Mitchell Innes's Trustees v. Mitchell Innes and Others [1911] ScotLR 241 (08 December 1911)
The special case is competent and the trustees have power to sell the estate of Phantassie under the trust-disposition and settlement.
- Citation
- [1911] ScotLR 241
- Parties
- First Parties (applicants): George Dalziel, W. S., Edinburgh, and others, trustees acting under the trust-disposition and settlement of the late Thomas Shairp Mitchell Innes of Phantassie; Second Parties (respondents/beneficiaries): Miss Isabella Mitchell Innes, a daughter of the truster, and the four children of Mrs Christina Mitchell Innes or Anderson, a deceased daughter of the truster
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 08 December 1911
- Procedural Posture
- Special Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Special case competent; trustees entitled to sell estate of Phantassie.
- Legal Topics
- Power of Trustees to Sell Heritage, Competency of Special Case, Beneficiaries' Consent
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Dalziel, W. S., Edinburgh, and others, trustees acting under the trust-disposition and settlement of the late Thomas Shairp Mitchell Innes of Phantassie
First Parties (applicants)
Miss Isabella Mitchell Innes, a daughter of the truster, and the four children of Mrs Christina Mitchell Innes or Anderson, a deceased daughter of the truster
Second Parties (respondents/beneficiaries)
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether trustees have power to sell the estate of Phantassie under the trust-disposition and settlement
- 2 Competency of raising the question in a special case where there is no real litigation
Ratio Decidendi
The special case is competent and the trustees have power to sell the estate of Phantassie under the trust-disposition and settlement.
Court Disposition
Special case competent; trustees entitled to sell estate of Phantassie.
Orders
- Court answered the first branch of the question in the affirmative.
- Court found it unnecessary to answer the second branch.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment