Lothian's Trustees v. Macewen and Another [1918] ScotLR 410 (16 March 1918)

Lothian's Trustees v. Macewen and Another [1918] ScotLR 410 (16 March 1918)

The codicil of 11th November 1907, which bequeathed £2000 to Dr Back and stated it was in addition to any legacy mentioned in the will and codicils, did not revive the previously revoked £5000 legacy. The language used did not amount to a clear intention to restore the revoked legacy, and the £2000 legacy stands alone.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 410
Parties
First Parties: Philip Francis Wood, K.C., and another, the testamentary trustees of the late Maurice John Lothian; Second Party: Brigadier-General Maurice Lilburn MacEwen, C.B.; Third Party: Alfred Henry Back, M.D.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 1918
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Court of Session Inner House First Division Judgment
Outcome
Question of law answered in the negative; the third party is not entitled to the £5000 legacy in addition to the £2000 legacy.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Legacy, Restoration by Codicil, Construction of Testamentary Documents
Succession Testamentary Writings Revocation of Legacy Restoration by Codicil Construction of Testamentary Documents

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

Parties

Philip Francis Wood, K.C., and another, the testamentary trustees of the late Maurice John Lothian

First Parties

Brigadier-General Maurice Lilburn MacEwen, C.B.

Second Party

Alfred Henry Back, M.D.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Court of Session Inner House First Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the legacy of £5000 to Dr Back, revoked by a prior codicil, was restored by a subsequent codicil bequeathing £2000 and stating it was in addition to any legacy mentioned in the will and codicils.

Ratio Decidendi

The codicil of 11th November 1907, which bequeathed £2000 to Dr Back and stated it was in addition to any legacy mentioned in the will and codicils, did not revive the previously revoked £5000 legacy. The language used did not amount to a clear intention to restore the revoked legacy, and the £2000 legacy stands alone.

Court Disposition

Question of law answered in the negative; the third party is not entitled to the £5000 legacy in addition to the £2000 legacy.

Orders

  • Only the £2000 legacy in the 1907 codicil is payable to Dr Back.