Earl of Caithness v. Sinclair [1911] ScotLR 29 (07 November 1911)

Earl of Caithness v. Sinclair [1911] ScotLR 29 (07 November 1911)

The clause of devolution was valid and effective as a condition of the gift, binding inter hæredes, and excluded the first party from succession to the estate upon his succession to the peerage, regardless of the absence of strict entail or irritant clauses. The clause was not contrary to public policy as it did not induce any conduct but operated upon the occurrence of an event beyond the heir's control.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 29
Parties
First Party: Right Hon. John Sutherland, Earl of Caithness; Second Party: Hon. Norman Macleod Sinclair
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 November 1911
Procedural Posture
Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, First Division) / Judgment on Questions of Law
Outcome
Both questions of law answered in the affirmative; first party excluded from succession; second party entitled to the estate.
Legal Topics
Fee Simple Destination, Clause of Devolution, Validity of Testamentary Conditions, Public Policy in Succession
Succession Property Law Fee Simple Destination Clause of Devolution Validity of Testamentary Conditions Public Policy in Succession

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Right Hon. John Sutherland, Earl of Caithness

First Party

Hon. Norman Macleod Sinclair

Second Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, First Division) / Judgment on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the clause of devolution in the mortis causa settlement excluded the first party from succession to the estate upon his succession to a peerage
  2. 2 Whether such a clause is valid and enforceable in a fee-simple destination absent strict entail
  3. 3 Whether the clause is contrary to public policy

Ratio Decidendi

The clause of devolution was valid and effective as a condition of the gift, binding inter hæredes, and excluded the first party from succession to the estate upon his succession to the peerage, regardless of the absence of strict entail or irritant clauses. The clause was not contrary to public policy as it did not induce any conduct but operated upon the occurrence of an event beyond the heir's control.

Court Disposition

Both questions of law answered in the affirmative; first party excluded from succession; second party entitled to the estate.

Orders

  • First party excluded from succession to the estate of Auchmacoy.
  • Second party entitled to take up the succession to the estate.