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 - Polson and Others (M'Lean's Trustees) [1878] ScotLR 15_383_2 (23 February 1878)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1878/15SLR0383_2.html
Cite as: [1878] ScotLR 15_383_2, [1878] SLR 15_383_2

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 383

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Saturday, February 23. 1878.

15 SLR 383_2

Special Case—Polson and Others (M'Lean's Trustees).

Subject_1Fee and Liferent
Subject_2Antenuptial Contract
Subject_3Provision for Children
Subject_4Default of Issue.
Facts:

By antenuptial contract of marriage the intending spouses conveyed to trustees a fund providing that in event of the husband's predecease one-half of it should be held in liferent for the widow for her liferent use allenarly, and for the issue of the marriage in fee, whom failing for the widow's “nearest heirs and assignees in fee.”— Held that upon the dissolution of the marriage without issue the widow was entitled to have the fund conveyed to her absolutely.

Headnote:

This was a Special Case presented by William Poison and others, trustees under an antenuptial contract of marriage, dated in 1862, between the Rev. D. M'Lean and Miss Georgina Mollison Allardice, as parties of the first part; and Mrs Allardice or M'Lean, widow of the Rev. D. M'Lean, who predeceased his wife on 28th May 1876, and D. W. Allardice, her factor, of the second part. No children were born of the marriage.

The clause in the marriage-contract under which the questions stated in the case arose was as follows:—“In the event of the said Daniel M'Lean predeceasing the said Georgina Mollison Allardice, the said means and estate conveyed by her as aforesaid shall, to the extent of one-half thereof, as such half shall be valued, ascertained, and fixed by the said trustees, be freed from and disencumbered of the trust hereby created, and paid or conveyed by the said trustees or their foresaids absolutely to the said Georgina Mollison Allardice, and the other half of the said means and estate, together with the foresaid sum of £500 contained in the policy of assurance above mentioned, and whole bonuses and additions thereto, shall be held and applied by the said trustees and their foresaids for behoof of the said Georgina Mollison Allardice in liferent, for her liferent use allenarly, and the child or children of the said intended marriage, and the survivors or survivor of them, the issue of any predeceasing

Page: 384

child nevertheless taking the share or shares which would have belonged or accrued to his, her, or their parent if such parent had been alive, whom failing for behoof of the said Georgina Mollison Allardice's nearest heirs and assignees in fee.”

During the subsistence of the marriage the trustees had paid the annual income of Mrs M'Lean's estate to the spouses in terms of the contract of marriage. After Mr M'Lean's death the parties of the first part received payment of the principal sum in life policy on his life, with bonus additions thereto, amounting to £603, 15s, This, with £1022, 3s. 9d., conveyed by Mrs M'Lean to the trustees, formed the whole estate—in all, £1625, 18s. 9d.

At her husband's death Mrs M'Lean claimed (1) the one-half of the estate which had been conveyed by her; (2) the other half of the estate conveyed by her, together with the proceeds of the policy.

The latter claim the trustees resisted.

The questions of law submitted to the Court were as follows:—“(1) Are the parties hereto of the first part entitled in a due administration of their trust to pay to Mrs Georgina Mollison Allardice or M'Lean, a party hereto of the second part, the one-half of the means and estate conveyed by her by the said contract of marriage, which they are thereby directed in the events which have happened to hold and apply for behoof of the said Georgina Mollison Allardice or M'Lean's nearest heirs and assignees in fee? (2) Are the parties hereto of the first part entitled in a due administration of their trust to pay to the said Mrs Georgina Mollison Allardice or M'Lean, one of the parties hereto of the second part, the proceeds of the said policy of assurance on the life of the said Keverend Daniel M'Lean?”

Authorities quoted for the first parties— Pursell v. Elder, June 13, 1865, 3 Macph. (H. of L.) 59; Cumstie v. Cumstie's Trustees, June 30, 1876, 3 R. 921; Martin v. Bannatyne, March 8, 1861, 23 D. 705.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord Ormidale—The authorities which have been quoted to the Court differ from the present case in this very important particular—that here there were no children born of the marriage, and that the liferent was not declared to be alimentary. Accordingly, the question of a protection to be extended over the capital sum entirely falls through, there being no interests to protect. That being so, it really comes to this—that the widow Mrs M'Lean is the only person who has an interest in this portion of the fund claimed by her, and accordingly it is hers, and she is entitled to have it conveyed to her absolutely.

Lord Gifford—The only object of this clause in the marriage-contract is to protect children. Now, here the marriage has been dissolved by Mr M'Lean's death, and there are no children, accordingly the widow has come to be the only interested person as regards the fund claimed. Mrs M'Lean could sell or assign her interest in this money, and there is no reason why it should not absolutely be paid to her.

Lord Young—(who had been called into this Division in the absence of the Lord Justice-Clerk)—I concur. It seems to me perfectly clear that the purpose of restricting Mrs M'Lean's interest to a liferent as regards half of the fund was to protect the interests of children. This may be readily seen by reading the clause without that part of it which refers to children. Now, no one would think of giving a fund to a lady in liferent and her heirs and assignees in fee, and it is manifest Mrs M'Lean has the fee.

The Court answered both questions in the affirmative.

Counsel:

Counsel for First Parties— M'Laren— Jameson. Agents— Millar, Robson, & Innes, S.S.C.

Counsel for Second Party— M'Lean— Mitchell. Agent— J. M. Bell. W.S.

1878


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1878/15SLR0383_2.html