BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hagart v Hagart [1834] CA 13_35 (14 November 1834)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1834/013SS0035.html
Cite as: [1834] CA 13_35

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Shaw_Court_of_Session

Page: 35

Hagart

v.

Hagart
No. 10.

Court of Session

2d Division T

Nov. 14 1834

Ld. Medwyn, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Meadowbank, Lord Glenlee.

William Hagart, and Others. Keay— G. G. Bell. William Dickson Hagart. D. F. Hope— A. Macneill.

Subject_Testament—Legacy.—

A testatrix having directed an account of her whole income for the year of her death to be made up, and to be paid to a particular legatee, after the death of the first of a series of liferenters of her estate,—held, that this was a special legacy, not to suffer abatement by a shortcoming of funds.

The late Mrs Ramsay of Maxton possessed property in her own: right, yielding about £200 per annum, and she farther liferented property of her deceased husband, yielding between £1000 and £2000 a-year. In 1831, she executed a trust-deed of settlement, whereby, after diverse legacies, including one of £500 to the claimant, William Dickson Hagart, she appointed the trustees to make payment to her brother, Henry Hagart, now deceased, during all the days of his lifetime, after her death, “of the whole interest or free annual proceeds arising from my said trust-estate and effects, heritable and moveable, real and personal, before conveyed, after providing for the special purposes of the trust before specified.” Then there followed this bequest in favour of the claimant, William Dickson Hagart, (designed in the deed simply William Hagart,) natural son of Henry Hagart, above mentioned:—“Eighth, I direct my said trustees to keep a separate account of the rents, interests, dividends, or other annual proceeds arising upon my said trust-estate, from the term of Whitsunday or Martinmas immediately preceding my death, till the corresponding term in the following year: And I leave and bequeath to the said William Hagart, reputed natural son of the said Henry Hagart, the fee of that one full year's income, payable to him upon the death of the said Henry Hagart, the liferenter.”

The trustees were farther directed, on the death of Henry Hagart, to pay certain additional legacies of precise sums, (including a farther sum of £500 to William Dickson Hagart,) and to pay the free annual proceeds to her brother, William; and, on his death, to two other persons in succession, the fee of the residue being destined to the son of the last in order of these liferenters. By subsequent codicils, she bequeathed two additional legacies of £500 each to William Dickson Hagart, and she died in 1832, having been predeceased by her brother, Henry. It turned out that there was a shortcoming of funds to answer the legacies made payable subsequent to Henry Hagart's death, and the trustees having brought a process of multiplepoinding and exoneration, a dispute arose with the legatees subsequent to Henry Hagart's death, as to the bequest of the year's income in favour of William Dickson Hagart,—1. As to whether it included the whole yearly proceeds arising both from Mrs Ramsay's own property and that of her husband, or whether, in regard to the latter, it was not limited to the interest of the proceeds for the year in question, as itself a capital sum forming part of her stock, to the interest of which alone it was contended the bequest applied; and, 2. As to whether it was a special legacy, or was subject to the diminution occasioned by payment of the legacies payable immediately on the death of the testatrix, and of the testatrix's debts.

The Lord Ordinary, as to this matter, pronounced as follows, adding the subjoined note: *—“Finds that, under the eighth clause, and owing

_________________ Footnote _________________

* “There is no doubt much ambiguity in the 8th clause of the trust-deed, more especially if taken in connexion with the codicils afterwards made, which leave a (shortcoming of the funds on any view of its meaning. The Lord Ordinary does not lay any stress on the letter 4th November, 1830, because it refers to a prior settlement, and a codicil then made; and the subsequent settlement, which must regulate the distribution of her property, and is dated 20th December, 1831, shows that, so far as regards one part at least of her intention, she had altered it, as she does not leave the liferent of whatever money was due to her to her brother. It would only have been of use if the codicil, on being produced, was seen to be expressed in the same terms as those in the subsequent settlement. The interpretation put upon it by the Lord Ordinary is chiefly deduced from the words, ‘the fee of that full year's income,’ and the consideration which must have influenced her at the time of making it. Had this deed remained without any addition to the legacies, the Lord Ordinary understands that there would have been ample funds for the whole purposes of it. The special bequests did not exhaust her own funds, and it was natural for her to wish to dispose of the addition to her fortune which would arise from the current year's income, in so far as falling under her trust-estate, which would be to an uncertain amount, according as she did or did not survive the first term, or did or did not uplift a part of it, and to leave the addition by some general description to the person whom she evidently favoured. It is only the additional bequests which have made it impossible to carry her settlement into full effect, and which have thus thrown a doubt upon her intentions; but these must be presumed to have been made under some misapprehension as to the extent of her funds, or forgetfulness of this previous disposal of her year's income; for the Lord Ordinary cannot put the meaning upon it contended for on the part of those competing with William Dickson Hagart. The trustees are to keep a separate account of the rents, &c. of that year's income in which she dies; it is something different from the trust-accounts; it is a special account applicable to this purpose only, to become available at the death of Henry Hagart, which might not have been for twenty years after the death, of the testatrix.”

to the predecease of Henry Hagart, the claimant, William Dickson Hagart, is now entitled to the amount of the testatrix's year's income from Martinmas preceding her death to the succeeding Martinmas, arising from rents, interests, dividends, or other annual proceeds, in so far as they were uplifted by the trustees, or were in her hands extant and distinguishable at the time of her death; and whether the said year's income arose from the rents of her husband's estate liferented by her, or from the interest of her own separate funds; and that this is a special legacy or bequest, which will not suffer abatement if there be a shortcoming of funds.”

William Hagart and others, legatees in bequests payable after Henry Hagart's death, reclaimed.

Lord Justice-Clerk.—I am satisfied that the interlocutor is right, and that this is a special legacy, measured by being a-year's income. This person is certainly throughout the deed the persona predilecta; and, although the testatrix chooses to prefer the natural son of her brother to her own brothers and sisters, we must give effect to her will. The trustees were to keep a separate account of that particular year's income, and however long Henry Hagart had lived, the fee of it would have remained a special legacy in favour of William Dickson Hagart.

Lord Meadowbank.—It is just the same as if the year's proceeds had been directed to be laid up as a separate sum in a bank till Henry's death, and then paid to this party. I am clear that it is a special legacy.

Lord Glenlee.—If the eighth bequest had stood alone, there might have been some difficulty; but, when taken in connexion with the rest of the deed, I see no reason whatever to doubt that it was a special legacy, just as much as a bequest of the wine or spirits contained in a particular cellar would have been.

The Court accordingly adhered.

Solicitors: James Morgan, S. S. C.— R. Welsh, S. S. C.— Brodies and Kennedy, W. S.—Agents.

SS 13 SS 35 1834


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1834/013SS0035.html