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 £5, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Nisbet v Fraser [1835] CA 13_384 (31 January 1835)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0384.html
Cite as: [1835] CA 13_384

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Shaw_Court_of_Session

Page: 384

Nisbet

v.

Fraser
No. 117.

Court of Session

1st Division

Jan. 31 1835

Lord Balgray, Lord Gillies, Lord Mackenzie

Miss Elizareth Nisbet and Miss Margaret Blair,     Petitioners.— Forsyth— Rutherfurd. James John Fraser,     Respondent.— D. F. Hope— Buchanan.

Subject_Trust—Judicial Factor.—

A testatrix recommended to her trustees never to allow their number to be reduced below two without supplying the deficiency, and provided, that a single trustee should have power to act, in case there should, at any time, happen to be no more than one trustee in the existing nomination; and one of two accepting trustees went abroad—held, that a judicial factor should be appointed on the trust-estate, in respect that the trustee remaining in this country had not power to act alone, or that his power was at least extremely doubtful.

The late Mrs Black executed a trust-settlement of her whole estate, heritable and moveable, in favour of “James Jackson M'Lauchlan, presently residing in Dublin Street, Edinburgh; James John Fraser, writer to the signet; and Walter Finlayson, writer to the signet, as trustees, for the purposes, and with and under the burdens, provisions, declarations, and reservations herein after expressed, or to such of them as shall accept; and to the survivors and survivor of them, or to such other person or persons as may hereafter be named by myself, or assumed by my said trustees.” The deed contained this clause—“I likewise authorize and empower my trustees before named and referred to, to assume as trustees along with themselves, or in place of any of themselves who may happen to fail, such person or persons as they may think proper, recommending to them never to allow their number to be reduced below two without at least supplying the deficiency, providing always, that when the number of trustees shall amount to or exceed three, a majority of them shall in all cases be a quorum; but that, in the event of their number at any time amounting to two, the concurrence of both shall be requisite, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the actings of a single trustee, in case there shall at any time happen to be no more than one, in the existing nomination.” The fee of the residuary estate came to vest in Miss Elizabeth Nisbet and Miss Margaret Blair, both nieces of the testatrix. The larger portion of the residue (said to be five-eighths thereof) belonged to Miss Nisbet, as to whom it was provided that “the share of the trust-funds and effects which may devolve to the said Miss Elizabeth Nisbet, shall be held by my said trustees for behoof of the said Miss Elizabeth Nisbet, in liferent, during all the days of her life, and for her liferent use and aliment allenarly, without prejudice, nevertheless, to my said trustees occasionally advancing or paying to the said Miss Elizabeth Nisbet such proportion or proportions of the said share or shares of the residue as it may seem expedient for them to advance or pay to her, or for her behoof.”

Mrs Black died in 1831, and the three trustees accepted, Mr Finlayson alone being the acting trustee. M'Lauchlan died, and some time afterwards Finlayson went to Jamaica animo remanendi, without executing any deed, for the purpose of divesting himself of the trust-estate, or assuming any co-trustee to act with Fraser. Fraser then undertook the administration of the trust-affairs, and uplifted above £1000 of the money, and employed it on a new investment.

In 1834, Miss Nisbet and Miss Blair presented a petition, praying the Court “to appoint Mr Murray Pringle, of the Adjutant-general's office, Edinburgh, judicial-factor, with the usual powers to manage the estate of the late Mrs Black during the absence of the trustee, Mr Walter Finlayson, W.S., the said factor, finding caution before extract.” In support of this prayer, they maintained, that so long as Finlayson remained alive, Fraser had no power, under the trust, to act alone, and thus there was no effectual means of administering the trust-estate, because Finlayson, in Jamaica, could not concur in the acts of Fraser in this country. This had been caused by the omission of Finlayson and Fraser to assume a co-trustee after M'Lauchlan's death, or at least upon Finlayson's departure, which they ought to have done, pursuant to the recommendation of the truster, in order to prevent the trustees here from falling below the number of two; and, separately, even if there was any room for contending that the departure of Finlayson was equivalent to his death or resignation, and gave power to Fraser to act alone; yet, as such actings were of very doubtful validity, and would give rise to legal questions, there was high expediency in the appointment of a factor, so as to ensure the valid administration of the trust-estate.

