M'Gregor's Trustees v. Kimbell

Held , in a special case, that the clause in the settlement whereby the wife accepted the provisions in her favour in lieu of her legal rights was to be regarded as having been intended solely for the protection of the settlement, and that the widow, in addition to her conventional provision, was entitled jure relictæ to one-half of the proportion of income falling into intestacy — Naismith v. Boyes , July 28, 1899, 1 F. (H.L.) 79 , 36 S.L.R. 973 , followed . Sim v. Sim , December 18, 1901, 4 F. 944 , distinguished .

The following questions of law were, inter alia , submitted for the opinion and judgment of the Court—“2. Are the first parties entitled or bound to accumulate, as directed by the trustee, any part of the income of the estate after 26th November 1902? [ Answered in negative ; not reported ]. 3. Should the second question be answered in the negative, is the second party entitled, jure relictæ , to one-half of the surplus income after payment of her restricted annuity for each year since 26th November 1902, and so long as she survives?”

If the views which I have expressed are well founded, they afford material for answering the specific questions put to us in the case, to which I now turn.… [ His Lordship then dealt with the other questions on which the case is not reported .] … The answer to the third question should, in my opinion, upon the grounds I have endeavoured to explain, be in the affirmative.…

[ His Lordship then dealt with contentions of the parties with which this report is not concerned .]

The remaining question in the case is whether the widow is entitled, jure relictæ , to one-half of the income set free by her re-marriage. If so, the result is certainly at first sight surprising, because after 1902, when further accumulation became illegal, she would be entitled to two-thirds of the income of her husband's trust estate, although by the terms of the settlement she had accepted one-third as in full satisfaction of her legal claims as a widow.