Murray's Trustees v MacGregor's Trustees
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1931 |
| Date | 10 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 56. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
SC
Marriage-contractEstate conveyedAcquirenda clauseObligation by wife to convey to marriage-contract trustees "real or personal property"Testamentary destination of fund to wife in liferent with power of disposal which failing to others in feeWhether fund claimable by marriage-contract trustees on ground (1) that fee had vested in wife, or (2) that wife was bound to appoint fund so as to bring it under acquirenda clauseSuccessionFaculties and PowersVesting.
Marriage-contractAcquirenda clauseObligation by wife to convey acquirenda over 200 to marriage-contract trusteesWife acquiring power of disposal over fund exceeding that amountWhether entitled to convey fund to herself by successive appointments of 199.
A testator directed his trustees to hold certain funds in trust for his daughter in liferent and for such persons as she might, by inter vivos or mortis causa deed, appoint in fee, with a destination-over of the fee in default of appointment. By her marriage settlement, which was earlier in date than her father's will, the daughter bound herself "if she shall at one time and from one and the same source become entitled in any manner and for any estate or interest to any real or personal property of the value of 200 or upwards," to do everything that might be necessary to vest the same in her marriage settlement trustees. The funds over which the daughter acquired a power of appointment under her father's will largely exceeded 200. After acquiring the power of appointment, the daughter executed a series of deeds of appointment, dated on successive days, in her own favour of sums of 199, with the object of defeating the acquirenda clause in her marriage settlement.
Held (1) that the right taken by the daughter in the funds passing under her father's will was neither a right of fee nor an interest of such a nature as the terms of the acquirenda clause in her marriage settlement obliged her to make available to her trustees; but (2) (diss. Lord Morison) that the series of sums of 199 appointed by the daughter to herself fell under theacquirenda clause, in respect that the total of these sums was property acquired by her at one time and from the same source; and also (per the Lord President) in respect that it would be repugnant to the purpose of the acquirenda clause to use the limit of 200 as a device to avoid the obligation to convey funds whichin cumulo exceeded that limit.
The late Charles Archibald Murray of Taymount, Perthshire, who by his marriage-contract had placed certain funds in trust, died on 23rd August 1924, survived by his wife, who died on 4th July 1926, and by two children of the marriage, one of whom was Mrs Gertrude Blanche Murray or MacGregor. By his will, dated 25th September 1922, he directed that a half share of the residue of his marriage-contract funds should be paid by his marriage-contract trustees to his testamentary trustees; he further directed his testamentary trustees to hold (1) the sum of 20,000; (2) the said half share of the marriage-contract funds; and (3) one-third of the residue of his estate, upon the trusts thereinafter declared in favour of his daughter, Mrs MacGregor. The declaration in the will of these trusts was as follows:"As to (a)the sum of 20,000 hereinbefore bequeathed in trust to my Trustees (b) the share in the residue of the fund held upon the trusts of my aforesaid Marriage Contract hereinbefore bequeathed in trust for my said daughter Gertrude Blanche MacGregor and (c) the share in my residuary estate hereinbefore bequeathed in trust for the said Gertrude Blanche MacGregor if my said daughter shall be living at my death I Declare that my Trustees shall hold the same respectively in trust for such persons and for such intents and purposes as my said daughter shall from time to time during her life by deed revocable or irrevocable or by Will or Codicil appoint And in the meantime and until and in default of such appointment and so far as the same if incomplete shall not extend upon trust to pay the income thereof to my said daughter during her life for her separate use and subject to any such appointment and subject to the trust hereinbefore contained I give the aforesaid three respective trust premises or so much thereof respectively as shall not have become vested or been applied under the trusts or provisions applicable thereto to the Trustees for the time being of an Indenture dated the 26th day of August 1919 and made between me of the one part and Messrs Hoare Trustees of the other part (being a Settlement by me in favour of my said daughter and her children) to be held by the Trustees of such Settlement upon the trusts and subject to the provisions therein declared or contained or such of them as shall be then subsisting undetermined or capable of taking effect."
Mr Murray's daughter, Mrs MacGregor, on her marriage to Mr A. R. MacGregor, executed a marriage settlement to be construed according to the law of Scotland, dated 11th June 1907, which contained, inter alia, the following clause:"And it is hereby agreed and the Wife hereby covenants with the Trustees that if she shall after the now intended marriage and during the same coverture at one time and from one and the same source become entitled in any manner and for any estate or interest to any real or personal property of the value of 200 or upwards (except jewels, ornaments, plate, furniture, pictures, books, and other chattels of a similar nature which it is hereby agreed shall belong to the Wife for her separate use) then and in every such case the Wife and all other necessary parties shall at the cost of the trust estate as soon as circumstances will admit do all such acts and things as shall be necessary or expedient for effectually vesting the same in the Trustees."
