Perrin v Morgan
Words in a will must be given the meaning which the testator intended, in the light of the will as a whole and the surrounding circumstances, so a gift of all moneys included the testatrix's investments.
Facts
The testatrix made a home made will which left all moneys of which I die possessed to her nephews and nieces. She did not otherwise dispose of the bulk of her estate, which consisted mainly of stocks and shares. The question was whether the word moneys should be given its strict legal meaning, which would include only cash and money in the bank, or a wider meaning including her investments.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the word moneys included her investments. Viscount Simon LC said that the fundamental rule in construing the language of a will is to put on the words used the meaning which, having regard to the terms of the will, the testator intended, and that there was no rule that the word money must be given a narrow technical meaning. In popular usage, money may include investments, and it was clear from the will as a whole that the testatrix intended to dispose of her whole estate, so the wider meaning should be adopted. The decision rejected the strict approach of earlier cases.
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
- Kell v Charmer (1856) 23 Beav 195
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.
