BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Storrar and Others v. Small and Others [1888] ScotLR 26_43 (6 November 1888) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1888/26SLR0043.html Cite as: [1888] SLR 26_43, [1888] ScotLR 26_43 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 43↓
A testatrix by general disposition and settlement conveyed to her niece her whole heritable and moveable estate, under burden of debts and legacies, on the condition that her niece should pay any other legacies which the testatrix might think proper to leave by any writing under her hand, clearly indicative of her intention, although not formally executed. She appointed her niece her executrix. By a codicil to this will she revoked the conveyance of her moveable estate, and conveyed the same to other executors, directing them to fulfil any testamentary instructions left for them under her hand, and providing that any surplus of the moveable estate, after meeting debts and bequests, should be paid to her niece, but that any deficiency thereof should form a burden on her heritable estate. By a holograph document, addressed to her niece of date intermediate between the settlement and codicil, she directed that her heritable property should be sold, and that the price thereof, together with any surplus after payment of expenses, should be deposited in bank for behoof of her niece in liferent and certain others in fee. Held that the holograph writing was inconsistent with, and therefore impliedly revoked by the codicil, which was of later date.
Miss Lillias Smail died on 21st September 1885, leaving the following testamentary writings—1. A general disposition and settlement dated 29th May 1883, to which was appended a codicil,
Page: 44↓
written on the same paper, dated 3rd August 1885. 2. A holograph writing addressed to “my niece Margaret Smail,” and bearing date 3rd September 1884. By her disposition and settlement she conveyed her whole estate and effects, heritable and moveable, to her niece Margaret Smail, and her heirs and assignees, under burden of payment of her debts and various small legacies, and also under the condition that her niece Margaret Smail should “also make payment of any other legacies or bequests which I may think proper to leave by any writing under my hand, clearly indicative of my intention, although not formally executed.” Margaret Smail was appointed sole executrix under this deed.
By the codicil dated 3rd August 1885 the testatrix, on the narrative that she had resolved to make sundry alterations on her settlement, recalled the appointment of Margaret Smail as her executor. She revoked the conveyance of her moveable means and estate to her niece, and appointed other parties to be her executors, and conveyed to them her whole moveable means, estate, and effects. The codicil proceeds further—“I authorise and direct my executors to implement and carry into effect any instructions or bequests which I may think proper to leave for them by any letter or document signed by me, although not legally tested; and in case there be a surplus of my moveable estate after meeting the debts and bequests herein and before written (excepting the legacy hereby revoked), I direct my executors to pay over the same to the said Margaret Smail, my niece; and, on the other hand, in the event of there being a shortcoming, I declare and provide that the same shall be a burden on my heritable estate conveyed to her, and be payable and paid by her accordingly.”
The holograph writing was addressed “To my niece Margaret Smail,” and referred in gremio to “my will.” After providing for the disposal of sundry articles of furniture, trinkets, and books, it proceeds—“My house to be sold as soon as possible, and if there is any money over paying all expenses is to be added to whatever is recieved for the house, and depositted in the Agra Bank for a small income to you for life. at your death the the capital to be equally devided amongst your sisters for there families.” This writing had been left by the deceased in a sealed packet in the custody of a friend six months before her death, with whom it remained till after that event, which occurred on 21st September 1885, and therefore it was clearly of date between the settlement of 29th May 1883 and the codicil of 3rd August 1885.
In these circumstances questions arose as to the validity of the holograph writing, and its effect on the distribution of the estate of the deceased if it were a valid and subsisting document, and a Special Case was presented to the Court to have these questions decided. No questions, however, were raised as to the provisions in the holograph writing for the disposal of the various articles of furniture, trinkets, and books.
The first parties thereto were the executors under the codicil of 3rd September 1885; the second party was Miss Margaret Smail, niece of the testatrix, and disponee under the settlement; and the third parties were Margaret Smail's surviving sisters and the families of two deceased sisters.
The questions submitted to the Court were—“(1) Is the holograph writing dated 3rd September 1884 revoked by the codicil, or is it a valid and subsisting testamentary document? (2) If the first part of the first question be answered in the negative, are the first parties bound to sell the said heritage, and to deposit the proceeds, along with the amount of the free moveable estate, in the Agra Bank on a receipt in favour of the second party in liferent, for her liferent use allenarly, and her sisters for their families in fee; or in what terms should the deposit-receipt be taken?”
