Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
th July 1836.—‘Having heard parties' procurators, finds it necessarily implied in the interlocutor of 1st July current, that all the legacies, annuities and provisions in the first deed, which were dependent on the contingency of the first wife surviving the husband, necessarily lapsed by the admitted fact of her having predeceased him.’
The pursuer having reclaimed , as also the defenders, against the modification of expenses, the Court were satisfied that the interlocutors were right; but that other parties interested than those who had appeared as defenders ought not to be affected by the findings.
Lord Meadowbank .—As to one part of the deed of 1825, it seems to be contra bonos mores for a wife to be a party to a provision in favour of a second wife to her husband.
Lord Medwyn .—I concur. I cannot see how the first wife could be considered as entering into an onerous contract for a provision in favour of her successor, the second wife. To this extent the deed must be set aside.
‘The Lords adhere to the interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary, under this declaration, that the deeds, in so far as concerns other parties than those who have appeared as defenders, are not affected by this judgment: Find additional expenses due, subject to modification by the Lord Ordinary; and remit to his Lordship to proceed accordingly.’
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.