The pursuer was the widow of Sir Charles Ross who died in 1883 and was succeeded by his pupil son. From then until 1893, when her son attained majority, the pursuer had acted as his sole tutor and curator. She was entitled to an annuity of andpound;2,000 under her marriage contract and certain bonds of provision. In 1894 she raised an action against her son for payment of two instalments of the annuity. Her son admitted that the pursuer was entitled to the instalments, but denied that the sums were due, under reference to an action of count, reckoning and payment which he had brought against her, concluding for payment of andpound;70,000 as the balance of her intromissions as his sole tutor and curator and as an individual. He had also raised an action against her, as executrix of the deceased’s moveable estate, for payment of legitim. The son pleaded compensation and also that he was entitled to withhold payment of the annuity because of the pursuer’s failure to pay him legitim or to account for her intromissions with the estate. The Lord Ordinary repelled the son’s defences and granted decree for payment of the annuity. He reclaimed.
Held: The First Division decided to supersede consideration of the reclaiming motion until there should be some change of circumstances. They did so by sisting the action and leaving it open to either party to move therein.
Lord M’Laren said: ‘In disposing of the pleas in this case I think that the Lord Ordinary has rightly dealt with the plea of compensation, because that is a matter of statutory regulation, and the plea is confined to cases where both debts are liquid or capable of immediate ascertainment; but then there is another principle under which one obligation may be suspended until the performance of a counter obligation – the principle of retention, and that, not being subject to the conditions of any statute, must be regarded as an equitable right to be applied by the Court according to the circumstances of each case as it shall arise. The doctrine has received much extension in cases of bankruptcy and insolvency . . But the principle is not limited to bankruptcy cases, and it seems to me that the circumstances of the present case constitute a very clear ground for its application, because Lady Ross while in the management of her son’s estates appears to have wholly neglected the duty of keeping strict accounts, which is incumbent upon every administrator of the property of others, and when she is called upon to account she states that the whole of the money has been expended, and that of a very large sum, amounting to nearly andpound;4,000 a-year, she is unable to give any particulars. Now, that is a position which no guardian or administrator is entitled to assume, and upon the statement of these accounts, and also the claim of legitim, I cannot doubt that, if it appears to the Court that there is a probability that Lady Ross has already in her hands as much of her son’s money as would satisfy this jointure, she would not be entitled to immediate decree. The judgment which I understand your Lordship will pronounce will be one merely suspending the procedure in this case, and if it turns out, contrary to all the probabilities, that the whole of the son’s income has been legitimately and properly expended by his mother, and also that there is no legitim due to him, then of course Lady Ross will be entitled to decree for her jointure.’
Lord Adam did not think: ‘it would be consonant with justice to give this lady immediate decree for the sum she claims.’
Judges:
Lord M’Laren
Citations:
(1895) 22 R 461
Cited by:
Cited – Inveresk Plc v Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd SC 5-May-2010
The parties had undertaken the sale of a business (from I to TR) with part of the consideration to be payable on later calculation of the turnover. The agreement provided for an audit if the parties failed to agree. TR issued a figure. I argued that . .
Considered – Integrated Building Services Engineering Consultants Ltd (T/A Operon) v PIHL UK Ltd SCS 1-Jul-2010
In Scots law it would be inequitable for a debtor of a bankrupt to be required to pay his debt in full, while he could only get a dividend for the debt due to him by the bankrupt, but there is no consensus as to whether this principle is a species . .
Mentioned – Heritable Bank Plc, Administrators of v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf SC 27-Feb-2013
A claim by Heritable (H) in Landsbanki’s (L) insolvency had been rejected and then withdrawn before the Icelandic court, and L now appealed against rejection of its own assertion that that Icelandic decision was binding also within its own claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Scotland
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.410714
