The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-28 00:00:00

i
`.

7'.4c•v,

Y L
L

LAW INTELLIGENd.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT..-SATURIM.Y.

(Before Sir .1. Wigram.)

SUISSE V. LORD LOWTHER

His Honour delivered judgment in this case. The late 111ar-
ycqeuhdeeswt was
specially wt
the
quis of Hertford had made 19 codicils to his will, under eight
Theonhclli
classed
tth lieern pa
slmae iren,d.tai;lf csnl a
theoimf e
theodt
h legacies d
ca orq
iisin six of w
she was
.
which had been a rgued before the court was, whether the
legacy of half of the sum of £16,000, given by the last
codicil as a provision for the servants, was a legacy in ad-
dition to the former bequests to the plaintiff, or whether it
was in substitute of such preceding legacies. The first co-
dicil under which the plaintiff claimed contained a gift to the
servants generally of two years wages, and to those who had
lived with the testator while he was Lord Yarmouth three
years' wages. The next of the codicils in question gave the
servants who had lived with the testator three years three
years' wages and board wages, and one year's wages to those
who bad lived with him one year. The presumption would be,
that this legacy was additional; but the court was not left to
presumption, for the testator had expressly said that all
the bequests by this codicill were to be in addition to what
had been previously given. The third codicil gave to Nicho-
las Suisse, the plaintiff, if he was living;pith the testator at
the time of his death, £l,OOO over and above any other be-
quests. On this, therefore, there was no question. In the.
fourth codicil, £2,000 is bequeathed to the plaintiff, and this
again is expressly stated to be over and above the pre-
ceding legacies. The next codicil had been a subject
of argument, the sum which it purported to bequeath being
the same as the amount of the two legacies which had gone
before—namely, £3,000. It was said that this must be taken
as a mere substitution for them ; but this codicil also con-
tained this expression, " I give these legacies in addition
to what I have in most instances given to the same persons
by other codicils." These words applied as well to the
legacy to Suisse as to those given to other persons by the same
instrument, and the Court must hold the legacy in question to
be cumulative. The sixth codicil under which the plaintiff
claimed gave him a legacy of £2,600, which also was distinctly
stated to be above all other bequests. The seventh codicil
again contained the words "independent of, and in addition
to, all other legacies to Suisse, £2,000, for continued good
services." There was no question that the £2,000 given
by that codicil was cumulative. The whole of the sums given
by these codicils amounted to about £10,600; and the entire
question then was, whether the £BOOO bequeathed to Suisse
by the last codicil was intended as a substitution for the
£10,600 previously given. It was less beneficial to the lega-
tee than the gifts in the preceding instruments ; the presump-
tion, therefore, would be in favour of the legatee, and against
the construction which would hold the legacy to be substitu-
tional. The expressed intention to provide for the servants
appearing in the last codicil had been dwelt upon with refer-
ence to the principle of the court, which was against double
provisions or double portions: that doctrine, however, did
not apply in the case of strangers ; it was applicable only to
bequests to persons as to whom a testator stood in loco pa-
rentis. With regard to strangers, as there was no reason,
in a legal point of view, why the testator should give them
anything by his will, so there was no reason why the court
should raise any presumption to limit the amount of his
bounty. Throughout the whole of the codicils, the testator
had gone on diminishing the amount of the benefit given to
those who had natural claims upon him by increasing the
amount of his gifts to other persons, and there was no prin-
ciple on which the court could bold that these legacies to the
plaintiff were not cumulative. The executors having admit-
ted assets, the decree must be made for payment.

rOsop":_ti744