In the Goods of Miller; Sullivan v Donegan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1941
• Date: 01 January 1941
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.),

In the Goods of Miller; Sullivan

and

Donegan

Revocation - Action to admit will to probate - Defence of revocation by subsequent wills which were lost - No direct evidence of execution of subsequent wills - Entries by solicitor in his attendance sheets that these wills had been executed Whether sufficient evidence of due execution - No copies of, or instructions for, these wills and no evidence of contents - Intention of testatrix - Notes in prior will indicating intention to benefit persons not mentioned in will - Similar intention in instructions for a further will which was never executed -Evidence of invariable practice of solicitor in drawing will to dispose of entire estate - Sufficiency of such evidence to establish such disposition - Wills Act, 1837 (7 Wm. 4 1 Vict., c. 26), s. 20.

In 1929 E. M. executed a will and codicil which she subsequently revoked by a later will made in 1930, and in each of these wills the testatrix disposed of her entire estate. The testatrix made two further wills in 1931 and 1933 as to which the only evidence available was that contained in her solicitors' attendance sheets, viz.: —"30th April, 1931. Attendance on [E. M.], going through her will, which she altered, and asked us to have amended will engrossed." "5th May, 1931. Attendance on [E. M.] when she altered her will and we drew codicil, when she executed both will and codicil." "7th November, 1933. Long attendance on (E. M.] when she stated she wished to make a new will and insisted that she could not call again to sign it and asked us to engross it at once. Taking instructions, engrossing and attendance to execute." On the 13th November, 1933, the last mentioned will was handed to her by her solicitor, to whose custody it was never returned. On the 11th November, 1935, she called at his office and left a message that she had destroyed her will and did not intend to make a new one, but, on the receipt of a letter from her solicitor advising her that it was wiser to make a will, she called to see him on the 13th November and gave instructions for specific legacies but not for the disposal of the residue, as to which she had not made up her mind. Although she promised to go into the matter and call again, she never called...