Crumpton's Executor v. Crumpton's Judicial Factor and Others [1917] ScotLR 596 (20 July 1917)

Crumpton's Executor v. Crumpton's Judicial Factor and Others [1917] ScotLR 596 (20 July 1917)

The will's language vested the fee in William Thomas Crumpton absolutely, not as a liferent, and the charities were conditional institutes only, to take effect only if he predeceased the testatrix without issue. As he survived the testatrix, the fee vested in him and passed to his legal representatives.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 596
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Bennet Clark (Executor-dative of Sarah Elizabeth Crumpton); Defender/reclaimer: Thomas Bennet Clark (Judicial Factor on the estate of William Thomas Crumpton); Defender/respondent: Dr Barnardo's Homes, London; Claimants (cousins/next of Kin): Charlotte Augusta Crone and others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 1917
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding (succession Dispute) / Inner House, First Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
Legal Topics
Conditional Institution, Substitution, Liferent and Fee, Interpretation of Wills, Powers of Appointment
Succession Law Trusts and Estates Conditional Institution Substitution Liferent and Fee Interpretation of Wills Powers of Appointment

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Bennet Clark (Executor-dative of Sarah Elizabeth Crumpton)

Pursuer

Thomas Bennet Clark (Judicial Factor on the estate of William Thomas Crumpton)

Defender/reclaimer

Dr Barnardo's Homes, London

Defender/respondent

Charlotte Augusta Crone and others

Claimants (cousins/next of Kin)

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding (succession Dispute) / Inner House, First Division, on Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bequest to William Thomas Crumpton was absolute or restricted to a liferent
  2. 2 Whether the charities were substituted in the fee or were conditional institutes only

Ratio Decidendi

The will's language vested the fee in William Thomas Crumpton absolutely, not as a liferent, and the charities were conditional institutes only, to take effect only if he predeceased the testatrix without issue. As he survived the testatrix, the fee vested in him and passed to his legal representatives.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.

Orders

  • Judicial factor on the estate of William Thomas Crumpton ranked and preferred to the whole fund in medio.
  • Dr Barnardo's Homes and other claimants not preferred.