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 >> Special Case - Wallace's Trustees, &c. v. Walkinshaw, &c [1872] ScotLR 9_554 (27 June 1872)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1872/09SLR0554.html
Cite as: [1872] SLR 9_554, [1872] ScotLR 9_554

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 554

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Thursday, June 27. 1872.

9 SLR 554

Special Case—Wallace's Trustees, &c.

v.

Walkinshaw, &c.

Subject_1Trust
Subject_2Power of Sale.

Facts:

Trustees under a testamentary trust-deed, which disposed of the universitas of the testator's estate, were directed to divide the residue of the estate among certain beneficiaries.

Held that this direction implied a power in the trustees to sell heritable property which the testator had acquired after the date of the disposition.

Headnote:

This Special Case was presented by—(1) the trustees of the late Andrew Wallace; (2) Alexander Innes, and (3) Janet Wallace or Walkinshaw, and her brother and sisters interested in the succession of Andrew Wallace.

The late Andrew Wallace, sometime rope manufacturer in Leith, died on the 11th November 1869, leaving a trust-disposition and settlement dated 19th August 1862, and registered 17th November 1869. The purposes of the trust were—(1) payment of debts, &c., and the expense of executing the trust; (2) payment of a weekly allowance to the truster's wife, Isabella Dickson or Wallace, should she survive him; (3) that the trustees should make over certain articles to Andrew Wallace, one of the truster's nephews; (4) that the trustees should, as soon as convenient after the truster's death, sell and dispose of his shop in Bernard Street, Leith, and the stock therein; and (5) that, on the death of his wife, the trustees should divide the residue of his means and estate equally, share and share alike, between Andrew Wallace, &c., his nephews and nieces, and their heirs and assignees; and in regard to his household furniture and effects, he directed that the trustees might allow his wife the use thereof as long as she occupied a house of her own, but that in case of her being resident in the House of Refuge, or in a public or private Asylum, that the said household furniture and effects should be sold, and form part of the residue of his estate, to be divided as mentioned in the fifth purpose of the trust. The truster was survived by his wife, and also by all his nephews and nieces. His moveable estate at the date of his death amounted to £437, 14s. 7d., and his heritable property consisted of some small dwelling-houses in Leith, which yielded a gross annual rental of about £33, 15s. At the date of the execution of the said trust-deed, the only heritable property possessed by the truster was a lease of a shop in Bernard Street, Leith, which is mentioned in the trust-deed as “my shop in Bernard Street.” This lease was assigned by the truster himself some years before his death, and the houses in Baltic Street above mentioned were acquired by him subsequently to the execution of the trust-deed. The truster's niece, Elizabeth Wallace, mentioned in the trust-deed, was married to Alexander Innes, junior, house-carpenter, Aberdeen, on 10th June 1870. She died on the 21st May 1871, without issue, and intestate. The parties were agreed that a right to a seventh part of the residue of the trust-estate vested in Mrs Innes on the truster's death. The parties were further agreed that under an antenuptial-contract of marriage, Mr Alexander Innes, the second party, was entitled to all the moveable property which vested in his wife during the subsistence of the marriage; but that he was not entitled to the heritage in which she had vested right. The heir of conquest of Mrs Elizabeth Wallace or Innes was her immediate elder brother, James Wallace. The truster's widow died on the 13th August 1871, and the trust should be wound up in terms of the fifth purpose.

The questions of law which the parties submitted for the opinion and judgment of the Court, were—

“1. Are the first parties entitled or bound under the trust-deed to sell the subjects in Baltic Street?

“2. Does the share of the said subjects, or of the price thereof, which vested in Mrs Innes, fall as moveable estate to her husband, the second party?

H. J. Moncrieff for the first and second parties.

Balfour for the third parties.

Page: 555

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord Cowan—Trust-deeds containing power to sell heritage, but not a direction to trustees to do so, may or may not have the effect of converting the subjects into personalty in succession. This will depend on the necessity of acting on the power for the due and proper administration of the trust. But, in general, trustees, although they have power by the deed, cannot sell, if their doing so is not for the interest of the beneficiaries, or if this effect would be to alter the character of their right in a question of succession. Here there is no express direction to sell the heritage, but the testator directs the whole of his heritable and moveable estate to be disposed of in the same way. Both are to form residue and be divided. The special provision which the trustees are bound to implement is—“On the death of my said wife, I hereby direct and appoint my trustees to divide the residue of my means and estate equally, share and share alike,” between the seven parties interested. There is not to be any division of the heritable from the moveable estate, but both are to be included in one division. In order to carry out this provision, the amount must be ascertained, and this cannot be accomplished without a sale. Then there will be a fund, which may be divided. I cannot doubt therefore that the trustees have power under the deed to deal with the heritage as they propose. I am therefore of opinion that the first question must be answered in the affirmative.

The Court accordingly answered both questions in the affirmative.

Solicitors: Agent for the First and Second Parties— A. D. Murphy, S.S.C.

Agents for the Third Parties— M'Ewen & Carment, W.S.

1872


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1872/09SLR0554.html