Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The tutors so appointed entered upon the management of the pupil's property—Mr Stevenson being appointed factor, and Mr A. Scott, W. S. having become his cautioner.
In this action, Mrs Marion Stewart, Alexander Stevenson, the representatives of Thomas Strong, and the pursuer and his tutors and curators, were called as defenders. Defences were lodged for Mrs Stewart and Alexander Stevenson, denying that the tutory had fallen by the death of Mr Strong. The Lord Ordinary (Cringletie) 30th May, repelled the defences, and found that the tutory had fallen by the death of the said Thomas Strong in 1820; and, thereafter (7th July) his Lordship pronounced a decree of exoneration in favour of the defender, Mr Baikie.
I. The decree in foro , obtained before Lord Cringletie, forms a res judicata in the present case.
II. Supposing the point open, the decree was well founded, because the gift of tutory-dative, in favour of three individuals together, cannot be held a gift in favour of two of them, but fell, ipso jure , upon Mr Strong's death. The opposite rule applies to tutors testamentary only; Ersk. B. i, tit. 7, § 3.
III. The defender cannot be liable for any intromissions had even by the tutors, or any of them, posterior to the termination of the tutory; and even for any intromissions had by them during its subsistence, he is entitled to the benefit of discussion.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.