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 £1, 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 >> Dick and Others v. Dick's Trustees [1908] UKHL 683 (26 May 1908) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1908/45SLR0683.html Cite as: [1908] UKHL 683, 45 ScotLR 683 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 683↓
(Before the
(In the Court of Session, May 29, 1907, 44 S.L.R. 680, 1907 S.C. 953.)
Subject_Succession — Trust — Uncertainty.
Terms of a residuary bequest which, being challenged upon the ground of uncertainty, was held not to be void.
This case is reported ante ut supra.
Dick and others, claimants and reclaimers, appealed to the House of Lords.
At delivering judgment—
With regard to the first question, whether the trustees have an option to apply any part of this fund otherwise than to the charitable purpose designated by the will, I do not think that is the true construction of the clause. I think the words which are used “any part or parts thereof” have relation to the time or times when the distribution may become practicable by reason of the fund becoming available.
With reference to the second point made by Mr Cripps, whether the bequest is bad because there was an option to retain indefinitely and so frustrate the trust or so render uncertain its objects, I do not think that is the meaning of the clause. The word “indefinitely” appears to me really to be redundant, meaning the same in substance as the words “for such time or times as they may think fit.” Of course the administration of a trust is always subject to the control of the Court if there is maladministration. Even if the word “indefinitely” meant something much more than that, I am by no means satisfied that the will could be set aside on that ground, but the point does not arise.
Appeal dismissed.
Counsel for Appellants— Cripps, K.C.— Orr, K.C.— Munro. Agents— Inglis, Orr, & Bruce, W.S., Edinburgh— John Kennedy, W.S., Westminster.
Counsel for Trustees under Settlement of 1902— Clyde, K.C.— Cullen, K.C.— Scott Brown. Agents— Henry Robertson, S.S.C., Edinburgh— Crowders, Vizard, Oldham, & Company, London.
Counsel for the Trustees under prior Settlements— Lees, K.C.— Vernon— W. Ingram. Agents— W. & F. Haldane, W.S., Edinburgh— Neish, Howell, & Haldane, London.
