Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Scott Petitioner [1870] ScotLR 8_260 (23 December 1870)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1870/08SLR0260.html
Cite as: [1870] SLR 8_260, [1870] ScotLR 8_260

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 260↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Friday, December 23. 1870.

8 SLR 260

Scott Petitioner.

Subject_1Pupil
Subject_2Allowance to Father for Maintenance.

Facts:

Circumstances under which a further allowance to a father out of the estate of his pupil son, for the son's maintenance and education, was refused.

Headnote:

It having been one of the conditions of the disentail of the estate of Malleny, of which Major Scott of the 42d Highlanders, the present petitioner, became fee simple proprietor, that a provision of £18,000 should be secured upon the estate for his eldest son, Carteret Cunninghame Scott, then a pupil, a factor loco tutoris was in 1866 appointed by the Court to manage the said fund
Page: 261↓
belonging to the pupil. In the same year Major Scott applied to the Court for an allowance out of the interest of the pupil's estate, for his maintenance, support, and upbringing. The Court allowed him a sum of £250 per annum. Of this date (11th November 1870), Major Scott applied to the Court to enlarge the foresaid provision to £400 per annum, his son the pupil being now nine years of age. It was stated that in consequence of the arrangements connected with the disentail of the estate of Malleny, and the different interests which had to be provided for, Major Scott received little or no present advantage from the possession of the estate.

The petition came up on the report of Lord Mackenzie.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—I do not think that Major Scott has made out any case for the present application. A boy living in family with his father, who is quartered with his regiment at a station in this country, certainly cannot cost the father anything like the amount which he already has as an allowance for him. It is not said that there is any present purpose of sending the boy to a public school, nor is it even said that the time when he should be so sent has yet arrived. When that time does come, the Court will be quite ready to re-consider this application, but they will then require to have precise and distinct information as to the expenses which are proposed to be incurred on the boy's behoof, both at school and during those times of vacation when he may be residing at home.

The other Judges concurred.

Application refused.

Solicitors: Agent for Petitioner— H. W. Cornillon, S.S.C.

1870

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010