just Samuel) for the missing money. The case was heard in Chancery in 1887 and in the Court of Appeal in 1886. Samuel argued that the money could not have been recovered in 1874 and also that an attempt to recover would have brought them down but the Billings disagreed and the judge found in their favour. Brogdens’ accounts at the end of 1874 and their turnover suggested to the judge that they could have found the money. The Appeal Court agreed. Both courts stated that the trustees’ duty to apply the terms of the trust is absolute. A trustee is not allowed to stay his hand in order to help a friend or relative. In this case Samuel should have demanded the money in December 1874 and, if necessary, begun legal action no later than March 1875. The judge said that it was the most difficult case he had ever tried. It's not a long time between December 1874 and July 1875. It seems reasonable to suggest that: James had taken legal advice; he was aware of Samuel's legal position as stated much later by the judge; he was concerned about Samuel's failure to act promptly; he could foresee the failure of Brogdens and the court case; he knew that he and William would be jointly responsible for any damages and costs incurred in the case and he demanded the separation to minimise the risk to the prosperity of his family. If James was indeed concerned then 1 July 1875 was probably the earliest date at which they could dissolve the old partnership and create the new one without causing undesirable public comment and enquiries. Since William remained in partnership with Samuel, he would still have been liable for Samuel's debts. This may have been the reason why Budgetts became a Limited Company (see below). It would have enabled the directors to replenish the reserves and also to expand the business, while still retaining control. By this time, not surprisingly, neither Samuel nor any of his sons was listed as a director. On 1 January 1893 Samuel Arnold Budgett and Walter Felix Budgett, sons of Samuel Budgett Jr. trading in London and New York as S.A.Budgett and Co., had a receiving order granted against them. On examination, they stated that their father and uncle had transferred parts of their business to them when they commenced trading on 1 January