Bannerman's Trustees v. Brodie and Others [1915] ScotLR 315 (28 January 1915)

Bannerman's Trustees v. Brodie and Others [1915] ScotLR 315 (28 January 1915)

The power of disposal was not void for uncertainty because the limitation 'conducted according to Protestant principles' made the class of institutions sufficiently definite. The liferenter's deed of directions was a valid exercise of the power, and the trust administration was in accordance with the rights of the parties. Expenses were not to be paid from the estate as the action was not brought to aid trust administration.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 315
Parties
Pursuers and Nominal Raisers and Respondents: Mrs Mary Woods or Bannerman and others (Walter Bannerman's trustees); Defenders (mrs Brodie Also Claimant and Respondent): Mrs Jessie Bannerman or Brodie and William Brodie; Defender: Mrs Isobel M'Alpine Davidson or Bannerman (executrix of Walter Bannerman tertius); Defender: Stanley Cyril Forster Bannerman; Claimant and Respondent: Mrs Mary Ramsay or Bannerman; Defender, Real Raiser and Reclaimer: Robert Bannerman junior
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 1915
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding (trust/succession) / Inner House, First Division; Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; interlocutor adhered to; reclaimer found liable in expenses since the date of the interlocutor.
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Powers, Uncertainty in Trust Instruments, Powers of Liferenter, Expenses in Multiplepoinding, Delegation of Testamentary Power
Succession Trusts Validity of Testamentary Powers Uncertainty in Trust Instruments Powers of Liferenter Expenses in Multiplepoinding Delegation of Testamentary Power

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Mary Woods or Bannerman and others (Walter Bannerman's trustees)

Pursuers and Nominal Raisers and Respondents

Mrs Jessie Bannerman or Brodie and William Brodie

Defenders (mrs Brodie Also Claimant and Respondent)

Mrs Isobel M'Alpine Davidson or Bannerman (executrix of Walter Bannerman tertius)

Defender

Stanley Cyril Forster Bannerman

Defender

Mrs Mary Ramsay or Bannerman

Claimant and Respondent

Robert Bannerman junior

Defender, Real Raiser and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding (trust/succession) / Inner House, First Division; Reclaiming Note (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the power of disposal conferred on the survivor of the testator's children was void for uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether the deed of directions executed by the liferenter was valid
  3. 3 Whether expenses should be paid out of the estate or by unsuccessful claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The power of disposal was not void for uncertainty because the limitation 'conducted according to Protestant principles' made the class of institutions sufficiently definite. The liferenter's deed of directions was a valid exercise of the power, and the trust administration was in accordance with the rights of the parties. Expenses were not to be paid from the estate as the action was not brought to aid trust administration.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; interlocutor adhered to; reclaimer found liable in expenses since the date of the interlocutor.

Orders

  • Adhere to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
  • Refuse the reclaiming note.