Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a petition for sequestration of the trust estate of the deceased George Whyte, proprietor of Meethil and Burnhaven, Aberdeenshire, and if the Court should consider it necessary, for removal of the trustees. The petitioner Phillis Whyte was a daughter of the truster, and entitled to a legacy of £1000, which was not to vest during the lifetime of one of the trustees, the truster's widow, who was alive and a trustee at the date of the petition. The petitioner

Page: 891↓

had obtained the concurrence of George Whyte, one of the trustees, to the petition. The truster died in 1869. The petitioner averred that the trustees, who were three in number, Mrs Whyte, George Whyte, the truster's son (both of whom were trustees nominated by the truster), and Rev. J. Stewart, were at variance among themselves, and that the management of the estate (which was almost entirely heritable and was heavily burdened) was brought to a dead-lock thereby. On this point it was admitted that there had been variance between George Whyte and the other trustees, but denied that the management was brought to a dead-lock thereby.

The petitioner also averred that no accounts had ever been produced by the respondents, though they were ordered to produce them in a previous action which they had brought againsther, and the conclusions of which involved the question of her election between her testamentary provisions and those in the testator's marriage-contract, which action had been dismissed as premature. The trustees stated that full accounts could be produced, and produced in the present process accounts showing that the estate was in a very embarrassed position, and that though the estate at the time of Mr Whyte's death produced a considerable revenue, there was now almost no available revenue.

It was further averred and admitted that the agents of the trustees held an adjudication over the trust-estate for a sum of £319 or thereby, which consisted of cash advances and law charges, the history of which was that the debt had been incurred to them during their agency, that they had resigned the agency, and afterwards led the adjudication for the debt, and had two years after its date again been appointed agents.

Mrs Whyte, one of the trustees, was seventy-eight years of age. The Rev. Mr Stewart had no intromissions with the trust funds.

The answers lodged bore to be on behalf of the majority of the trustees (Mrs Whyte and Rev. Mr Stewart) and all beneficially interested except the petitioner.

George Whyte (who was alleged by the respondents not to have any beneficial interest in the trust, since he had been bankrupt, and his whole interest had been sold by his trustee) made a separate appearance at the bar and lodged a minute craving that the desired appointment should be made, and setting forth that the accounts which had been produced showed that the estate was being rapidly dilapidated, and further that he was excluded from all share in the management.