Macgillivray's Trustees v. Dallas and Others [1905] ScotLR 42_791 (06 June 1905)

Macgillivray's Trustees v. Dallas and Others [1905] ScotLR 42_791 (06 June 1905)

The action of multiplepoinding was incompetent in so far as it related to specific legacies where no double distress or real dispute existed, particularly the legacy to Mrs Dallas, as no competing claims were made. However, the action could proceed in respect of other parts of the estate where genuine disputes or potential double distress existed.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_791
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Fowler Steele and William Mackay, Trustees of the late Mrs Isabella Gollan or Macgillivray; Defender: Duncan Forbes Dallas and others (children of Mrs Isabella Gollan or Dallas)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Action incompetent in respect of specific legacies (except that to Miss Catherine Gollan); remitted for amendment and further procedure; defenders entitled to expenses.
Legal Topics
Multiplepoinding, Double Distress, Testamentary Succession, Competency of Actions
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Multiplepoinding Double Distress Testamentary Succession Competency of Actions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Fowler Steele and William Mackay, Trustees of the late Mrs Isabella Gollan or Macgillivray

Pursuer

Duncan Forbes Dallas and others (children of Mrs Isabella Gollan or Dallas)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding / Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action of multiplepoinding was competent in respect of specific legacies where no double distress existed
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to grant a discharge by certain beneficiaries constituted double distress justifying multiplepoinding
  3. 3 Whether the trustees were justified in raising multiplepoinding for the whole estate

Ratio Decidendi

The action of multiplepoinding was incompetent in so far as it related to specific legacies where no double distress or real dispute existed, particularly the legacy to Mrs Dallas, as no competing claims were made. However, the action could proceed in respect of other parts of the estate where genuine disputes or potential double distress existed.

Court Disposition

Action incompetent in respect of specific legacies (except that to Miss Catherine Gollan); remitted for amendment and further procedure; defenders entitled to expenses.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor
  • Find action incompetent as regards special legacies except Miss Catherine Gollan's