Clan_member_crest_badge_-_Clan_Maclean
Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean
1941 S.C. 613
|
| Clan_member_crest_badge_-_Clan_Maclean |
Introduction
This is a rather complicated case, revolving around two main issues:
- whether Lyon has any jurisdiction in the matter of chiefships of clans,
- whether undifferenced arms can pass to a female heir.
Briefly put, the Court of Session said "no" to the first (in a judgment in 1937) and "yes" to the second (in a judgment in 1941). A detailed description of the case follows.
The case involved two parties, Catriona Maclean of Ardgour (b. 1919) and Lieutenant-Commander Henry Hugh Maclean, respectively eldest daughter (and heir of line), and cousin twice-removed (and heir male) of Alexander John Hugh Maclean of Ardgour (d. 1930). Soon after his death, a dispute arose as to who was head of the Ardgour branch of the Maclean clan. On October 1935, both presented their case to the Maclean Association, which found for Commander Maclean was chief.
Catriona Maclean of Ardgour decided to use another method. Counseled by Thomas Innes, she petitioned Lyon King of Arms in April 1936 for a rematriculation of the arms of her father (matriculated in 1909) in her name; she also asked that the rematriculation contain a finding that she was chieftainess, asked for a grant of supporters as chieftainess, and asked for a brithbrief recognising her as chieftainess. The petition was served on Commander Maclean, who made a certain number of arguments (pleas in law); among others (plea in law 1) that Miss Maclean of Ardgour's petition, signed by Thomas Innes who was also Albany Herald, was invalid because of the conflict of interest; and (pleas in law 2 and 4) that Lyon had no jurisdiction in the matter of chieships. On 16 October 1936, Lyon rejected those arguments and asked Miss Maclean of Ardgour to provide further proof of her status as chieftainness. Commander Maclean appealed that decision to the Court of Session. The case was heard in January 1937 and remitted to Lyon to answer certain questions. The hearing then continued in May 1937 and advising took place on 16 July 1937.
At this first judgment, the Court of Session disagreed with Commander Maclean on the problem caused by Miss Maclean of Ardgour's counsel being a herald, but agreed with him on the question of chiefships, recalled Lyon's interlocutor of October 1936 insofar as it repelled pleas in law 2 and 4, and affirmed the rest of the interlocutor, remitting to Lyon for a continuation of the case.
Meanwhile, in February 1938, Commander Maclean petitioned Lyon to have his grant of arms of 1933 cancelled, and to have the undifferenced arms of the late Maclean of Ardgour matriculated in his name. On 19 Dec 1938 Lyon found Catriona Maclean of Ardgour entitled to the arms of her father and to a grant of supporters, and also decided to annull Henry Hugh Maclean's grant of 1933, but not grant him the undifferenced arms. The latter appealed both decisions in April 1939, and the Court of Session heard the arguments in November and December 1940.
The second adivising took place on 27 March 1941, and in effect rejected Maclean's appeal. The Court adjourned the next day for the Easter Vacation, and then the Lord Justice-Clerk died before an interlocutor was issued. After some procedural questions, an interlocutor was signed and issued on 18 July 1941.
The resulting report is 100 pages long and contains:
petitions, averments, and pleas of both parties (pp. 614-21)
Lyon's interlocutor of 1936 (pp. 622-3)
Lyon's answers to the questions of the Court of Session (pp. 624-7)
petitions, averments, and pleas of both parties (pp. 627-31)
the Court of Session's first advising of 1937 (pp. 631-58)
petitions, averments, and pleas of both parties (pp. 659-61)
Lyon's interlocutor of 1938 (pp. 661-6)
petitions, averments, and pleas of both parties (pp. 666-79)
the Court of Session's second advising of 1941 (pp. 680-708)
the final interlocutor of 18 July 1941 (pp. 710-4).
This is a rather complicated case, revolving around two main issues:
Briefly put, the Court of Session said "no" to the first (in a judgment in 1937) and "yes" to the second (in a judgment in 1941). A detailed description of the case follows.
The case involved two parties, Catriona Maclean of Ardgour (b. 1919) and Lieutenant-Commander Henry Hugh Maclean, respectively eldest daughter (and heir of line), and cousin twice-removed (and heir male) of Alexander John Hugh Maclean of Ardgour (d. 1930). Soon after his death, a dispute arose as to who was head of the Ardgour branch of the Maclean clan. On October 1935, both presented their case to the Maclean Association, which found for Commander Maclean was chief.
Catriona Maclean of Ardgour decided to use another method. Counseled by Thomas Innes, she petitioned Lyon King of Arms in April 1936 for a rematriculation of the arms of her father (matriculated in 1909) in her name; she also asked that the rematriculation contain a finding that she was chieftainess, asked for a grant of supporters as chieftainess, and asked for a brithbrief recognising her as chieftainess. The petition was served on Commander Maclean, who made a certain number of arguments (pleas in law); among others (plea in law 1) that Miss Maclean of Ardgour's petition, signed by Thomas Innes who was also Albany Herald, was invalid because of the conflict of interest; and (pleas in law 2 and 4) that Lyon had no jurisdiction in the matter of chieships. On 16 October 1936, Lyon rejected those arguments and asked Miss Maclean of Ardgour to provide further proof of her status as chieftainness. Commander Maclean appealed that decision to the Court of Session. The case was heard in January 1937 and remitted to Lyon to answer certain questions. The hearing then continued in May 1937 and advising took place on 16 July 1937.
