Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 TUTOR - CURATOR - PUPIL.

Oliver Colt
v.
Grace Colt and Others

Date: 6 March 1800
Case No. No. 316.

A tutor authorised by a decree of cognition to let a lease of coal for a term of years beyond his ward's minority.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Robert Colt died in the year 1797, leaving his son John Hamilton Colt in pupillarity.

Some years prior to his death, he had granted a lease of some valuable coal-works for a period of twenty years, but in consequence of the insolvency of the lessee, the coal came again into the natural possession of his infant son.

Oliver Colt, his tutor-at-law, after making an ineffectual attempt to let a new lease of the coal for twelve years, being the period of his ward's minority, entered into agreement with William Creelman for a lease of twenty-five years endurance.

As this lease extended considerably beyond young Mr. Colt's minority, it became requisite that it should receive the sanction of the supreme Court.

Oliver Colt accordingly brought an action against the next heirs of the pupil, concluding that it should be found that the granting of the lease was a rational act of administration, and that the Court should interpone their authority to it.

When the action came into Court, the pursuer gave in a condescendence, in which he offered to prove, 1st, That notwithstanding every proper exertion, he was unable to find a tenant who would take a lease of the coal, on suitable terms, for so short a period as twelve years; 2do, That the pursuer could not himself work the coal to advantage for his pupil's behoof; 3tio, That leases of coal are often, if not generally, granted for twenty-five years, on account of the great outlay of money for machinery, &c. which is indispensable at the commencement of a work of this kind; 4to, That the lease in question was, in the opinion of persons of skill, beneficial for the pupil.

The pursuer also founded on the case, 6th March, 1761, Roebuck against Duke of Hamilton, (not reported) where the Court interponed their authority to a lease of a very similar kind.

The pursuer was allowed a proof of his condescendence; and having established it to the satisfaction of the Court,

The Lords found and declared, That the tack was a necessary and proper act of administration on the part of the pursuer, and for the interest and benefit of his pupil; and therefore interponed their authority thereto, and ratified and approved of the same, and whole clauses thereof.

Lord Ordinary, Bannatyne. Clerk, Pringle. Fac. Coll. No. 171. p. 390.