Lindsay v. Robertson [1904] ScotLR 41_304 (16 February 1904)

Lindsay v. Robertson [1904] ScotLR 41_304 (16 February 1904)

The omission of the word 'prohibitory' from the instrument of disentail did not render it invalid because the statutory form was permissive, the deed used equivalent language, and the essential effect of disentail was achieved by freeing the lands from the irritant and resolutive clauses.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_304
Parties
First Party: Mr Lindsay; Second Party: Mrs Lindsay; Third Party: Miss Jean Rosine Robertson of Struan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 February 1904
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Judgment
Outcome
The omission of the word 'prohibitory' did not render the disentail invalid.
Legal Topics
Entail, Disentail, Validity of Deeds, Statutory Interpretation
Property Law Succession Law Entail Disentail Validity of Deeds Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Mr Lindsay

First Party

Mrs Lindsay

Second Party

Miss Jean Rosine Robertson of Struan

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the omission of the word 'prohibitory' in the instrument of disentail of 4th July 1881 render the disentail invalid?

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the word 'prohibitory' from the instrument of disentail did not render it invalid because the statutory form was permissive, the deed used equivalent language, and the essential effect of disentail was achieved by freeing the lands from the irritant and resolutive clauses.

Court Disposition

The omission of the word 'prohibitory' did not render the disentail invalid.

Orders

  • The question of law was answered in the negative.