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 >> Moore v. Bell and Others [1885] ScotLR 22_601 (28 February 1885) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/22SLR0601.html Cite as: [1885] SLR 22_601, [1885] ScotLR 22_601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 601↓
[
(Ante, p. 59, Nov. 8, 1884.)
In the distribution of the intestate estate of a domiciled Scotsman a person established his claim as heir-at-law of property in Burmah, he being a different person from the heir to heritage in Scotland. Held (1) that he was not bound to contribute along with the executors to payment of the general debts, nor (2) with the heir-at-law of estate in Scotland to debt secured thereon.
In the distribution of the intestate estate of the deceased John Bell, who had real property in Burmah, as well as large estate, heritable and moveable, in Scotland, Andrew Perston established his claim as heir to the property in Burmah according to the law of that place. The present question arose between him and the representatives of Bell in Scotland. It was maintained (1) by the next-of-kin of Bell that Perston was bound to contribute to the general debts of the deceased; (2) by the heir-at-law of the heritage in Scotland, that Perston must contribute to payment of debts charged on the heritage in Scotland.
The Lord Ordinary (
“ Opinion.—There are two points that were argued in this case as to the interest of the heir in a property at Rangoon, it being maintained in the first place that he must take that property subject to liability to contribute with the executors for the payment of the whole of the general debts of the deceased, and secondly, that he must take it subject to liability to contribute along with the heir-at-law for the payment of heritable debts charged upon the Scottish heritable estate. As to the first of these points I was not referred to any authority, but having made some careful examination for myself, I find no authority to support the proposition maintained by the executors. The general rule is quite clear that the general debts of the deceased, that is, his personal debts, affect the moveable estate in the hands of his executors, there being no difficulty raised by the terms of any testamentary settlement, for the deceased died intestate, and that the executors who are called upon to pay such personal debts have no claim for relief either against the heir of line or against the heir of any special denomination who takes up any real estate. I do not think there is any distinction in that respect
Page: 602↓
The other question raised by the heir-at-law appears to me to be virtually settled by the previous judgment affirmed by the Second Division, because the principle upon which that went was this, that where a debtis charged upon a heritable estate the heir taking up that estate is liable for payment of the debt, and his liability is not limited to the amount of the particular estate charged, provided he takes up at the same time other estate belonging to the deceased ancestor upon the same title. That being decided in a question between the heir-at-law and the executors, I think the same principle is directly applicable to the present question between the heir-of-line and the heir of another denomination, that is to say, the heir of the particular real estate situated beyond the territory which is carried by the law of the place where it happens to be situated, and a different heir from the Scottish heir-of-line. Therefore I ought to say that the cases which have been cited do not appear to me to have really any direct bearing or any bearing at all upon the question in dispute. The case of Ogilvie v. Dundas, proceeded entirely upon the construction of the particular marriage settlement upon which the question arose, and the judgment of the House of Lords reversing the judgment of the Court here proceeded exclusively upon the terms of that settlement. Therefore it does not appear to me to be an authority for any other case, and certainly not an authority for a case in which the rights and liabilities of the heir are not regulated by the testamentary settlement of the deceased but by the ordinary rules of law. The cases in which heirs of a different denomination have been held bound to contribute rateably to the payment of the debts appear to me to be all cases falling under one or other of two categories. Either they are cases where the debts to the payment of which they were to contribute have been charged by the deceased on their constitution upon the several estates which have descended to different heirs, or else they are debts the payment of which he has regulated by a testamentary settlement. I have found no case, and no case was cited to me, in which that principle was applied in such a case as the present where there is nothing to affect the debt specially charged upon one estate. Therefore I have not been able to see any ground for excepting this from the general principle to which I have referred. The result will be to sustain the claim of Mr Perston.
I think Mr Perston is certainly entitled to the expenses properly incurred in the discussion of the question that was really litigated with him; but that he is bound to establish his propinquity and right according to the law of Burmah. He cannot have the expenses applicable to that part of the discussion.”
Counsel for Perston— Pearson— W. Campbell. Agent— J. B. Mackintosh, S.S.C.
Counsel for other Claimants— Mackintosh— Dickson. Agent— William Finlay, S.S.C.
