Stenhouse v. Stenhouse [1922] ScotLR 297 (11 March 1922)

Stenhouse v. Stenhouse [1922] ScotLR 297 (11 March 1922)

The docquet on the envelope is merely descriptive and does not constitute a subscribed adoptive writing. Without subscription, the holograph document is not a valid testamentary writing.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 297
Parties
First Parties: Joseph Stenhouse and others; Second Parties: James Stenhouse and others; Third Parties: Elizabeth Stenhouse and another
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Court of Session Inner House First Division, Final Judgment
Outcome
Document held invalid as testamentary writing
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Writing, Adoption of Unsubscribed Writing, Holograph Wills
Succession Testamentary Law Validity of Testamentary Writing Adoption of Unsubscribed Writing Holograph 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Stenhouse and others

First Parties

James Stenhouse and others

Second Parties

Elizabeth Stenhouse and another

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Court of Session Inner House First Division, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the unsubscribed holograph document found in Joseph Stenhouse's repositories a valid testamentary writing?
  2. 2 Can the docquet on the envelope constitute a subscribed adoptive writing to validate the unsubscribed will?

Ratio Decidendi

The docquet on the envelope is merely descriptive and does not constitute a subscribed adoptive writing. Without subscription, the holograph document is not a valid testamentary writing.

Court Disposition

Document held invalid as testamentary writing

Orders

  • First question of law answered in the negative