 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> William Inglis and Others - Jeffre - Ivory v. James Harper [1831] UKHL 5_WS_785 (18 October 1831) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1831/5_WS_785.html Cite as: [1831] UKHL 5_WS_785 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 785↓
(1831) 5 W&S 785
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1831.
2 d Division.
No. 60.
Subject_Testament — Legacy — Proof. —
A party by a probative testament appointed a person, who would not otherwise have succeeded, to be her executor, “subject to the payment of such bequests as I may instruct him to pay, in a letter signed by me of this date, to the several persons therein name;” declaring, that “after these several persons therein named have been paid and discharged their several legacies,” the whole residue should belong to the executor; and the testator died two days thereafter, leaving this will in her repositories, with a letter within it containing directions to the executor to pay certain legacies, and bearing the same date, and to be signed by her, but not holograph nor tested; which letter, it was offered to be proved, had been signed by the testator simul ac semel with the testament—Held (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session), that it was competent to prove the identity of the letter with that referred to in the will; and the case remitted, with an issue to that effect.
Mrs. Margaret Matheson, on the 15th of May 1826, executed a deed of settlement in the following terms:—
“I, Mrs. Margaret Matheson, &c., hereby declare my intentions respecting the disposal of my moveable estate in case of my death. (1.) I
Page: 786↓
appoint my cousin James Harper, Esq., of Morningfield near Aberdeen, to be my sole and only executor and intromitter with my means and estate, wherever situated, which may belong to me at the time of my death, subject always to the payment of my lawful debts, of every kind whatever, which may be due by me, and subject also to the payment of such bequests as I may instruct him to pay, in a letter signed by me of this date, to the several persons therein named; which bequests or legacies I expressly will and declare are a real and effectual burden upon my executry funds. (2.) I declare that after these several persons therein named have been paid and discharged their several legacies, the whole residue shall belong exclusively to the said James Harper.”
This deed was duly tested; and at Mrs. Matheson's death, which happened two days after its execution, it was found in her repositories, and within it a letter of the same date with the will, the date of the month being written at length, and not in figures, and bearing to be signed by Mrs. Matheson, but not holograph nor tested. The letter was addressed to Harper, but not in the handwriting of the deceased. It was in these terms:—
“Dear Cousin, Referring to my testament of this date, whereby you are named and appointed my sole and only executor, under burden of paying my just debts, and the following legacies which I desire and require you to pay within three months after my death.”—
Then followed seven different bequests, all numbered successively, and, inter alia, (1.) “To William Inglis, Esq. W. S., or his heirs, 1,000 l.” (3.) “To Miss Buchan, my cousin, 300 l.;” and there was also a legacy of 1,000 l. to a Mr. Barr, the writer of the will. This letter was written on two pages of the same leaf, and signed, according to the ordinary form of letters, on the last page only, the principal legacies being contained on the first page.
Founding on the will, and this letter as that therein referred to, Inglis and Miss Buchan raised separate actions against Harper for payment of their legacies. In addition to the circumstances above mentioned they averred, that the letter was written by the same agent who wrote the will; that it was signed by the deceased simul ac semel with the will, and in presence of the witnesses who attested the subscription of the deceased to that document; and that it was then put up by the deceased along with the will, and found “therein,” (as stated in
Page: 787↓
The defender refused to admit that the letter was subscribed by Mrs. Matheson; and he pleaded, that, not being probative under the act 1681, it could not be received as evidence of the will of the deceased, and that this defect could not be supplied by parole evidence.
The action at the instance of Inglis having come before Lord Medwyn, his Lordship found “that the offer of proof contained in the condescendence is not relevant in order to supply the want of the statutory solemnities of writs,” and assoilzied the defender, and issued the subjoined note. *
A reclaiming note was presented against the interlocutor, and Lord Mackenzie (before whom Miss Buchan's action had come) ordered Cases in that action to the Court.
The Court (27 th May 1828) conjoined the actions “in respect that both actions are founded on the same document,” and in that at the instance of Inglis adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, and in the other assoilzied, but found no expenses due. †
Inglis and Buchan appealed.
