Morley v Morley: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
{{Clist fiduciary care}} |
{{Clist fiduciary care}} |
||
*[[English trust law]] |
*[[English trust law]] |
||
==Notes== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==References== |
==References== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* |
|||
==External links== |
|||
* |
|||
[[Category:English trusts case law]] |
[[Category:English trusts case law]] |
||
Revision as of 23:12, 3 June 2020
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
| 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
A trust fund was the victim of a robbery, and £40 of gold was taken.[1]
Judgment
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
References
- ^ 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. |