|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Stuart-Gordon v Stuart-Gordon  ScotCS CSIH_1 (27 June 1899)
Cite as:  ScotCS CSIH_1, (1899) 7 SLT 79, (1899) 1 F 1005
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
27 June 1899
Now, it appears from the case that Mrs Stuart-Gordon was entitled under her father's will to a sum of £4000, and that the fee of this sum was settled by a deed of trust on the children of the marriage between her and Mr Stuart-Gordon, subject to their respective liferents.
It further appears that, under the will of an aunt, Mrs Smith, Mrs Stuart-Gordon was entitled to the income of a sum of £10,000, the fee of which was in like manner settled on her children.
It further appears that the sum which Mrs Stuart-Gordon had to dispose of, and which was affected by the settlement, amounted to £8016, 10s. What she had done by her settlement was this—she had bequeathed certain pecuniary legacies to relations and friends and to the vestry of St Andrew's Church, Aberdeen, amounting in the aggregate to £1013.
She had directed her trustees to deliver to the daughters of Mrs Hay or Foster certain jewels valued at £7, 11s. 6d., which she had received from her deceased aunt, Lady Hay, who was their grandmother, and finally she had bequeathed the whole residue and remainder of her estate to her husband.
This was the position of matters which Mrs Stuart-Gordon had to consider when she found herself pregnant.
Now, it is clear, I think, that at an early period of her pregnancy she had her mind directed to her succession, in the event of a child being born.
Then, with reference to an illness from which she seems to have been suffering, she wrote on 10th May 1897 to a friend, Mrs Ferrier, “I cannot make out what it can be, but shall likely know on Wednesday when the doctor comes back. It is either change of life, or a baby, I think now, but I shall let you know. If it is that I may as well make all my plans sure, and make my will. I should not survive it, I am sure.”
It is also clear that she remained in the apprehensive and anxious frame of mind, which she there expressed, during the whole period of her pregnancy.
Such being her frame of mind on 2d September she wrote to her agent Mr M'Kinnon that she was anxious to see him on a matter of business. The matter of business on which she desired to see him related to her settlement. It appears that when making the settlement she had arranged with her agent to make out a list of the jewels she had got from Lady Hay, and had bequeathed by the third purpose of the settlement to Mrs Foster's daughters and to docquet it as relative to the settlement.
This she had omitted to do, and she now desired to repair the omission.
She accordingly saw her agent, and gave him a list of the jewels, to which he appended a docquet in these terms,—“The foregoing is a list of Lady Hay's jewels referred to in my deed of settlement of date 9th October 1895.” She signed this docquet and returned it to Mr M'Kinnon about 15th September, not much more than two months before the child was born.
This appears to me to be a very significant proceeding. It is clear that she had had under consideration the terms of the settlement she had made, and if in view of her condition and the expected birth of a child she had desired to make any change in its terms, surely this was her opportunity. She, however, not only expresses no such, desire, but so far as I can see, she could have had no other object in view in making out and docqueting the list of jewels, than to facilitate the duty of her trustees in carrying out the third purpose of the settlement, by which she had bequeathed them to Mrs Foster's daughters, so that they might be able to distinguish them from the other jewels in her possession, and which were otherwise bequeathed. If this be so, then I think Mrs Stuart-Gordon must have understood and intended that the settlement was to have effect after her death.
If at this time Mrs Stuart-Gordon in the full knowledge that the birth of a child was more or less imminent, had executed a new settlement, I do not think that such a settlement would have been revoked by the subsequent birth of the child, because I think she must necessarily be considered to have had that contingency in view, when she made the settlement. It appears to me that what occurred in this case amounts to very much the same thing. I think that Mrs Stuart-Gordon, in the full knowledge of her condition, recognised and adopted her existing settlement as the settlement which was to regulate her succession. Nor does it appear to me that there was anything in the circumstances of the case that should make it improbable that she should do so. She knew that any child that might be born was largely provided for otherwise, and the great bulk of the money which she had to dispose of was bequeathed to her husband, the father of the child, in whom no doubt she had confidence that he would do what was right with it in the future.
On the whole matter, I am of opinion that the facts disclosed are sufficient to rebut the presumption of law, that the settlement was revoked by the birth of the child, and that accordingly the will and codicil are effectual and fall to be carried out by the trustees, and that the question should be answered accordingly.
Now, the present case appears to me to fall nearest to the case of a will made after marriage and the birth of one child, because although no child had been born of this marriage and some years had elapsed without the expectation of issue, there can be no doubt that the lady was looking forward to the birth of a child. That had been the cause of much anxiety to her in consequence of her delicate state of health. I wish to guard myself against being supposed to proceed upon the view that a child in utero is to be considered in the same position as if already born, because we know on high authority that this is a rule which only exists for the purpose of enabling the child to take benefit by the will. But, what we are now considering is not whether the child is in utero or is born, because there is nothing given to the child. What we are considering is the state of the mind of the lady who made this will which is said to be revoked; and I cannot see any difference between the state of her mind and knowledge of the subject at the time when she came to consider her will and to add an inventory that was to make it complete and her state of mind after the birth of the child if she had survived. She was dealing with her estate at a time when she was in full knowledge that she would in all probability give birth to a child, and in these circumstances, and with the provisions of her will brought under her notice—for she was considering her will at the time—she made what was in itself a very unimportant addition to it, but which becomes very important with reference to its legal effect, because it amounts to a republication of the will as of the date when the addition was made to it. In short I think it must be taken as if the testatrix had reexecuted her will at the time when on the advice of her lawyer she signed an inventory relative to one of its provisions.
I agree with Lord Adam that this is a case where the operation of the rule is plainly excluded, and upon this ground—the double condition that the child was amply provided for in the knowledge of her mother, and that in the personal knowledge and expectation of the birth of a child, and having an opportunity of revising her will, she allowed it to stand unaltered.
The LORD PRESIDENT was absent.
The permission for BAILII to publish the text of this judgment
was granted by Scottish Council of Law Reporting and
the electronic version of the text was provided by Justis Publishing Ltd.
Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.