1865.

LORD

v.

JEFFKINS.

been engaged in the chancery proceedings during the whole subsequent time, and does not file the bill till the month of June, 1864, that is twenty-two years and three months after the transaction had taken place.

I am of opinion that this Court must lay down as a rule, that a reversion can never be sold and that no time will operate as a bar, if this transaction will not hold good, and although there is no magic in words, yet it would be holding that there is a species of magic about a reversion, which makes the sale of it impossible except by auction, and that even if sold afterwards for even double the price that had been bid for it at the auction, yet, unless it is sold in the auction-room, this Court will not allow the sale to stand.

I have not come to that conclusion. In Perfect v. Lane (a), and some other cases, the Court has thought fit to confirm the sale though not sold by auction, and I think that this case is one of that description.

The case of the Plaintiff fails, and this bill must be dismissed with costs.

(a) 30 Bear. 197, and 3 De G., F. & J. 369.

1865.

UNDER

FREEMAN v. BOWEN.

NDER Mr. Bowen's marriage settlement, the income of his wife's settled fortune was payable Mr. Bowen “until he should become bankrupt or insolvent or should die, which should first happen."

Dec. 7.

The income of

a fund was

to payable to a trader for life

or until he should become insolvent. He executed a

fund had

thereby determined.

By an indenture dated in October, 1864, and made deed of inbetween Mr. Bowen and two inspectors and his credi- reciting that spectorship, tors, it was recited that Mr. Bowen had, for some time he was unable to pay his past, carried on the business of a shipowner, and being debts in full:indebted to divers persons in divers sums of money, interest in the Held, that his which he was unable to pay in full, had proposed to his creditors to provide for the gradual liquidation of his debts by the collection and realization of all his real and personal estate under the inspection of the parties thereto of the second part. His creditors thereto granted him liberty and licence to conduct, manage and wind up his business, and to collect, get in, realize and dispose of all his real and personal estate and effects, under the inspection and subject to the direction of two inspectors, until he should have wilfully broken or failed to comply with any of the stipulations or provisions therein contained and on his part to be performed. And he entered into certain covenants with the inspectors and also with the creditors to do certain matters and things relating to the winding-up of his business and the realization of his real and personal estate and effects; and that, if the inspectors should think it desirable and require him so to do, he would convey and assign his real and personal estate to them, upon trust to realize and apply the proceeds in payment

1865.

FREEMAN

v.

Bowen.

of his debts. And it was declared that the deed should operate as a deed of inspectorship for the benefit of all his creditors within the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861.

Mr. Robinson for the trustees.

Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Streeten, for the children, argued that "becoming insolvent" meant until he was incapable of paying his debts; Re Muggeridge's Settlement (a).

Mr. Baggallay for Mr. Bowen.

Mr. Selwyn for the inspectors. There has been no forfeiture; the recital is not that he is insolvent, but that he is unable to pay his debts in full until his assets have been realized, but payment of them is provided for by the deed.

The MASTER of the ROLLS.

I think that this is an insolvency, for it is impossible to distinguish between a greater or less degree of insolvency. This gentleman calls his creditors together and executes a creditors' deed, which contains a recital that he is unable to pay his debts in full, and he agrees to carry on business under inspection. I must follow the case of Re Muggeridge (a), and make a declaration accordingly.

(a) 29 L. J. (Ch.) 288.

1865.

THE VISCOUNTESS D'ADHEMAR v.

THE

BERTRAND.

Dec 15.

pointed 4. B.

(the tenant for life) and C. D.

trustees. The

HE testator, Joshua Evans, of Hampstead, by his A testator apwill, dated in 1861, devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate unto Charlotte Bertrand and James Campbell upon trust to realize and pay the income to Charlotte Bertrand for her life, and afterwards upon certain trusts, which it is unnecessary to state. will contained no power to appoint new trustees.

will contained

no power to appoint new The trustees. C. D. having disclaimed, A. B. (under the 23 & 24 the powers of Vict. c. 145,

The testator died in January, 1864, and James Campbell having renounced and disclaimed, the will proved by Charlotte Bertrand alone.

was

By an indenture, dated the 16th of July, 1864, Charlotte Bertrand, by virtue of the provisions contained

s. 27), appointed a single trustee in his place: Held, that the other cestuis entitled to

que trust were

have a third

in the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. 27, appointed Major O'Reilly, a gentleman residing in Ireland, to be a new trustee aptrustee of the will to act in conjunction with her.

This suit was instituted by the cestuis que trust the administration of the estate, which was of considerable amount.

pointed, and that the statute did not take

very

Court to in

Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Sheffield, for the Plaintiffs, asked that a third trustee might be appointed. They said that, without making the slightest imputation on the present trustees, a third trustee was necessary for the protection of the Plaintiffs' interests.

Mr. Baggallay and Mr. Eddis, for Mrs. Bertrand,

crease the original number of trustees.

1865.

VISCOUNTESS
D'ADHEMAR

บ.

BERTRAND.

argued that as the testator had thought proper to commit the care of his property to two trustees, it was not the course of the Court to increase the number. Secondly, that, by the act of parliament, the power was limited, that the new trustees could only be appointed in the place of those whose office was vacant, and that consequently there was no authority given to increase the original number.

The MASTER of the ROLLS.

The Court never commits a trust to the care of a single trustee, even in cases where no more than one was originally appointed.

In this case, I think the Plaintiffs are entitled to have an additional trustee appointed. I also think that the act of parliament, which has been referred to, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to increase the number of trustees when necessary.

If I allowed this lady to appoint a single trustee, she might appoint any person she thought fit, and one who might be very unfavorably inclined towards the other cestuis que trust, and thus deprive them of the protection to which they are entitled.

The Plaintiffs are entitled to have a third trustee appointed.