Matthews v Williams [1941] HCA 32

Matthews v Williams [1941] HCA 32

The word 'issue' in the will should be given its prima facie meaning of all lineal descendants, unless the context shows a contrary intention. The course of distribution clause and the gift over are best reconciled by applying a stirpital limitation to all descendants living at distribution who have attained majority or, if female, married, such that lower degree descendants only take in place of their deceased ancestor. Descendants who qualify through multiple stocks (e.g., great-grandchildren via intermarried cousins) may take in both stocks. The decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia is reversed.

Parties
Appellant: Matthews; Respondents: Williams and Others
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Wills, Class Gifts, Distribution of Estates, Substitutional Gifts, Course of Distribution, Stirpital Distribution
Wills and Estates Trusts Construction of Wills Class Gifts Distribution of Estates Substitutional Gifts Course of Distribution Stirpital Distribution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthews

Appellant

Williams and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'issue': whether restricted to children, or includes all lineal descendants
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'issue' and 'children' in the particular will
  3. 3 Correct approach to distribution according to stocks

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'issue' in the will should be given its prima facie meaning of all lineal descendants, unless the context shows a contrary intention. The course of distribution clause and the gift over are best reconciled by applying a stirpital limitation to all descendants living at distribution who have attained majority or, if female, married, such that lower degree descendants only take in place of their deceased ancestor. Descendants who qualify through multiple stocks (e.g., great-grandchildren via intermarried cousins) may take in both stocks. The decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia is reversed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court discharged except as to costs
  • Questions in the originating summons to be answered: (a) 'Issue' includes remoter issue in both cases; (b) 'Children' includes children of any generation for substitution; (bb) Distribution is to begin with testator's children who had issue living at period of distribution; (c) Only descendants living on...