2 Redf. 322 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1876
In Moses v. Murgatroyd (1 Johns. Ch., 118) it was decided that property held in trust does not pass to the representatives of the trustee, but as long as it can be traced and distinguished it enures to the benefit of the cestui que trust. (See also Kip v. Bank of N. Y., 10 Johns., 63.)
In Van Alleyn v. Commercial American National Bank (52 N. Y., 1), after an examination of several authorities, it is held substantially that the deposit of trust funds commingled with others does not divest the fund
Lord Justice Turner, in considering the same case, after stating that if trust funds be paid'into a bank to the creditor of the trustee, it would belong to the trust, and not to the private estate of the trustee, makes this enquiry: “ Then suppose the trustee subsequently pays in money of his own, not belonging to the trust, to the same account, would the character of the moneys which he had before paid in, of the debt which had before accrued, be altered ? ” The principle involved in this case is, whether a wrongful act by the executor, in commingling the trust fund with the others, can divest the cestui que trust of his right to the money as such. .
The rights of creditors in whose interest the executrix resists a preferential claim of the cestui que trust are not affected by the enforcement of the rights of the cestui que trust, because neither the property nor its pro
Order accordingly.