_________________ Footnote _________________
* “The Lord Ordinary cannot adopt the interpretation of the pursuer, that the latter will constitutes the defender executor, under burden of paying such bequests as the testatrix shall direct in a letter not written, but merely signed, by her; and so the question does not arise, whether it be competent to provide that legacies may be constituted in an informal or improbative writing. It seems quite impossible to distinguish this case from the case of Dundas against Lowis, 12th May 1807.”
† 6 Shaw and Dunlop, 864, where the opinions of the Judges will be found. The following notes of Lord Alloway's opinion, revised by him, were laid before the House of Lords:—
Lord Alloway .—“This is a very difficult question,—not so much in considering what was the intention of the testator, as whether it is supported by such a legal expression of that intention as can be enforced by a court of law. If I considered the case of Dundas against Lowis, referred to by Lord Glenlee, as decisive of the question, I would have no difficulty, as I am always inclined to follow decided cases. But I conceive, that there are important distinctions betwixt that case and the present. Mrs. Matheson executed a settlement in favour of the defender Harper, as her universal executor and disponee, but subject to the payment of her debts, and of such bequests “as I may instruct him to pay, in a letter signed by me of this
Page: 788↓
Appellants.—(1.) The respondent succeeded to the deceased only by virtue of the will, and in such case a testator may
_________________ Footnote _________________ date to the several persons therein named which bequests or legacies she expressly delares are a real and effectual burden upon her executor. This settlement was written by a regular man of business, and is perfectly probative. But the letter which is written by him, and subscribed by her before witnesses, and not tested by them, is not probative. Amongst the legacies there was one of 300
l. to the pursuer, her cousin. In a former settlement she also left a legacy to the same person, and of the same description. There could be little doubt, therefore, of the intention. But was this a valid legacy, and supported by sufficient written evidence? No nuncupative legacy, not supported by any regular deed or holograph writing, can be effectual beyond 100
l. Scots, even supposing that the intention of the testator were demonstrated by the most complete parole evidence. No evidence but writing can be received, and this written evidence must be probative. Thus, in the case of Dundas, it was declared, that the trustees should hold any additional directions which the testator should give them by writing under her hand as part of the trust-deed. In a codicil she appointed a legacy of 50
l. to be paid to Mr. Forrester, and by another codicil she directed her bank stock to be paid to Mr. Dundas. She subscribed both of these codicils, which were not holograph, nor signed before witnesses. An objection was taken to these legacies as not being effectual, and the Court sustained the objection. If this case were exactly similar, a contrary judgment could hardly be expected from this Court. But there is a distinction, which may fairly admit of a different interpretation. 1. In the present case, the whole property of Mrs. Matheson is vested in Harper as her executor and residuary legatee, subject to one condition, viz.—the payment of the legacies which she should direct him to pay by letter of that date. He could not, therefore, accept of the settlement, from which he has derived so great a benefit, without also being liable to the condition to which she had subjected him. He was quite a stranger to the succession, and could not claim the benefit of it by that deed without being subject to all its conditions. A letter does not mean in general a holograph deed, nor a probative one; and, therefore, as the letter by which these directions were given falls under the precise description of that mentioned in her settlement, by which her executor was to be bound, there seems to be the fairest reason for giving it effect. He could not approbate and reprobate the same deed. He must be bound by the conditions which the party had attached to it. There was nothing unlawful in stipulating that her executor should be bound by her letter of that date. The meaning and description of a letter is perfectly understood. Although the testator's subscription to that letter was not admitted, yet it is not seriously or distinctly denied; and, therefore, it must be held to be admitted, unless a reduction shall be brought on the head of forgery. In short, Mr. Harper, if he makes his election to take the benefit of the deed, must be bound by it, and must take it under all its conditions, and must be bound by the letter to which it refers. This is quite different from the case of Dundas against Lowis There the trustees were to follow any directions which the testator might give them by a writing under her hand. But a writing, by the law of Scotland, must always mean a formal and probative writing, whereas a letter never bears that meaning, and not one letter in a thousand is probative. It is not necessary that the deed referred to in a trust deed shall be probative according to the law of Scotland.—See the case of Brack,
Page: 789↓
