 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Bowers Petitioner [1892] ScotLR 29_812 (28 June 1892) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1892/29SLR0812.html Cite as: [1892] ScotLR 29_812, [1892] SLR 29_812 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 812↓
Where a voluntary annuity, of an amount fixed by a lunatic before being placed under curatory, is being paid out of his estate, the Court will not authorise its increase because of the greater exigencies or altered circumstances of the beneficiary.
Upon 8th March 1892 Miss Jane Elizabeth Bowers and Miss Euphemia Douglas, aged respectively sixty-two and fifty-seven, presented a petition to the Junior Lord Ordinary, in which they explained that they were the only or nearest relatives of Mrs Pringle Pattison, their first cousin, who had been under curatory since 26th July 1888; that for many years before that date they had received an annuity from her of £30; that that annuity had been continued to them out of her estate with the sanction of the Court; that in their declining years they were more in need of support than ever; that they felt their present annuity insufficient for their necessities; and that a small increase would be inappreciable as regarded the ward's income. They accordingly prayed the Court to authorise the curator bonis (Mr J. A. Molleson) to increase the annuity to £50 per annum.
The Lord Ordinary remitted to the Accountant of Court to report as to the powers craved, who reported that the ward's gross annual income exceeded £4000, and that there was a free annual surplus from the ward's estate of £341 after paying all expenses, including the annuity of £30; that he was not aware of any case where an annuity formerly paid by a ward had been increased by the Court, but that he knew of nothing to prevent the same being done if the Court were satisfied as to the expediency of it.
The Lord Ordinary ( Low) on 14th April 1892 reported the petition to the First Division, with the following note:—“I know of no authority for increasing an annuity under such circumstances as those which are disclosed in this case, and I doubt if I have the power to do so. As the question is one of novelty, and as there seems to be no doubt as to the necessitous circumstances of the petitioners, I have thought it best to report the case.”
It was argued for the petitioners that their request was reasonable, and that there was no legal impediment to complying with it. In Gardner's case, November 28, 1882, 20 S.L.R. 165, and in this case at a former stage, authority to continue an annuity had been granted. In Balfour's case, January 26, 1889, 26 S.L.R. 268, the petition, which was refused, was to pay an annuity for the first time. The ward here had in 1871 herself been a party to the increase of the annuity from £24 to £30, and would doubtless now have further increased the amount.
The curator bonis was represented by counsel, but did not oppose the petition.
At advising—
The Court refused the prayer of the petition.
Counsel for Petitioners— Wm Campbell. Agent— Andrew Clark, Solicitor.
Counsel for Curator Bonis— C. K. Mackenzie. Agents— Strathern & Blair, W.S.