetion)on :V:-#zl- in

allofk z(m es.
1.TosettleConditionsofSale. /'
2.Tovac oramend any Ruling orM inutesnotyet embodied in a
reportororder. J
3.Eorleaveto exhibitPersonalInterrogakries.
4.ThatBooksofAccountshailbetakenasevidenteunderthe13th
sedion oftheChancery Regulation Act1850.
 532 CHANCERY REPORTS.
1860. 5.To appointGuardianad litem foran Infant,under2lstsection of
Sq.Q4. . g 9.
same Act.
GENERAL 6.For leave to proceed at Law against Personal Representative
',
OMIG RS.
under 22nd section of the same A et. '
7.Under the 15th of theOrders Jf19th M ay 1857,to decide upon
a witness'sdem urrer. ' 4 ,
.
,
8.Under the 18th ofthe same Orders,to appoint> Ràpresentative
of PersonalEstate.
Together with al1cases.in which the M aster,by entry in hisbook,
shallhave previously direetel the attendance of C6unsel.

M /AZIERE BRADY,C.
F.BLACKBURNE,L. J.A.
k.B.cvswuk sm '
rH,M.R.