Page: 45↓
Held that a legacy to E. S., exclusive of her husband's jus mariti, the liferent of which was to be enjoyed by the husband in the event of his surviving his wife, and which upon his death was to go to the heirs of the wife, had not lapsed by E. S. having predeceased the truster, but was claimable by her only surviving child, in respect the bequest to the heirs of the wife was a conditional institution and not a substitution. (2) Held that there is a presumption in law in favour of conditional institution in such bequests.
By her trust disposition and settlement the late Mrs Cecilia Douglas conveyed her property to trustees for certain purposes, and inter alia directed them to assign, convey, and make over the proportion of certain debts therein mentioned, to the extent of £1000 sterling, to Mrs Esther Sutherland, wife of Alexander Sutherland, “declaring that the said sum shall, upon no account or pretence whatever, fall under, or be in any degree subject to the jus mariti of the said Alexander Sutherland, or under his control and management, nor be liable to nor affected by his debts or deeds, or the diligence of his creditors, the said sum being to remain as an alimentary fund free of any such debts and deeds; and in the event of the said Alexander Sutherland surviving his said wife he shall be entitled to enjoy the interest of the said sum during his life, and upon his death it shall go to the heirs of his said wife: which declaration my said trustees are requested to carry into effect.” Mrs Esther Sutherland died in 1850, having been predeceased by her husband. They left two children, Janet and Robert Sutherland. The truster survived till 1862. Robert Sutherland is said to have predeceased the testatrix. Thereafter Janet Sutherland and her husband raised the present action against the trustees of Mrs Douglas for payment of the foresaid sum of £1000. The trustees resist the action upon the plea that the direction to assign the £1000 has lapsed by Mrs Esther Sutherland having predeceased the truster. The case having come to depend before Lord Jerviswoode, his Lordship held that in the events which have occurred an effectual direction was constituted to convey and make over the proportion of debts to the extent of £1000 to the heirs of Esther Sutherland, with interest since the death of the truster. Against this judgment the trustees reclaimed. After hearing counsel to-day the Court adhered.
The Lord Justice-Clerk said—I have no doubt, in the first place, that this legacy was left to Mrs Esther Sutherland in fee, and the whole question is as to the construction of the words which follow the bequest—whether they were intended, in the event of her predeceasing the truster, to provide a conditional institution in favour of her heirs, subject to a liferent in favour of her husband, if he should survive her; or whether they were intended only to come into operation in the event of Mrs Sutherland taking and dying, and leaving her husband the liferent. I am disposed to adopt the former construction. There is a presumption in law in favour of conditional institution rather than of substitution in bequests such as the present, and I do not see such great difficulty in interpreting the deed so as to give effect to the legal presumption as to induce me to disregard it. The view I take of the matter is this. A legacy is given to Mrs Sutherland, which if she takes she takes absolutely—the jus mariti of her husband being excluded—and she having an absolute power of disposal. If she does not dispose of it, and the fund remain, it will still go upon her death to her heirs under the burden of a liferent in favour of her husband if he survives her. If she predeceased the truster, there was still a conditional institution of a liferent to her husband and a fee to her heirs.
The other Judges concurred.
Counsel for the Reclaimers— Mr Patton and Mr H. Smith. Agents— Messrs Tods, Murray, & Jamieson, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondents— Mr Gordon and Mr Muirhead. Agent— Mr Forman, W.S