 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "Morley v Morley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (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
A trust fund was the victim of a robbery, and £40 of gold was taken.
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
| Fiduciary care sources | |
|---|---|
| Trustee Act 2000 ss 1-8 and Sch 1 | |
| Trustee Investments Act 1961 s 1 and Sch 1 | |
| Trustee Act 2000 ss 3 and 36-38 | |
| The Charitable Corporation v Sutton (1742) 26 ER 642 | |
| Speight v Gaunt UKHL 1 | |
| Learoyd v Whiteley UKHL 1 | |
| Re Chapman 2 Ch 763 | |
| Nestlé v National Westminster Bank plc EWCA Civ 12 | |
| In re Lucking's Will Trusts 1 WLR 866 | |
| Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd 1 Ch 515 | |
| see Fiduciary duty and English trusts law |
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 Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |