Jack v. M'Grouther [1901] ScotLR 38_701 (18 June 1901)

Jack v. M'Grouther [1901] ScotLR 38_701 (18 June 1901)

The Court held that the family agreement was proved by parole evidence and corroborated by the deed of assumption. The agreement was not a trust within the meaning of Act 1696 cap. 25 and was valid and binding. The deceased had no right to the capital at her death, only a liferent, so the pursuer (her third husband) had no claim to the £500 fund jure mariti or jure relicti. The defender (son) was entitled to the whole fund as surviving beneficiary under the agreement.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_701
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Thomas Jack; Defender/appellant: James M'Grouther
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 June 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil (succession/trust) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutors of lower courts recalled; defender assoilzied; declarator granted in favour of James M'Grouther.
Legal Topics
Intestate Succession, Verbal Trusts and Family Arrangements, Proof Requirements Under Act 1696 Cap. 25, Jus Mariti and Jus Relicti, Parole Evidence in Trust/family Contracts
Succession Law Trusts Family Law Evidence Intestate Succession Verbal Trusts and Family Arrangements Proof Requirements Under Act 1696 Cap. 25 Jus Mariti and Jus Relicti +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Jack

Pursuer/respondent

James M'Grouther

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (succession/trust) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a verbal family agreement regarding succession and trust of funds is provable by parole evidence or requires writing under Act 1696 cap. 25
  2. 2 Whether the deed of assumption executed by the deceased without her husband's consent is competent evidence of the antecedent agreement
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer (third husband) has any claim to the £500 fund jure mariti or jure relicti

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the family agreement was proved by parole evidence and corroborated by the deed of assumption. The agreement was not a trust within the meaning of Act 1696 cap. 25 and was valid and binding. The deceased had no right to the capital at her death, only a liferent, so the pursuer (her third husband) had no claim to the £500 fund jure mariti or jure relicti. The defender (son) was entitled to the whole fund as surviving beneficiary under the agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutors of lower courts recalled; defender assoilzied; declarator granted in favour of James M'Grouther.

Orders

  • Assoilzie (absolve) the defender James M'Grouther from the conclusions of the action at the instance of Thomas Jack.
  • Declare that the £500 deposit and accrued interest is the property of James M'Grouther.