Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1Husband and Wife
Subject_2Jus administrationis where jus mariti excluded.

Succession
Subject_3Conditio si sine liberis decesserit.

Succession
Subject_4Bequest in a Codicil of Residue Proportionally to Amount of Legacies Bequeathed — Jus mariti of Husband.

Succession — Testament — Falsa demonstratio.
Facts:

Held, where a husband's right over the bequest of an annuity was not excluded, but the jus mariti was, that the exclusion of the former was not necessarily to be implied, and that the husband must be a concurring party in any payments which were made to his wife; and observed that if he should refuse to concur, the Court, on cause shown, would authorise her to act without him, or name another curator.

Observed ( per Lord Gifford), that the principle of the jus administrationis of a husband implies that it must be exercised solely for his wife's behoof, and to save her from being hurt by her own acts.

A testator in his trust-disposition left £100 to each of several nephews and nieces who predeceased him. In a codicil he left (1) £1200 “to the family” of one of these nephews, and (2) £500 to another nephew. He died unmarried, and his nephews and nieces or their children were, with the exception of a housekeeper and a natural son, the whole beneficiaries under his settlement. None of them were omitted, although they were not called as a class or equally favoured. Held (1) that these provisions were cumulative; and (2) that the circumstances being such that the testator must be held to be in loco parentis to all his nephews and nieces, the conditio si sine liberis applied, and that the children of those who had predeceased were entitled to take their parents’ provisions.

A testator having in his trust-deed left certain provisions to various parties, and in a codicil left them other provisions, which were held to be cumulative, stated further in the codicil that the residue of his estate was to be divided proportionally among “the above-named legatees and annuitants.”— Held (1) that the beneficiaries under the deed and the codicil were entitled to a proportional share of the residue corresponding to the cumulo amount of their provisions under both deeds, and that the bequests of the liferent of a house and furniture and of annuities fell to be valued for that purpose similarly with pecuniary legacies; and (2) that when the jus mariti or right of administration of the husband of any female beneficiary was excluded with regard to the provision to her under the deed or the codicil, it was also excluded with regard to her share of residue.

A testator left “£3000 to J. B., and to each of the other three children of my brother £2000.” Her brother had in fact four other children, and the five were all specially named as sole residuary legatees in the residuary clause in the trust-deed.— Held that this was a case of falsa demonstratio, and that each of the four children was entitled to the legacy of £2000.