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 >> Paterson's Trustees v. Christie and Others [1899] ScotLR 36_384 (1 February 1899) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1899/36SLR0384.html Cite as: [1899] SLR 36_384, [1899] ScotLR 36_384 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 384↓
A bequest to the inhabitants of a district of a sum of money, the yearly proceeds whereof to be given to “the poor and needful” in the said district, held to be for behoof of poor and needful persons whether in receipt of or entitled to parochial relief or otherwise.
Liddle v. Kirk-Session of Bathgate, July 14, 1854, 16 D. 1075, and Presbytery of Deer v. Bruce, January 20, 1865, 3 Macph. 402, followed.
By his holograph last will and testament Donald Paterson, farmer, Dunnet, inter alia, bequeathed “in the first place the sum of One thousand pounds to the inhabitants of Ratter, Scarfskerry, and the Burn of Ratter—the said money to be invested, and the yearly proceeds or interest to be
Page: 385↓
given to the poor or needful in the above district.” The testator further provided that three directors be chosen by the householders in the district, and that “this be called the Paterson Bequest; that it be amongst themselves, independent of any other outside relief, and that it be continued with them as long as grass grows and water runs.” The testator appointed two trustees to realise and divide his estate.
This special case was presented by (1) Paterson's testamentary trustees, (2) the directors chosen to administer the “Paterson Bequest,” and (3) three inhabitants and ratepayers in the district, to determine the following question in law, among several others—“4. Whether the annual proceeds of said bequest fall to be applied exclusively for behoof of persons entitled to parochial relief, or may be applied for behoof of poor and needful persons whether in receipt of or entitled to such relief or otherwise?”
The second parties maintained that the objects of the bequest might be selected both from needful persons in receipt of or entitled to parochial relief and from those who were not so. They referred to Liddle v. Kirk-Session of Bathgate July 14, 1854, 16 D. 1075, and Presbytery of Deer v. Bruce, January 20, 1865, 3 Macph. 402.
The third parties contended that the bequest was for behoof solely of persons entitled to parochial relief, and referred to the opinion of Lord Rutherfurd in Liddle, ut sup., p. 1082, to the effect that “the poor” must generally be understood in the legal sense.
The Court answered the fourth question to the effect that the fund might be applied for poor and needful persons whether in receipt of or entitled to parochial relief or otherwise.
Counsel for the First Parties— M'Lennan.
Counsel for the Second Parties— Loutitt Laing.
Counsel for the Third Parties— W. E. Mackintosh.
Solicitors: Agents for all the Parties— Macpherson & Mackay, S.S.C.
