BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Easson's Trustees v. Mailer [1901] ScotLR 38_700 (14 June 1901) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1901/38SLR0700.html Cite as: [1901] ScotLR 38_700, [1901] SLR 38_700 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 700↓
[
In an action by testamentary trustees for recovery of a sum of money, which the defender alleged had been given to her by the testator during his lifetime, the Court held that the alleged donation had been proved, assoilzied the defender, and found her entitled to expenses. The defender, who was one of the testator's residuary legatees, moved the Court to find that no part of the expenses of the litigation should be paid out of her share of the residue. The Court granted the motion.
William Hazell and another, the testamentary trustees of the deceased Thomas Easson, Dundee, brought an action against Mary Mailer, in which they concluded for payment of £500, received by the defender from the testator during his lifetime, which the pursuers averred was part
Page: 701↓
of his estate. The defender, who had been housekeeper to the testator for twenty-one years down to the date of his death, averred that the £500 sued for had been paid to her by the testator in recognition of her services as housekeeper. After a proof, the Court held, reversing the judgment of the Lord Ordinary ( Pearson), that the alleged donation had been proved, assoilzied the defender, and found her entitled to expenses.
The defender, who was one of the testator's residuary legatees, moved the Court to find that no part of the expenses of the litigation should be paid out of her share of the residue, and cited Cameron v. Anderson, November 12, 1844, 7 D. 92; Adam & Kirk v. Tunnock's Trustee, November 17, 1866, 5 Macph. 40; M'Laren on Wills, sec. 2328.
The pursuers objected.
The
The Court pronounced this interlocutor:—“Recal the interlocutor reclaimed against, and assoilzie the defender: Find the defender entitled to expenses, and remit, &c.: Declaring that no part of the expenses of the litigation are to be paid out of the share of the deceased Thomas Easson's estate falling to the defender.”
Counsel for the Pursuers and Respondents—Solicitor-General ( Dickson, K.C.)— Chisholm. Agent— David Milne, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender and Reclaimer— Campbell, K.C.— Wilton. Agent— William Cowan, W.S.
