Ross v. Ross

Ross v. Ross

Majority held the holograph will was valid so far as property within the jurisdiction of Quebec: locus regit actum is permissive under Quebec law, the will complied with forms applicable to the testator's domicile and, applying conflict‑of‑laws principles, New York law would validate the will as to movables and as to immovables in Quebec; the discretionary trust was sufficiently certain to create an obligation enforceable against the trustee but the term 'poor' was too uncertain and the word 'relations' was constrained to mean heirs at law for intervention purposes; Finlay Asylum had standing, Morrin College did not, and W.R. Ross had no standing.

Citation
(1894) 25 SCR 307
Parties
Appellant / Respondent: Frank Ross; Appellant / Respondent: Annie Ross; Respondent / Appellant: John Theodore Ross; Respondent (legatee): Mary Frame; Intervenor (claimant Cousin): William Russell Ross; Intervenor (institution): Morrin College; Intervenor (institution): Finlay Asylum
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 1894
Procedural Posture
Will Contest / Estate Dispute (appeal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)
Outcome
Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed; judgment varied to strike references to immovables outside Quebec; action dismissed as to principal claim with costs as allocated
Legal Topics
Holograph Will, Locus Regit Actum, Lex Domicilii, Lex Rei Sitae, Charitable Trusts, Uncertainty of Beneficiaries, Intervention / Locus Standi, Trustee Discretion
Source Language
English
Estates Trusts Private International Law Civil Procedure Holograph Will Locus Regit Actum Lex Domicilii Lex Rei Sitae +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Ross

Appellant / Respondent

Annie Ross

Appellant / Respondent

John Theodore Ross

Respondent / Appellant

Mary Frame

Respondent (legatee)

William Russell Ross

Intervenor (claimant Cousin)

Morrin College

Intervenor (institution)

Finlay Asylum

Intervenor (institution)

Procedural Posture

Will Contest / Estate Dispute (appeal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a holograph will executed in New York by a domiciled Quebec resident is valid in Quebec
  2. 2 Whether locus regit actum is imperative or permissive under Quebec law and Civil Code art.7
  3. 3 Whether New York law (N.Y. Code Proc. §2611) validates the will as to movables and whether lex rei sitae governs immovables

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the holograph will was valid so far as property within the jurisdiction of Quebec: locus regit actum is permissive under Quebec law, the will complied with forms applicable to the testator's domicile and, applying conflict‑of‑laws principles, New York law would validate the will as to movables and as to immovables in Quebec; the discretionary trust was sufficiently certain to create an obligation enforceable against the trustee but the term 'poor' was too uncertain and the word 'relations' was constrained to mean heirs at law for intervention purposes; Finlay Asylum had standing, Morrin College did not, and W.R. Ross had no standing.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed; judgment varied to strike references to immovables outside Quebec; action dismissed as to principal claim with costs as allocated

Orders

  • Dismiss action to set aside the will (declare will valid as to property within Quebec jurisdiction)
  • Strike out portions of lower judgment dealing with immovables in Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia and United States for lack of jurisdiction