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.
When the sale was reported by Mr Mackenzie to the Lord Ordinary, Adamson lodged objections, alleging that the fair value of the lands had not been got, and that the sale was invalid, as having been made to Mr Horne, as alleged, for the benefit of the family of the Darlings, in violation of the rule of law against trustees and others interfering in the purchase of lands exposed by them.
The Lord Ordinary having repelled these objections, Adamson reclaimed , and the Court ordered cases.
Lord Medwyn .—I agree in every respect with the decision in the case of Mackenzie; but cannot see that the children in this case had such an interest as excluded them from purchasing,—their interests only emanated when the division of the price took place—in the count and reckoning. Then, the trustees were the exposers here; and, as it is laid down that a residuary legatee may purchase, the small interest which the children had here could not exclude them, particularly as the whole proceedings were carried on under the authority of the Court, and with its sanction.
The Lords unanimously adhered to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, repelling the objections.
Lord Ordinary, Jeffrey. Act. G. G. Bell. Alt. D. M'Neill, Neaves. J. S. Darling, W. S. and W. & J. B. Douglas, W. S. Agents. T. Clerk.
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.