Though the doctrines of ademption and of satisfaction of gifts are related, it is more difficult to establish satisfaction. Slight differences between the two gifts might be overlooked, but where there is real difference between the two gifts by way of portion the question whether the donor might reasonably have supposed the two gifts, despite the differences between them, to be, very broadly, the same. Where the two provisions are of a different nature that itself can afford some intrinsic evidence that both portions were intended to be given and that therefore there should be no ademption. ‘In cases of satisfaction the person intended to be benefited by the covenant . . and the persons intended to be benefited by the bequest or devise . . must be the same. In cases of ademption they may be, and frequently are, different’ and ‘the law very properly and in accordance with the ordinary usage of mankind, considers that on the marriage of a child the settlement for that child and the children of the marriage is a settlement for the benefit of the child of the settlor. The consequence is, that, in all cases of ademption, a bequest of a sum of money to a child absolutely, is adeemed by the settlement of that or a larger amount on the marriage of that child; if a smaller amount it is an ademption pro tanto’.
References: (1867) Ex I App 71
Judges: Lord Romilly
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is 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 . .
(Gazette 21-Apr-99, Times 02-Apr-99, Gazette 28-Apr-99)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194486
