A summary petition by a tutor, for authority to let an heritable subject belonging to his pupil For a period longer than the duration of his office, found to be incompetent.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Upon the death of Henry Hallows, cotton-manufacturer, James his brother was served tutor-in-law to his children. The eldest son, who succeeded to the heritable property, was ten years of age. James presented a petition, stating, That the chief property of his nephew consisted of a cotton-mill, the operations of which it had in the mean time been judged expedient to stop: That he was unwilling to apply for authority to sell it, because if it were sold, his pupil would be deprived of a favourable opportunity of prosecuting the trade of his father, if he should afterwards be so disposed: That on this account it was proper the subject should be let; but as no person would take a lease of a cotton-mill for so short a period as four years, to which only his office and power of granting leases extended, he prayed for a warrant from the Court to grant a lease of it for 14 years, or such shorter number of years as should be judged expedient.
The Lords unanimously refused the petition as incompetent.
For the Petitioner, D. Douglas.Clerk, Pringle.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 311. Fac. Coll. No. 111. p. 245.
*** The tutor afterwards brought a process of cognition and sale, containing a conclusion for authority to let the subject “for a term of years” beyond the pupillarity or minority of young Hallows, if it should be judged expedient, which was accordingly granted.
