Laing's Trustees v Sanson

Factual and Procedural Background

David Laing, LL.D., librarian to the Society of Writers to the Signet, died unmarried on 18th October 1878. He left a holograph trust-settlement dated 12th March 1864, which directed his trustees to pay his debts and then to divide the surplus of his estate "between my surviving brother and sisters, and the lawful issue of those who may be deceased, share and share alike." The family originally consisted of nine siblings—five sisters and four brothers including the testator. At the date of the trust-deed, two brothers had already died, one leaving eight children.

A dispute arose concerning whether the residue of the estate should be divided per stirpes or per capita among the surviving siblings and the issue of the deceased brother. A special case was prepared with the relatives favoring per stirpes as first parties, those favoring per capita as second parties, and the trustees as third parties.

The court was asked to determine the proper method of division of the residue under the terms of the trust-settlement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does the residue of the deceased's estate fall to be divided per stirpes?
2. If the first question is answered in the negative, does the residue fall to be divided per capita?

Arguments of the Parties

First Parties' Arguments

• The testator's evident intention was for the residue to be divided per stirpes.
• The children of a deceased sibling were only called in place of their deceased parent, not as individuals.

Second Parties' Arguments

• The general rule for such bequests is that when persons are called to share equally, the division is per capita.
• The bequest included uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces together, suggesting a per capita division.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the trust-settlement, focusing on the phrase "to be divided between my surviving brother and sisters, and the lawful issue of those who may be deceased, share and share alike." The court rejected the argument for per capita division, reasoning that the testator intended the lawful issue of any deceased siblings to take the share their parent would have received, thus applying a per stirpes division.

The court emphasized that the issue were not included as members of the same class as the surviving siblings but rather as substitutes for their deceased parent. The phrase "lawful issue of those who may be deceased" was interpreted as referring to the testator's death date, meaning that issue of any siblings deceased at that time would inherit their parent's share.

The court found no indication that the testator intended to dilute the shares of surviving siblings by allowing the issue of a deceased sibling to take collectively a larger portion. The judgment was supported by precedent and the natural interpretation of the testamentary language.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the residue of the deceased's estate falls to be divided per stirpes.

The direct effect of this decision is that the lawful issue of any deceased siblings inherit the share that their parent would have received, rather than sharing equally with surviving siblings on a per capita basis. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the proper interpretation of the testator's language in this case.