Bertram, Gardner & Co.'s Trustee v. King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer [1920] ScotLR 682 (25 May 1920)

Bertram, Gardner & Co.'s Trustee v. King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer [1920] ScotLR 682 (25 May 1920)

The claim was not extinguished by negative prescription because the funds remained impressed with a trust and were still extant and available; the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, as statutory successor, was liable to account to the trust beneficiary as the trustee would have been. Section 16 of the 1895 Act applied, giving the pursuer the same rights against the defender as against the trustee. The pleas of prescription were repelled and the defender was ordered to account.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 682
Parties
Pursuer: William Paterson Scott, C. A., as trustee on the sequestrated estates of Bertram, Gardner, & Company; Defender: Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, Bart., King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, as such and as an individual
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; defender's pleas-in-law repelled; defender appointed to lodge an account.
Legal Topics
Negative Prescription, Trustee Liability, Consignation of Funds, Beneficiary Rights, Statutory Construction, Fiduciary Duties
Trusts Banking Law Prescription (limitation) Statutory Interpretation Negative Prescription Trustee Liability Consignation of Funds Beneficiary Rights +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Paterson Scott, C. A., as trustee on the sequestrated estates of Bertram, Gardner, & Company

Pursuer

Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, Bart., King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, as such and as an individual

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim to the consigned funds was extinguished by negative prescription
  2. 2 Whether the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer was liable to account as statutory successor to the trustee
  3. 3 Whether the deposit-receipt created a trust or a debtor-creditor relationship with the bank

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was not extinguished by negative prescription because the funds remained impressed with a trust and were still extant and available; the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, as statutory successor, was liable to account to the trust beneficiary as the trustee would have been. Section 16 of the 1895 Act applied, giving the pursuer the same rights against the defender as against the trustee. The pleas of prescription were repelled and the defender was ordered to account.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; defender's pleas-in-law repelled; defender appointed to lodge an account.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor
  • Repel defender's pleas-in-law