It is a settled principle of law that the operative words of a deed which are expressed in clear and unambiguous language, are not to be controlled or qualified by a recital or narrative of intention.
A granted a trust-disposition, whereby, ‘in order to make and secure additional provision for’ his second son, ‘and the other heirs of entail succeeding to him in the lands and estate of Cromartie, to enable them to support the dignity and title of Earl of Cromartie,’ he conveyed a number of securities to trustees, and directed them after his death to pay the free annual proceeds of the trust funds to his second son and the heirs-male of his body, whom failing to certain substitutes, ‘whom falling to the heirs-female of the body’ of the said second son.
The truster’s second son was survived by two daughters, of whom the elder succeeded to the earldom of Cromartie.
Held (rev. the judgment of the Second Division) that the expression ‘heirs-female,’ not being ambiguous, could not be controlled or qualified by the narrative of intention, and that the two daughters were entitled, equally between them, to the income of the trust fund.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Watson, Lord Herschell, Lord Shand, and Lord Davey
Citations:
[1896] UKHL 628, 33 SLR 628
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Trusts
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634017