Kell v Charmer
Extrinsic evidence was admissible to explain the meaning of a jeweller's private marks used in a will to indicate sums of money, because the marks were in effect a code known to the testator.
Facts
A jeweller left gifts in his will to two of his sons of i.x.x. and o.x.x., without explaining the meaning of these symbols. The symbols were private marks used in his business to indicate prices, under which the letters stood for figures. The question was whether evidence could be admitted to explain what the marks meant.
Legal principle
Sir John Romilly MR held that evidence of the meaning of the marks was admissible, and that the gifts took effect as gifts of 100 pounds and 200 pounds. He said that evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of symbols or characters used in a will, in the same way as evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of words in a foreign language or technical terms, because the court is not altering the will, but merely translating it. The approach is now reflected in section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which allows extrinsic evidence to be admitted to assist in the interpretation of a will in certain circumstances.
Related cases on revocation, construction and failure of gifts
- Re Adams [1990] Ch 601
- Cheese v Lovejoy (1877) 2 PD 251
- Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939
- Gill v Gill [1909] P 157
- Re Goodchild [1997] 1 WLR 1216
- Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 849
- Re Jones [1976] Ch 200
- Olins v Walters [2008] EWCA Civ 782, [2009] Ch 212
Studying wills, succession and probate? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
