McBeath's Trustees v McBeath [1935] ScotCS CSIH_2 (19 February 1935)

McBeath's Trustees v McBeath [1935] ScotCS CSIH_2 (19 February 1935)

A typewritten document, even if personally typed and signed by the testator, does not constitute a valid holograph will under Scots law unless the body of the document or adopting words are in the testator's handwriting. Authentication by comparison of handwriting is essential for the privilege of holograph writings, and typewriting lacks the necessary individual characteristics. Parole evidence of personal typing is insufficient to confer probativity. The privilege of holograph writings cannot be extended to typewritten documents without undermining safeguards against forgery and uncertainty in the law.

Citation
[1935] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Applicant: M'Beath's Trustees; Respondent: M'Beath
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 February 1935
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
majority negative, minority affirmative
Legal Topics
Validity of Testamentary Writings, Holograph Wills, Authentication of Wills, Typewritten Wills
Succession Property Law Validity of Testamentary Writings Holograph Wills Authentication of Wills Typewritten 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M'Beath's Trustees

Applicant

M'Beath

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a typewritten document, personally typed and signed by the testator, constitutes a valid holograph will under Scots law
  2. 2 Whether the law should extend the privilege of holograph writings to typewritten documents

Ratio Decidendi

A typewritten document, even if personally typed and signed by the testator, does not constitute a valid holograph will under Scots law unless the body of the document or adopting words are in the testator's handwriting. Authentication by comparison of handwriting is essential for the privilege of holograph writings, and typewriting lacks the necessary individual characteristics. Parole evidence of personal typing is insufficient to confer probativity. The privilege of holograph writings cannot be extended to typewritten documents without undermining safeguards against forgery and uncertainty in the law.

Court Disposition

majority negative, minority affirmative

Orders

  • The questions of law are answered in the negative by the majority: the typewritten memorandum and codicil are not valid holograph testamentary writings under Scots law. Minority opinions would answer in the affirmative.