Fordyce v Sir Henry Bridges, Catherine Elizabeth Mary Reid, Madeline Curling, Jane Curling, Isabella Curling, Agnes Catherine Thomson, Mary Louisa Thomson, Emily Harriet Thomson, Gertrude Eliza Thomson, Florence Jessie Thomson, And Jo: 15 Mar 1848

If all the heirs of a Scotch entail were necessary parties to a suit in this Court, touching matters in which they are interested as such heirs of entail, the suit could not proceed, not only on account of their number, but because future heirs of entail coming into esse would not be bound by any proceedings in it, as their claim is not through any persons parties to the suit.
As you cannot have, in any shape, before the Court all the heirs of entail whom you seek to bind, it would be idle to prove that some are out of the jurisdiction.
When, to avoid a failure of justice in the Court from the peculiar nature of the interest under a Scotch entail, it shall become necessary to decide the point [as to making all the heirs of a Scotch entail parties to a suit], some rule must be laid down, for which there is no precedent.
Not possible to dispute the proposition, that the heir of a Scotch entail is not bound by the proceedings in a suit to which he was no parly, he claiming under the entail, and not deriving title through anyone, a party to the suit, and having a direct interest in the subject of that suit in his own right, though not in possession.
Although the heir is not bound by the proceedings in such suit, he cannot have a decree in his own suit, unless he can shew that he was injured by the former decree, or has interests inconsistent with its directions.


[1848] EngR 347 (C), (1847-1848) 2 Coop T Cott 325





Trusts, Land

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.299897