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!



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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ainslie, &c. v Henderson's Trustees [1835] CA 13_417 (6 February 1835)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0417.html
Cite as: [1835] CA 13_417

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Shaw_Court_of_Session

Page: 417

Ainslie, &c.

v.

Henderson's Trustees
No. 129.

Court of Session

1st Division

Feb. 6 1835

Ld. Corehouse, Lord President, Lord Gillies, Lords Balgray, Mackenzie

Lieut.- Gen. Ainslie, and the Trustees of the Earl of Traquair,     Pursuers.— D. F. Hope— Walker. John Cheape, and Others, Trustees of Sir Robert Henderson,     Defenders.— Rutherfud— H. J. Robertson— Cheape.

Subject_Trust.—

Although the conduct of trustees under a deed of settlement was marked by negligence—held, that they were free from personal liability for loss sustained by the insolvency of a factor named by them in virtue of the deed, in respect of a clause in the deed declaring that they “shall not be liable for any omissions or neglects in their management, nor for the intromissions or solvency of the factors, or others whom they employ, or the debtors whom they intrust, but shall only be bound to act honourably, and shall only be liable for their actual intromissions, and each of them for himself and his own actual intromissions respectively, and no farther.”

The late John Anstruther of Airdit executed a trust-deed, conveying his moveables and heritage, under certain exceptions, to Sir Robert Henderson, Baronet, Captain John Cheape of Rossie, and James Heriot of Ramornie, W.S., as trustees and executors. The purposes of the trust were, 1. To pay debts; 2. To pay legacies and provisions specified in any codicil to be executed; 3. To pay certain legacies, amounting to about £10,000; 4, 5, and 6. To pay certain annuities and legacies; 7. “My said trustees are hereby requested to accept each of them of the sum of £500 sterling, as a mark of my friendship for them, and the farther sum of £105 sterling each, to purchase for each of them a hogshead of claret, as a recompense for their trouble in the management of my affairs, and as a farther testimony of my affection for them—the said legacies to be paid by my said trustees, including the legacies and sums left to themselves respectively, at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas after my death, and to bear interest thereafter, during the non-payment; and the said annuities are to be paid by them at two terms in the year, Whitsunday and Martinmas, by equal portions, beginning the first term's payment at the first of those terras which shall happen after my death.”

Power to sell the heritage by public roup or private bargain, was given to the trustees, and “also to appoint either one of their own number or any other person, from time to time, as factors or cashiers for collecting and receiving the said debts and sums of money, rents, and arrears of rent, interest, annuities, dividends, and prices of stock, and prices of lands, houses, and other heritages, and other goods and effects hereby conveyed, and for applying the same to the uses and purposes before mentioned, or to be hereinafter directed by me; and to give such factors or cashiers, or any other person to be employed in executing this trust, such allowances for their trouble as my said trustees shall think reasonable; and, in general, to do every thing necessary for the proper execution of the trust hereby created; but with and under the conditions after-written, as it is hereby expressly conditioned and provided, that my trustees, or trustee acting under this trust, shall be holden and obliged to apply and employ the funds and subjects hereby disponed, and the price and produce thereof, for the uses and purposes before mentioned, or of any other uses and purposes to be hereinafter directed by me.” “As also declaring that my said trustees and my executors, acting under and by virtue of these presents, shall not be liable for any omissions or neglects in their management, nor for the intromissions or solvency of the factors, or others whom they employ, or the debtors whom they intrust, but shall only be bound to act honourably, and shall only be liable for their actual intromissions, and each of them for himself and his own actual intromissions respectively, and no farther.”

