Verney v. Verneys [1914] ScotLR 694 (16 June 1914)

Verney v. Verneys [1914] ScotLR 694 (16 June 1914)

The deed of entail was held valid because the powers of appointment and sale, as structured, did not destroy the statutory prohibitions against altering the order of succession or alienation. The power of appointment was a fulfilment, not a contravention, of the prescribed order of succession, and the power to sell was sufficiently fettered by the requirement of reinvestment through a trust, ensuring the interests of substitute heirs were protected. Thus, the prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive clauses remained effective, and the entail complied with the statutory requirements.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 694
Parties
Pursuer: Harry Lloyd Lloyd Verney; Defenders: Gerald, Ulick, and Desmond Lloyd Verney (minors, with Harry Lloyd Lloyd Verney as curator and administrator-in-law); Defender: Mrs Morforwyn Lloyd Verney or Fanshawe (with Mr Fanshawe as curator and administrator-in-law)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Entail, Order of Succession, Prohibition Against Alienation, Powers of Appointment, Trust for Reinvestment, Entail Amendment (scotland) Act 1848, Statute of 1685
Property Law Succession Law Trusts and Estates Entail Order of Succession Prohibition Against Alienation Powers of Appointment Trust for Reinvestment +2 more

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Lloyd Lloyd Verney

Pursuer

Gerald, Ulick, and Desmond Lloyd Verney (minors, with Harry Lloyd Lloyd Verney as curator and administrator-in-law)

Defenders

Mrs Morforwyn Lloyd Verney or Fanshawe (with Mr Fanshawe as curator and administrator-in-law)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of entail is invalid due to powers of appointment and sale allegedly infringing statutory prohibitions against altering succession and alienation under the Entail Acts.
  2. 2 Whether the powers to appoint a successor among family members and to sell and reinvest proceeds nullify the entail's prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive clauses.

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of entail was held valid because the powers of appointment and sale, as structured, did not destroy the statutory prohibitions against altering the order of succession or alienation. The power of appointment was a fulfilment, not a contravention, of the prescribed order of succession, and the power to sell was sufficiently fettered by the requirement of reinvestment through a trust, ensuring the interests of substitute heirs were protected. Thus, the prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive clauses remained effective, and the entail complied with the statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Decree of declarator refused.
  • Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the summons.