The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE or LORDS.
JUDGMENTS.
EARL OF STAIR V. keGILL.
Lord REDESDALE said that in this case John William
Henry Earl of Stair was the appellant, and that
McGill and others were the respondents. The question
for the decision of the House arose upon a deed of disposi-
tion executed by John, the late Earl of Stair, in 1821, for
the purpose of converting certain parts of his property into
money, to be afterwards laid out in the purchase of lands
for the benefit of his successors. By-that deed the late
Lord's property in England was given to the trustees of his
Lordship's Scotch property, except such of it as was
entailed, and the doubt arose respecting the personal
proceeds of that property from the time of the death of
his Lordship, until the whole fund was laid out in land.
The property amounted to about 220,000/. ; the trustees
invested in the purchase of lands about 120,0001., and the
point was, whether the present Lord Stair was entitled to
the proceeds and interest of the remainder from the time
at which his father died. Lord Stair had instituted two
suits respecting it. Lord Gifford, before whom the case
originally came, thought it of so much importance,
and as there was no decision of a Scotch case in
point, that lie sent for the opinion of all the Scotch
Judges, who had now, with the exception of two,
agreed in the opinion that he (Lord Redesdale) was about
to deliver, namely, that the whole interest and proceeds of
the property alluded to were to be laid out in the purchase
of lands, and that until such lands were purchased the pre-
sent Lord Stair was not entitled to any interest whatever.
It appeared to the Noble Lord, that the Court of Session in
Scotland had thought that Lord Gifford, so far as he went,
acted upon the disposition under an endeavour or at'ompt
to make the Scotch law conformable to the English
law, but in this he felt bound to say they were mistaken,
as well as in their construction of the disposition under
consideration. The question was, not what was the law at all,
but what was the intent of the late Earl conveyed in these
words, " the trust, fund, and interest, and proceeds thereof
to be laid out in the purchase of lands" after satisfying cer-
tain claims? No person had a right, either by the Scotch
or English law, to claim an interest until after the expira-
tion of twelve months, which time was given to executors
to collect in debts, laying out the money, &c.; and his Lord-
ship submitted to the House, that the true construction
of the deed was, that of a gift of the personal estate of the
late Earl, to the persons who from time to time should be
entitled to the lands, otherwise there would not be that
equality given to the successors of his Lordship which
was clearly intended. His Lordship submitted therefore,
that the opinion of this House should be conveyed to the
Court of Session, against the judgment of that Court.
Lord Etnoat fully concurred in the opinion that had
been expressed. He considered it highly proper to remit
the case to the Court of Session, because there only the
trusts were to be carried forward. He begged to take
this opportunity of stating too, and especially as it
was probably the last time he should do so, that af-
ter having been concerned as Counsel and Judge
in Scotch causes for upwards of forty years, he was bound
to acknowledge that the practice of the House of LOrde was
not to make the laws of Scotland by its judicial decision si-
milar to the laws of England. A similarity was only to be
effected by legislation, and not to be attempted by this
House. He wished this to be particularly understood, as
be found a contrary notion was entertained elsewhere.—
This had been the invariable principle, strictly adhered to
during Lord Thurlow's time, during Lord Roslyn's time,
and during his own.