Aitken's Trustees v. Aitken and Others [1921] ScotLR 541 (28 June 1921)

Aitken's Trustees v. Aitken and Others [1921] ScotLR 541 (28 June 1921)

The initial direction to 'hold and apply the fee' for the children was interpreted as an absolute gift of fee. The absence of provision for the event of a child dying without issue after the death of both the truster and his wife supported the view that the fee vested in the child. The subsequent directions did not qualify the absolute gift in the circumstances that occurred.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 541
Parties
First Parties: James Ballantyne and others, as trustees under a disposition and assignation by the late James Aitken; Second Parties: James Ballantyne and others as trustees under the trust-disposition and settlement of the late James Aitken; Third Party: James Hill Aitken, as executor of his deceased brother Arthur Haynes Aitken; Fourth Parties: James Hill Aitken, Lionel George Aitken, Reginald Alexander Aitken, sons of the late James Aitken, who along with the said deceased Arthur Haynes Aitken survived him; Fifth Parties: Betty Florence Aitken and Natalie Aileen Aitken, children of the said James Hill Aitken, and Marjorie Aitken and the other children of the said Lionel George Aitken; Sixth Parties: Mrs Edith Louise Aitken or Colley, Mrs Florence Emily Aitken or Miles, and Mrs Violet Alice Aitken or Reynolds, the surviving daughters of the late James Aitken; Seventh Parties: Percy Harold Colley, son of the said Mrs Colley, and others, as trustees under the marriage settlement of the said Percy Harold Colley; Eighth Parties: Hugh Rupert Miles son of the said Mrs Miles and Olive Joyce Reynolds, daughter of the said Mrs Reynolds
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 1921
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Judgment
Outcome
The Court answered question 1(a) in the affirmative: the fee of the share vested in Arthur Haynes Aitken.
Legal Topics
Vesting of Fee, Liferent, Alimentary Use, Trust Administration, Intestacy
Succession Trusts Vesting of Fee Liferent Alimentary Use Trust Administration Intestacy

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Ballantyne and others, as trustees under a disposition and assignation by the late James Aitken

First Parties

James Ballantyne and others as trustees under the trust-disposition and settlement of the late James Aitken

Second Parties

James Hill Aitken, as executor of his deceased brother Arthur Haynes Aitken

Third Party

James Hill Aitken, Lionel George Aitken, Reginald Alexander Aitken, sons of the late James Aitken, who along with the said deceased Arthur Haynes Aitken survived him

Fourth Parties

Betty Florence Aitken and Natalie Aileen Aitken, children of the said James Hill Aitken, and Marjorie Aitken and the other children of the said Lionel George Aitken

Fifth Parties

Mrs Edith Louise Aitken or Colley, Mrs Florence Emily Aitken or Miles, and Mrs Violet Alice Aitken or Reynolds, the surviving daughters of the late James Aitken

Sixth Parties

Percy Harold Colley, son of the said Mrs Colley, and others, as trustees under the marriage settlement of the said Percy Harold Colley

Seventh Parties

Hugh Rupert Miles son of the said Mrs Miles and Olive Joyce Reynolds, daughter of the said Mrs Reynolds

Eighth Parties

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fee of the share vested in Arthur Haynes Aitken upon the death of the truster's widow
  2. 2 Whether the interest was limited to liferent only and the fee fell under the trust-disposition and settlement
  3. 3 Whether the share passed to the heirs and representatives of the truster ab intestato

Ratio Decidendi

The initial direction to 'hold and apply the fee' for the children was interpreted as an absolute gift of fee. The absence of provision for the event of a child dying without issue after the death of both the truster and his wife supported the view that the fee vested in the child. The subsequent directions did not qualify the absolute gift in the circumstances that occurred.

Court Disposition

The Court answered question 1(a) in the affirmative: the fee of the share vested in Arthur Haynes Aitken.

Orders

  • No further questions answered; fee of share to Arthur Haynes Aitken's personal representatives.