Two sisters made mirror codicils to their wills but each then executed that of the other sister.
Held: The dispositions contained in them were invalid.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: ‘But it is quite clear that this lady, though her signature is on the document, never meant to sign this particular codicil at all. She meant to sign a totally different document. It may be that this document contains provisions corresponding with what she wished to sign, because the two documents were cross-codicils by two sisters. But, as a matter of fact, the deceased in signing her name to this codicil never intended to do that at all, but intended to put her signature to another document.’
Judges:
Sir Gorell Barnes P
Citations:
[1908] P 353, [1908] UKLawRpPro 23, (1908) 99 LT 881
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another ChD 3-Feb-2011
A married couple had purported to make mirror wills, but by mistake had each executed the will of the other. Rectification was now sought.
Held: The will did not comply with the 1837 Act and should not be admitted to probate. The testator had . .
Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.428465
