Morley v Morley: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: url. URLs might have been internationalized/anonymized. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from cached copy of User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox2 | via #UCB_webform_linked |
m add {{Use dmy dates}} |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
|||
{{one source|date=June 2020}} |
{{one source|date=June 2020}} |
||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 17 April 2022
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (June 2020) |
| Morley v Morley | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Chancery |
| Citation | (1678) 22 ER 817 |
| Keywords | |
| Trusts, theft, duty of care | |
Morley v Morley (1678) 22 ER 817 is an English trusts law case, concerning the duty of care owed by a trustee.
Facts
[edit]A trust fund was the victim of a robbery, and £40 of gold was taken.[1]
Judgment
[edit]Lord Nottingham LC held that a trustee could not be liable if £40 of the trust fund's gold was robbed, so long as he otherwise performed his duties.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Saxton, N. (1836). Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey. E. Sanderson.
 | This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |