Rhodes v Peterson [1970] ScotCS CSOH_1 (25 November 1970)

Rhodes v Peterson [1970] ScotCS CSOH_1 (25 November 1970)

A familiar or pet name, such as 'Mum', can constitute a valid subscription to a holograph testamentary writing if it is proved to be habitually used by the deceased in correspondence to the recipient, and the letter's contents unequivocally express present testamentary intention.

Citation
[1970] ScotCS CSOH_1
Parties
Pursuer: Rhodes; Defender: Peterson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 1970
Procedural Posture
Property Succession Dispute / Procedure Roll (pleadings Relevancy)
Outcome
Defenders' pleas to relevancy rejected; first conclusion of the summons supported by relevant averments.
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Writings, Holograph Wills, Signature Requirements, Testamentary Intention
Succession Law Property Law Validity of Testamentary Writings Holograph Wills Signature Requirements Testamentary Intention

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhodes

Pursuer

Peterson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Property Succession Dispute / Procedure Roll (pleadings Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word 'Mum' at the end of a letter constitutes a valid subscription for a holograph testamentary writing
  2. 2 Whether the contents of the letter unequivocally express present testamentary intention

Ratio Decidendi

A familiar or pet name, such as 'Mum', can constitute a valid subscription to a holograph testamentary writing if it is proved to be habitually used by the deceased in correspondence to the recipient, and the letter's contents unequivocally express present testamentary intention.

Court Disposition

Defenders' pleas to relevancy rejected; first conclusion of the summons supported by relevant averments.

Orders

  • Case to proceed; defenders' arguments on authentication and testamentary intention dismissed.