References: [1905] P 66
Coram: Vaughan Williams LJ
The court was asked how far a second will had revoked an earlier one.
Held: It was necessary for the court to construe the subsequent will. If the terms of the subsequent will are ambiguous, it is necessary for the court to act as a court of construction to determine the extent, if any, of the inconsistency.
Vaughan Williams LJ said: ‘Then Sir James Hannen (in Jenner v Ffinch) proceeded to point out that, if the second document is ambiguous, parol evidence of the surrounding circumstances will be admissible in order to enable the Court to determine the intention of the second document. Speaking for myself, I should hesitate to say that that dictum would extend to the admission of parol evidence of the intention of the testator according to the view of those who were present at the time of the execution of the testamentary document. I think the basis for this principle (which, indeed, is plainly laid down in the first case which I cited by Sir James Wilde, that when there is, as between two documents properly executed in accordance with the Wills Act, the question to be solved how far the one affects the other, the Probate Court must to that extent and for this purpose act as a Court of construction) is this – that if a document purports to be testamentary, and it is executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act, prima facie that document ought to be admitted to probate. In order to reject such a document you have to displace that presumption.’
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: 03-Jan-16 Ref: 375067
