References: (1878) 1 LR IR 45
Coram: Warren J
Ratio: The testator had executed two wills, identical in all respects save only for the dates and the attesting witnesses.
Held: Warren J said: ‘On these facts it would seem immaterial whether one or both papers should be admitted to probate.’ However there were certain charitable donations contained in the wills which, under the law at the time, would have failed if dependant on the second will but would have been valid if effected by the earlier will. After referring to Birks, he said the Court may draw what light it can from such evidence.’ The function of the Court was ‘to admit to probate all testamentary papers which a testator has duly executed and which he has not revoked’.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Birks v Birks ([1865] EngR 362 (B), Commonlii, (1865) 4 Sw and Tr 23)
Probate was applied for for two testamentary papers. Mistake. Admissibility of Parol Evidence.-Testamentary Papers not inconsistent with each other. The First not revoked by the Last.—A testator, having erased a clause in his Will after the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Lamothe v Lamothe and Others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch))
The deceased had made a will in England but later made a will in Dominica revoking all other wills. After the first death, probate of the first will was taken out in ignorance of the second. The claimant, still in ignorance of the second will, took . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 07 April 2020
Ref: 375066
