Morison v. Craig [1912] ScotLR 849 (27 June 1912)

Morison v. Craig [1912] ScotLR 849 (27 June 1912)

The estate of Murie was held under a new entail executed under the authority of the private Act of 1873, not under the original trust deed of 1842. Section 20 of the private Act did not assimilate the position of Murie to that of an old entail for the purposes of disentail. Therefore, the petitioner could not disentail with only his son's consent; the consents of the next three heirs (including the two grandchildren) were required.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 849
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: John Broun Broun Morison of Murie, Errol, in the county of Perth; Respondents/reclaimers: Guy Edward Broun Morison and his two children (Guy Edward Broun Morison and Rosemary de Annand Broun Morison, represented by curator ad litem)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 June 1912
Procedural Posture
Petition for Authority to Disentail Estate / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Petitioner's appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; petition remitted for further proceedings consistent with judgment.
Legal Topics
Entail, Disentail, Interpretation of Private and Public Acts, Consents of Heirs, Entail Amendment Act 1848
Property Law Trusts and Estates Entail Disentail Interpretation of Private and Public Acts Consents of Heirs Entail Amendment Act 1848

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Broun Broun Morison of Murie, Errol, in the county of Perth

Petitioner/respondent

Guy Edward Broun Morison and his two children (Guy Edward Broun Morison and Rosemary de Annand Broun Morison, represented by curator ad litem)

Respondents/reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Petition for Authority to Disentail Estate / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate of Murie was held under an 'old' or 'new' entail for the purposes of the Entail Amendment Act 1848, section 28
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner could disentail with consent of only his eldest son, or whether consents of the next three heirs were required

Ratio Decidendi

The estate of Murie was held under a new entail executed under the authority of the private Act of 1873, not under the original trust deed of 1842. Section 20 of the private Act did not assimilate the position of Murie to that of an old entail for the purposes of disentail. Therefore, the petitioner could not disentail with only his son's consent; the consents of the next three heirs (including the two grandchildren) were required.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; petition remitted for further proceedings consistent with judgment.

Orders

  • Petitioner not entitled to disentail the estate of Murie without the consents of the two wards (grandchildren) or legal dispensation under the Entail Acts.
  • Petition remitted to the Lord Ordinary to proceed as just, with possible amendments to the petition.