Jones v. Fraser

Jones v. Fraser

The sale of the seigniories did not revoke the legacy; Jones is estopped from attacking the legacy because his mother accepted and ratified the 1839 partition and he accepted and received allotted sums as her universal legatee, therefore he is only entitled to any unpaid balance of his mother's share of the £9,600 deposited by the curator in accordance with the 1839 partition; the £5,400 paid for debts is not adjudicated in this proceeding.

Citation
(1886) 13 SCR 342
Parties
Appellant (opposant for Payment in the Superior Court): Thomas H. D. Jones; Respondent (plaintiff Contesting Opposition in the Superior Court; Residuary Legatee): William Fraser
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1886
Procedural Posture
Appeal (supreme Court of Canada) / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Legacy Revocation, Partition, Estoppel, Legitimacy, Subrogation, Distribution of Succession
Source Language
English
Estates Succession Wills Property Law Civil Procedure Will Construction Legacy Revocation Partition +4 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas H. D. Jones

Appellant (opposant for Payment in the Superior Court)

William Fraser

Respondent (plaintiff Contesting Opposition in the Superior Court; Residuary Legatee)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (supreme Court of Canada) / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sale of seigniories by testator revoked the legacy in the will
  2. 2 Whether appellant could claim as legitimate descendant of Margaret Fraser
  3. 3 Whether appellant was estopped by acceptance/ratification of 1839 partition from challenging legacy

Ratio Decidendi

The sale of the seigniories did not revoke the legacy; Jones is estopped from attacking the legacy because his mother accepted and ratified the 1839 partition and he accepted and received allotted sums as her universal legatee, therefore he is only entitled to any unpaid balance of his mother's share of the £9,600 deposited by the curator in accordance with the 1839 partition; the £5,400 paid for debts is not adjudicated in this proceeding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed with costs.
  • Jones' opposition dismissed with costs except as to any part of the monies, securities, interest and profit still due to him under the 1839 partition.