l have seen this in courts in Canada. for researcher to see what going on and thing are very strange CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ and l would like your view on this
question: why does a judges court orders a physio evaluation in court!! has she or he have that right !!!
if it court order what jurisdiction is she ordering it : : : :
this cqv has judges running very interesting
The administrator has disabled public write access.
CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust
3 years 1 month ago #66008
well here something interesting in Canada l have been looking in to Upper Canada law journal, Volume 3
By Law Society of Upper Canada, Canadian Bar Association and l found CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust
this is get very interesting
In Re Dillon's Trusts.
ffkm TrusU/s—Tioo appointed in place of one—Vesting order —Imp. Stat. 13,14 Vie. cap. 60— C. S. U. C. cap. T2, I. 26— Practice.
Where it hecomes necessary to apply to the Court for the appointment of a new trustee, it is only under very special circumstances that the Court will he satisfied with one ; therefore
Where the trustee appointed hy a will had died, and he who was named hy the testator to succeed him was out of the jurisdiction, and shewn to he an unsuitahle person to act in the trust, the Court appointed, in suhstitution for him, a cestui que trust under the will, whom the testator had named as a trustee thereof under certain contingencies which had not occurred; hut under the cu curustances, directed another to he associated with him, although the will provided for one trustee only acting in the trust at one time.
[Chancery, Feh. 18,25, April 8, 1867.]
This was a petition presented ex parte on hehalf of the cestuii que trtislent under the will of the late G. G. Dillon, setting out the will of the deceased, wherehy, after devising his real and personal estates to J. 8. Bowes, in fee, to he held hy him in trust for the cettuis que trustent therein named (heing the petitioners and J. Dillon, jun.) the testator directed as follows : " Provided also that in case my said trustee shall die, or hecome unahle from any cause to act, then I will and direct and herehy appoint John Hall to he the
trustee of this my will, in the place of the said J. G. Bowes; and in case the said John Hall shall die, or refuse to accept the said appointment, in such case I nominate and appoint my father to act in this hehalf; and failing either, then I request the said J. G. Bowes, John Hall, my father, or either of them, to name some trustee to act in the matter of this my will; and failing this, I desire my hrother John to act^is my trustee in this hehalf; herehy vesting in suchone trustee as shall consent to act all the trust estates, moneys and premises, which shall he then vested in the trustee so dying or refusing or hecoming incapahle to act as aforesaid."
The petition further alleged the death of Mr. Bowes, the departure from Canada of Mr. Hall, his residence out of the jurisdiction, and other circumstances which rendered it desirahle that a new trustee should he appointed, and prayed that John Dillon, jun., the testator's hrother, named in the will, should he appointed trustee thereof, and that t;he trust property might vest in him for the estate devised hy the will to tire trustee thereof, to heheld hy him upon the trust* of the will or such of them as were suhsistingand capahle of taking effect.
S. G. Wood for the petitioners.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court. Under C.S.U.C. cap. 12, sec. 26, the Court of Chancery for U. C. has the power conferred- upon the Court in England hy Imp. Stat. 13, 14 Vic. cap. 60 (Trustee Act 1850), sees. 32-40.
Application should he hy petition, not hy hill. —Tripp's Forms, 212; Morgan's Acts and Orders, 91 ; Thomas v. Walker, 18 Beav. 521; and should he made in Court, not in Chamhers.—In re Lash, Chy. Cham. Rep. 226. (As to cases where application in Chamhers is proper, see Tripp, 212; 2 Set. 812; Morgan, 62C.)
Service on former trustee not necessary when he is out of the jurisdiction.—Tripp, 95, 96, note /; Lewis on Trusts, 4th Edit 687, note c. In re Slopcr, 18 Beav. 596, the old trustees appear to have heen within the jurisdiction.
A trustee going out of the jurisdiction is not therehy incapahle, unwilling, or unahle to act, within the terms of a power to appoint new trustees, and an application to the Court is proper. —Re Harrison's Trusts, 22 L. J. N. S. Chy. 69; following In re Watt's Settlement, 20 L. J. N. S. Chy. 337 ; S. C. 16 Jur. 459.*
As to misconduct oftrustee affording ground, for the application.—Lewin, 547, 648. As to hankruptcy.—Re Bridgman, 1 Drew. & Sm. 164, see 170 ; Harris v. Harris, 2& Beav. 107.
As to the appointment of a cestui que trust— As a general rule, such an appointment is considered ohjectionahle. —Wilding v. Holder, 21 Beav. 222. Yet in this case, the cestui que trust is the nominee of the testator (although the precise circumstances under which the trust was to devolve upon him have not occurred) ; and cestuis que trustent were appointed in Ex parte Clutton, 17 Jur. 988; Ex parte Congheare's Settlement, 1 W R. 458 ; Re CUssoloVs Settlement, 16 L. T. N.S. 642.
As to the appointment of one trustee. The testator, hy his will, manifested an intention that only one trustee should act at one time, and
Chancery.] In Re Dillon's Trusts—Barker V. Pyse. [Chan. Cham.
where one trustee only was originally appointed the Court will appoint one.—Re Roherts. 9 W.R. 758 ; Re Reyneault, 16 Jur. 233 ; and in Re Tempest, 1 L.R. Chy. Appeals, 485; S C. 35 L J. N.8. Chy. 632, it is said that " the Court will regard the wishes of a testator expressed or demonstrated" in regard to the appointment of trustees.
By consent of parties concerned, a trustee will he appointed without a reference—In re Battersbi/'s Trusts, 16 Jur. 900; Rohinson's Trusts, 15 Jur. 187; In re Tunstall, 15 Jur. 615, 981; S.C. 4 De G. & Sm. 421
The proposed trustee heing a nominee of the testator, the Court in appointing him will he merely giving effect to the testator's wishes and intentions, and therefore he will take all the powers conferred hy the will on the trustee thereof for the time heing; the decisions in Lyon v. Radenhurst, 5 Gr. 544, and Tripp v. Martin, 9 Gr. 20, not heing applicahle to the present case.
Mowat, V. C.—I think the petition and affidavits make out a case for the appointment of new trustees, hut not of one trustee. The testator had a right to appoint one if he chose; hut when it hecomes necessary to apply to this Court for an appointment in a case not provided for hy the testator, it is only under very special circumstances that the Court of Chancery will he satisfied with one trustee. The circumstances here are not sufficient for this purpose. The petitioners must therefore procure another to he associated with Mr. Dillon, and, on proper affidavits of the fitness of the trustee so proposed, the two will he appointed.*
Upon a consent hy another proposed trustee, and affidavits of fitness heing filed, his Lordship afterwards granted a fiat for the order as prayed, appointing the two trustees proposed and vesting the trust estates in them.
(Reported hy J. Vf. Fletchik, Esq, Solicitor.)
The administrator has disabled public write access.