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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Campbell v. Falconer [1892] ScotLR 29_445 (5 March 1892)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1892/29SLR0445.html
Cite as: [1892] SLR 29_445, [1892] ScotLR 29_445

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 445

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Sheriff of Lanarkshire.

Saturday, March 5. 1892.

29 SLR 445

Campbell

v.

Falconer.

Subject_1Executor-Dative
Subject_2Competing Claims
Subject_3Right of Surviving Husband.
Facts:

Held (following the case of Stewart v. Kerr, decided by the Second Division, March 19, 1890, 17 R. 707) that a husband is not entitled to be decerned executordative to his deceased wife in competition with her next-of-kin.

Headnote:

Mrs Janet Perston Falconer or Campbell, 257 Crown Street, Glasgow, died there intestate and without issue on 10th January 1892. Competing petitions for the office of executor-dative were presented in the Sheriff Courtat Glasgow by her husband William Campbell qua widower, and by her brother Alexander Bilsland Falconer, her brother, qua next-of-kin.

Upon 29th January 1892 the Sheriff-Substitute ( ) refused the petition by the husband, and decerned the brother executor as craved.

Note.—It has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Stewart v. Kerr, March 19, 1890, 17 R. 707, that the next-of-kin of a person deceased has a preferable right to the office of executordative to that of a husband.”

The husband appealed to the First Division of the Court of Session, and argued—No doubt the question had been decided by the Second Division in the case of Stewart v. Kerr, but the matter was of sufficient importance to merit reconsideration by Seven Judges or by the Whole Court. That decision had not given satisfaction to the legal profession. Where there were no children, as here, the husband had now—since the passing of the Married Women's Property (Scotland) Act 1881—a pecuniary interest equal to that of all the next-of-kin combined. That was an element to be considered— cf. Muir, November 3, 1876, 4 R. 74, and Webster v. Shiress, October 25, 1878. In the settled order of preference the widow would probably have been placed before the next-of-kin but for her sex.

Counsel for the respondent was not called upon.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—Mr Salvesen frankly confessed that the decision in the case of Stewart is exactly in point, and that case was decided so recently as 19th March 1890. It would only be in the most exceptional circumstances that we should be justified in doing anything except follow a fully considered decision. I have not heard anything to lead me to think we should pronounce any decision different from the one then arrived at.

Lord Adam concurred.

Lord M'Laren—I agree with your Lordship on both points. I should not be disposed, even if I thought a decision doubtful in principle, to alter a question of practice authoritatively settled. Far from that, I agree with the views expressed in the previous case, and think Lord Rutherfurd Clark's argument unanswerable.

Lord Kinnear—I am of opinion that the question has been decided by a judgment binding upon us, and which we must follow.

The Court adhered.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Appellant— Salvesen. Agents— Macpherson & Mackay, W.S.

Counsel for the Respondent— Jameson. Agent— James Skinner, S.S.C.

1892


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1892/29SLR0445.html