At this first judgment, the Court of Session disagreed with Commander Maclean on the problem caused by Miss Maclean of Ardgour's counsel being a herald, but agreed with him on the question of chiefships, recalled Lyon's interlocutor of October 1936 insofar as it repelled pleas in law 2 and 4, and affirmed the rest of the interlocutor, remitting to Lyon for a continuation of the case.
Meanwhile, in February 1938, Commander Maclean petitioned Lyon to have his grant of arms of 1933 cancelled, and to have the undifferenced arms of the late Maclean of Ardgour matriculated in his name. On 19 Dec 1938 Lyon found Catriona Maclean of Ardgour entitled to the arms of her father and to a grant of supporters, and also decided to annull Henry Hugh Maclean's grant of 1933, but not grant him the undifferenced arms. The latter appealed both decisions in April 1939, and the Court of Session heard the arguments in November and December 1940.
The second adivising took place on 27 March 1941, and in effect rejected Maclean's appeal. The Court adjourned the next day for the Easter Vacation, and then the Lord Justice-Clerk died before an interlocutor was issued. After some procedural questions, an interlocutor was signed and issued on 18 July 1941.
The resulting report is 100 pages long and contains:
|
 |
| líder clan |
Introducción
Este es un caso bastante complicado, que gira en torno a dos cuestiones principales:
si Lyon tiene alguna jurisdicción en materia de jefaturas de clanes,
si los brazos no diferenciados pueden pasar a una heredera.
Dicho brevemente, el Tribunal de Sesión dijo "no" a la primera (en una sentencia de 1937) y "sí" a la segunda (en una sentencia de 1941). A continuación se presenta una descripción detallada del caso.
El caso involucró a dos partes, Catriona Maclean de Ardgour (n. 1919) y el teniente comandante Henry Hugh Maclean, respectivamente hija mayor (y heredera de línea), y primo dos veces (y heredero) de Alexander John Hugh Maclean de Ardgour (m. 1930). Poco después de su muerte, surgió una disputa sobre quién era el jefe de la rama Ardgour del clan Maclean. En octubre de 1935, ambos presentaron su caso a la Asociación Maclean, que descubrió que el Comandante Maclean era el jefe.
Catriona Maclean de Ardgour decidió usar otro método. Aconsejada por Thomas Innes, solicitó a Lyon King of Arms en abril de 1936 una nueva reglamentación de los brazos de su padre (matriculado en 1909) en su nombre; ella también pidió que la rematriculación contenga un hallazgo de que ella era jefa, solicitó una subvención de partidarios como jefatura, y solicitó un breve informe que la reconociera como jefa. La petición fue entregada al Comandante Maclean, quien hizo un cierto número de argumentos (motivos); entre otros (motivo 1) que la petición de la señorita Maclean de Ardgour, firmada por Thomas Innes, quien también era Albany Herald, no era válida debido al conflicto de intereses; y (motivos de las leyes 2 y 4) que Lyon no tenía jurisdicción en materia de ligaduras. El 16 de octubre de 1936, Lyon rechazó esos argumentos y le pidió a la señorita Maclean de Ardgour que proporcionara más pruebas de su condición de cacique. El comandante Maclean apeló esa decisión ante el Tribunal de Sesión. El caso se escuchó en enero de 1937 y se remitió a Lyon para responder ciertas preguntas. La audiencia continuó en mayo de 1937 y el asesoramiento tuvo lugar el 16 de julio de 1937.
En esta primera sentencia, el Tribunal de Sesión no estuvo de acuerdo con el Comandante Maclean sobre el problema causado por la señorita Maclean de que el abogado de Ardgour era un heraldo, pero estuvo de acuerdo con él en la cuestión de la jefatura, recordó al interlocutor de Lyon de octubre de 1936 en la medida en que repelía los motivos. 2 y 4, y afirmó el resto del interlocutor, remitiendo a Lyon para la continuación del caso.
Mientras tanto, en febrero de 1938, el comandante Maclean solicitó a Lyon que cancelara su concesión de armas de 1933 y que se matricularan en su nombre las armas no diferenciadas del difunto Maclean de Ardgour. El 19 de diciembre de 1938, Lyon encontró a Catriona Maclean de Ardgour con derecho a los brazos de su padre y a una concesión de partidarios, y también decidió anular la concesión de Henry Hugh Maclean de 1933, pero no otorgarle las armas indiferenciadas. Este último apeló ambas decisiones en abril de 1939, y el Tribunal de Sesión escuchó los argumentos en noviembre y diciembre de 1940.
La segunda publicidad tuvo lugar el 27 de marzo de 1941, y en efecto rechazó la apelación de Maclean. El tribunal suspendió al día siguiente las vacaciones de Pascua, y luego el Lord Justice-Clerk murió antes de que se emitiera un interlocutor. Después de algunas preguntas de procedimiento, se firmó y emitió un interlocutor el 18 de julio de 1941.
El informe resultante tiene 100 páginas y contiene:
peticiones, aversiones y súplicas de ambas partes (págs. 614-21)
El interlocutor de Lyon de 1936 (pp. 622-3)
Las respuestas de Lyon a las preguntas del Tribunal de Sesión (págs. 624-7)
peticiones, aversiones y súplicas de ambas partes (pp. 627-31)
el primer aviso del Tribunal de Sesión de 1937 (pp. 631-58)
peticiones, aversiones y súplicas de ambas partes (pp. 659-61)
El interlocutor de Lyon de 1938 (pp. 661-6)
peticiones, aversiones y súplicas de ambas partes (pp. 666-79)
el segundo aviso del Tribunal de Sesión de 1941 (pp. 680-708)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario