Blackwood v Veitch
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1878 |
| Date | 04 November 1878 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Ormidale, Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill.
County FranchiseProprietor in Right of WifeTrust.
A lady by antenuptial trust-deed conveyed her whole property, which was moveable, to trustees. These trustees were directed to pay to her during the marriage the free annual revenue of the trust-funds, and on the dissolution of the marriage to reconvey the trust-estate to her, or divide it among her next of kin. Power was given to the trustees to call up any of the securities conveyed to them, and to invest the proceeds in the purchase of any property, heritable or moveable, they may select, &c. The trustees shortly after the marriage acquired a piece of ground, and with part of the trust-funds built a house thereon, which was afterwards occupied by the married couple as their home. Held (diss. Lord Craighill) that the husband was entitled to be enrolled as a voter in respect of these subjects as proprietor in right of his wife.
Robert Veitch was entered in the assessor's list as proprietor in right of his wife of a dwelling-house and garden in Peebles.
William Blackwood, writer, Peebles, objected to Veitch being entered in the register of voters for the county of Peebles(1) because the said subjects did not belong in fee or liferent to his wife; (2) because they were feudally vested in trustees, who were entitled, without her consent and in opposition to her wishes, to sell and dispone them at any time; (3) because she was merely a beneficiary, entitled to receive during the subsistence of the marriage the free annual revenue of the estate and effects as held by the trustees in trust for the time being, and because her right to the trust-estate, including said dwelling-house and garden, being moveable, and not real, was not of a nature to confer the franchise on her husband; and (4) because her possession and her right to the rents of said dwelling-house and garden were defeasible.
The facts as stated by the Sheriff wereThat by trust-assignation, dated 29th and 31st May 1876, Miss Janet Grieve, on the narrative that there was a purpose of marriage between her and the said Robert Veitch, and that it had been agreed between them that her estate and effects should be secured for her behoof in manner therein written, disponed, conveyed, and made over to and in favour of certain trustees her whole property, which at the date of the marriage was all moveable, for the purposes and with and under the declarations therein mentioned, viz.Primo, for payment to her during the subsistence of the marriage of the free annual revenue of the trust-estate upon her own receipts, and without the consent thereto of the said Robert Veitch; Secundo, that in the event of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
(1) Crc Credit Fund Ltd (2) Lehman Brothers Inc. and Others v (1) Glg Investments Plc Sub-fund: European Equity Fund (2) Hong Leong Bank Berhad and Another
...43 This was the third issue dealt with by the judge (paragraphs 166–198). The judge began by setting out the critical wording of CASS7.9. 6 R (1) namely “client money held in each client money account of the firm is treated as pooled….”. He made the point that not all client money was to be......
-
Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel v Girish Dahyabhai Patel and Others
...about it, no copy was taken, there was no documentary reference to it before February 2015, there was no computer metadata available. 16. 6. [R1] had a strong motive to forge the 2005 Will (i.e. control of US$50m interest in Aumkar and tactical advantage in other proceedings). 16. 7. [R1] e......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...with the essential nature of a trust. vi) If CASS7 did create a trust from receipt, regardless of subsequent segregation, then if CASS7.9. 6R(1) is interpreted as applying only to client money held in segregated accounts (which is itself the subject of dispute), then the distribution rules ......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...(4) The most formidable argument in favour of segregation (premised on the view that the provision of the distribution rules in 7.9. 6R(1) applies only to segregated funds) is that there is under the alternative approach potentially a "black hole" into which clients' money may vanish, so as......