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.
It did not appear that there had been any actings under this trust-deed, nor had there been any formal acceptance of the trust.
Mr Paul objected to this preference, in respect the infeftment upon the trust-deed was invalid.
The trust-deed was in fact never acted upon. Edward Boyd possessed the estate upon the titles he had made up in his own person, and none of the trustees now appear to support the trust-deed and infeftment. The validity of the infeftment is only maintained by a party pretending to have a beneficial interest in the trust.
II. If the infeftment on the trust-deed is not good, the provision claimed does not constitute a burden upon the title of the objector, under his statutory adjudication and infeftment.
The provision, being a personal obligation of Dr Boyd, cannot avail against an adjudger. Even fraud is not pleadable against an adjudger; Mitchell v. Ferguson, 13 Feb. 1781, Mor. 10,296; Smith, 18 Dec. 1795, Bell , i. 288; Wylie v. Duncan, 8 Dec. 1803, Mor. 10,269.
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.