Barr v. Ardrossan Castle Curling Club [1901] ScotLR 38_658 (11 June 1901)

Barr v. Ardrossan Castle Curling Club [1901] ScotLR 38_658 (11 June 1901)

The legacy was not specific but demonstrative, as the testator did not limit the bequest to shares he possessed at the date of the will. The description, though inaccurate, could be construed to refer to preference consolidated stock, and the intention to benefit the club should be upheld. The legacy was not adeemed by the inter vivos trust, nor void for uncertainty.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_658
Parties
Testator: Barr; Claimant/respondent: Ardrossan Castle Curling Club; Reclaimers/claimants: Residuary Legatees
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 1901
Procedural Posture
Action of Multiplepoinding / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Ademption of Legacy, Demonstrative Legacy, Specific Legacy, Construction of Wills, Uncertainty in Testamentary Gifts
Succession Law Trusts and Estates Ademption of Legacy Demonstrative Legacy Specific Legacy Construction of Wills Uncertainty in Testamentary Gifts

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barr

Testator

Ardrossan Castle Curling Club

Claimant/respondent

Residuary Legatees

Reclaimers/claimants

Procedural Posture

Action of Multiplepoinding / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the legacy to the Ardrossan Castle Curling Club was a special (specific) legacy and had been adeemed by the inter vivos trust-disposition and assignation of 1880.
  2. 2 Whether the legacy was void from uncertainty due to the non-existence of shares of the kind described.

Ratio Decidendi

The legacy was not specific but demonstrative, as the testator did not limit the bequest to shares he possessed at the date of the will. The description, though inaccurate, could be construed to refer to preference consolidated stock, and the intention to benefit the club should be upheld. The legacy was not adeemed by the inter vivos trust, nor void for uncertainty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • The officials of the Ardrossan Castle Curling Club are entitled to the amount which at the date of the truster's death (or six months thereafter) would have been required to purchase £200 preference consolidated stock, or an equivalent amount of the stock into which the preference consolidated stock was by that time...