cases Flashcards
incorporated external pieces of paper which wasn’t signed into the will
Davidson v Convy
coerced an old lady into writing a will
Boyle v Boyle’s Trs
solicitor forgot to write a will, was sued for the lost money.
Home v Bank of Scotland
if a child is born after a will is made then the will will be void and will be reduced.
stuart gordon v stuart gordon
Abaitment- not enough money to pay everyone
McConnel v McConnels Trs
a legacy contrary to public policy will be void
Fraser v Rose.
demonstrative legacy- not enough funds from that specific bank that the testator wanted it from so needs to be taken from elsewhere
Reid’s Trs v Dawson
Ademption- cannot give that which you do not own, question of fact not of intention
Cobbans Exrs v Cobban
if a trustee dies then the trustor has a duty to appoint a new trustee
Glentar v scottish Industrial Musical Association
trust is void if too vague
Hardie v Morrison
a trust set up for religous purposes will be invalid
Rintoul’s Trs v Rintoul
Interpretation of the will- what the testator intended- step into the testators chair and see it from their perspective
Hay v Duthie
case for different people trying to claim from the legacy of the testator.
(different shops with the same name)
extrinsic evidence is needed
Cathcarts Trs v Bruce
what if you put a legacy to someone but their relationship has changed since then?
e.g your wife but now you are divorced?
there is a general rule that description was not a condition on the legacy.
Ormiston’s Exr v Laws
case which showed actor in rem sutm where the contract was set aside
aberdeen railway company v Blakie Brothers
case which showed a conflict of intrest
Johnstone v macfarlane
trust where the trustees took ownership for themselves
university of aberdeen v Town Council Aberdeen
case which shows that the trustee cannot let their views of religious, political or moral beliefs influence their decisions when dealing with the trust. or will be in breach of the trust
Martin v City of Edinburgh
case for when a transaction will be upheld if the benefit received by the trustee is small and the principle object of the transaction is to provide a greater substantial advantage to the beneficiaries.
Flint v Glasgow Corporation
