Reid's Trustees v Dawson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 1915 |
| Date | 12 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Court | House of Lords |
Earl Loreburn, Lord Kinnear, Ld. Dunedin, Ld. Atkinson, Ld. Parker of Waddington, Ld. Sumner.
SuccessionTestamentConstructionI would preferconstrued as I wish.
SuccessionLegacyDemonstrative or special legacy.
A testator left a letter addressed to one of his testamentary trustees containing instructions to pay to Miss D.on the first of each month after my death the sum of twelve pounds ten shillings, being at the rate of 150 a year. But in lieu of this I would prefer that as soon as you conveniently can, that the sum of 3000 should be taken from my life insurance funds and paid over to her.I had hoped to make this bequest from another source, but have found it impracticable.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the words I would preferwere to be construed as I wish,and were a form of command; and, accordingly, that the trustees were not given a discretion to pay either the monthly payments or the capital sum, but that the bequest was to be construed as a bequest of the capital sum, the monthly payments being merely a temporary expedient until the capital sum should be available for payment.
Held,further, that the bequest of 3000 fell to be paid in full, the reference to the life insurance funds (which were insufficient to pay it in full) being demonstrative and not taxative.
(In the Court of Session, 28th October 1913.)
The late Mr Robert Reid died leaving the following letter addressed to Mr James Young, his law-agent, who was also one of the trustees under his trust-disposition and settlement:Recognising as I do, the necessity, in the event of my death, of making some provision for Miss Christina Dawson and her son Robert, 113 Comiston Road, Edinburgh, I hereby instruct you to pay to her, on the 1st of each month after my death, the sum of Twelve pounds ten shillings, being at the rate of 150 a year. But in lieu of this I would prefer that as soon as you conveniently can, that the sum of3000, say Three thousand pounds, should be taken from my life insurance funds, and paid over to her through her law adviser, Mr Maitland, or her brother, Mr William Dawson, London, the latter of whom I wish to nominate trustee for same if he will accept. I trust this arrangement can be carried out without any friction. I had hoped to make this bequest from another source, but have found it impracticable.
Mr Reid left estate amounting to over 25,000. There was a policy of insurance on his life for 5000, on the security of which, however, he had borrowed sums of money amounting to 3100 or thereby, which reduced the free insurance funds available for payment of the legacy to 1900 or thereby.
A special case was presented for the opinion and judgment of the Court, to which the trustees of the late Robert Reid were the first parties, Miss Christina Dawson the second party, and her son Robert the third party. In the case the following questions, inter alia,were submitted for the opinion of the Court:3. (a) Is the provision in the letter with regard to the payment of capital in lieu of the annuity imperative on the first parties ? or (b) Does it merely give them a discretionary power ? 4. (a) Have the first parties a right or duty on them to pay a capital sum of 3000 in lieu of the annuity ? or (b) To pay a capital sum of 1900 or thereby in lieu of the annuity? or (c) To pay a capital sum of 1900 or thereby, the annuity being in that event proportionately diminished ?
The case was heard by the Second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Revenue Commissioners v The Most Reverend Edward Doorley
...AG LR 4 HL 100. Power Lane Manufacturing Co v Putnan [1931] 2 KB 309. Pryce v Monmouthshire Canal Co 4 AC 197. Reid’s Trustees v Dawson (1915) SC (HL) 47. Tennant v Smith [1892] AC 150. Young v Robertson 4 Macq HL 314. High Court - 2 March 1932 Hanna J. This case is quite clear. It arises o......