Scott's Trustees v. Duke and Others [1916] ScotLR 551 (01 June 1916)

Scott's Trustees v. Duke and Others [1916] ScotLR 551 (01 June 1916)

The codicil of 5 November 1913 did not expressly or by necessary implication revoke the codicil of 18 December 1912. The confirmation of the trust-disposition and settlement in the later codicil is to be read as confirmation of the settlement as modified by any existing and operative codicils. There was no inconsistency between the two codicils, and the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving revocation.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 551
Parties
First Parties (applicants): Rev. Walter Scott and others, trustees of the late Miss Anne Scott; Second Party (respondent): Mrs Louisa Scott Lawford or Duke; Third Parties (respondents): Herbert Fortescue Lawford and others, trustees under the antenuptial contract of marriage between Lieutenant-Colonel John Charles Duke and Mrs Louisa Scott Lawford or Duke
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 1916
Procedural Posture
Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, First Division) / Judgment
Outcome
First question answered in the negative; second question answered in the affirmative. The codicil of 18 December 1912 was not revoked by the codicil of 5 November 1913.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Testamentary Dispositions, Interpretation of Codicils, Confirmation of Wills, Testamentary Intention
Succession Wills and Probate Revocation of Testamentary Dispositions Interpretation of Codicils Confirmation of Wills Testamentary Intention

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rev. Walter Scott and others, trustees of the late Miss Anne Scott

First Parties (applicants)

Mrs Louisa Scott Lawford or Duke

Second Party (respondent)

Herbert Fortescue Lawford and others, trustees under the antenuptial contract of marriage between Lieutenant-Colonel John Charles Duke and Mrs Louisa Scott Lawford or Duke

Third Parties (respondents)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the codicil dated 18 December 1912 was revoked by the subsequent codicil dated 5 November 1913.
  2. 2 Whether the first parties are bound to pay the sums under the original trust-disposition and settlement or as modified by the codicil of 18 December 1912.

Ratio Decidendi

The codicil of 5 November 1913 did not expressly or by necessary implication revoke the codicil of 18 December 1912. The confirmation of the trust-disposition and settlement in the later codicil is to be read as confirmation of the settlement as modified by any existing and operative codicils. There was no inconsistency between the two codicils, and the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving revocation.

Court Disposition

First question answered in the negative; second question answered in the affirmative. The codicil of 18 December 1912 was not revoked by the codicil of 5 November 1913.

Orders

  • First parties are not bound to make immediate payment to the second party of the sum of £1000 bequeathed by the third purpose of the trust-disposition and settlement, nor to hold the sum of £2500 on the trusts mentioned in the sixth purpose thereof.
  • First parties are bound to make immediate payment to the second party of the sum of £400, and to the third parties of the sum of £3000.