Simpson Estate (Re)

Simpson Estate (Re)

The words 'to her children in equal shares per stirpes' are words of designation limited to first degree descendants; the phrase 'per stirpes' does not extend 'children' to mean all issue, and therefore the life tenants took life interests only; accordingly, even assuming the rule in Shelley's Case were in force it does not apply to convert these devises into estates in fee.

Citation
[1928] SCR 329
Parties
Decedent: Estate of R. H. Simpson; Executor and Trustee (applicant): Imperial Canadian Trust Company; Respondents/devisees: Five nephews and nieces (devisees); Respondents: Two nieces (licensees); Respondents/interested Parties: Official Guardian and daughter of Frank Simpson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Will Construction; Trusts and Estates / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta affirmed.
Legal Topics
Rule in Shelley's Case, Per Stirpes, Construction of Testamentary Gifts, Life Estate Vs. Fee Simple
Source Language
English
Trusts and Estates Wills Property Law Rule in Shelley's Case Per Stirpes Construction of Testamentary Gifts Life Estate Vs. Fee Simple

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estate of R. H. Simpson

Decedent

Imperial Canadian Trust Company

Executor and Trustee (applicant)

Five nephews and nieces (devisees)

Respondents/devisees

Two nieces (licensees)

Respondents

Official Guardian and daughter of Frank Simpson

Respondents/interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Will Construction; Trusts and Estates / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'to her children in equal shares per stirpes' are words of designation or words of limitation
  2. 2 Whether 'children' or 'sons and daughters ... per stirpes' should be construed to include all lineal descendants (issue)
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Shelley's Case applies to convert the life estate into an estate tail (fee)

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'to her children in equal shares per stirpes' are words of designation limited to first degree descendants; the phrase 'per stirpes' does not extend 'children' to mean all issue, and therefore the life tenants took life interests only; accordingly, even assuming the rule in Shelley's Case were in force it does not apply to convert these devises into estates in fee.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to be paid out of the estate as between solicitor and client