White v. White's Trustees [1916] ScotLR 353 (17 February 1916)

White v. White's Trustees [1916] ScotLR 353 (17 February 1916)

The pursuer was not entitled to immediate payment of his vested share of residue because the testator expressly postponed distribution until after the widow's death and after payment of specified legacies. Acceleration would prejudice the interests of other residuary legatees, who would lose the benefit of income on the £4000 legacies. The Court cannot override the testator's directions where doing so would affect the interests of objecting beneficiaries.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 353
Parties
Pursuer: John White; Defenders: D. R. M'Gilvray and others (White's Trustees)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 February 1916
Procedural Posture
Succession Dispute (action for Declarator and Payment) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed (majority decision)
Legal Topics
Vesting of Residue, Acceleration of Payment, Accumulation of Income, Testamentary Construction, Rights of Residuary Legatees
Succession Trusts and Estates Vesting of Residue Acceleration of Payment Accumulation of Income Testamentary Construction Rights of Residuary Legatees

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John White

Pursuer

D. R. M'Gilvray and others (White's Trustees)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Succession Dispute (action for Declarator and Payment) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a residuary legatee with a vested share is entitled to immediate payment where the widow has renounced her interest under the will
  2. 2 Whether the trustees are bound to retain the estate until the period of distribution fixed by the testator
  3. 3 Whether acceleration of payment would prejudice the interests of other beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer was not entitled to immediate payment of his vested share of residue because the testator expressly postponed distribution until after the widow's death and after payment of specified legacies. Acceleration would prejudice the interests of other residuary legatees, who would lose the benefit of income on the £4000 legacies. The Court cannot override the testator's directions where doing so would affect the interests of objecting beneficiaries.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed (majority decision)

Orders

  • Action dismissed; no decree for immediate payment or distribution granted