Hannay's Trustees v. Keith [1913] ScotLR 386 (15 January 1913)

Hannay's Trustees v. Keith [1913] ScotLR 386 (15 January 1913)

The holograph writing of 21st December 1903 is inoperative and ineffectual because it was expressly revoked by the subsequent trust-disposition and settlement of 13th January 1904, which contained an unambiguous clause of revocation and reference to future writings. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the clear terms of the later settlement, and the doctrine of re-attestation does not apply as the two settlements were not identical.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 386
Parties
First Parties (trustees Under the Trust Disposition and Settlement of Mrs Eliza Farquharson Milne or Hannay): Hannay's Trustees; Second Parties: Mrs Laura Esther Parker or Keith and her children; Third Party: Miss Jemima Graham (executrix of Miss Elizabeth Harriet Caroline Hannay); Fourth Party: Peter Hannay (son of testatrix); Fifth Parties: John H. P. Hannay and others (children of Peter Hannay)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 1913
Procedural Posture
Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division) / Judgment on Question of Law
Outcome
The Court answered the question of law in the negative: the holograph writing of 21st December 1903 is not operative or effectual as part of the testatrix's final testamentary writings.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Writings, Revocation of Wills, Extrinsic Evidence, Re Execution of Testamentary Documents
Succession Wills and Probate Testamentary Writings Revocation of Wills Extrinsic Evidence Re Execution 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hannay's Trustees

First Parties (trustees Under the Trust Disposition and Settlement of Mrs Eliza Farquharson Milne or Hannay)

Mrs Laura Esther Parker or Keith and her children

Second Parties

Miss Jemima Graham (executrix of Miss Elizabeth Harriet Caroline Hannay)

Third Party

Peter Hannay (son of testatrix)

Fourth Party

John H. P. Hannay and others (children of Peter Hannay)

Fifth Parties

Procedural Posture

Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division) / Judgment on Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the holograph writing of the testatrix, dated 21st December 1903, operative and effectual as a part of her final testamentary writings?
  2. 2 Is extrinsic evidence admissible to prove that the testatrix intended the holograph document to receive effect despite a subsequent settlement with a revocation clause?

Ratio Decidendi

The holograph writing of 21st December 1903 is inoperative and ineffectual because it was expressly revoked by the subsequent trust-disposition and settlement of 13th January 1904, which contained an unambiguous clause of revocation and reference to future writings. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the clear terms of the later settlement, and the doctrine of re-attestation does not apply as the two settlements were not identical.

Court Disposition

The Court answered the question of law in the negative: the holograph writing of 21st December 1903 is not operative or effectual as part of the testatrix's final testamentary writings.