Armour v Glasgow Royal Infirmary
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1909 |
| Date | 26 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 142. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Skerrington, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Low, Lord Ardwall.
Title to Sue—Trust—Action by heirs ab intestato against trustees and against alleged debtor to trust.—
The heirs ab intestato of A raised an action against his testamentary trustees, and also against Glasgow Infirmary, which had received payment of a legacy out of A's estate. The pursuers alleged that the legacy was void, and had been paid in error, and that the sum paid fell into intestacy, and they demanded that the amount should be repaid to the pursuers or to the trustees. The trustees concurred with the legatee in maintaining in defence that the money was properly paid, and pleaded ‘no title to sue.’
Held (aff. judgment of Lord Skerrington) that the pursuers had a good title to maintain the action to the effect of demanding that the money should be repaid to the trustees.
Discharge—Effect—Personal Objection—Trust—Discharge granted by legatees—Claim by legatees as heirs ab intestato.—
A testator bequeathed certain legacies in favour of his four grandchildren, who were also his heirs ab intestato, and directed his trustees to divide the residue of his estate among ‘such purposes of a religious, charitable, or educational character, or partly amongst my own relatives’ as his wife might specify. After his death his wife, by deed of directions, instructed the trustees to pay out of the residue a legacy of a certain amount to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, and also made certain provisions in favour of the grandchildren. On the death of the wife the trustees paid the legacy to the Infirmary, and also paid to the grandchildren, who granted discharges therefor, the amounts then payable to them under the settlement and the deed of directions. Thereafter the grandchildren raised an action against the Infirmary and the trustees, in which they concluded for declarator that the bequest of residue was void from uncertainty, and that the residue fell into intestacy, and that the amount should be repaid by the Infirmary to the pursuers or to the trustees. The defenders pleaded that the action could not proceed until after reduction of the discharges granted by the pursuers for the legacies paid to them under the bequest of residue and relative deed of directions which were now impugned.
Held (aff. judgment of Lord Skerrington) that the pursuers were not prevented by these discharges from demanding repetition of the payment which was made in error to the Infirmary, and which the Infirmary had no right to receive.
James Wright, calenderer, Glasgow, died on 6th December 1891. He left a trust-disposition and settlement and relative codicils, by which he conveyed his whole estate to trustees, for the purposes therein named. Inter alia, by the fourth and eighth purposes of a codicil, dated 4th December 1891, he made certain provisions in favour of his grandchildren, Alexander Brown Armour, Charles Wright Armour, Jane Wright Armour, and Mrs Sophie Armour or Dick, consisting of a legacy of £3000 to Alexander, and to the other grandchildren the liferent of certain sums, with fee to their heirs or assignees. With regard to the residue of his estate he provided by the ninth purpose of the same codicil:—‘I direct my trustees to dispose of whatever remains of my estate for such purposes of a religious, charitable, or educational character, or partly amongst my own relatives as may be specified in any writing under the hand of my said wife, which failing, as may be appointed by any writing to be executed by the trustees acting at the time of her death under my said trust-disposition and settlement and these presents.’
The testator was survived by his wife, Mrs Elizabeth Storry or Wright, and at his death his sole heirs in mobilibus ab intestato were his grandchildren, the said Alexander Brown, Charles Wright, and Jane Wright Armour, and Mrs Sophie Armour or Dick.
By deed of directions, dated 22d June 1899, the testator's widow, ‘in exercise of the power conferred on me by the trust-disposition and settlement of my late husband, and … codicils,’ directed the trustees ‘to dispose of the residue of his means and estate’ in the manner indicated in the deed. Inter alia, she directed them ‘to pay to the managers of the Royal Infirmary of Glasgow such a sum as shall be sufficient to endow a bed in said Infirmary, to be designated the “James Wright Bed.”’ She also made certain further provisions in favour of the testator's said grandchildren, for the purpose of increasing the rate of interest on the sums payable to or liferented by them.
Mrs Wright died on 19th March 1900, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v Gill & Company and Another
...that the action is brought against the trustees as well as the third party." The authority cited for this proposition is Armour v Glasgow Royal Infirmary 1909 SC 916, where the Lord Ordinary, Lord Skerrington said (at 920) that in the ordinary case the action could be brought only at the i......
-
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company v Lothian Regional Council
...referred to: Agnew v FergusonUNK (1903) 5 F 879 Air Canada v British Columbia (1989) 59 DLR (4th) 161 Armour v Glasgow Royal InfirmaryENR 1909 SC 916 Bilbie v LumleyENR (1802) 2 East 469 British Hydro-Carbon Chemicals Ltd and British Transport Commission, Petitioners 1961 SLT 280 British Ox......
-
Alistair Moir V. Carolyn Moir As Executrix Nominate Of The Late Hugh Adam Moir+colin Hugh Moir+neil Roderick Allan+edna Murray Moir
...circumstances the transferee's title may be reduced in an action at the instance of the beneficiary: Armour v Glasgow Royal Infirmary 1909 SC 916; Bertram, Gardner & Co's Trustee v King's Remembrancer 1920 SC 555, Lord Skerrington at p 562. (For a fuller discussion, reference may be made to......
-
Symmers's Trustees v Symmers
...464. 11 Turnbull's Trustees v. Lord AdvocateUNK, 55 S. L. R. 208, supra, H. L. Cases. 1 16 D. 586. 2 Armour v. Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 1909 S. C. 916. 1 16 D. 2 1 F. (H. L.) 79. 3 1909 S. C. 916. 1 55 S. L. R. 208, [1918] A. C. 337, supra, H. L. Cases. ...