BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Earl of Rosebery Petitioner [1888] ScotLR 25_602 (4 July 1888) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1888/25SLR0602.html Cite as: [1888] SLR 25_602, [1888] ScotLR 25_602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 602↓
Part of an entailed estate was acquired by a railway company under its compulsory powers, and the compensation money was invested in consols in the names of trustees for behoof of the heir of entail in possession and the succeeding heirs.
In a petition for authority to lend this money to the heir of entail in possession on the security of fee-simple lands belonging to him, the Lord Ordinary reported the case to the First Division, on account of the decision in the case of Innes, 10 D. 870. The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to sanction the loan on his being satisfied of the sufficiency of the security.
The Earl of Rosebery, as heir of entail in possession of entailed estates situated in the counties of Edinburgh and Linlithgow, presented this petition praying for authority to sell the sum of £5110, 18s. 9d. of consols, and to borrow the proceeds on the security of his fee-simple estate of Malleny.
This sum represented the compensation money paid for part of the entailed estates acquired by the Forth Bridge Railway Company. It had been invested in consols in the names of the Honourable Bouverie Francis Primrose, C.B., and Mr James Auldjo Jamieson, W.S., as trustees for the petitioner and the succeeding heirs of entail.
On 1st May 1888 Mr John Montgomerie Bell, W.S., was apointed curator ad litem to the heirs of entail first and second next entitled to succeed, who were then in pupillarity.
On 12th May 1888 the Lord Ordinary (
Trayner ) granted the prayer of the petition in so far as it related to the sale of £5110, 18s. 9d. consols.With reference to that portion of the prayer in which the Court were asked to authorise the loan of this money by the trustees to the petitioner, the Lord Ordinary reported the petition to the First Division.
“ Note.—The petitioner prays the Court (1) to authorise the sale of certain stock held by trustees for behoof of the heirs of entail of the estates of Newhalls and others, of which he is at present the heir of entail in possession; and (2) to authorise the said trustees to lend the proceeds of such sale to the petitioner ‘on the security of his fee-simple estate of Malleny.’ The first part of the prayer I have granted, but with regard to the second part it is pointed out by the reporter that in the case of Innes, 10 D. 870, a case in all essential particulars the same as the present, it was announced by the Lords of the Second Division (after consultation with the other Judges) that it had been ‘determined never again to sanction the money being lent to the heir of entail himself.’
That being so, I regard myself as precluded from considering whether the authority prayed for is unreasonable in itself, or from doing anything except giving effect to the determination of the Court so announced. The Court, however, may reconsider, and if it think fit alter the decision announced in Innes' case, and I have reported this matter that the petitioner may have the opportunity which he desires of being heard thereon before the Court.”
Argued for the petitioner—The case of Innes was decided before the passing of the Rutherfurd Act, which made material alterations on the law of entails. Besides, in that case the same party was both borrower and lender, while in the present case there was in existence an independent trust. The only practical question was the sufficiency of the security; that could be ascertained by a remit to the Lord Ordinary, and all other interests were fully protected by the trustees— Innes, Petitioner, March 8, 1848, 10 D. 870.
A minute was lodged by the trustees, expressing their concurrence in that part of the prayer of the petition which related to the loan.
At advising—
I should not have any doubt about the advisability of this proceeding provided the trustees are satisfied with the sufficiency of the security.
But it has been suggested that what we are asked to do is in opposition to the decision in the case of Innes, in 10 D. 870. That case, however, occurred before the Entail Amendment Act, and it may fairly be contended that objections which would have been considered good then would not now be entertained.
This case, however, is quite distinct from that of Innes. In it the bond was granted by the heir in favour of himself, and so the deed came to be a somewhat anomalous one. But that is not the case here, for we have an independent trust intervening, and what is suggested is, that the trustees should lend this money to Lord Rosebery on the security of his fee-simple lands. The trustees are a separate and independent body, and so the respective relations of debtor and creditor may quite well exist.
I propose therefore that we should remit to the Lord Ordinary to sanction the loan provided that be is satisfied with the sufficiency of the security.
Page: 603↓
The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to sanction the loan on his being satisfied of the sufficiency of the security.
Counsel for the Petitioner— Graham Murray— Maconochie. Agents— Tods, Murray, & Jamieson, W.S.
