Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action of declarator, &c. by Mrs Maclaren, Mrs Weir, and Miss Robertson, daughters of the late William Robertson, against their brother William Robertson and their sister Mrs Kilgour. Disputes arose among the parties as to their rights under their father's settlement, and an attempt was made to come to an arrangement. The only question was whether these negotiations had resulted in a binding arrangement. The defender alleged—“The pursuer Mrs Weir, in connection with such arrangement, wrote a letter in the following terms:—

‘ Glasgow, 91 North Hanover Street,

‘ Dec. 22, 1869.

‘Dear Sisters,—I agree to give my brother £50 sterling from 16 Rose Street, combined with his share in No. 8 Rose Street, and any other claim that is contained in father's settlement, but stand firm to father's settlement being in any way altered or broken by selling of shares. This I appoiutedly object to shares being sold or bought in No. 8 Rose Street. ‘ Makia G. Weir’

The pursuer Margaret Robertson also wrote a letter in almost the same terms, and to precisely the same effect. The other sisters also agreed to this arrangement. Said letters were delivered to the defender; and it was then further arranged that an agreement embodying and carrying out their terms should be entered into between the defender and his sisters; but on said agreement being prepared by the pursuers' agents, it was found, on its being sent for revisal to the defender's agent, that it deviated from the terms of said arrangement. It was therefore revised in accordance therewith, and returned for execution, but the pursuers have never executed the same.”

The Lord Ordinary ( Jerviswoode), after a proof, found, “with reference to the averments in articles 16, 17, and 18 of the statement of facts for the defender William Robertson, as to which averments a proof was allowed to the defenders, that certain negotiations took place between him and his sisters, including the female pursuers, with a view to an arrangement of all questions as to the validity of the said testamentary writing, and his right, as heir-at-law of his father the said deceased William Robertson, to the house or flat in No. 16 Rose Street, Edinburgh, which belonged to his said father, and as to his rights under the disposition and settlement of his said father; that in the course of said negotiations the pursuers Margaret Robertson and Mrs Weir wrote to their sisters, and despatched to their sister Mrs Maclaren, for the purpose of being communicated to their brother the said William Robertson, defender, the letters referred to in article 17 of the said statement of facts, and that said letters were delivered to him by his said sister Mrs Maclaren; that the said letters were re-delivered to her by the said William Robertson, and that thereafter, with his sanction, a draft minute of agreement was prepared by the law agent of the pursuers, for the purpose of giving effect to the arrangement as proposed in said letters; that said draft minute of agreement, as so prepared, was approved of by the pursuers Mrs Weir and Margaret Robertson, and by their sisters, and was afterwards revised, on behalf of the defender, by his law agent; but that the said pursuers subsequently declined to execute the said agreement, and that it has not been executed by the parties.”

His Lordship afterwards pronounced this finding:—“Finds as matter of law—(1) That the arrangement or agreement referred to in articles 16 and 17 of the statement of facts for the defender William Robertson, and which was entered into between him and his sisters, including the female pursuers Mrs Weir and Margaret Robertson, with a view to a settlement of the questions out of which the present action has arisen, was a concluded arrangement between the said parties, and that the pursuers have failed to establish facts relevant and sufficient to entitle them to resile from said arrangement, and to refuse to execute a formal deed of agreement embodying the terms thereof; therefore sustains the second plea in law for the defender William Robertson, assoilzies the said defender from the conclusions of the summons, and decerns.”

The pursuers reclaimed.

Watson and M'Laren for them.

Scott and Dundas Grant for respondents.