Keith v Keith
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1931 |
Date | 01 January 1931 |
Court | High Court (Irish Free State) |
Will - Construction - Absolute gift or precatory trust - "It is my wish."
By his Will testator gave to his wife, M. K., "all my property, personal and real, of any kind whatsoever." The will then continued: "It is my wish that after her decease my son, R.K., have the business premises, business effects, and all my land."
Held that M.K. was tenant for life of the property left to R.K., namely, the business premises, the business effect, and all the testator's land, and that on her death R.K. would be entitled to that property absolutely.
Summary Summons to determine the construction of the will of Robert Keith, who died on the 30th day of May, 1930. His will was as follows:—"This is the last will and testament of me, Robert Keith, of Arva, in the County of Cavan. I hereby revoke all wills and testamentary instruments heretofore by me made. I appoint James Keith of Coronea to be the executor of this my will. I direct my executor to pay my just debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses. I give and bequeath to my wife, Margaret Keith, all my property, personal and real, of any kind whatsoever. It is my wish that after her decease my son, Robert, have the business premises, business effects, and all my land." The question which the Court was asked to decide was whether, on the true construction of the will, the said Margaret Keith was absolutely entitled to the property, real and personal, of the deceased, or whether she was merely a tenant for life, and the said Robert Keith was entitled after her decease to the business premises, business effects, and land belonging to the deceased.
Johnston J. :—
This is a short, and, I think, a very simple will. There is, first of all, a simple gift of "all my property, personal and real, of any kind whatsoever" to the widow, without any words of a qualifying, limiting, or extending character such as "absolutely,""for ever," "for her own use and benefit," or anything of that kind. The omission of such words is important, and there can be no doubt that the terms of that gift are not inconsistent with a gift over in favour of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Porter v Fay
...between the benefit given to Mary Ivory and thebenefitgiven to her husband. I have been referred to the cases of Keith .v.Keith (1931) I.R. 730 and In Re Coulson, deceased, 87I.L.T.R. 93 but have got very little assistance from them and I have come to the conclusion, for the reason I have s......