Module 4 Legislation & Cases Flashcards
McCaig v University of Glasgow
. The will had left considerable fortune to build towers on his estate containing statues of him and his ancestors. Court said, “if it is not unlawful, it ought to be unlawful to dedicate…the whole income of a large estate to objects of no utility, private or public, objects which benefit nobody , and which have no other purpose or use than that of perpetuating at great cost, and in an absurd manner, the idiosyncrasies of an eccentric testator.”
Mackintosh’s Judicial Factor v Lord Advocate
Eg restraint on freedom of testation by public policy. Testator’s desire to build a grand mausoleum was not permitted but one is permitted to erect a tombstone or even a small mausoleum.
S13 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964
A beneficiary of a Will who also has Legal Rights to the net moveable estate elects which he takes and forfeits the other.
Thomson’s Trustees v Bowhill Baptist Church 1956)
Eg of Method of Revocation of Will by Deliberate Intention. In this case there was physical destruction of a Will.
Nicolson v Nicolson’s Tutrix
Eg of Method of Revocation of Will by Deliberate Intention.
A later Will which is a universal settlement of the testator’s estate even if there is not express clause of revocation.
Miligan’s judicial factor v Miligan.
Revocation of Will by presumption of law, namely, conditio si testator sine liberis decesserit.
In this case child born 10 years after teh Will.
The Court held that this was not a sufficient period of of time to defeat the operation of the condition.
Gordon v Stewart-Gordon
Revocation of Will by presumption of law, namely, conditio si testator sine liberis decesserit.
In this case, child born slightly before Testator died but evidence was that he had inspected the Will and had considered tha thte child was adequately provided for and therefore decided to omit the child and so the conditio did not apply.
Scott’s Judicial Factor v Johnston and Others
An earlier Will was revived when a holograph instruction on an envelope by the Testator revoked the subsequent Will which had revoked the earlier one.
Bruce’s Judicial Factor v the Lord Advocate
Will was expressly revoked by a subsequent Will. At the testator’s death, the later will could not be found and having been in his possession, it was presumed that he had destroyed the same animo revocandi with a view to “reviving” the earlier Will.
