for that purpose. A receiver may pay in money upon his own application.

The motion stood over; that the Master might make his report; by which it appeared that several sums, amounting to 3,500l., had been received in October and December, 1804; and retained by the receiver until the end of the year 1806; when he made a payment into the Bank under an order, which left a balance in his hands of about 1,400l., which he afterwards laid out in Exchequer bills. The Master disallowed his claim of one shilling in the pound, as a salary, and also some special charges for trouble and expense; and submitted, whether interest should not be paid upon each sum from the time it was received.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR :

This is a motion, that a receiver may be ordered to pay into Court a balance, reported due from him; which is formed by the disallowance of his salary, and of extra charges for particular expenses, claimed by him upon the ground that he is entitled to those allowances, if entitled to his salary. He was appointed receiver of the personal estate of the testator, and the personal representative was directed to give him assistance. He received in October and December, 1804, several sums, amounting to 3,500l., and he charges about 2291., as his salary or poundage for the mere act of taking that money into his hands. He kept the whole of that sum until the end of the year 1806; when a payment into the Bank was made by him under an order; that payment leaving a considerable sum, about 1,400l., in his hands, which, it is represented, was at a particular period laid out in Exchequer bills. Charging himself with these considerable sums, he does not allege any payments, except that one in 1806, at the end of two years, and some farther very trifling sums. By the order appointing him receiver, he was directed to pay the money into the Bank from time to time; and the condition of his recognizance is expressed to be for paying the money into the Bank, as before ordered, or afterwards to be directed. This, therefore, is not the case of a receiver of annual rents and profits: but he is in the situation of an executor, from time to time receiving capital sums, the bulk of the testator's estate. The Master very properly refused to appoint in the first instance any salary or poundage; stating his reason that he did not think it proper to do so, until he could learn by the receiver's accounts what he would be entitled to for his trouble and expense.

POTTS

C.

LEIGHTON.

[ *276 ]

[ *277 ]

No account was ever passed: nothing therefore was before the Master until the demand finally made of a shilling in the pound upon the sums received in October and December, 1804, and the other charges: his only trouble being a motion to pay the money into Court upon his own affidavit, stating, however, great trouble and expense, as constituting his *demand from the testator's estate; in respect of which he claims precisely the sum which is reported as the balance in his hands.

The Master, acting under a General Order made in 1796, which is, I believe, much out of memory, has disallowed the whole claim. of salary or poundage; has also stated his opinion, that special items for trouble and expense ought not to be allowed: and has farther submitted, whether interest should not be paid upon each sum from the time when it was received, giving credit for the payments. Except in a very few instances of certificates to me from the Masters' offices that order seems to have been entirely forgotten. It is impossible in this instance to allow the salary. The mere circumstance that the receiver was not called upon by the solicitor in the cause, whether from culpable negligence or for any reason, is no excuse for not paying into Court the money which was received: the duty of the receiver, according to his engagement, requiring him to do so. If he wants an order, he may have it immediately. A receiver cannot be permitted to charge 2301., merely for receiving above 3,000l., admitted to have been kept in his hands two years, probably at a profit. The Master is therefore right in disallowing that charge.

I have more difficulty upon another part of this case. This is the case of a receiver, who might have entitled himself to a salary for getting in the personal estate of the testator; and the question with reference to that would have been, whether that salary was to cover all his expenditure and trouble; or, whether upon special circumstances he would be entitled to any special allowance. An executor is allowed many charges and expenses, as he has no salary. The Court must take care, that all *which the receiver was bound to do for that salary should be done: but, the Master having specially reserved the consideration as to the salary, until he had seen what trouble and expense had been incurred, the claim of the salary ought not to exclude him from an allowance in respect of any actual trouble and expenditure which he can make out. I shall direct a special inquiry, whether he is entitled to any allowance in respect of his trouble, care, and expense.

As to the demand of interest, interest must be paid upon the sums retained but I do not remember an instance of laying so heavy a hand upon a receiver as a charge of interest upon each sum from the moment at which it came into his hands; and I have a difficulty in applying the charge of interest to this receiver otherwise than to an executor. This case is not to be compared to the case of a receiver of rents and profits, who is to pass annual or half-yearly accounts as they are received: but the Court ought to charge this receiver as an executor, having regard to all the circumstances, as to his actual retention of sums received. I think, therefore, the calculation of interest ought not to be so hard upon him as the Master proposed.

COCKERELL v. BARBER (1).

(16 Vesey, 461–466.)

Where a legacy expressed in foreign currency is payable in England under a will made in the foreign country the payment should not include any addition for exchange or expense of remittance.

