Grosset v. Birrell's Trustees [1920] ScotLR 187 (28 January 1920)

Grosset v. Birrell's Trustees [1920] ScotLR 187 (28 January 1920)

On a true construction of the will, the trustees were under a legal obligation to set aside and appropriate a separate sum or suitable investments of £2350 for the pursuer's legacy, not a joint or pooled security. The trustees failed to implement this obligation and must now do so. The pursuer is entitled to interest at 5% per annum from the relevant dates due to the trustees' failure to allocate timeously.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 187
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Joanna Birrell or Grosset; Defenders: Mrs Elizabeth Steedman or Birrell and others (Birrell's Trustees)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil (succession/trust) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled and replaced; decree granted in favour of pursuer.
Legal Topics
Appropriation of Securities to Meet Legacies, Trust Administration, Construction of Wills, Obligations of Trustees, Allocation of Trust Assets
Succession Trusts Appropriation of Securities to Meet Legacies Trust Administration Construction of Wills Obligations of Trustees Allocation of Trust Assets

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Joanna Birrell or Grosset

Pursuer

Mrs Elizabeth Steedman or Birrell and others (Birrell's Trustees)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (succession/trust) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees are bound to allocate and appropriate specific investments or cash separately and exclusively to each daughter's legacy as directed by the will
  2. 2 Whether a joint security can be competently tendered for multiple legacies
  3. 3 Whether the trustees discharged their duty by offering a pro rata share of pooled investments rather than a separate allocation

Ratio Decidendi

On a true construction of the will, the trustees were under a legal obligation to set aside and appropriate a separate sum or suitable investments of £2350 for the pursuer's legacy, not a joint or pooled security. The trustees failed to implement this obligation and must now do so. The pursuer is entitled to interest at 5% per annum from the relevant dates due to the trustees' failure to allocate timeously.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled and replaced; decree granted in favour of pursuer.

Orders

  • Find and declare that the defenders were bound at Whitsunday 1917 to set apart £2350 or securities representing that amount and to hold and administer the same for the pursuer and her children in terms of the trust-disposition and settlement.
  • Find that the defenders have not implemented this obligation and are now bound to do so forthwith; defenders to lodge a minute setting forth how they propose to implement the obligation.