The testator, who had one son, bequeathed legacies to Percy, his attorney, one Butlin, to whom he also bequeathed the residue of his estate, and Whitehead, his butler. The will was upheld by the judge in the Prerogative Court and the son appealed.
Held: The case law establishes that the proposition that the propounder of a will: ‘must satisfy the conscience of the court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator.’ The Board rejected a suggestion that the onus of proof could only be discharged by evidence of prior instructions for or subsequent reading over of the will before execution by the testator, saying: ‘Nor can it be necessary, that in all such cases, even if the testator’s capacity is doubtful, the precise species of evidence of the deceased’s knowledge of the will is to be in the shape of instructions for, or reading over the instrument. They form, no doubt, the most satisfactory, but they are not the only satisfactory description of proof, by which the cognizance of the contents of the will may be brought home to the deceased. The court would naturally look for such evidence; in some cases it might be impossible to establish a will without it, but it has no right in every case to require it.’
The rules for admitting a will to probate are two. Baron Parke said: ‘the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a will, and he must satisfy the conscience of the court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator. The second is, that if a party wrote or prepares a will under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite the suspicion of the court, and calls upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument, in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true will of the deceased.’ The conscience of the court must be satisfied by the evidence.’
Judges:
Baron Parke
Citations:
(1838) 2 Moores PCC 480, [1838] EngR 1051, (1838) 1 Curt 637, (1838) 163 ER 223, [1838] EngR 1056, (1838) 2 Moo PC 480, (1838) 12 ER 1089, [1836] EngR 855, (1836) 1 Moo PC 98, (1836) 12 ER 749, [1838] UKPC 22
Links:
Commonlii, Commonlii, Commonlii, Bailii
Citing:
Appeal from – Butlin v Barry 5-Sep-1837
(Prerogative Court) A will being drawn by a solicitor, in which a considerable legacy was given to himself and to the medical man and butler of the deceased, excluding an only son, the presumption of law is strong against the act, and the Court . .
See Also – Barry v Butlin 22-Jun-1836
The hearing of a cause in the Prerogative Court is one continuous act, and after a cause has been set down for sentence on the second assignation, it is not competent for either of the litigant parties to interpose an appeal, till sentence has been . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fuller v Strum CA 7-Dec-2001
The appellant challenged a finding that only part of a will was valid. The part made a gift to his son, ‘albeit very grudgingly’, saying ‘I hate him like poison, that Irish bastard.’
Held: The onus on the propounder of a will to show that it . .
Cited – Thompson and others v Thompson and others FdNI 16-Feb-2003
The family sought to challenge the validity of the will, saying the testator lacked capacity, and that he had made the will under the undue influence of the beneficiaries.
Held: There was clear evidence that the testator, whilst changeable, . .
Cited – Sherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
Cited – In the Estate of Fuld, decd (No 3) ChD 1967
The deceased had spent relatively equal periods in two or more countries. The parties disputed his domicile.
Held: A blind adherence to foreign law can not be always expected of an English Court. The legal relationship between a person and the . .
Cited – Agulian and Another v Cyganik CA 24-Feb-2006
The question was whether the deceased had lost his domicile of birth and acquired one of choice when living and working in the UK for 43 years. He had retained land in Cyprus, but lived here.
Held: He had retained his domicile of birth: . .
Cited – Fuller v Strum ChD 20-Dec-2000
Mr Strum had come to England as a refugee from Nazi Germany. He had then left to live in Israel, but retained his property in London. A will was challenged on the basis that the signature had been forged. The two attesting witnesses asserted that . .
Cited – Carapeto v William Marsh Good and others CA 20-Jun-2002
Reltives of the deceased had challenged the will, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity. They sought leave to appeal the grant of probate of the will.
Held: The appeal had no realistic prospect of success. . .
Cited – Perrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA 21-Jul-2010
The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .
Cited – Tyrrell v Painton CA 1894
The rule throwing upon the party propounding a will the burden of showing that it expresses the true will of the deceased is not confined to cases where the will is prepared by a person taking a benefit under it. After reference to Barry v Butlin . .
Cited – Wintle v Nye HL 1959
Mrs Wells, the testatrix, was an elderly lady living on her own. She neither had business experience nor the benefit of independent professional advice. She made a complex will and a codicil prepared by Mr Nye, a solicitor. He was not a close friend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Health
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181901
