Blair v. Kerr's Trustees [1918] ScotLR 205 (14 January 1918)

Blair v. Kerr's Trustees [1918] ScotLR 205 (14 January 1918)

The action was premature because there were possible future interests (such as a future husband or issue of a future marriage) who were not and could not be parties to the proceedings, and the Court would not issue a declarator in such circumstances as it would not be binding on those interests and would amount to a mere opinion.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 205
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Catherine Kerr or Blair; Defenders: Trustees acting under the mutual trust-disposition and settlement of Mr and Mrs John Kerr; Defenders: Three sons and issue of two predeceased sons of John Kerr
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 1918
Procedural Posture
Action of Declarator / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion After Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
Action dismissed as premature; defenders assoilzied from the conclusion as to the pursuer's right of fee; third conclusion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Declarator, Prematurity of Action, Trust Interpretation, Alimentary Liferent, Vesting of Interests
Trusts and Estates Succession Law Civil Procedure Declarator Prematurity of Action Trust Interpretation Alimentary Liferent Vesting of Interests

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Catherine Kerr or Blair

Pursuer

Trustees acting under the mutual trust-disposition and settlement of Mr and Mrs John Kerr

Defenders

Three sons and issue of two predeceased sons of John Kerr

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action of Declarator / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion After Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to a declarator regarding her power to confer a liferent on her husband or any future husband under her father's trust settlement
  2. 2 Whether the action is premature due to the existence of possible future interests not represented in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The action was premature because there were possible future interests (such as a future husband or issue of a future marriage) who were not and could not be parties to the proceedings, and the Court would not issue a declarator in such circumstances as it would not be binding on those interests and would amount to a mere opinion.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as premature; defenders assoilzied from the conclusion as to the pursuer's right of fee; third conclusion dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed as premature
  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusion as to the pursuer's right of fee