Bridgeford's Executors v Bridgeford [1948] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 March 1948)

Bridgeford's Executors v Bridgeford [1948] ScotCS CSIH_1 (18 March 1948)

The document in question is not a valid holograph will because the essential elements of a testamentary disposition are not wholly contained in the holograph (handwritten) portions; the printed parts are not merely formal or superfluous but are necessary to give effect to the will. The document fails the test of authentication required for a privileged holograph will under Scots law, as established in Macdonald v. Cuthbertson and not extended by Carmichael's Executors v. Carmichael to the facts of this case.

Citation
[1948] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Executor Dative Qua Next of Kin (first Party): William Bridgeford; Claimant/second Party (alleged Legatee and Executor Nominate): Margaret Kelman Bridgeford; Heir at Law in Intestacy: Heir-at-law (third party); Other Parties (no Contention): Fourth parties
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1948
Procedural Posture
Special Case (section 63, Court of Session Act 1868) / Inner House, Court of Session, Appellate Review of Validity of Testamentary Writing
Outcome
The will is not a valid holograph testamentary writing; the first question is answered in the negative; unnecessary to answer further questions.
Legal Topics
Validity of Holograph Wills, Testamentary Intention, Authentication of Testamentary Documents, Effect of Printed Forms With Holograph Additions, Revocation Clauses in Wills
Succession Law Wills and Probate Property Law Validity of Holograph Wills Testamentary Intention Authentication of Testamentary Documents Effect of Printed Forms With Holograph Additions Revocation Clauses in Wills

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bridgeford

Executor Dative Qua Next of Kin (first Party)

Margaret Kelman Bridgeford

Claimant/second Party (alleged Legatee and Executor Nominate)

Heir-at-law (third party)

Heir at Law in Intestacy

Fourth parties

Other Parties (no Contention)

Procedural Posture

Special Case (section 63, Court of Session Act 1868) / Inner House, Court of Session, Appellate Review of Validity of Testamentary Writing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a will composed of a printed form with holograph additions is a valid holograph will under Scots law
  2. 2 Whether the essentials of a will are present in the holograph portion of the document
  3. 3 Whether non-holograph (printed) parts are merely formal or superfluous or materially affect the testamentary disposition

Ratio Decidendi

The document in question is not a valid holograph will because the essential elements of a testamentary disposition are not wholly contained in the holograph (handwritten) portions; the printed parts are not merely formal or superfluous but are necessary to give effect to the will. The document fails the test of authentication required for a privileged holograph will under Scots law, as established in Macdonald v. Cuthbertson and not extended by Carmichael's Executors v. Carmichael to the facts of this case.

Court Disposition

The will is not a valid holograph testamentary writing; the first question is answered in the negative; unnecessary to answer further questions.

Orders

  • Answer the first line of question (1) with a negative: the form of will is not a valid testamentary writing which effectually disposes of the whole estate of the deceased.
  • No order on questions (2) and (3).