In this cause exceptions were taken to the Master's report; stating, that a legacy of 30,000 sicca rupees, given by the will of Charles Barber, at 2s. 6d. per sicca rupee, being the East India Company's rate of *exchange between India and Great Britain at the time the said legacy became payable, amounting in sterling money to the sum of 3,700l.; whereas the Master ought to have computed such legacy at 2s. 1d. sterling, per sicca rupee, being the sterling value of the sicca rupee in India and England; and that the same amounted in sterling money to the sum of 3,1251. only: or at all events the Master ought not to have computed such legacy at more than 2s. 3d. per sicca rupee, being the East India Company's rate of exchange between Great Britain and India; at which rate the same would amount in sterling money to 3,3751. Exceptions were taken upon the same ground as to other legacies. Another objection to the report was upon the calculation of interest upon the whole sum, remitted from India by the Company's bills, including interest from the end of a year after the testator's death.

The will was made at Calcutta. The testator, soon afterwards embarking for Europe, arrived in England in July, 1799, and died

(1) Manners v. Pearson [1898] 1 Ch. 581, 588, 593, 67 L. J. Ch. 304, 78 L. T. 432, C. A.

POTTS

v.

LEIGHTON.

1810. April 4.

Lord ELDON, L.C.

[ 16 Ves. 461]

[ *462 ]

COCKERELL in August following, leaving personal property both in England and India.

BARBER.

[ 464 ]

[ 465 ]

Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Hart, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Wingfield, in support of the exceptions:

The Master's report, calculating interest upon the gross sum remitted, composed of principal and interest, is clearly erroneous : but farther the whole principle, upon which the report proceeds, is founded in error. This legacy ought to be computed according to the actual value in London of the sicca rupee, in silver, which is a coin, not nominal, but actually existing; and therefore the legacy might be paid in London in silver.

Mr. Leach, for the report:

The testator, expressing the legacy by the current coin of the country, must be taken to mean the value it bears in that country, not the bullion value, but that which the country has imposed upon that coin. If the legatee is to be paid in India, he has a right to Indian interest until he is paid. The true standard ought to be, that neither the legatee, nor the testator's estate, should derive profit from the circumstance of the payment's taking place in London; that the effect shall be precisely the same, as if it had been made in India.

The objection upon the computation of interest must be admitted: the legatees having in the mode of payment by the Company's bills the benefit of interest for the year from the period when their right to interest accrued.

Sir Samuel Romilly, in reply:

If the fund, which is to pay a legacy to a foreigner, is in this country, and he files a bill, the value of his interest cannot depend on the rate of exchange between this country and that of which the legatee is a native, as it must necessarily, if the legacy is to paid in a foreign country. In the case put by the Court of a legacy of so many ounces of silver, the executor must purchase that quantity, according to the price of silver at the time. The difference of

exchange must be laid out of the question.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR :

In all the cases reported upon the wills of persons in Ireland, or Jamaica, and dying there, (and vice versa in this country) some

v.

BARBER.

legacies being expressed in money sterling, others in sums without COCKERELL reference to the nature of the coin in which they are to be paid, the legacies are directed here to be computed according to the value [of] the currency of the country to which the testator belonged, or where the property was; and I apprehend no more was done in such cases than ascertaining the value of so many pounds in the current coin of the country; and paying that amount out of the funds in Court. On the other hand I do not believe the Court have ever said, they would not look at the value of the current coin, but would take it as bullion. At the time of Wood's halfpence in Ireland, whatever was their actual worth, yet payment in England must have been according to their nominal current value, not the actual value. So, whatever was the current value of the rupee at the time when this legacy ought to be paid is the ratio according to which payment must be made here in pounds sterling. If twelve of Wood's halfpence were worth sixpence, in this Court sixpence must have been the sum paid; and in a payment in this Court the cost of remittance has nothing to do with it so, if the value of 30,000 rupees at the time the payment ought to have been made in India was 10,000l., that is the sum to be paid here, without any consideration as to the expense of remittance.

With regard to the interest, it is given both ways; as, if the legacy was paid at the end of the year in India by a bill, payable in London at the end of another year, that includes interest for the current year.

Refer it back to the Master to review his report in that respect; and declare, that the legacies are to be paid according to the current value of the sicca rupee in Calcutta.

[ 466 ]

DAVIS v. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.

(1 Swanston, 74-84; S. C. 2 Wils. 130.)

A pension for past services may be aliened; but a pension for supporting the grantee in the performance of future duties is inalienable.

By stat. 5 Anne, c. 4 (entitled, "An Act for settling upon John Duke of Marlborough, and his posterity, a pension of 5,000l. per annum, for the more honourable support of their dignities, in like manner as his honours and dignities, and the honour and manor of Woodstock, and house of Blenheim, are already limited and settled,") reciting among other things the * wish of the House of