The estate of Airdit was excepted from the trust-disposition, and, on the death of the truster, it descended to his heirs-at-law, the late Earl of Traquair, and Lientenant-General Ainslie. Sir Robert Henderson, and Messrs Cheape and Heriot, accepted and acted as trustees. At the commencement of the trust in 1819, they appointed Heriot, who had been the truster's agent, their factor; and, by the minute of appointment, directed him “to open a deposit-account, to be kept with the British Linen Company on their account, from which Mr Heriot can operate and draw the sums required to pay off the debts due by Mr Anstruther at the time of his death, and pay in such sums as he shall receive;” and they granted a commission and factory to Heriot in these terms:—“Considering that it is necessary for us, with a view of accomplishing the purposes of the trust thereby committed to us, to sell and dispose of the property thereby disponed to us, for the purposes of paying off the debts due by the said John Anstruther, and the legacies left by Mm: And having confidence in the said James Heriot, writer to the Signet, we therefore hereby nominate and appoint the said James Heriot to be our factor and commissioner to the effect under written, giving, granting, and committing to him our full power, warrant, and commission for us, and in our names, to get us regularly confirmed executors,” &c. General powers were also given to him to recover all title-deeds, bonds, bills, &c.; to uplift all debts, and to discharge all accounts; “with power also to the said James Heriot to take all necessary steps for bringing the whole property, as well heritable as moveable, conveyed to us by the said trust-disposition, to sale,—he taking our instructions for that purpose from us, from time to time, with power to him from the funds recovered, to pay regularly the whole annuities left by the defunct; as also, when the whole funds are realized, to pay the different legacies left by him: And we hereby declare, that all and every thing relating to the premises, done and transacted by our said factor, shall be as valid and effectual as if done by ourselves.”

A reduction of the trust-deed was brought by the heirs-at-law, from which the trustees were assoilzied. During this period, the balance in the hands of Heriot was inconsiderable. Afterwards, certain lands were sold at a price of £24,850, and other trust-funds were realized, which were said to increase that amount of intromission to £35,938. The requisite deeds for effecting these sales were signed by all the trustees, and, in general, they subscribed the deeds necessary for following out the trust. As the sums realized were not sufficient, after payment of the debts, to satisfy the various legacies and provisions, a multiplepoinding was brought by the trustees in 1824, for the purpose of distributing the trust-estate. In this process, Lieutenant-General Ainslie, and the Earl of Traquair's Trustees, were Called as parties, in respect of their being legatees. In the course of the process, the accounts of Heriot, who alone had passed any of the trust-funds through his hands, were examined by an accountant, who reported, that an interim-payment of £11,696 might be made to the various claimants, setting apart, however, £2550 of this sum, until a question of preference should be determined. The trustees craved authority to make the interim-payments suggested, which the Lord Ordinary granted, and payment was made accordingly. This took place in 1824, and in 1828, a second report was made by the accountant, after again examining the factor's accounts. This report stated, that the balance in the factor's hands, as at 31st December, 1827, was £5632; and it suggested what sums could now be paid, under a second interim-payment, and what sum (£1237) should be set apart until the issue of a pending legal question. The Lord Ordinary, on the application of the trustees, sanctioned the proposed payments, and they accordingly were made. During all these proceedings, no party moved to have any part of the trust-funds consigned or secured. Heriot was reputed to be perfectly solvent. He had, however, not kept a regular account at the Bank on account of the trust-estate, as desired by the minute already quoted; and, after a third report had been lodged in process by the accountant, he suddenly failed, having £6146 of the trust-funds in his hands.

Mrs Lindsay or M'Gowan and Others, who held bonds which were granted by the truster, raised actions against Lieutenant-General Ainslie and the trustees of the late Earl of Traquair, as his heirs-at-law, and obtained decree in June 1832 and May 1833 for payment of the contents of the bonds. General Ainslie and the trustees of Lord Traquair then raised an action of relief against Captain John Cheape of Rossie, James Heriot of Ramornie, and the trustees of Sir Robert Henderson, now deceased, setting forth, that the trust-estate conveyed to them and Heriot by the truster was sufficient for the payment of all his lawful obligations, if duly accounted for; that the defenders had concurred in all the trust-transactions under which the lands had been sold, and were therefore accountable as intromitters; and that, at all events, by their gross neglect in allowing so large a sum to lie in the factor's hands, while he was habitually disobeying their direction to keep the funds in a separate account at the bank, in name of the trust-estate, they had become personally responsible for the funds in the factor's hands. 1

Heriot lodged no defences. The other defenders pleaded that the trust-deed expressly exempted them from liability for the factor's solvency, and from liability for constructive intromission, and limited it to their actual intromission only; that they had themselves had no actual intromission; that the trust-fund had been truly in manibus curiæ for many years; and the pursuers, being parties to the process of multiple-poinding, might have moved for an order of consignation if they saw cause.

