Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The question in this case, the circumstances of which have been previously reported, is whether a bequest to “relations” by a testator was a good bequest, or one void from its uncertainty and vagueness. The case was advised to-day— Lord Benholme delivering the judgment of the Court. His Lordship having narrated the question as it arose in the case, said—The argument was addressed to us to the effect that had the testator intended to benefit a limited class such as the heirs, who would have taken ab intestato, he would just have left the law to take effect. But it is obvious that this testator did not intend the law to come into operation, for he makes the bequest of his furniture to both sides of the house. His relations were to get one half, and the other half was to go to the relations of his widow at her death, if she did not enter into a second marriage. Had she married a second time the half intended for her relations would have recurred to the parties who were to take the other half. The Lord Ordinary has found the bequest not to be void by reason of uncertainty. The tendency of our later law is to strive after an interpretation of a bequest which will give effect to a testator's will rather than make it void. I think the natural interpretation of the bequest in the present case is that “relations” should become heirs ab intestato.

The other Judges concurred.