Armour and Others v. Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Others [1909] ScotLR 740 (26 May 1909)

Armour and Others v. Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Others [1909] ScotLR 740 (26 May 1909)

The ninth purpose of the codicil was void from uncertainty, so the residue fell to the heirs ab intestato. The pursuers, as such heirs, had title to sue for repetition of the £2000 paid to the Infirmary. The discharges granted to the trustees did not preclude the pursuers from recovering the sum from the Infirmary, as the discharges were not intended as a gift to the Infirmary and did not prevent recovery of a payment made in error.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 740
Parties
Pursuers (applicants): Jane Wright Armour and others; Defender (respondent): Glasgow Royal Infirmary; Defender (respondent): William Walker and others (Testamentary Trustees of James Wright)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil (repetition/trust/inheritance) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Uncertainty in Testamentary Dispositions, Repetition of Payments, Title to Sue, Approbate and Reprobate, Discharge and Reduction, Heirs Ab Intestato
Trusts and Estates Succession Law Charities Law Uncertainty in Testamentary Dispositions Repetition of Payments Title to Sue Approbate and Reprobate Discharge and Reduction +1 more

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

Parties

Jane Wright Armour and others

Pursuers (applicants)

Glasgow Royal Infirmary

Defender (respondent)

William Walker and others (Testamentary Trustees of James Wright)

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil (repetition/trust/inheritance) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ninth purpose of the codicil to James Wright's will was void from uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether the residue of the estate fell to the heirs ab intestato
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers had title to sue for repetition of the legacy paid to the Infirmary

Ratio Decidendi

The ninth purpose of the codicil was void from uncertainty, so the residue fell to the heirs ab intestato. The pursuers, as such heirs, had title to sue for repetition of the £2000 paid to the Infirmary. The discharges granted to the trustees did not preclude the pursuers from recovering the sum from the Infirmary, as the discharges were not intended as a gift to the Infirmary and did not prevent recovery of a payment made in error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Declarator granted that the ninth purpose of the codicil is void from uncertainty.
  • Declarator granted that the residue fell to the heirs ab intestato.