McCaig v University of Glasgow

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns a trust deed established by a deceased testator, hereinafter "the Testator," who expressed a desire that artistic towers and colossal statues of himself and his siblings be erected on his estate near The City. The trust was to apply the revenues of his lands perpetually to this purpose. The Testator's heir, hereinafter "the Heir," challenged the validity of this trust, contending that it failed to create a beneficial interest in any third party and thus did not effectively disinherit the Heir. The court was asked to determine whether the trust deed divested the Heir of beneficial ownership and whether the purposes of the trust were valid and enforceable.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trust deed created a valid beneficial interest in favor of third parties sufficient to disinherit the Heir.
2. Whether the purposes of the trust—namely, erecting artistic towers and statues—constituted a charitable or educational trust.
3. Whether the trust purposes were void for uncertainty or contrary to public policy.
4. Whether the Heir was entitled to immediate possession and control of the estate despite the trust.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trust deed effectively disinherited the Heir by dedicating the estate’s income perpetually to the erection of artistic towers and statues.
• The trust was charitable or educational in nature because it encouraged competition among young and rising artists by awarding prizes for designs.
• The trust purposes were valid and enforceable, with the trustees empowered to carry out the Testator’s directions indefinitely.

Appellee's Arguments

• The trust deed did not create any beneficial interest in any third party or class of persons, thus failing to disinherit the Heir.
• The erection of towers and statues served no public or private utility and did not constitute charitable or educational purposes.
• Any incidental benefits to artists or others employed in executing the trust did not amount to beneficial interests under the trust.
• The Heir retained the beneficial ownership of the estate and was entitled to possession, as the trust purposes were whimsical and of no utility.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the Testator's expressed desires and the nature of the trust deed, finding that the primary purpose was the erection of artistic towers and statues perpetually funded by the estate’s income. The court held that this purpose did not create a beneficial interest in any identifiable beneficiary, as the statues and towers provided no utility or benefit to any person or the public. The incidental benefits to artists competing for prizes or employed by the trustees were insufficient to constitute beneficiaries under the trust.

The court rejected the argument that the trust was charitable or educational, noting that the encouragement of artistic competition was merely incidental and did not amount to an educational trust. The trust’s perpetual dedication of income to purposeless objects was found to be whimsical and of no utility, though not unlawful or contrary to public policy in a strict sense.

Crucially, the court emphasized the established legal principle that an heir cannot be disinherited by mere words or intentions without a valid beneficial interest being created in a third party. The trust deed failed to meet this requirement. The Heir retained the beneficial ownership of the estate, both heritable and moveable, and was entitled to possession and control.

The court also noted that the trust purposes could not be enforced by any third party, including the general public or the artists, as none held a legal interest in the trust. The trustees’ powers were limited, and upon completion of the statues and towers, the estate would revert to the Heir, who could then remove the structures if she wished.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the primary declaration that the trust deed did not divest the Heir of beneficial ownership and continued the cause for further procedure on ancillary matters.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to affirm the primary declaration that the trust deed did not effectively disinherit the Heir or create beneficial interests in any third party. The Heir retained full beneficial ownership of the estate.

The immediate implication is that the trustees cannot enforce the trust purposes to the detriment of the Heir, who is entitled to claim possession and control of the estate. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles protecting heirs from disinheritance without valid beneficial substitution. Further procedural steps were left open to address related issues concerning earlier settlements by the Testator.