| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 480 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
480 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. alone, was no exoneration thereof. But the court refrained from intimating any opinion upon the question, the parties in- terested in the mortgaged premises not being before them. These parties are now here, upon this bill, and the question is, and it is certainly a very interesting one, whether the mortgaged property is liable to be sold for the payment of the debt, not- withstanding it has been once paid. The general doctrine does not appear to admit of dispute, that trustees have all equal power, interest, and authority, and cannot act separately, as executors may, but must join, both in conveyances and receipts. For one trustee cannot sell without the other, or make a claim to receive more of the con- sideration money. As a general rule, says Bill on Trustees, 305, "trustees cannot act separately, but they must all join in any sale, lease, or other disposition of the trust property, and also in receipts for money payable to them, in respect of their office." And the cases, so far as I have been referred to them, are uniform in maintaining this as a general rule. They are referred to in the passage quoted from Hill, and in 2d Story's Eq., section 1280, in the notes. As trustees, then, are in gen- eral required to join in receipts of money and conveyances, or other dispositions of the trust estate, they are only responsible for their own acts, and not for the acts of each other, unless they have made some agreement by which they have engaged to be bound for each other, or they have, by their own volun- tary co-operation, or connivance, enabled some one or more of them to violate the trust. In the case of Glenn vs. McKim, in 3 Gill, 366, the Court of Appeals, in commenting upon the cases in which trustees have been held responsible for the acts of each other, because of co-operation, or connivance, or re- maining passive, and declining to act, when aware of an abuse of the trust by one of them, excused and exonerated Mr. Glenn, on account of the misapplication of the trust fund by Scott, because there was no charge or proof of such co-opera- tion, connivance, or knowledge of abuse on his part, as could make him responsible. The Chancellor held Glenn liable, be- cause, in his opinion, by the act of the court, founded upon the |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 480 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives