TASCHEREAU J.-I fully agree with the views expressed by the learned President of the Exchequer Court, and I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
V. r
Solicitors for the appellant: Smart & Biggar.
IRD.
Solicitors for the respondent: Montgomery, McMichael, Common & Howard.
A.
AND
Oct. 1.
- H. WINCHESTER AND A. J. HASLAM,
ADMINISTRATORS
WITH
THE
WILL RESPONDENTS. ANNEXED
THE ESTATE LUCY JANE
AND OTHERS.......
ON APPEAL FROM THE OF APPEAL IN EQUITY PRINCE ISLAND
Administration of Estates-Administration proceedings in Court of Chancery, Prince Edward Island-Order directing final distribution of estate-Question as to overpayment of income, by trustees in course of administration of the estate, to one of the beneficiaries- Adjustment in final distribution in the administration proceedings. In the course of administration of the estate of R., deceased, payments of income to his daughter L., for a certain period up to the time of L.'s death in 1934, included income to which, under rights as determined in accordance with the interpretation of R.'s will by this Court in 1937 (Cameron v. Haszard, [19371 S.C.R. 354), the appellants were entitled. In administration proceedings in the Court of Chancery of Prince Edward Island, the Master of the Rolls made an order on March 22, 1939, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Equity, directing the final distribution of R.'s estate, the order taking no notice of the fact of said overpayments of income to L. On appeal to this Court:
Held: In directing the final distribution of R.'s estate the Court of Chancery in the administration proceedings was not only entitled but was bound to take into account, in adjusting and settling the amounts for the final distribution between appellants on the one hand and L.'s estate on the other, the overpayments of income that had been made to L.; and according to such adjustment to make allowance to appellants in the distribution, to the extent that there were assets of R.'s estate, available for that purpose, being administered by the Court. (In the issues and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to decide the question whether overpayments could be * PRESENT:-Crocket, Davis, Kerwin, Hudson and Taschereau JJ.