_________________ Footnote _________________
determined unanimously last Session, where a Jamaica settlement, executed according to the law of that country, but not probative by the law of Scotland, was held to contain sufficient instructions to trustees to settle a large estate in terms of it. That case is not precisely the same with the present, but it depends upon a similar principle. 2. There is another point. When her repositories, which were regularly sealed up, were opened, this letter was found within the settlement. This is a connection betwixt the letter and the settlement by the deceased herself. Several cases have occurred, with regard to pinning bills to settlements, which strongly support the pursuer's view of the case. See the case of Miss Panton, Shaw and Dunlop, vol. ii. p. 632, with regard to the direction as to a bill. She had given directions to her trustees to pay certain sums out of certain bills.— “The bill within this paper you will give, 100 l. to Miss Panton, 50 l. to Janet Martin, my servant, and 5 l. to my girl, Kitty Martin, after my death.” This document was holograph, and was found put up with her settlement, but there was no bill within the paper. But in another document she says— ‘September 15, 1820.—The bill within this paper you will give, Miss Panton 100 l., Janet Martin, my servant, 100 l., to Kitty, my girly, 5 l. Theis more, if Miss Mackies serve be with at time, let have the remaining 3 l. St. L. Duncan. Bellfield, October 26, 1821.’ The Court were unanimous in sustaining the list which was put up with the settlement, and the bill within it, although a part, of it was not holograph. See the case of Melvin against Nicol, 20th May 1824; Shaw and Dunlop, iii. 31. That case bears a strong affinity to the present, in one respect. There the testator had bound his executor to pay any sums that he should direct, ‘by a writing under my hand, however informal.’ He addressed a letter to his executor, empowering her, at his death, to uplift 100 l. sterling, which he had lodged in the branch of the Glasgow bank at Kirkaldy. At the date of the letter he had no money in the bank, but he afterwards deposited several sums which were in that bank at his death. The Lord Ordinary found, that the executor was liable to pay any legacy, however informal; but then, as he desired the legacy to be paid out of 100 l. which he had lying in the Kirkaldy branch of the Glasgow bank, he conceived that it could not be carried into effect. The Court however unanimously altered that decision, and gave effect to the legacy. As that case occurred in the First Division, I have not read the papers, and I do not know whether the writing, constituting the legacy, was probative or not. But no part of the argument, as reported, turns upon that. On the contrary, the Lord Ordinary found, that any writing, however informal, was binding on the trustee. The question, in the present case, is this, whether this letter was not executed simul et semel; whether it was not pars ejusdem negotii? and whether this person, who had no rights whatever, but under the testament, could take the whole 6,000 l. or 7,000 l., without implementing the positive condition which was attached to it?”
Page: 790↓
Page: 791↓
Respondent.—A testator cannot reserve a power, contrary to the statutory law, of leaving legacies by an improbative deed. Indeed there are no legal means of identifying a writing of importance, such as a letter bestowing legacies of the amount here in question, except by observing the solemnities of the act 1681. Besides, the reservation to appoint legacies in a letter “signed” by the testator must be construed as accordant with law, and as meaning a letter duly signed; and so the rule of approbate and reprobate does not apply, as the testator left no letter signed in terms of law. Neither do the terms of the testament, according to their true construction, import an instant declaration of will, as if the mind of the testator had been then fully made up; it merely provides for the declaration of a will to be formed at a future period, though within the same day. It is incompetent, and would be attended with the most dangerous consequences, if writings imposing burdens on executors were allowed to be reared up by parole, or by any proof except that provided by the statute 1681. The case of Dundas v. Lowis clearly rules the present. In that case, as in the present, there was merely a power to declare a future will; and on the same principles on which the words “a
Page: 792↓
Earl of Eldon.—My Lords, the nature and importance of the case, as well as the fact of the difference of opinion among the judges in the Court below, makes it, in my judgment, extremely fit that we should concur in the motion which has been submitted to your Lordships, that this judgment should be postponed. One or two circumstances I will just mention, for the purpose of throwing them out of the case. In the first place some suspicion of fraud has been stated at the bar, with respect to the conduct of one of those persons, who is mentioned in the second paper as a legatee. I throw that entirely out of the question; because, unless I mistake the nature of the proceedings, no such question can be said fairly to be before us; it is not properly brought before us. With respect to another question, my Lords—I mean, what is the effect of this paper with respect to the executor taking the whole of those sums which are called legacies and bequests? It does not appear to me that we can now decide what the effect is of making a person sole executor and intromitter, where there is afterwards an express bequest to that sole executor and intromitter of so much of the property as he is required to pay in discharge of other sums intended to be given. That, I think, is not a question now before us, according to the form in which this case is presented to us. All that I wish to state upon those two questions is, that I can at present give no opinion upon either of them. But the question, whether this paper, by reason of the reference to it, is a paper which can or cannot be claimed upon by these legatees, is a point on which I shall be able fully to deliver my opinion when this case is resumed.