Fraser answered, that he was selected by the truster, under a deed which gave the whole powers of the trust to an acceptor or survivor, though left alone in the administration. Finlayson's departure from the country was such an abandonment of the trust as was equivalent to his death or resignation, and gave full power to the respondent to act alone. There was no injunction, but a mere recommendation, to prevent the number of trustees from falling below two; and as Finlayson had left the country without previous communication with the respondent, the respondent was not in fault for not previously seeing that a third trustee was assumed after M'Lauchlan's death. There was peculiar delicacy, on the part of the Court, in interfering with the administration of the share of the estate appropriated to Miss Nisbet, owing to the high discretionary power vested by the testatrix in the trustee, directing him to hold it for her alimentary use, but with power to make such occasional advances as seemed expedient.

Lord Balgray.—It was clearly the desire and recommendation of the truster that there should not be fewer than three trustees at any time. So soon as M'Lauchlan died, the remaining trustees should have assumed a third party, which would have prevented the trust-estate from getting into its present condition.

Lord Gillies.—I think the prayer of the petition should be granted, and a judicial-factor appointed. The question is, whether things are in such condition that it is the duty of the Court to interefere; and this involves the consideration, whether Fraser has power to act or not. He says, that Finlayson must be looked on as having abandoned the trust by going abroad. But Finlayson accepted and acted; and, though abroad, he is still alive, and I apprehend the character of trustee still adheres to him. In the mean time, Fraser has been acting alone, and uplifting the money and changing the security. I apprehend he is not sufficiently authorized so to act. The only case in which a single trustee can act validly, is that in which “there shall at any time happen to be no more than one in the existing nomination.” But that case has never yet occurred. There have always been two trustees in existence, so that the acts of Fraser alone were not authorized by the trust. When one trustee went abroad, the two who remained in this country, and formed a majority and a quorum, should have assumed another trustee, and that would have prevented the trust from falling into its present position. And, at all events, when Finlayson went to Jamaica, Fraser should immediately have communicated with him and obtained his concurrence in the nomination of a third trustee. But, in place of this, he went on acting by himself, whether well or ill, is not for the Court at present to consider; but he did so, I apprehend, without due power to do so. In place of applying to Finlayson, according to his plain duty, Fraser goes on acting alone, in the face of the trust-deed. In these circumstances, I think the Court ought to interfere, and appoint a factor on the trust-estate.

Lord Mackenzie.—I am of the same opinion. Even if Fraser had power to act alone, his first duty should have been to assume a co-trustee. It is of the utmost moment that the recommendation of the truster should receive effect, and that there should never be fewer than two trastees. Such a provision is important in any case, for the purpose of keeping the trust-funds from blending with the individual estate, which may more readily occur whenever there is but a single trustee. I think it very doubtful, indeed, if Fraser has power to act singly under this trust-deed. It would, perhaps, have been a more regular course had the petitioners presented a bill of suspension first, in order to try the question of Fraser's power to act, but I consider it competent for the Court to entertain the petition as it stands, and to grant the prayer of it, if they see cause. I think there is sufficient cause for the interference of the Court. I do not decide on any ground which imputes misconduct to Mr Fraser, but solely because I hold it extremely doubtful whether he has any power to act alone. *

_________________ Footnote _________________

* The Lord President was absent.

The Court, in respect of the provisions of the trust-deed, granted the prayer of the petition, and appointed a judicial-factor, as craved.

Solicitors: D. Fisher, S.S.C.— J. J. Fraser, W.S.—Agents.

SS 13 SS 384 1835


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0384.html