James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder [1915] 1 Ch 62 is an English trusts law case, concerning asset tracing.
Mr Wigham had agreed to give the book debts that were received up to a certain date to the sellers.
In re Hallett's Estate, which would but for the circumstance I am going to mention entirely conclude this case, decided two clear points: First, that when a trustee mixes trust moneys with private moneys in one account the cestuis que trust have a charge on the aggregate amount for their trust fund; and, secondly, that when payments are made by the trustee out of the general account the payments are not to be appropriated against payments in to that account as in Clayton's Case, because the trustee is presumed to be honest rather than dishonest and to make payments out of his own private moneys and not out of the trust fund that was mingled with his private moneys.
But there is a further circumstance in the present case which seems to me to be conclusive in favour of the defendant as regards the greater part of the balance of 358l.
It appears that after the payment in by the debtor of a portion of the book debts which he had received the balance at the bank on May 19, 1913, was reduced by his drawings to a sum of 25l.
The result of that seems to me to be that the trust moneys cannot possibly be traced into this common fund, which was standing to the debtor's credit at his death, to an extent of more than 25l.
Practically, what Mr. Martelli and Mr. Hansell have been asking me to do - although I think Mr. Hansell in particular rather disguised the claim by the phraseology he used - is to say that the debtor, by paying further moneys after May 21 into this common account, was impressing upon those further moneys so paid in the like trust or obligation, or charge of the nature of a trust, which had formerly been impressed upon the previous balances to the credit of that account.
You must, for the purpose of tracing, which was the process adopted in In re Hallett's Estate, put your finger on some definite fund which either remains in its original state or can be found in another shape.
The head-note to the decision of North J. in In re Stenning (which accurately represents the effect of the case) is stated in such terms as to indicate that the application of the doctrine in In re Hallett's Estate implied that there should be a continuous balance standing to the credit of the account equal to the balance against which the charge is sought to be enforced.
And certainly in the recent case of Sinclair v Brougham I can see nothing in any way to impeach the doctrine as to tracing laid down in In re Hallett's Estate.