Renouf's Trustees v. Haining and Others [1919] ScotLR 440 (31 May 1919)

Renouf's Trustees v. Haining and Others [1919] ScotLR 440 (31 May 1919)

The bequest for the salaries of two native missionaries for preaching the gospel among the heathen is not void for uncertainty, as the purpose, method, and beneficiaries are sufficiently defined. The special destinations in the superiority and bonds in favour of the second party and the testator, jointly and to the survivor, cannot be gratuitously revoked by the testator's general settlement; the survivor (second party) is entitled to the fee.

Citation
[1919] ScotLR 440
Parties
First Parties (trustees): James Halliday Haining and another, testamentary trustees of Frederick Mansell Renouf; Second Party (stepson of Testator): James Halliday Haining (as an individual); Third Parties (brother and Sister of Testator): Orlando John Renouf and Alice Mary Renouf or Bricknell; Fourth Party (brother of Testator): Albert James Renouf; Fifth Parties (nephews, Nieces, Residuary Legatees): James Chapell and others; Sixth Parties (nephews, Nieces, Residuary Legatees): Alice Chapell or Smith and others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 1919
Procedural Posture
Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division) / Judgment on Questions of Construction of Will and Succession
Outcome
First question (uncertainty of bequest) answered in the negative; third question branch (a) (did property pass to trustees) answered in the negative; branch (b) (did property pass to survivor) answered in the affirmative.
Legal Topics
Uncertainty in Bequests, Charitable and Religious Bequests, Construction of Testamentary Dispositions, Joint and Survivor Destinations, Revocation of Special Destinations by General Settlement
Succession Trusts Uncertainty in Bequests Charitable and Religious Bequests Construction of Testamentary Dispositions Joint and Survivor Destinations Revocation of Special Destinations by General Settlement

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

Parties

James Halliday Haining and another, testamentary trustees of Frederick Mansell Renouf

First Parties (trustees)

James Halliday Haining (as an individual)

Second Party (stepson of Testator)

Orlando John Renouf and Alice Mary Renouf or Bricknell

Third Parties (brother and Sister of Testator)

Albert James Renouf

Fourth Party (brother of Testator)

James Chapell and others

Fifth Parties (nephews, Nieces, Residuary Legatees)

Alice Chapell or Smith and others

Sixth Parties (nephews, Nieces, Residuary Legatees)

Procedural Posture

Special Case (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division) / Judgment on Questions of Construction of Will and Succession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the bequest for salaries of two native missionaries void for uncertainty?
  2. 2 Did the testator's general disposition and settlement revoke the special destinations in the superiority and bonds, or do those destinations prevail?

Ratio Decidendi

The bequest for the salaries of two native missionaries for preaching the gospel among the heathen is not void for uncertainty, as the purpose, method, and beneficiaries are sufficiently defined. The special destinations in the superiority and bonds in favour of the second party and the testator, jointly and to the survivor, cannot be gratuitously revoked by the testator's general settlement; the survivor (second party) is entitled to the fee.

Court Disposition

First question (uncertainty of bequest) answered in the negative; third question branch (a) (did property pass to trustees) answered in the negative; branch (b) (did property pass to survivor) answered in the affirmative.

Orders

  • The bequest for the salaries of two native missionaries is valid and not void for uncertainty.
  • The special destinations in the superiority and bonds prevail; the survivor (second party) is entitled to the fee.