Paxton’s Trs v Cowie, 13 R 1191, 1886 CSIH 1
Citation:Paxton’s Trs v Cowie, 13 R 1191, 1886 CSIH 1
Rule of thumb: If a person in an extended ‘category’ of a will, such as a nice or nephew dies, does this mean that the other nieces & nephews get a larger share with this divided between them? No, the money the niece or nephew would have got if they were alive moves back into the residue of the estate.
Judgment:
The Court in this case affirmed the principle of plurality – where it is stated that a group of people, such as ‘nephews and nieces’, should share in a certain amount, if one of them dies then the deceased person still receives a share in theory when the money is initially being tallied up, but if they are not alive with no remaining issues and no one able to claim it in practice, then the money passes to the residue of the estate rather than the branch of nieces and nephews receiving a bigger share. It is important to carefully read the wording when it comes to plurality however, ‘When a legacy is given to a plurality of persons named or sufficiently described for identification “equally among them” or “in equal shares” or “share and share alike”, or in any other language of the same import, each is entitled to his own share and no more, and there is no room for accretion in the event of the predecease of one or more of the legatees. The rule is applicable whether the gift is in liferent or in fee to the whole equally, and whether the subject of the bequest be residue or a sum of fixed amount or corporeal moveables’, Lord President Inglis at 1197
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.