Brodie (Lawrie's Executor) v. Haig and Others [1913] ScotLR 898 (17 July 1913)

Brodie (Lawrie's Executor) v. Haig and Others [1913] ScotLR 898 (17 July 1913)

The reservation of power to dispose only of property acquired after the death of the first spouse demonstrates that the mutual settlement was contractual as to all other estate; thus, the wife was not entitled to alter the destination of the heritable subjects after her husband's death.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 898
Parties
First Party: Charles Robert Brodie (Lawrie's Executor); Second Parties: Sarah Weatherhead Haig, Mary Eeles Haig, Elizabeth Eeles Haig (executrices and universal legatees of Mrs Mary Eeles or Haig); Third Party: Mrs Elizabeth Eeles or Brodie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 1913
Procedural Posture
Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, First Division) / Judgment on Questions of Law Regarding Testamentary Disposition
Outcome
The Court answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative; the destination of the heritable subjects is regulated by the mutual disposition and settlement.
Legal Topics
Mutual Settlement by Spouses, Revocability by Survivor, Contractual Vs Testamentary Dispositions
Succession Trusts and Estates Mutual Settlement by Spouses Revocability by Survivor Contractual Vs Testamentary Dispositions

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Robert Brodie (Lawrie's Executor)

First Party

Sarah Weatherhead Haig, Mary Eeles Haig, Elizabeth Eeles Haig (executrices and universal legatees of Mrs Mary Eeles or Haig)

Second Parties

Mrs Elizabeth Eeles or Brodie

Third Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Margaret Eeles or Sandilands was entitled after the death of her husband to alter or revoke the destination of heritable subjects contained in the mutual disposition and settlement of 6th June 1874; Whether the alteration and revocation in her holograph settlement of 10th March 1911 was effectual; Whether the destination of the heritable subjects falls to be regulated by the mutual disposition and settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The reservation of power to dispose only of property acquired after the death of the first spouse demonstrates that the mutual settlement was contractual as to all other estate; thus, the wife was not entitled to alter the destination of the heritable subjects after her husband's death.

Court Disposition

The Court answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative; the destination of the heritable subjects is regulated by the mutual disposition and settlement.

Orders

  • The alteration and revocation in the 1911 holograph settlement was not effectual; the heritable property passes according to the mutual disposition and settlement of 1874.