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 >> The Edinburgh Young Women's Christian Institute and Others, Petitioners, [1893] ScotLR 30_784 (24 June 1893)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1893/30SLR0784.html
Cite as: [1893] SLR 30_784, [1893] ScotLR 30_784

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 784

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Saturday, June 24. 1893.

30 SLR 784

The Edinburgh Young Women's Christian Institute and Others, Petitioners,

Subject_1Charity
Subject_2Voluntary Association for Charitable Objects Supported by Public Subscription
Subject_3Amalgamation with Kindred Association
Subject_4Nobile Offlcium.
Facts:

A number of persons combined to form an association for the carrying out of certain benevolent purposes. The funds necessary to start the association were raised by means of a bazaar and direct contributions from the public, and the annual expenses were met by public subscriptions.

Held that the Court had no power to authorise the association to amalgamate with another association having kindred objects in view.

Headnote:

In 1874 a number of persons in Edinburgh, who were interested in the spiritual and temporal welfare of young women, combined to form an association (subsequently called “The Edinburgh Young Women's Christian Institute”). The necessary funds were raised by bazaars and direct contributions from the public, and two houses were purchased for the purposes of the association, the titles being taken in the names of trustees, who granted a declaration of trust declaring that they held them for behoof of the association. The annual expenses were met, partly by payments from the inmates, and partly by subscriptions from the public. The association was carried on without a formal constitution until 1884, but in January of that year a constitution was approved at the annual meeting which was called by a newspaper advertisement. The constitution declared that the association should be entitled to unite with other associations having similar objects in view.

When the association was founded there was no other society of the kind in Edinburgh, but in 1877 a branch of “The Young Women's Christian Association”—a kindred society previously formed in London—was started in Edinburgh.

In 1892 it was resolved, as the result of negotiations between the two societies, that they should be amalgamated, and with

Page: 785

this view the premises belonging to the Edinburgh Young Women's Christian Institute were sold.

In May 1893 the Edinburgh Young Women's Christian Institute, and the members of the acting committee thereof, presented a petition in which they craved the Court to authorise them to pay over their funds to the Edinburgh branch of the Young Women's Christian Association, and to convene a special meeting of the petitioners' Institute for the purpose of considering, and, if so resolved, passing a resolution dissolving the Institute, and thereafter to approve and confirm such resolution and decree a dissolution of the Institute.

Argued for the petitioners—The application should be granted. The petitioners were in the position of trustees holding funds for certain charitable objects, and they desired to change the means of attaining these objects— Clephane v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, February 26, 1889, 7 Macph. (H. of L.) 7. The authority of the Court would protect them from subsequent objections— Simpson v. Trustees of Moffat Working Men's Institute, January 19, 1892, 19 R. 389. They were entitled to come to the Court for instructions— Andrews v. Ewart's Trustees, June 29, 1886, 13 R. (H. of L.) 69 ( per Lord Watson, 73 and 74).

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—I do not think we can grant this petition in any part. It became increasingly plain, as Mr Lorimer very fairly developed the situation, that if we were to grant it, we would be laying it down that we would grant authority wherever one voluntary society desired to amalgamate with another in order to further the common purposes of both. That is much too wide a rule to adopt, and I think, therefore, we should refuse the application.

Lord Adam concurred.

Lord M'Laren—It may be desirable that the Supreme Court should have power to interpose in the manner desired by the petitioner, and in the course of the argument I pointed out that such power is conferred upon the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England by Act of Parliament. We have no such power, but can give power to a judicial factor, because he is an officer of Court, and entitled to come to the Court for assistance. But I am not aware that we have any power, statutory or otherwise, to give instructions to trustees applying to us for advice.

Lord Kinnear—I am of the same opinion. If the petitioners have power to do what they ask us to authorise, they do not want our authority. If they have no such power, we cannot give it them.

The Court refused the petition.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Petitioners— Lorimer. Agents— Lindsay, Howe, & Company, W.S.

1893


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1893/30SLR0784.html