Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/24

Click to flip

24 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Garden's Executors v More

Creation - Man gave property to his wife and he 'desired' that she gave her property to his brothers and sisters when she died. The court held that this language was precatory - not enough to set her up as a trustee. You need to show that the trust was intended

Allan's Trs v Lord Advocate

Creation - at something equivalent to delivery or transfer of the trust fund

Kennedy Petr

Legal Relationships - Assumption of a single trustee would be competent

Allan's Trs v Lord Advocate

Creation - at something equivalent to delivery or transfer of the trust fund

Turnbull's Tr v Lord Advocate

Trust purposes - 'for such public, benevolent or charitable purposes in connection with the parish of Lesmahagow' Held as disjunctive as charitable meant benevolent but public did not. Public was a vague phrase so entire trust provision failed due to uncertainty

McCaig v University of Glasgow

Trust purposes - Left money in a trust to erect statues of himself and brothers and sisters and artistic towers all round the state. The court held that these purposes were not valid and were a waste of money. The benefit of young artists were purely incidental.

McCaig Trs v Kirk Session of United Free Church of Lismore

Trust Purposes - left money to a trust and brother built a hill and sister wanted statues and a private burial and again it was seen as a waste of money as the court said it was unreasonable, extravagant and useless

Aitken Trs v Aitken

Trust Purposes - Champion of riding of marches and requested a statue of himself to be erected in mussleborough but court said it wasn't unreasonable but the means of pursuing the object were utterly unreasonable

Airds exrs v Aird

Trust Purposes - Man made a will saying his brother could own the entire estate as long as he remained single. He got married and the court held that any prohibition against marriage of beneficiary was invalid in scots law. However he was married before he even knew about the trust so was never in the position to choose between the two so didn't get the trust in the end

Burgess's trs v crawford

Trust purposes - truster wanted residue of estate to fund a school for girls but the law changed and it was no longer possible for a private individual to found industrial schools so trust purposes were inoperable from the start and the whole trust lapsed as there was no general charitable alternative

Clarke v Ross

Trust purposes - inoperable. Money was raised and trust set up for a mining strike fund. When the strike ended the purposes of the trust were exhausted. There was nowhere for the remaining funds to go and the court allowed money to be given for promotion of miners welfare

Martin v City of Edinburgh council

Administration of trusts - removed councils trust fund assets. They obtained advice on how to do this but not whether or not it was a good idea so it was seen that they had not taken appropriate advice to protect their process but only acted on their political point of view so breached their duty as trustees.

Melville v Noble Trs

Administration of trusts - Left funds in bank for 19 years without checking them and the court held that trustees with trust funds should yeild them for investment and that is not what they were doing. They had never considered it which was a breach of their duty

Clarke v Clarke's trs

Administration of trusts - trusters made investments and were told to hold on to them even though there was a failure in the company. They never took advice and the shares gradually lost value and trustees were held liable for the loss

Johnston v McFarlane

Administration of trusts - Left house in trust for son who is also one of the trustees. Trustees were to hold the house for all 3 beneficiaries and were allowed to sell the house but not to a trustee. They decided to sell the property to the son and the court held this was breach of trust as auctor - acting in his own interests

Knox v Mackinnon

Administration of trusts - The trustees 'shall not be liable for omissions, errors, or neglect of management, nor singuli in solidum, but each shall be liable for his own actual intromissions only

Miller's trustees v Miller

Termination of trusts - Beneficiary who has right in part of trust estate can have the right to take that property so can demand trustees end the trust and hand the property over

Thomsons trs v Henderson
Man died leaving his daughter a trust for liferent and fee to her children and wished a share of it to continue his investment in scottish or english railways. Court held that even though it meant a loss to beneficiaries the trustee meant for them to hold their shares.
Grimmond v Grimmond
A trust for 'religious purposes' is too vague but 'educational purposes' is ok (brough)
Murray v Cameron
defenders (trustees) refused the advocate access to the trust terms. court held that if you are intended to be benefitted by the trust then you can examine it

Tibber v mccoll

Breach of duty - was it honest and reasonable for an ordinary person

Burrows v burrows

Trust for educational purposes is fine as it itsnt too vague

Tibber v mccoll

Breach of duty - was it honest and reasonable for an ordinary person

Millars trustees

If you are 18 and the only trustee you can claim your trust