WL, brother of JL, gave property to JL charged with a legacy of pounds 5,000 to JL’s daughter, Susan, then unmarried. JL by his will later gave her pounds 10,000 on trust for life with remainder to her children and provided that the pounds 10,000 was to be additional to the gift to Susan (the pounds 5,000) provided by his brother’s will. Susan then married and JL advanced pounds 15,000 to her husband as a marriage portion. The marriage articles provided that such pounds 15,000 was to be in satisfaction of what would come to her (pounds 5,000) under WL’s will. JL then died. The question arose whether the pounds 15,000 advanced by JL to Susan’s husband, Mr Wharton, adeemed only the pounds 5,000 coming under WL’s will or also the pounds 10,000 provided for under JL’s will. The marriage articles provided that the pounds 5,000 was to be thereby adeemed, and it was argued, under the ‘expressly unius’ construction rule, that JL could not have intended the pounds 10,000 provided by his will to be adeemed. JL’s will gave the pounds 10,000 in trust for Susan for life and after her death for her children (by whatever husband) whereas under the marriage articles the money was given to her husband as a marriage portion in consideration of which her husband was to secure to her, during their joint lives, andpound;500 p.a. for pin money, a jointure of pounds 1200 p.a. and portions for the daughters and younger sons of their marriage. It was argued that the limitation under JL’s will were widely different from those applicable under the marriage settlement.
Held: As to the difference ‘. . . I apprehend that this will not prevent the application of the principle of ademption and that the authorities are all the other way’ and ‘the circumstance of the limitations being different does not at all affect the question’. The presumption against double portions applied and that the gift of pounds 10,000 by JL’s will had been adeemed.
Judges:
Lord Lyndhurs
Citations:
(1836) 3 C and Finelly 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others ChD 24-Mar-1999
One of the testatrix’s children was thought to be profligate, and had failed to maintain his own son. Acting under an enduring power of attorney, the testatrix’s attorneys made a substantial gift in establishing an educational trust for that son’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194491
