BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Train v. Buchanan's Trustee (Clapperton) [1908] UKHL 682 (25 May 1908) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1908/45SLR0682.html Cite as: 46 ScotLR 682, 45 ScotLR 682, [1908] UKHL 682 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 682↓
(Before the
(In the Court of Session, February 5, 1907, 44 S.L.R. 371, 1907 S.C. 517.)
Subject_Trust — Faculties and Powers — Direction to Trustees to Pay “either the Whole or only a Portion of the Annual Revenue” to Beneficiary — Exercise of Discretion.
A testator directed his trustees to hold a certain sum and to pay to a beneficiary during his lifetime “either the whole or only a portion of the annual revenue thereof, and that subject to such conditions and restrictions, all as my trustees in their sole and absolute discretion think fit”; and on the beneficiary's death to pay to his children the sum “with any revenue accrued thereon that has not been paid” to the beneficiary; failing such children the sum “and accumulations of revenue, if any,” fell into residue. The trustees from time to time paid the beneficiary some very small sums. The beneficiary having assigned his interest in the trust, the assignee brought an action to obtain the unpaid balance of revenue on the ground that the trustees had never exercised the discretion given them to restrict the amount to be paid, and consequently that the whole annual revenue had become the property of the beneficiary.
Held, in the circumstances of the case, that the trustees had exercised the discretion conferred upon them.
This case is reported ante ut supra.
Train, the pursuer and respondent in the Court of Session, appealed in forma pauperis to the House of Lords.
At the conclusion of the appellant's argument, the respondent not being called upon—
Appeal dismissed.
Counsel for the Appellant— Munro— A. A. Fraser. Agents— A. W. Gordon, Edinburgh— Herbert G. Davis, London.
Counsel for the Respondent— Younger, K.C.— C. H. Brown. Agents— F. J. Martin, W.S., Edinburgh— Robbins, Billing, & Company, London.