The Lord Ordinary “assoilzied the defenders from the conclusions of the libel, and decerned, and found no expenses due.” *

_________________ Footnote _________________

1 Moffat, January 31, 1834 (ante XII. 369).

*Note—Mr Anstruther, in his trust-deed, bestowed extensive powers on the trustees, and restricted their liability by a clause expressed in unusual and very anxious terms. They are authorized to appoint one of their own number, or any other person, factor or cashier. That individual is empowered to collect and receive all the trust-funds conveyed, and to apply them to the uses and purposes of the trust. It is afterwards declared, that the trustees shall not be liable for any omissions or neglects in their management, nor for the intromissions or insolvency of the factor, or others they employ; but that they shall only be bound to act honourably, and shall only be liable for their actual intromissions, and each of them for himself, and his own actual intromissions respectively. The accepting trustees appointed James Heriot of Ramornie, W.S., one of their number, factor and cashier. It is not denied that he was of undoubted credit at the time, and supposed to be possessed of a large fortune. He had been the agent of the truster, and seems to be suggested as factor in the trust-deed, as none of the other trustees was a professional agent. It is admitted, that he alone intromitted with any of the funds, and that none of the defenders had any intromission in the sense of the trust-deed, where actual intromission is carefully distinguished from constructive intromission. The trustees directed him to open an account with one of the Edinburgh banks, which he did; and for some years, during which the trust-deed was under challenge, he seems to have retained very small sums in his hands. After the conclusion of that suit in 1824, a multiplepoinding became necessary to adjust the claims of the legatees and annuitants; and, on a remit to Mr Paul, accountant, an interim report was made in July 1824, and a second report in 1828. In terms of these reports, payments were made, but the accountant directed a sum to be set apart for answering annuities. No suggestion was made by the accountant, that the funds so set apart should be lent out or secured, nor was there any order of the Court to that effect. Neither the pursuers, who were parties to the suit, nor any of the claimants, moved the Court that any part of the fund in medio should be consigned. Mr Heriot retained the sums which the accountant had reported should be excluded from the interim division, and be allowed an additional sum to accumulate in his hands, which remained till his bankruptcy.

“As the defenders, therefore, had no actual intromission—as they transgressed no order of the truster or of the Court—as they were guilty of no fault, except a neglect or omission to see that Mr Heriot had lodged his receipts regularly in the bank, which they had directed him to do—as it is not alleged that they had reason to entertain any suspicion of his credit till his bankruptcy took place—there is no ground, in the Lord Ordinary's opinion, for subjecting them to the loss which has occurred.

“From exuberant confidence in their factor, they acted imprudently and carelessly, but it was an omission only, and certainly it was no act of transgression, far less a dishonourable act.

“The case of Moffat against Robertson, 31st January, 1834, on which the pursuers have founded, does not apply. There the trustees were directed to see certain annuities secured, or retain a sum in their own hands to answer them. Robertson, the defender, one of the two accepting trustees, interfered to the effect of authorizing the sum required to remain in the hands of his co-trustee without security. On his part, therefore, there was not a neglect, but a transgression of the truster's order; for the sum was neither secured, nor was it, according to his plea, retained in the bands of the trustees.

“A circumstance, which at first sight appeared suspicious, has been satisfactorily explained. One of Mr Anstruther's trustees purchased an estate falling under the trust-deed, but he did so, not from the trustees, but from a person who had purchased it from them after it had been exposed by public auction. It is not averred on the record that there was any collusion in this transaction.

“No expenses have been found due to the defenders; for, although legally irresponsible, they acted with great imprudence and negligence, and, in particular, they allowed their own order for a period of years to be disobeyed by their factor.”

The pursuers reclaimed, and stated that the Lord Ordinary had erred as to a matter of fact, in that part of his note which stated that Heriot had opened an account with the bank in name of the trust-estate.

Lord President.—The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary is well founded. A truster may limit the degree of responsibility attaching to his trustees, as far as he sees fit, and it is under every such limitation that the trustees accept their office. There is an express clause empowering them to name a factor of their own number if they chose, and exempting them from liability for his intromissions or his solvency. I never saw a clause in any trust-deed which expressed, with so much anxiety, the will of the truster to exempt the trustees from personal liability.

The trustees made considerable omissions, undoubtedly, but the truster has given them a clause of protection.

Lord Gillies—I concur. If the pursuers could show that the defenders acted dishonourably, the action would be well founded. But as that is wholly out of the question, the Court must adhere to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary.

Lords Balgray and Mackenzie concurred.

The Court adhered, and awarded expenses since the date of the Lord Ordinary's judgment.

Solicitors: Walker, Richardson, and Melville, W.S.— T. Leburn, S.S.C.—Agents.

SS 13 SS 417 1835


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0417.html