TRUSTEES' DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 90, 13 October 1923, Page 8

TRUSTEES' DUTIES

DISPUTED SALE OF LAND.

Mr. Justice Salmond gave his reserved decision to-day in the case of William Doig Robertson and others against Jame3 Alexander Robertson and others, an application by beneficiaries under the will of the late David Robertson for the rescission of three transfers of, land, on the ground that it is unlawful for a trustee to sell; trust property, to his own wife. • .

Outlining the facts, his Honour said that the plaintiffs in ths, action were two of the beneficiaries under the will of David Robertson, who died in ICovember, 1918. The defendants, James Alexander Robertson and Robert Maclntyre Virtue, were the surviving executors and trustees, two other executors and trustees having died in the year 1921. On 7th June, 1919, the. trustees, in the exercise of the trust for Bale contained in the will, sold and transferred to the defendant Jessie Robertson,, wife of the trustee James Alexander Robertson, a freehold property forming part of the trust estate. On the same day the trustees sold and transferred another freehold property forming part of the same estate to the defendant Jessie Virtue, -wife of the defendant trustee Robert Maclntyre Virtue. On Bth September, 1919, the trustees. sold and transferred a third freehold property forming part of the trust..estate to one John William Robinson, who on 16th March',- 1920, transferred the same property to the defendant Jessie Robertson, wife " of the'defendant trustee, James Alexander Robertson. John William Robinson purchased the property as a trustee for Jessie Robertson,., and that fact was known to the other trustees. • The device was adopted by Jessie Robertson with the concurrence of her husband for the purpose of concealing from the beneficiaries the fact that she was the true purchaser of the property. After reviewing several authorities, his Honour said it might be regarded as still an open Question awaiting final determination in -"an* appropriate case, whether a sale of trust property by a trustee to his own wife, without the precedent approvaloi the Court, was not absolutely prohibited as contrary to public policy, and as amounting to a violation of the rule that a trustee must not place_ himself 'in a position in which his interest conflicted with his duty to his beneficiaries. It has been further pleaded by the defendants that even if the sales were originally voidable, they had been confirmed by tha beneficiaries, and could not now fie rescinded. His Honour was of the opinion that there had been a final and unconditional confirmation by the plaintiffs'of the prior transactions of .which they now sought rescission. The action was dismissed.

At the hearing, 'Mr. G. G. AYatson appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. c. G. White for the defendant trustees, and Mr. M. dryers,: X.C.;' with him Mr. W. 'E. Leicester, the defendants, Jessie Robertson and Jean Virtue.