Page: 645↓
In a petition at the instance of a father of three pupil children, an advance from the interest of money belonging to them authorised to be made to him as an individual for their maintenance and education, he, although in embarrassed circumstances, being stated by the trustees in charge of the money as the most proper person to have charge of the children.
Observed ( per Lord Neaves), that, as administrator-in-law, he was a creditor, and could not apply to the equitable jurisdiction of the Court by petition, but must proceed by ordinary action.
Mr Edmiston's three pupil children were entitled under the trust-deed of their maternal grandfather to a sum of about £22,000, yielding a free income of £880, subject to a deduction of £150, paid to Mr Edmiston under his marriage-contract. During Mrs Edmiston's lifetime this money was liferented by her, and the whole income was paid to her by her father's trustees. For some time after her death they paid to Mr Edmiston £500 a-year for his children, but latterly refused to do so without judicial authority. The children had all along resided with him. He accordingly presented this petition “for himself, and as administrator-in-law” for the children, stating that some years ago he met with reverses in business, and that the income of the children's means was necessary to enable him to maintain and educate them in the manner in which they had lived during their mother's lifetime. He therefore prayed the Court to ordain Mr Miller's trustees to make payment to him, “as administrator-in-law for his children, and for their behoof,” of the free annual income, or otherwise to ordain them to make payment to him of such portion of the free income as to the Court should seem proper for the suitable maintenance and education of the children.
The trustees lodged answers, in which they stated that they were advised that the petitioner might be held to be domiciled in England, and that, if so, they were not authorised to continue the payment without the authority of the Court. They stated at the bar that they considered the petitioner the most proper person to have the charge of his children, and to disburse any money that might be advanced for their maintenance and education.
Lancaster for petitioner.
Balfour for respondents.
At advising—
Solicitors: Agents for Petitioner— Webster & Will, S.S.C.
Agents for Respondents— Jardine, Stodart & Frasers, W.S.