Lowe v Shields

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1901
• Date: 21 June 1901
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

LOWE

and

SHIELDS

Appeal

Executors — Liability for default of co-executor — Putting assets into sole control of co-executor.

Attorney-General v. RandellUNK 22 Vin. Abr. 535.

Bank of IrelandIR See the case reported [1901] 1 I. R. 222.

Candler v. TillettENR 22 Beav. 257.

Chambers v. Minchin 7 Ves. 185.

Churchill v. Hobson 1 Pee. Wms. 241.

Clough v. Bond 3 M. & C. 490, 496.

Gasquoine v. GasquoineELR [1894] 1 Ch. 470.

Gasquoine's caseELR [1894] 1 Ch. 470.

Job v. JobELR 6 Ch. D. 562.

Langford v. Gascoyne 11 Ves. 333.

Shields' EstateIR [1901] 1 I. R. 172.

Trutch v. LamprellENR 20 Beav. 116.

Williams v. NixonENR 2 Beav. 472.

320 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1902. Appeal. LOWE v. SHIELDS (1). 1901. June 20, 21. Executors — Liability for default of co-executor — Putting assets into sole control of co-executor. A testator died on the 3rd February, 1897, having appointed J. and M. executors, both of whom proved the will. They realized the assets, and at the end of 1897, or commencement of 1898, three sums of money—(a) a sum of £1330 standing on deposit receipt in the Hibernian Bank, (b) £1500 on deposit receipt with the Antrim Iron Ore Company, and (c) £886 Consols, were called in and paid over to M., who was proprietor of a bank which received money on deposit, paying interest thereon. But these moneys were not deposited in M.'s bank : they were lodged to the credit of M.'s account with the Bank of Ireland, which at the time was overdrawn. A delay of some months occurred in the administration consequent upon a claim against the testator's assets, which on investigation turned out to be unfounded. In January, 1899, M.'s bank stopped payment. It appeared that the testator had several dealings with M.'s bank: Held (reversing the decision of the Vice-Chancellor), that the action of J. in placing these sums of money in the sole control of his co-executor was not what an ordinary prudent man would have done with his own money, that handing the money over to M. was not lodging the money with a banker, and that J. was jointly and severally liable with M. for the loss. By his will, dated the 27th October, 1891, Patrick O'Neill bequeathed everything he died possessed of to his brother, Joseph O'Neill, subject to the payment of certain legacies, amounting in the whole to £760, and he appointed Michael Shields and James, Shields executors. Patrick O'Neill died on the 3rd February, 1897, and the will was proved and the gross assets were sworn at £4312 10s. 4d. Joseph O'Neill died in 1894 in the lifetime of Patrick O'Neill, leaving the plaintiffs, Mary Lowe and Mary Connolly, his sole next-of-kin, who brought the action to admiÂnister the assets of Patrick against the executors. There were (1) Before FITZ GIBBON, WALKER, and HOLMES, L.J.J. VOL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 321 three sums of money with respect to which the question of liability Appeal. of James Shields arose :— 1901. 1. £1330 on deposit receipt in the Hibernian Bank, which Lows v. originally stood in the names of Patrick O'Neill and Joseph SHIELDS. O'Neill. Joseph O'Neill died in 1894, and after his death, and after the death of the testator, it was transferred into the name of his administratrix, Eliza O'Neill. The amount was realized and paid by the Hibernian Bank to the Bank of Ireland to the credit of the account of Michael Shields, on the 26th November, 1897. 2. £1500 on deposit receipt with the Antrim Iron Ore Co. in the names of Patrick O'Neill and Joseph O'Neill, and after the death of Joseph it remained in the name of Patrick O'Neill, and Eliza O'Neill as administratrix of Joseph. On the 17th December, 1897, Patrick Shields, the solicitor for the executors of Patrick Shields, gave notice to the Antrim Iron Ore Co. of their intention to call in the £1500. The amount was realized on the 1st February, 1898, and handed over, with the consent of James Shields, to Michael Shields' account in the branch of the Bank of Ireland at Omagh. 3. £886 16s. 7d. Consols, which represented Patrick O'Neill's share in Joseph's assets. They were bought in the names of Mary Lowe, Mary Connolly, and Eliza O'Neill, and were sold on the 25th January, 1898, for the sum of £923 4s. 9d. The amount was handed over to Patrick Shields, as solicitor for the executors, and was lodged by him to the credit of Michael Shields in the Bank of Ireland on the 4th February, 1898. Michael Shields carried on business at Pomeroy and two other towns in the county Tyrone, by receiving money on deposit receipts for which he allowed interest, but he lodged all the money so received in the Omagh branch of the Bank of Ireland, to the credit of an account in his own name. At the time that these moneys were lodged to his credit his account was overÂdrawn. His method of carrying on business is described in Shields' Estate (1), and the testator had several dealings with Shields' Bank. (1) [1901]1 I. R. 172. 322 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1902. Appeal. The administration of the assets of Patrick O'Neill was 1901. delayed for some time, owing to a claim being made against LOWE the assets, which turned out to be unfounded. A: correspondence v. Slams. of some length took place between Patrick Shields, as solicitor for the two executors, with the solicitor for the plaintiffs and the secretaries of the companies with whom the moneys were deposited at the end of 1897 and commencement of 1898 for the purpose of getting in the moneys. Shields' Bank stopped payment on the 7th January, 1899, and the money was lost. The defendant, James Shields, by his defence denied his liability for the default of Michael, and further pleaded that Michael Shields was a banker, and that depositing the money in the hands of a banker did not render him liable. On the 16th June, 1899, the Vice-Chancellor made a decree for administration, and by the decree gave liberty to the executors to proceed as they might be advised against the Bank of Ireland for the recovery of these sums of money. An action of Shields v. Bank of Ireland (1) was brought in the Rolls Court, but on...