Trust. A subject is conveyed in trust when the person to whom it is conveyed, and who is called the trustee, does not acquire an unlimited right of property, but holds the subject for the purpose of applying it to certain uses, expressed or implied. Trust is either voluntary, constituted by a disposition of the truster, or judicial. A conveyance in trust is completed by delivery of the moveables and by sasine in the heritage. The completion of the conveyance denudes the truster, and prevents his creditors, or others coming in his place, from attaching anything but the reversionary interest after the purposes of the trust are fulfilled.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Trust.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Trust

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg	1797	Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax	James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust.
Braimer v. Innes and Lothian	1788	Aliment, Debt, Succession, Interdiction, Trustee, Trust	John Braimer, late of Edrom, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which maintained Braimer's interdiction and declared the trustees not bound to pay over the balance. Gilbert Innes of Stow and John Lothian, merchant in Edinburgh, as defenders, answered the petition, resisting Braimer's claim for reversion and discharge of the interdiction.
Brown v. Brown	1787	Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Debt, Trust, Heritor	Jean Brown petitioned to alter an interlocutor that had ordered her to return a gold watch and gowns to Janet Brown, relict of George Baird, contending that the items were not marital property. Janet Brown answered, defending her claims of inheritance and possession of the heirship-moveables in dispute.
Creditors of Jackson and Esten v. Kemble (Two Folders)	1793	Patent, Creditor, Sequestration, Interdict, Trust, Lease	The creditors of Jackson and Esten petitioned for possession of the Edinburgh Theatre in order to manage the property under a disputed patent held by Mrs Esten. Kemble, defending as lessee and trustee of the Theatre Royal, resisted the grant of an interdict against his possession, asserting his lawful title and the public interest and arguing that the Court ought first to investigate the validity of Mrs Esten's patent claim before removing him from the theatre.
Duggan v. Wight	1795	Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee	Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur	1791	Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication	Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser	1791	Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust	Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause.
Gordon v. Traill	1832	Debt, Creditor, Interest, Trust, Lease, Interlocutor	William Gordon and others, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie in their action against the defender Traill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hawkins and Bruce v. Hamilton	1789	Succession, Debt, Trust, Executor, Aliment, Reduction	Hawkins and Bruce raised an action against Archibald Hamilton, writer in Hamilton, as executor, seeking to hold him liable for his intromissions with the testator's estate. The defender argued that he was not liable for intromissions made beyond his lawful authority under the will. After an Inner-House interlocutor found him liable for his intromissions with the pursuers' funds, he presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that finding.
Helen Fergus or M'Leish, and Husband v. Isobel Fergus or Izat, and Husband	1830	Debt, Succession, Aliment, Trust, Disposition, Liferent	Helen Fergus or M'Leish and her husband John M'Leish pursued Isobel Fergus or Izat and her husband John Izat for exhibition of debts and payment from the estate of James Fergus. The defenders counterclaimed that prior payments they had made for M'Leish's debts exceeded the £300 legacy and half of the moveable estate due to them, leaving a balance of £60 1 3 owed by the pursuers. The pursuers maintained the validity of an 1814 settlement and denied allegations of preferential treatment, while the defenders subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor of the court.
Lydia Douglas, and her Husband v. The Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas	1791	Succession, Aliment, Marriage, Trust, Disposition, Mala Fides	Lydia Mariana Douglas and her husband pursued the Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas, arguing that a condition in her father's will was void as capricious and unjust. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macdonald and Duff v. Doig	1792	Debt, Cessio Bonorum, Property, Trust, Bankruptcy, Arrestment	David Doig petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning repayment of a debt. Janet Macdonald and John Duff defended against the petition, asserting that their antenuptial contract validly excluded Duff’s creditors from her property.
Macharg and Others v. Macharg and his Curators	1776	Trust, Onus Probandi	Archibald McHarg was the ordinary doer of James McHarg of Keirs. When he died, in July 1774, two bills from McHarg of Keirs were in his possession. One, for £230 sterling, was unendorsed and had been accepted by James McHarg in Tairly. The other was for £264 sterling. McHarg of Keirs argued that it was self-evident that Archibald McHarg had held both of these bills in trust: the first to recover payment, the second as a fund of credit. Keirs petitioned the Court to compel the heirs of Archibald McHarg to either deliver these bills to him or destroy them. The defenders, James McHarg, eldest son of Archibald, and his curators, argued that as these bills had been found in the possession of Archibald McHarg, the burden of proof of possession lay on McHarg of Keirs. Lord Monboddo found that the bills had been put into McHarg's hands by Keirs. The defenders gave representation, and then petitioned the Court to review Monboddo's interlocutors. According to marginalia on the case documents, the Court adhered.
Miss Isabella Brown and Mandatary v. J. A. Cheyne and J. M'Kean	1830	Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Creditor, Disposition, Trust, Sasine	Miss Isabella Brown sued James Auchinleck Cheyne and John M'Kean for £500 and damages, alleging negligence in the defenders' purchase of Malta Terrace, Edinburgh on her behalf. The defenders answered, denying liability for the alleged negligence in the transaction. The litigation proceeded with reclaiming notes filed by both parties regarding interlocutory orders, including an argument by the defenders that Brown lacked title to maintain the action or to seek relief against their interlocutor.
Miss Margaret Littlejohn, and Others v. James Hamilton	1832	Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Debt, Factor, Trust	Miss Margaret Littlejohn and others pursued James Hamilton of Kames for sequestration of the rents of his estate and the appointment of a judicial factor. Hamilton answered, arguing that sequestration was unnecessary and incompetent in view of an existing trust arrangement. Heritable creditors subsequently petitioned for authority to let lands in Hamilton's personal possession or for sequestration of the whole estate, and Hamilton filed further answers responding to the application.
Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell v. Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr King	1830	Trustee, Marriage, Succession, Debt, Aliment, Trust	Mrs. Jane Lowrey or Maxwell sued Colin Dunlop Donald and Dr Benjamin Watts King, as trustees and executors of the late John Maxwell Esq., for a declarator that she was his lawful wife and relict, concluding for aliment. The defenders denied the marriage and asserted that the aliment conclusions were incompetent, while Mrs. Lowrey also objected to a petition seeking a curator bonis for her children, insisting upon their legitimacy. She subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor, asking the Court to alter it and repel the defences of Donald and King.
Preston v. Wellwood	1791	Trust, Entail, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Lease	Sir Charles Preston and the other trustees appointed by the deceased Robert Wellwood of Garvock sought suspension and interdict against Robert Wellwood, now of Garvock, to prevent him from cutting timber on the entailed estate. Wellwood answered, claiming he was entitled to cut timber on the estate notwithstanding the deeds of entail and trust executed by his father. The trustees maintained that they possessed the exclusive right to prevent the cutting of growing timber in order to preserve the value of the trust estate.
Ramsays v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh	1792	Sequestration, Aliment, Trustees, Trust, Tax, Public Works	John Ramsay pursued the Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh, contending that the defenders were bound by statute to take three shops and pay their value or assess recompense. The defenders answered that the pursuer's claim for damages was incompetent and premature under the statute. The case turned on whether the statutory provisions obliged the town to acquire the shops and compensate the pursuer, and whether the remedy was properly raised.
Robertson v. Robertson	1782	Compensation, Trust	The trustees for the creditors of David Sibbald held an auction to sell a portion of Sibbald’s effects. At the auction, John Carnegie purchased a stack of wheat and transferred it to the petitioner, Thomas Robertson. Carnegie and Robertson did not grant a bill to the trustees for the price of the wheat, and the trustees eventually raised an action before the sheriff for payment, damages, and expenses. Robertson raised a counter-proceeding, alleging that the trustees owed him payment for certain business matters. The parties engaged in extensive litigation, leading to an order by the Lord Ordinary stating that Robertson had engaged in “manifestly improper conduct” and finding him liable for expenses. Robertson challenged this order on two grounds. First, he argued that his legal actions were justified. Second, he argued that the trustees were not competent to pursue the action because they had already been denuded of their trust. The trustees disputed these claims.
Seton v. Creditors of Seton	1793	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Trust, Aliment	Hugh Seton of Touch disputed his creditors' claims to certain assets, arguing that funds held at Boulogne were partnership property of Charles and Hugh Smith and Company rather than his individual estate, and that he retained the fee of an £8000 sterling trust as father notwithstanding the trustees' conveyance to his son. The creditors contended that company creditors who had drawn dividends in France must communicate those amounts before ranking against his Scottish funds.
Steuart v. Craig	1793	Debt, Trust, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Infeftment, Aliment	David Steuart, trustee on the sequestrated estate of James Stein, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice-Clerk, and James Craig, trustee on the sequestrated estate of John Stein, answered that a heritable bond ought to be held in trust for John Stein to the extent of £6,437:7:6. The litigation thus presented a contest between competing trustees regarding the allocation of assets between the two bankrupt estates.
Trustees of Batties-mains v. Armadale	1800	Trust, Roup, Estate, Roads	Mr. Carmichael left the lands known as Batties-mains in his trust for the education of poor scholars at a public school located there. The trust required that the land not be sold, so some of the trustees agreed to rent out parts of the land for a fixed time period to other parties. They subsequently agreed to allow Lord Armadale to build a road through the lands of Batties-mains to his own estate of Smyllum, on the condition that after the renting period was up, he would destroy the road and return the ground to its prior condition. The final trustee to review the agreement, Minister Fergusson, disapproved of a clause which stated that the road would be Lord Armadale's property, and disputed it based on his belief that it undermined the true intent of the original trust.
Tyson v. Scott	1770	Trust	Defender Walter Scott was a trustee for the late Thomas Cockburn, writer in Edinburgh. Cockburn originally planned to leave much of his estate to his nephew, John Simpson. Learning of Simpson's shortcomings as a businessperson, Cockburn changed his will to set up a trusteeship. Under the trusteeship, his wife Elisabeth Campbell and his nephew John Simpson would receive annual incomes. Cockburn designed the trusteeship to ward off any of Simpson's creditors. Cockburn died on December 2, 1765. On July 31, 1769, an arrestment was used at the instance of pursuer, Edward Tyson, acting as executor for the late John Watson, merchant in London who claimed to be a creditor of Mr. Simpson and Thomas Young, partner in business to Mr. Simpson. Tyson arrested all of Simpson's goods to cover outstanding debts. Tyson sought to collect assets from the Cockburn estate.
Waugh v. Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors	1789	Agent, Trust, Process, Proof, Witness, Arrestment	Thomas Waugh, writer in Jedburgh, petitioned against a Lord Alva interlocutor, objecting to the admissibility of Andrew Reid as a witness. The Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors, together with Richard Tod, merchant in Leith, and other creditors of Walter Ruecastle and John Scott, answered the petition, defending Reid's qualification to testify.
William Yeats v. Alexander Thomson and Others	1829	Reduction, Creditor, Trust, Expenses, Trustees, Trustee	William Yeats pursued Alexander Thomson and others to reduce a pretended will dated 1 April 1829. In July 1832, Yeats and James Wilson presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor and reduce the defenders' liability.