Sprot's Trustees v. Sprot and Others [1908] ScotLR 161 (21 November 1908)

Sprot's Trustees v. Sprot and Others [1908] ScotLR 161 (21 November 1908)

The holograph writing of 5th February 1905, headed 'rough', was merely a draft reflecting a momentary intention which the testator subsequently departed from. Its existence was unknown to anyone, it was inconsistent with later codicils, and the testator's habits indicated it was not intended as a final testamentary document. Therefore, it was not entitled to receive effect as a valid testamentary writing.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 161
Parties
First Party: Mrs Charlotte Gertrude Cole or Sprot; First Party: General Sprot's trustees; Second Party: Mrs Charlotte Sprot; Third Party: Edward Walter Hearl Sprot and others; Fourth Party: John Mark Francis Sprot; Fifth Party: Mrs Cecilia Sprot or Keith Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 November 1908
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Judgment
Outcome
The Court answered the question of law in the negative; the holograph writing was not a valid testamentary writing.
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Writing, Holograph Codicil, Intention, Drafts Vs. Final Testamentary Documents
Succession Testamentary Law Validity of Testamentary Writing Holograph Codicil Intention Drafts Vs. Final 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Charlotte Gertrude Cole or Sprot

First Party

General Sprot's trustees

First Party

Mrs Charlotte Sprot

Second Party

Edward Walter Hearl Sprot and others

Third Party

John Mark Francis Sprot

Fourth Party

Mrs Cecilia Sprot or Keith Murray

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the holograph writing of 5th February 1905 a valid testamentary writing of the testator?

Ratio Decidendi

The holograph writing of 5th February 1905, headed 'rough', was merely a draft reflecting a momentary intention which the testator subsequently departed from. Its existence was unknown to anyone, it was inconsistent with later codicils, and the testator's habits indicated it was not intended as a final testamentary document. Therefore, it was not entitled to receive effect as a valid testamentary writing.

Court Disposition

The Court answered the question of law in the negative; the holograph writing was not a valid testamentary writing.

Orders

  • The holograph writing of 5th February 1905 is not a valid testamentary writing of the testator.