Manners v. Strong's Judicial Factor [1902] ScotLR 39_709 (29 May 1902)

Manners v. Strong's Judicial Factor [1902] ScotLR 39_709 (29 May 1902)

The judicial factor's management was proper; retention of funds on deposit-receipt, investment decisions, and payment of legacy were not unreasonable or imprudent and did not constitute breach of duty. The objections were repelled and discharge granted.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_709
Parties
Objectors and Reclaimers: Mrs Margaret Gordon or Manners and others; Compearer and Respondent: Strong's Judicial Factor (Archibald Francis Hamilton, representative of John Roxburgh Strong)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 1902
Procedural Posture
Petition for Discharge of Judicial Factor and Appointment of New Judicial Factor / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Objections repelled; interlocutor affirmed; discharge granted to judicial factor and representatives.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Investment of Trust Funds, Allocation of Legacy, Discharge of Judicial Factor
Trusts and Estates Judicial Factors Scottish Trust Law Breach of Duty Investment of Trust Funds Allocation of Legacy Discharge of Judicial Factor

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Margaret Gordon or Manners and others

Objectors and Reclaimers

Strong's Judicial Factor (Archibald Francis Hamilton, representative of John Roxburgh Strong)

Compearer and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Discharge of Judicial Factor and Appointment of New Judicial Factor / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judicial factor breached duty by retaining excessive sums on deposit-receipt
  2. 2 Whether the judicial factor was negligent in investment on insufficient heritable security
  3. 3 Whether the allocation and payment of a £1000 legacy was improper and caused loss to residue

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial factor's management was proper; retention of funds on deposit-receipt, investment decisions, and payment of legacy were not unreasonable or imprudent and did not constitute breach of duty. The objections were repelled and discharge granted.

Court Disposition

Objections repelled; interlocutor affirmed; discharge granted to judicial factor and representatives.

Orders

  • Exoner and discharge of representatives of deceased judicial factor and Archibald Francis Hamilton as judicial factor on Strong's estate.
  • Warrant for delivery of bonds of caution.