Page: 793↓
The case was then adjourned.
A Mrs. Matheson by her will, regularly attested according to the law of Scotland, gave all her property to the respondent, to which bequest those words were added:
“Subject always to the payment of such bequests as I may instruct him to pay, in a letter signed by me, of this date (that is, the date of her will,) to the several persons therein named, which bequests or legacies I expressly will and declare are a real and effectual burden upon my executry funds: second, I declare that after these several persons therein named have been paid and discharged their several legacies, the whole residue shall belong exclusively to the said James Harper.”
Your Lorships perceive that the respondent's share of her property is not to become vested until after the payment of those legacies.
Page: 794↓
The appellant offered to prove that a letter of the date of the will was signed by the testatrix at the time that the will was executed, was then wrapped up in the will, was kept by the testatrix until her death, and was, at her death, found wrapped up in the will. This letter refers to the will, and directs the respondent to pay several legacies to different persons; and amongst those legacies, one of 1,000 l. to the appellant. The Court of Session say, by their judgment, that this paper not being executed as a will, they cannot look at it; they reject the proof offered, and allow the respondent to keep the property bequeathed without performing any of the conditions upon which it was given to him.
If a paper, which is not per se probative, be referred to and effect given it by one that is so, why should it not be received and acted upon? The danger of acting on an improbative paper is removed by its genuineness being acknowledged by a probative one. The law which requires the attestation of wills is satisfied. The intention of a testator, which must, if that course be not taken, be defeated, is effectuated, and great injustice prevented.
The case relied on in the Court below is that of Dundas v. Lowis. Lord Alloway distinguished that case from the present. His Lordship says, in Dundas v. Lowis the trustees were to follow the directions given them by a “writing,” and that writing, by the law of Scotland, meant a formal and probative writing. In this case the trustee is to follow the directions given by a “letter;” and that not one letter in a thousand is probative. I must observe to your Lordships that, in Dundas v. Lowis, the paper proving the legacy disputed was not written until some time after the making of the will; and that in the intermediate time the testatrix had given two legacies by a paper regularly attested. This confirms Lord Alloway's observations, and shows that by paper was meant a probative paper. The testatrix in the present case left no testamentary paper behind her but her will and the unattested letter.
But the case of Dundas v. Lowis is met by that of Melvin v. Nicol. A settlement was made in favour of a daughter, on the condition of
Page: 795↓
The House of Lords ordered and adjudged, That the interlocutors complained of be reversed: And it is further ordered, That the case be remitted back to the Lords of Session of the Second Division in Scotland, with directions to submit to a jury to consider whether the letter bearing date, “Edinburgh, 15th May 1826,” and purporting to be a letter from Margaret Matheson to James Harper, Esq., and by which the said James Harper is directed to pay to William Inglis, Esquire, W. S., or his heirs, 1,000 l. sterling, was signed by Margaret Matheson on that day, and is the letter referred to by the will of Margaret Matheson.
Solicitors: Moncrieff, Webster, and Thomson,—Solicitors.