By deed of appointment, dated 11th October 1929, Mrs MacGregor, in exercise of the power of appointment given to her in her father's will, appointed and directed that the sum of 199, part of the legacy of 20,000 bequeathed to her by that will, should belong to and be vested in her absolutely, and that that sum should forthwith be paid to her. By similar deeds of appointment, dated 12th and 14th October 1929, she appointed to herself two further sums of 199 each out of the same legacy. The sums so appointed by her were limited to 199 with the object of preventing them from falling under the acquirenda clause in her marriage settlement.
Questions having arisen as to the effect of the above deeds, a special case was presented for the opinion and judgment of the Court of Session.
The trustee under Mr Murray's marriage contract was the first party; the trustees under Mrs MacGregor's marriage settlement were the second parties; the trustees under Mr Murray's will were the third parties; Mrs MacGregor was the fourth party;and Messrs Hoare Trustees, who represented the fiars in the destination-over under the trust purposes of Mr Murray's will above specified, were the fifth parties.
The first party submitted no contention.
The second parties contended that the first party was bound to pay to the third parties one-half of the residue of Mr Murray's marriage-contract funds in his hands; and that the third parties were bound to pay to the second parties the said half of residue, along with the legacy of 20,000 and the third share of the residue of Mr Murray's testamentary estate held by them under the trust purposes above specified in favour of Mrs MacGregor. They further contended that the fourth party was not entitled to defeat the acquirenda clause in her marriage-contract by appointing to herself a series of sums of under 200, and that the third parties were bound to pay to the second parties the three sums of 199 so appointed by her.
The third parties contended that they were bound to hold the half share of residue of Mr Murray's marriage-contract funds, along with the legacy of 20,000 and the third share of testamentary residue, for the purposes set forth in Mr Murray's trust-disposition and settlement.
The fourth party adopted the contentions of the third parties. She further contended that she was entitled to appoint in favour of herself the legacy of 20,000, the half share of marriage-contract residue, and the third share of testamentary residue, either in such sums as she pleased, or, in any event, in sums of less than 200, and that the sums of 199 appointed by her in her own favour fell to be paid to her, to the exclusion of the second parties.
The fifth parties adopted the contentions of the third parties.
The questions of law for the opinion of the Court were as follows:"1. (1) Is the first party bound to pay over to the third parties one-half of the residue of the marriage-contract trust funds in his hands, and, if so, (2) are the third parties on receipt thereof bound to pay over the same to the second parties to be held by them for the purposes of their trust, or (3) are the third parties on receipt thereof bound to hold the same for the purposes of their trust? 2. (1) Are the third parties bound to pay to the second parties (a) the sum of 20,000, and (b) the said one-third of the residuary testamentary estate to be held by them for the purposes of their trust, or (2) are the third parties bound to hold the same for the purposes of their trust? 3. In the event of questions 1 (3) and 2 (2) being answered in the affirmative: Is the fourth party entitled to appoint to or in favour of herself, or such other person as she may select, (a) the said sum of 20,000, (b)the one-half of the residue of her father's marriage-contract trust fund, and (c) the one-third of the residue of her father's testamentary estate? 4. Do the said three sums of 199 appointed by the fourth party in her own favour, in terms of the said deeds of appointment, dated 11th, 12th, and 14th October 1929, fall to be paid by the third parties to (a) the second parties, or (b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baird v Baird's Trustees
...Forrest's Trustees v. ReidUNK, (1904) 7 F. 142; Nicol's Trustees v. Farquhar, 1918 S. C. 358;Murray's Trustees v. MacGregor's TrusteesSC, 1931 S. C. 516; Paterson v. PatersonUNK, (1893) 20 R. 5 Reference was made to Alves v. AlvesUNK, (1861) 23 D. 712, Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis at p. 717; M......
-
Smith v Cotton's Trustees
...Mollison's Trustees v. Aberdeen General HospitalsSC,1953 S. C. 264, Lord Russell at p. 269; Murray's Trustees v. MacGregor's TrusteesSC, 1931 S. C. 516, Lord President Clyde at p. 525; Beal's Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation, (3rd ed.) p. 4 M'Laren, Wills and Succession, (3rd ed.) vol......
-
Innes's Trustees v Innes
...C. 811. 1 Alves v. AlvesUNK, 23 D. 712; Rattray's Trustees v. RattrayUNK, (1899) 1 F. 510; Murray's Trustees v. MacGregor's TrusteesSC, 1931 S. C. 516. 2 10 R. 3 1945 S. C. 82, Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper at p. 89. 4 3 R. 921. 5 21 R. 551. 6 18 R. 27. 1 1947 S. C. 134. 2 1936 S. C. 811. 3 23 ......