BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Lowson v. Lowson [1902] ScotLR 39_444 (15 March 1902)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1902/39SLR0444.html
Cite as: [1902] SLR 39_444, [1902] ScotLR 39_444

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 444

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Saturday, March 15. 1902.

39 SLR 444

Lowson

v.

Lowson.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Motion to Sist Mandatory
Subject_3Respondent in Petition for Discharge of Judicial Factor Reclaiming against Interlocutor Granting Discharge.
Facts:

In a petition for discharge of a judicial factor objections were lodged by a beneficiary upon the trust estate who was resident in Russia. These objections having been repelled by the Lord Ordinary, and the objector having reclaimed, the Court upon the motion of the petitioners ordained the reclaimer to sist a mandatory.

Headnote:

In a petition by J. A. Lowson and others for appointment of a new judicial factor on the estate of the deceased Andrew Lowson, and for the discharge of a deceased factor, answers were lodged for A. B. Lowson, who was one of the beneficiaries on the trust estate. After various procedure, including three reports by the Accountant of Court, who reported in favour of the petition, and after hearing counsel upon objections for A. B. Lowson, who maintained that the judicial factor had not fully accounted for the whole funds in his hands, the Lord Ordinary ( Pearson) on 1st March 1902 repelled the objections and discharged the deceased factor.

Page: 445

A. B. Lowson reclaimed.

On the case being called in the Single Bills the petitioners moved the Court to ordain the reclaimer to sist a mandatory, on the ground that he was resident in Russia and had no funds in this country, a balance being due by him to the factory estate, and that in objecting to the factor's accounts he was truly a pursuer.

Argued for the reclaimer—Doubtless, if he was a pursuer and had no funds in this country, the reclaimer would have to sist a mandatory; but he had been brought into Court and was maintaining that a sum, larger than the balance found due to the estate by him, had not been accounted for. He was entitled to have his objections to the factor's accounts considered and determined upon without sisting a mandatory— Graham v. Graham's Trustees, October 15, 1901, 39 S.L.R. 3.

Judgment:

Lord Justice-Clerk—It is entirely in the discretion of the Court to consider whether even a defender should not be required to sist a mandatory. Here the reclaimer is very much in the position of a pursuer, and I think it is proper that he should be ordained to sist a mandatory.

Lord Moncreiff—I am of the same opinion. Of course it is right that the objector should have a reasonable time in which to sist a mandatory.

Lord Kincairney concurred.

Lord Young and Lord Trayner were absent.

The Court ordained the reclaimer to sist a mandatory by the third sederunt-day in the next ensuing session.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents— T. B. Morison. Agents— Webster, Will, & Company, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent and Reclaimer— Lyon Mackenzie. Agents— Mill, Bonar, & Hunter, W.S.

1902


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1902/39SLR0444.html