The second party argued—The holograph writing was not a valid and subsisting document. Its terms were incompatible with the codicil of later date, and so it was impliedly revoked by that deed— Bertram's Trustees v. Mathieson's Trustees, March 10, 1888, 15 R. 572.
The third parties argued—No doubt it was difficult to reconcile the terms of the holograph writing with those of the codicil, but it was not impossible, and mere difficulty in reconciling them was not enough. The holograph writing had not been expressly revoked, and in the absence of impossibility of reconciling its terms with the codicil, it must be held that it was not impliedly revoked, and was therefore a valid and subsisting document.
At advising—
On the face of the codicil itself it is quite plain that it was intended to operate as an alteration of the original settlement. The effect of
Page: 45↓
In these circumstances the question comes to be, whether the codicil necessarily from its terms operates as a revocation of the holograph writing executed in the interval between the original settlement and the codicil? It seems to me that the conclusion which we must adopt is that it does so operate. If the holograph writing was to receive effect, it would deprive Margaret Smail altogether of the heritable property, for if that holograph writing was to be brought into operation she would not have the disposal of that property at all, as the testatrix has there left a direction that it should be sold, and that Margaret Smail should have a liferent of the balance left after the payment of expenses.
Now, the codicil of 3rd August 1885 is quite inconsistent with that direction. That codicil assumes that Margaret Smail is to be proprietor of the heritable estate, and directs that certain things shall be payable out of the heritable estate. The two things are incompatible, and the natural conclusion is that the later deed must receive effect, operating as a revocation of the principal part of the holograph writing. I am therefore of opinion that we should answer the first branch of the first question in the affirmative,
In my opinion the testatrix intended her whole estate, heritable and moveable, to be disposed of by the trust-disposition and settlement and codicil. These two deeds do dispose of all her estate, heritable and moveable. Therefore we cannot sustain the holograph writing because it is inconsistent with that view. By the trust-disposition and settlement the testatrix left the whole of her estate to Margaret Smail. As I read the codicil she did not alter her disposition of the heritable property to Margaret Smail. She altered her disposition of the moveable property and appointed other executors to carry out her intentions, but in this codicil, which is the last deed, she disposed of the whole of her moveable estate to the executors appointed, who were directed—[ His Lordship here read the terms of the codicil quoted above]. Here there is a clear instruction to follow—to pay to Margaret Smail after meeting “the debts and bequests herein and before written,” and nothing more. Margaret Smail is to get the surplus when the moveable estate is disposed of. The other side wish to incorporate something else into the clause, namely, after meeting the debts and bequests “herein and in another document before written,” where there is an instruction to pay other debts and bequests, and to pay the surplus to her niece. The testatrix has in the codicil disposed of her whole moveable estate, and directed the surplus to be paid to Margaret Smail, and therefore Margaret Smail is to get the benefit of that, although her appointment as executrix is recalled. The reading we are asked to adopt is, that after meeting certain debts and bequests the moveable estate is to be paid to her for distribution in terms of the instructions in the holograph writing, and lastly that the surplus is to be paid to Margaret Smail for her own use. If the testatrix had wanted these things paid she would have directed her executors to pay them.
When we come to deal with the heritable estate it is clear that we cannot read the codicil without seeing that the disposition of the heritable property to Margaret Smail must stand, because the testatrix in her codicil directs—“And on the other hand, in the event of there being a shortcoming, I declare and provide that the same shall be a burden on my heritable estate conveyed to her, and be payable and paid by her accordingly.” Here there is a burden laid on the heritable estate conveyed to Margaret Smail. If effect is to be given to the holograph writing there is a burden on nobody. Margaret Smail is there directed to sell the heritable estate, and to pay this and other debts, and the balance is to remain moveable estate. If we were to give effect to the holograph writing that would be the result, and quite contrary to the provisions of the codicil. The direction in the holograph writing to convert and deposit the balance in bank is quite opposed to the direction in the codicil that, in the event of there being a shortcoming, “the same shall be a burden on my heritable estate.” The codicil clearly recognises that the property is to remain the property of
Page: 46↓
The Court answered the first branch of the first question in the affirmative.
Counsel for First and Third Parties— Macfarlane Agents— H. & H. Tod, W.S.
Counsel for the Second Party— Guthrie. Agents— Tait & Crichton, W.S.
