Brownlee v Robb [1907] ScotCS CSIH_2 (19 July 1907)

Brownlee v Robb [1907] ScotCS CSIH_2 (19 July 1907)

The majority held that the deed, though informal and using the words 'hand over,' was intended and understood as an assignation of the policy to Mrs Brownlee, supported by the circumstances of its execution and delivery. No special words were required, and intimation to the insurance company was not necessary to bind the granter and his heirs. Thus, Mr Brownlee, as executor of Mrs Brownlee, was entitled to the policy proceeds.

Citation
[1907] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Claimant: George Brownlee (as executor of Elizabeth Scott Robb, deceased); Claimant: Mrs Mary Scott or Robb; Pursuer (nominal, as Stakeholder): Scottish Provident Institution
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 July 1907
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding (interpleader) / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Majority allowed Brownlee's claim; Mrs Brownlee (through Brownlee) entitled to the policy proceeds.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Life Insurance Policies, Validity of Deeds of Gift, Intimation of Assignation, Testamentary Versus Inter Vivos Transfer, Interpretation of Ambiguous Deeds
Succession Law Insurance Law Property Law Assignment of Life Insurance Policies Validity of Deeds of Gift Intimation of Assignation Testamentary Versus Inter Vivos Transfer Interpretation of Ambiguous Deeds

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Brownlee (as executor of Elizabeth Scott Robb, deceased)

Claimant

Mrs Mary Scott or Robb

Claimant

Scottish Provident Institution

Pursuer (nominal, as Stakeholder)

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding (interpleader) / Inner House Appeal From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed using the words 'hand over my life policy' constituted a valid assignation of the policy to Mrs Brownlee
  2. 2 Whether parole evidence is admissible to interpret the deed
  3. 3 Whether intimation to the insurance company was necessary to complete the assignation

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the deed, though informal and using the words 'hand over,' was intended and understood as an assignation of the policy to Mrs Brownlee, supported by the circumstances of its execution and delivery. No special words were required, and intimation to the insurance company was not necessary to bind the granter and his heirs. Thus, Mr Brownlee, as executor of Mrs Brownlee, was entitled to the policy proceeds.

Court Disposition

Majority allowed Brownlee's claim; Mrs Brownlee (through Brownlee) entitled to the policy proceeds.

Orders

  • Mr Brownlee to be ranked and preferred in terms of his claim to the policy proceeds.