« ZurückWeiter »
Gaillie's Case - - - - - 303 Lidderdale v. Duke of Mon-'
Mason v. Corder - - - - 632
Moffatt v. Robinson - 278. 288
Hart v. Alexander - 129. 134 Company. -: · 131. 132
Glas - - - - - 132. 142 | Simson v. Ingham 223. 228
Pope v. Roots ... - 397 Taylor v. Bacon - - - - 56
Magistrates of Hadding -- v. Waters - 351.359.368
ton - - - - - - - 492 Tennant's Patent- - - - 454
Tibbett's Case -
Tickle v. Brown - - - - 238
- 0. Mayor of Norwich 428
Underwood v. Hitchcock - 397
Wall v. Bushby - - - - 191
Roebuck v. Stirling - - - 446 – P. Parnther • • • •
Wilson v. Falconer – 300. 307
-- v. Mitchell 351. 359. 368
| Mackenzie - - - - - 278
The persons named as trustees and executors in the will of a 1st Appeal.
domiciled Scotchman having declined to act, his next of kin obtained letters of administration of his personal estate in England Personal from the proper Ecclesiastical Court there, and afterwards con- Estate. sented to the appointment, by the Court of Session in Scotland, Domucile. of other persons as trustees and executors in place of those A
tion. named in the will, with all the powers that had been thereby given to them. These trustees so appointed raised an action in the Court of Session against the administratrix, calling on her to transfer to them the personal estate possessed by her under the
administration, and offering her a full release from liability.HELD by the Lords (reversing the decree of the Court of Session),
that the personal estate in England must be administered there
by the administratrix, by virtue of the letters of administration, The law of the domicile of a deceased person governs the succes
sion to his personal estate, wherever situated; but the estate itself must be administered in the country in which possession is taken
of it under lawful authority. The Courts in Scotland have no power to appoint persons to administer personal property in England, that power being exclusively vested in the English Ecclesiastical Courts; and of that the Scotch Courts are bound to take notice.
SIR ROBERT PRESTON, Baronet, a domiciled
land, in May 1834, leaving a trust disposition, deed
administration in due form, secluding from the said office all others his nearest of kin; declaring that if an inventory of the debts due, and personal estate belonging to him, should be made up and signed by him as relative thereto, the same should supersede confirmation in Scotland, or administration in England, being thus to be held as a special conveyance, and to be valid to every intent and purpose; but always under the conditions, and for the ends, uses, trusts and purposes therein underwritten.
The trust deed contained various directions to the trustees and executors relative to the management and disposition of Sir Robert's large heritable estates, and personal property. The former were situated in Scotland; the personal property, which also was of large amount, was partly vested in Scotland, and partly in England in Government securities and Bank of Eng. land stock. The immediate objects of the trust were bis three nieces : viz., the Appellant; her sister, Miss Catherine Preston; and Dame Anne Hay, wife of Sir John Hay, Baronet: to whom the trustees were to pay annually, in equal shares, the surplus yearly rents and proceeds of the whole property (after payment of debts and certain legacies and annuities), with benefit of survivorship between them; and Sir John Hay was to be entitled to the interest of his wife, in the event of his surviving her.
All the persons named in the deed as trustees and executors having declined to accept the trust, letters of administration with the deed and will annexed were, on the 18th of July 1834, granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, as to the personal property in England, to the Appellant, as one of the next of kin of the testator, the other two nieces and next of kin, and Sir John Hay, consenting, and becoming