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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Millar (Morrison's Executor) and Others [1894] ScotLR 31_772 (21 June 1894) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0772.html Cite as: [1894] ScotLR 31_772, [1894] SLR 31_772 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 772↓
A holograph settlement provided certain specific legacies amounting to £1000 free of legacy-duty, and proceeded—“The Thousand pounds so bequeathed is in the hands of my brother … also two hundred pounds, which latter if not expended by me before my decease & still in his hands will be—to be taken for all just and lawful debts, to give mournings to… my servant to the extent of Two pounds—also mournings to my niece to the extent of £5—Any residue to be given to J. M.” A legacy had already been provided to J. M.
Held that the words “any residue” were not limited to the balance of the £200 after deduction of debts and mournings, but carried the free moveable estate of the deceased.
Miss Janet Scott Morrison died on 7th October 1893 leaving several mortis causa writings of a testamentary nature holograph of the deceased, the first being dated 31st August 1893, the second being undated, the third dated 31st August 1893, and the others being undated. These documents were all enclosed in an envelope, and on the envelope were these words—“My will, Janet S. Morrison,” in her own handwriting.”
By the first of these testamentary writings Miss Morrison bequeathed certain pecuniary legacies to different persons, amounting in all to £1000, under the declaration that these legacies were to be paid free of legacy-duty. The document then proceeds as follows:—“The Thousand pounds so bequeathed is in the hands of my Brother William, Merchant, Leith; also Two hundred pounds, which latter if not expended by me before my decease & still in his hands will be—to be taken for all just and lawful debts to give mournings to Jessie my servant to the extent of Two pounds—also mournings to Nephew John Morrison's wife to the extent of Five Pounds—Any residue to be given to Janet Millar, residing at Castle-Douglas”—Signed “Janet S. Morrison; witness, Jessie Robertson.” Miss Millar received a legacy of £100 under the former part of the settlement. In the second testamentary writing, styled by the deceased “Codicil No. 1,” Miss Morrison increased the sums for mournings, and nominated Mr William F. Millar, merchant, Leith, her sole executor, giving him £20 for his services. The other testamentary writings made specific bequests to different parties for certain articles of furniture, &c.
Mr Millar, as executor-nominate, was confirmed by the Sheriff of the Lothians
Page: 773↓
and Peebles. He found that the deceased's personal property amounted, without deduction of debts, to £1514, 19s. 6d., including the above-mentioned sums of £1000 and £200. The personal debts of the deceased were of very small amount. A special case was presented by (1) the executor, (2) the residuary legatee, (3) Miss Morrison's next-of-kin, for the opinion of the Court upon the following questions of law:—“(1) Do the words ‘Any residue to be given to Janet Millar,’ occurring in the first holograph testamentary writing referred to, give right to the said Janet Millar only to any balance remaining of the £200 mentioned in the said writing after deduction of debts and the sums for mournings left by the testatrix; or, Are these words sufficient to carry any free moveable estate belonging to the deceased at the date of her death after providing for the specific legacies and bequests left by the testatrix, and the debts and expenses of the executry? (2) In the event of its being held that the words in question refer only to the balance of the said sum of £200, Do the funeral and executry expenses, including the inventory and legacy duties, or any of these items, fall to be charged against or deducted from said sum of £200 so far as that sum will meet them; or, Is it only debts due by the deceased before her death that are to be deducted therefrom, and the sums left for mournings?”
The residuary legatee argued—The presumption was for testacy. It was true that the testatrix had divided the great part of her estate into specific legacies, but it was plain that she considered there must be more estate than she was actually dealing with, because she directed the legacies to be paid free of legacy-duty. The deed was a settlement disposing of her whole estate and appointing an executor. There was therefore nothing in the context to show that the testatrix did not desire to leave the residue of her whole estate to the person named as residuary legatee—Jarman on Wills, i. 723; Williams on Executors, ii. 1317; Jull v. Jacobs, July 10, 1876, L.R., 3 C.D. 703.
The next-of-kin argued—The presumption against intestacy might be rebutted, and it was plain that in this case the testatrix was dealing solely with the specific legacies she had given, and meant that any small sum over after paying debts should go to Miss Millar, but she had not disposed of her whole estate by the legacies she left, and therefore the residue of the whole estate, excluding these sums of £1000 and £200, went to the next-of-kin— Hastings v. Hane, March 16, 1833, 6 Symon, 67; Ommaney v. Butcher, July 22, 1823, 1 Turner & Russell, 260; Jull (cited supra).
At advising—
The words are, “Any residue to be given to Janet Millar,” &c., and I think we must read these words as meaning that she gives the residue of her whole estate, after providing for special legacies, to Janet Millar, unless the other parties to the case can show some circumstances weighty enough to lead us to say the contrary.
The only thing which is urged against that view is the mention by the testator of the special sum of £200 in the hands of her brother, and the way in which she has disposed of it, and it is contended by the testator's next-of-kin that looking at the position of the mention of this sum of £200, and the way in which the testator says it is to be applied, we must hold the statement as to residue as alluding merely to what may remain of the £200 after applying it as the testator has directed. I think there is no necessity for one reading these words as applying only to the residue of the £200, and as the words this lady has used in her settlement are sufficient to carry the residue of the whole estate to Janet Millar, and there is nothing to the contrary, there is a presumption that she intended to convey the residue of the whole estate to her. I think her words should receive their ordinary effect.
It is true, as was said by counsel for the next-of-kin, that in an earlier part of the settlement Miss Millar does receive a considerable sum of money as a legacy as well as being made residuary legatee, but I do not think that means any more than that the testatrix was not aware of the amount of estate she had to dispose of, and thought it less than it was, and directed that any small balance of residue should go to her friend. On the whole, I think we must read these words as giving to Janet Millar a right to the residue of the whole estate after paying the legacies provided for by Miss Morrison.
The Court answered the second alternative of the first question in the affirmative and found it unnecessary to answer the other question.
Page: 774↓
Counsel for the First and Second Parties— Wilson. Agent— R. Cunningham, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Third Parties— Guthrie— Grainger Stewart. Agents— Boyd, Jameson, & Kelly, W.S.
