Donaldson and Others (Mackinnon's Trustees) v. Dunlop (Mackinnon's Trustee) [1912] ScotLR 193 (28 November 1912)

Donaldson and Others (Mackinnon's Trustees) v. Dunlop (Mackinnon's Trustee) [1912] ScotLR 193 (28 November 1912)

The contract did not restrict the husband's power of administration; he retained command of the funds and the interest never went directly to the children. Therefore, no jus crediti was conferred on the trustees or children entitling them to rank in the sequestration for the £4000.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 193
Parties
Pursuer: William Henderson Donaldson and others (Mackinnon's Trustees); Defender: William Dunlop (Mackinnon's Trustee)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (bankruptcy) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; trustee's rejection of claim for £4000 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Antenuptial Marriage Contract, Jus Crediti, Trusts, Ranking of Claims in Sequestration, Rights of Children and Wife Under Marriage Contract
Family Law Bankruptcy Contract Law Antenuptial Marriage Contract Jus Crediti Trusts Ranking of Claims in Sequestration Rights of Children and Wife Under Marriage Contract

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Henderson Donaldson and others (Mackinnon's Trustees)

Pursuer

William Dunlop (Mackinnon's Trustee)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (bankruptcy) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees under an antenuptial marriage contract have a jus crediti entitling them to rank in the sequestration for £4000 promised by the husband but unpaid at bankruptcy.
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the marriage contract restricted the husband's power of administration sufficiently to confer creditor status on the trustees or children.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract did not restrict the husband's power of administration; he retained command of the funds and the interest never went directly to the children. Therefore, no jus crediti was conferred on the trustees or children entitling them to rank in the sequestration for the £4000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; trustee's rejection of claim for £4000 affirmed.

Orders

  • The interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute dated 2nd July 1912 is recalled.
  • The deliverance of the trustee dated 4th March 1912 rejecting the claim for £4000 is affirmed.