Dick's Trustees v. Cameron and Others [1907] ScotLR 753 (06 June 1907)

Dick's Trustees v. Cameron and Others [1907] ScotLR 753 (06 June 1907)

Neither Mrs Dick's holograph settlement nor Mr Dick's deed of apportionment constituted a valid or bona fide exercise of the power of apportionment under the marriage contract. Mrs Dick's deed failed as it included non-objects and imposed impermissible restrictions; Mr Dick's deed failed as it was not a genuine apportionment but an attempt to force acceptance of liferents outside the power, using the threat of a nominal sum.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 753
Parties
First Parties: John Urquhart and others (marriage contract trustees of Mr and Mrs Dick); Second Parties: Mrs Cecilia Cameron and Mrs Agnes Higinbotham; Third Party: Henry Cecil Knox Dick; Fourth Party: Alice Helen Knox Dick; Fifth Party: John Baird (executor under the holograph settlement of Mrs Dick)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 June 1907
Procedural Posture
Special Case (succession/apportionment) / Judgment (inner House, Second Division)
Outcome
Both Mrs Dick's and Mr Dick's purported apportionments declared invalid and ineffectual.
Legal Topics
Exercise of Powers of Appointment, Validity of Testamentary Apportionment, Bona Fide Exercise of Power, Options in Apportionment, Trustee Powers
Succession Trusts and Estates Exercise of Powers of Appointment Validity of Testamentary Apportionment Bona Fide Exercise of Power Options in Apportionment Trustee Powers

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Urquhart and others (marriage contract trustees of Mr and Mrs Dick)

First Parties

Mrs Cecilia Cameron and Mrs Agnes Higinbotham

Second Parties

Henry Cecil Knox Dick

Third Party

Alice Helen Knox Dick

Fourth Party

John Baird (executor under the holograph settlement of Mrs Dick)

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case (succession/apportionment) / Judgment (inner House, Second Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Dick's holograph settlement was a valid exercise of the power of apportionment under the marriage contract
  2. 2 Whether Mr Dick's deed of apportionment was a valid and bona fide exercise of the power conferred by the marriage contract

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Mrs Dick's holograph settlement nor Mr Dick's deed of apportionment constituted a valid or bona fide exercise of the power of apportionment under the marriage contract. Mrs Dick's deed failed as it included non-objects and imposed impermissible restrictions; Mr Dick's deed failed as it was not a genuine apportionment but an attempt to force acceptance of liferents outside the power, using the threat of a nominal sum.

Court Disposition

Both Mrs Dick's and Mr Dick's purported apportionments declared invalid and ineffectual.

Orders

  • First question of law (validity of Mrs Dick's settlement as apportionment) answered in the negative.
  • Third question, head (d) (validity of Mr Dick's deed) answered in the affirmative: the deed is entirely ineffectual.