This case came before the Court on a petition by the defenders, dated 21st May 1869, to apply the judgment of the House of Lords. The Kirk-session lodged a minute, asserting their interest in the matter, and craving to be sisted as parties to the discussion. This the defenders opposed, on the ground that the ministers had not been parties to the action and the remit of the House of Lords. But the Court held they ought to be sisted.
A scheme of division of the surplus revenue of the Hospital, prepared by the City Accountant as accountant to the Hospital, was lodged in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords, affirming the judgment of the Court of Session, not to build a Hospital, but to expend the surplus revenue in pensions.
There being a difference of opinion as which of various proposed sites was preferable, the Court remitted to Mr Lessels, architect, to examine and report upon the sites. He reported that, if the improvements at Chalmers’ Close were carried out, that site would be the most eligible, but if not, then the Market Street site was next in point of eligibility. To make the Market Street site equally available with the Chalmers’ Close site an extra cost of at least pounds 400 would be required, in consequence of excavations and underbuilding necessitated by the irregularity of the ground, while another sum of pounds 450 would be required for architectural treatment, as the church at Market Street would have three exposed fronts, while that at Chalmers’ Close would have only one. Ireland’s Woodyard would be the worst site. Various objections were urged against the sites by the respective parties; doubt being cast on the sufficiency of the funds, on the one side, and the probability of obtaining the desired site, on the other. After some discussion,
 SLR 7 – 41
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.576483