在莱蒂防腐:格拉斯哥市银行和受托人的责任

Kenneth G C Reid
{"title":"在莱蒂防腐:格拉斯哥市银行和受托人的责任","authors":"Kenneth G C Reid","doi":"10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199677344.003.0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On October 1, 1878, the doors of the City of Glasgow Bank closed at the usual hour, never to re-open. The sudden collapse of one of Scotland’s largest financial institutions was a calamity for those directly affected, as well as a serious blow to the wider Scottish economy. In the end, all depositors and creditors would be paid in full, but only because, as with all joint-stock banks in Scotland, the liability of the Bank’s shareholders was unlimited. Six out of seven shareholders were ruined by the collapse, and those who were not suffered catastrophic losses. Particular objects of pity were those who held shares, not for themselves, but in trust for others. Yet, in the distinctive nature of the Scottish trust there was hope that their liability might be confined to the trust estate, leaving unaffected their personal wealth. The issue was tested in a litigation which was fought all the way to the House of Lords: Muir versus City of Glasgow Bank. A great deal is known about this case because the arguments of counsel were taken down verbatim and later published. This paper explores the background to the litigation, the manner in which it was conducted, both in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords, and the reasoning employed by counsel and by the judiciary. In deciding that the trustees must pay out of their own pockets, the court discounted any Scottish specialties and applied a rule which was already well-established in England. Yet within a few years, the law in Scotland was to be re-assembled in a manner which asserted the separation of trust and private liability and which led, in modern times, to the idea of the trust as a separate patrimony of assets and liabilities.","PeriodicalId":230704,"journal":{"name":"University of Edinburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Embalmed in Rettie: The City of Glasgow Bank and the Liability of Trustees\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth G C Reid\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199677344.003.0038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On October 1, 1878, the doors of the City of Glasgow Bank closed at the usual hour, never to re-open. The sudden collapse of one of Scotland’s largest financial institutions was a calamity for those directly affected, as well as a serious blow to the wider Scottish economy. In the end, all depositors and creditors would be paid in full, but only because, as with all joint-stock banks in Scotland, the liability of the Bank’s shareholders was unlimited. Six out of seven shareholders were ruined by the collapse, and those who were not suffered catastrophic losses. Particular objects of pity were those who held shares, not for themselves, but in trust for others. Yet, in the distinctive nature of the Scottish trust there was hope that their liability might be confined to the trust estate, leaving unaffected their personal wealth. The issue was tested in a litigation which was fought all the way to the House of Lords: Muir versus City of Glasgow Bank. A great deal is known about this case because the arguments of counsel were taken down verbatim and later published. This paper explores the background to the litigation, the manner in which it was conducted, both in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords, and the reasoning employed by counsel and by the judiciary. In deciding that the trustees must pay out of their own pockets, the court discounted any Scottish specialties and applied a rule which was already well-established in England. Yet within a few years, the law in Scotland was to be re-assembled in a manner which asserted the separation of trust and private liability and which led, in modern times, to the idea of the trust as a separate patrimony of assets and liabilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Edinburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Edinburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199677344.003.0038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Edinburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199677344.003.0038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1878年10月1日,格拉斯哥市银行的大门在正常时间关闭,再也没有重新开放。苏格兰最大的金融机构之一突然倒闭,对直接受影响的人来说是一场灾难,对苏格兰整体经济也造成了严重打击。最终,所有存款人和债权人都将得到全额偿付,但这只是因为,与苏格兰所有股份制银行一样,该银行股东的责任是无限的。7个股东中有6个因破产而破产,而那些没有破产的则遭受了灾难性的损失。特别值得同情的是那些持有股票的人,不是为自己,而是为他人。然而,在苏格兰信托的独特性质中,人们希望他们的责任可能仅限于信托财产,而不影响他们的个人财富。这个问题在一场一直打到上议院的诉讼中得到了检验:缪尔诉格拉斯哥城市银行。由于律师的辩词被逐字逐句地记录下来,后来被出版,所以这个案子的情况广为人知。本文探讨了诉讼的背景,在会议法院和上议院进行诉讼的方式,以及律师和司法部门采用的推理。在决定受托人必须自掏腰包时,法院不考虑任何苏格兰特色,而采用了英格兰已经确立的规则。然而在几年之内,苏格兰的法律就被重新整理,以一种主张信托和私人责任分离的方式,这在现代导致了信托作为资产和负债的独立遗产的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Embalmed in Rettie: The City of Glasgow Bank and the Liability of Trustees
On October 1, 1878, the doors of the City of Glasgow Bank closed at the usual hour, never to re-open. The sudden collapse of one of Scotland’s largest financial institutions was a calamity for those directly affected, as well as a serious blow to the wider Scottish economy. In the end, all depositors and creditors would be paid in full, but only because, as with all joint-stock banks in Scotland, the liability of the Bank’s shareholders was unlimited. Six out of seven shareholders were ruined by the collapse, and those who were not suffered catastrophic losses. Particular objects of pity were those who held shares, not for themselves, but in trust for others. Yet, in the distinctive nature of the Scottish trust there was hope that their liability might be confined to the trust estate, leaving unaffected their personal wealth. The issue was tested in a litigation which was fought all the way to the House of Lords: Muir versus City of Glasgow Bank. A great deal is known about this case because the arguments of counsel were taken down verbatim and later published. This paper explores the background to the litigation, the manner in which it was conducted, both in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords, and the reasoning employed by counsel and by the judiciary. In deciding that the trustees must pay out of their own pockets, the court discounted any Scottish specialties and applied a rule which was already well-established in England. Yet within a few years, the law in Scotland was to be re-assembled in a manner which asserted the separation of trust and private liability and which led, in modern times, to the idea of the trust as a separate patrimony of assets and liabilities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信