Hamm v. Hooper

The appeal was dismissed: the court applied the principle that extrinsic evidence may be used to identify the person(s) intended by a name or description in a will and upheld the identification reached below, thereby giving effect to the testator's intention as so ascertained.

Citation: [1937] SCR 352
Parties: Appellant: Hamm; Respondent: Hooper; Respondent (executor): Toronto General Trusts Corporation; Deceased (testator): May Hooper
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 23 February 1937
Procedural Posture: Will Construction; Estate Administration / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Will Construction, Extrinsic Evidence of Intention, Beneficiary Identification, Residuary Estate
Source Language: English

Estates Will Construction Extrinsic Evidence of Intention Beneficiary Identification Residuary Estate

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Hamm

Appellant

Hooper

Respondent

Toronto General Trusts Corporation

Respondent (executor)

May Hooper

Deceased (testator)

Procedural Posture

Will Construction; Estate Administration / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

1 Who is or are the person(s) intended to benefit under the name(s) used in the residuary clause of the will
2 Whether and to what extent extrinsic evidence may be used to identify the person(s) meant by the testator

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed
Costs of all parties, as between solicitor and client, to be paid out of the estate