Florence Eveline Scutt 1887-1963

[Western Daily Press - Saturday 21 March 1914. Bridgwater Will Dispute. Yesterday the Court Appeal allowed an appeal from Arthur and Edward Angus Scutt and the Misses Helen Scutt and Florence Evelyn Scutt, all beneficiaries under the will of the late Mr John Scutt, jun., from decision of Mr Justice Neville dismissing an action by them against Thomas Henry Ensor, of Dorchester, the surviving trustee of the will of John Scutt, jun., and against Messrs J. P. Croad of Bosoombe, and T. F. Barham and J. Willshire Croad, Bridgwater (the executors of the late Mr Josias Croad, who was also a trustee of John Scut's will), and against the executors of the will of Mrs Kellaway (previously Mrs Scutt and the relict of John Scutt, who was the third trustee). The object of the action was to get indemnify from the estates of Josias Croad and Mrs Kellaway for losses occasioned to the estate by the retention of shares a Bridgwater cake mill. Mr Jenkins, K.C., for the appellants, said that the late Mr John Scutt, jun., left estate worth £13,000 net. Part of the estate was 100x£20 shares of the Bridgwater and West of England United Farmers Pure Linseed & Cotton Cake Company, Ltd., which afterwards changed its name to the Bridgwater Oil Mills, Ltd. The company paid substantial dividends, but these fluctuated, and eventually the company into liquidation in 1891. All the company's debts and liabilities were paid, and the shareholders received, by way of final divident £3 on every £20 share. The questioned decision was whether there was any breach of trust of the then trustees of the will in holding the shares from the testator's death in 1878, and whether the estates of the trustee in question were liable for the difference between what the shares could have been sold at within a reasonable, time after the testator's death and the £359 received way of final dividend. Evidence had been called at the trial to show that in 1884 the shares changed hands at £18 each. Mr Justice Neville had decided that the trustees were not in a position to realize the shares until after the death of Mr Scutt's widow, but this, counsel submitted, was wrong. Mr Peterson, K.C., for the respondents, argued that the Judge had decided rightly. Their Lordships decided that the learned Judge had approached the matter from an erroneous point of view, and referred the case back to him.] ["Durley Croft," 14 Preston Road, Weymouth, Dorset, Widow 16th April 1963.]