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 is declared, ‘that any three of the persons above named as trustees, while so many are alive, and shall have accepted, shall be a quorum,’ &c. and ‘that the said trustees shall not be answerable for omissions, or obliged to do diligence, but only for their own actual intromissions severally; and that each of them shall be answerable for his own acts and deeds only, and not for those of the rest,’ &c.
Thereafter (11th July 1804, in virtue of reserved powers to that effect in the original trust-deed) the entailer ‘nominated and assumed the said Colonel Thomas Kinloch to be an additional trustee along with the persons named as trustees,’ &c.
st , That the defender, having accepted the office of trustee under the trust deed, could not resign the office, especially after the number of trustees came to be so reduced; that there was not a quorum without him; and his continuance in trust was indispensible to its existence.
d , That as the defender, at the time of the loan, was one of the trustees, it was necessary to introduce his name into the security; and it is of course now necessary to have his name to the discharge.
d , That even if the loan to Colonel Kinloch had been an improper act of management on the part of the trustees, the defender was not entitled to refuse his concurrence in granting a discharge; for of the propriety of the discharge there could be no doubt.
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.