The Student's Guide to Executorship Accounts (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 Excerpt: ... Interest received (leaving 006 due),6, Proceeds of Sale Transfer to Income5 as per order of Court5 of 7550....,9C Interest Suspense Account--Interest Lost, Capital Account--Principal Lost 5,0 This case (Re Moore) was followed in Re Barker (1897), in Lyon v. Mitchell (1899), and in Re Alston (1901). There is also an Irish case (Stewart v. Kingsdqle, 1902) similar. Here investments on mortgage were made 1875, and a receiver was appointed in 1880. The first tenantoforolife died in 1898, considerable arrears of interest being due. The land was sold in 1901. The Master of the Rolls directed the proceeds to be apportioned between the first and second tenantsoforolife and the remainderman in proportion to the amounts due to them respectively at the date of sale. He said the authorities were conflicting, and he therefore felt free to act as he thought just. He pointed out that the decision of Re Foster was manifestly unjust, as under it the lifeotenant would probably not receive anything out of the proceeds, whereas he had been entitled to enforce payment of each payment of interest as it became due. Example illustrating the principle laid down in " Re Foster, Lloyd v. Car r" (1890)--which was, however, overruled in "Rc Atkinson; Barbers' Company v. GroseoSmith " (post). In this case. 7,535 was invested on mortgage by trustees. After taking possession the property was eventually sold for 7,005, and the interest (after allowing for rents received and paid over to the lifeotenant), was 3,400 in arrear. The direction of the Court was as follows: Add together the proceeds of sale and all rents received and divide this between the lifeotenant and remainderman in the proportion which ...