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 >> Special Case - Crawford & Crawford's Marriage-Contract Trustees [1873] ScotLR 11_2 (17 October 1873) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1873/11SLR0002.html Cite as: [1873] ScotLR 11_2, [1873] SLR 11_2 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 2↓
Circumstances in which held that trustees under a marriage contract were bound to denude in favour of beneficiaries.
Robert Crawford, S.S.C., and his son, James Stuart Crawford, of the first part, and the trustees under the marriage-contract between Robert Crawford and his late wife, of the second part, submitted a Special Case to the Court under the following circumstances:—Under his marriage-contract, Robert Crawford bound himself, and his heirs, executors, and successors, to pay to his wife a liferent annuity of £100 in the event of her surviving him; and, in the same event, disponed to her in liferent his household furniture and plenishing, and undertook to pay her £25 for mournings. In order that this liferent provision might be more fully secured, he further bound himself to invest, out of his own estate, such a sum as might be necessary for that end, when required by trustees then named by him—the money to be invested on good heritable or personal securities, in name of the trustees, or of himself and Marion King, in conjunct fee and liferent, for her liferent use allenarly, in the case she should survive him, and to the children of the marriage, whom failing, to certain others named And in security pro tanto of the implement of these provisions, he assigned to the trustees a policy on his life for £700. By the contract, on the other part, Marion King conveyed her whole means and estate, heritable and moveable, which she had or to which she might succeed, to the same trustees, for her own behoof in liferent, and after her decease, for the liferent use of Robert Crawford, in the event of his surviving her, but to be forfeited in the event of his again marrying, and for the children of their marriage in fee, whom failing, to her nearest heirs and assignees. The marriage was solemnised, and was dissolved by Mrs Crawford's
Page: 3↓
death in July 1853. The issue of the marriage was only one child, James Stuart Crawford. To meet these provisions to his wife and children no investment was ever made by Mr Crawford, and Mrs Crawford's whole means and estate were managed entirely by him up to the year 1870, when, at his request, the trustees accepted and assumed the management of the trust. They thereupon intimated the assignation of the policy on Mr Crawford's life to the insurance company, and obtained payment from him of £1765, 7s., as the funds in his hands which belonged to his wife. The first parties to the Special Case being desirous of having the trust closed, called upon the trustees to assign the policy to James Stuart Crawford, along with the obligation on his father in the marriage-contract to pay the annual premium thereon, and to transfer the other trust funds in their hands, after deduction of the trust expenses, to Robert Crawford in liferent and to James Stuart Crawford in fee. On that being done, the first parties to the case were prepared to grant a full discharge to the trustees. To this demand the trustees declined to accede, and in consequence a Special Case was submitted for the opinion and judgment of the Court on the two following questions:—(1) Whether the first parties were entitled to call on the trustees (the second parties) to denude of the trust-estate, and transfer the same, as requested and specified, on the first parties granting the trustees the discharge specified; and (2) whether the trustees are bound and in safety so to denude and transfer the trust estates on receiving such discharge and obligation. After hearing argument for the second parties, the Court unanimously answered both questions in the affirmative.
Counsel for the First Parties— Henderson. Agent— James Somerville, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Second Parties— Buntine. Agents— Leburn, Henderson, & Wilson, S.S.C.