Ramsay's Trustees v. Ramsay [1909] ScotLR 468 (23 February 1909)

Ramsay's Trustees v. Ramsay [1909] ScotLR 468 (23 February 1909)

The mutual settlement did not operate as a valid exercise of the power of appointment over the £4000 because the deed, when construed as a whole, showed a clear intention to appoint only the specifically mentioned funds and to exclude the £4000. The general residue clause could not be interpreted to include the £4000, which was not 'belonging or addebted' to the spouses at death but was an obligation to be paid after death. The division of the deed into two distinct parts further evidenced the intention to keep the estates separate.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 468
Parties
Applicant: Ramsay's Trustees; Respondent: Ramsay
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 February 1909
Procedural Posture
Succession Dispute (special Case) / Judgment on Special Case (inner House, Second Division)
Outcome
Question of law answered in the negative; the mutual settlement did not operate as a valid exercise of the power of appointment over the £4000.
Legal Topics
Power of Appointment, Construction of Wills, Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius, Trust Deeds, Antenuptial Contracts
Succession Trusts and Estates Power of Appointment Construction of Wills Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius Trust Deeds Antenuptial Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramsay's Trustees

Applicant

Ramsay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Dispute (special Case) / Judgment on Special Case (inner House, Second Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mutual settlement operated as a valid exercise of the power of appointment over the £4000 conferred by the antenuptial contract of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

The mutual settlement did not operate as a valid exercise of the power of appointment over the £4000 because the deed, when construed as a whole, showed a clear intention to appoint only the specifically mentioned funds and to exclude the £4000. The general residue clause could not be interpreted to include the £4000, which was not 'belonging or addebted' to the spouses at death but was an obligation to be paid after death. The division of the deed into two distinct parts further evidenced the intention to keep the estates separate.

Court Disposition

Question of law answered in the negative; the mutual settlement did not operate as a valid exercise of the power of appointment over the £4000.