Re Rowland
A gift to take effect if a wife's death preceded or coincided with the testator's did not take effect where both died in a shipwreck, because it could not be shown that they died at the same moment.
Facts
Dr Rowland made a will leaving his property to his wife, but providing that if her death preceded or coincided with his own, the property should go to his brother and nephew. Dr and Mrs Rowland were on a ship which sank in the Pacific, and both were presumed drowned, but there was no evidence of the order or exact timing of their deaths. Under section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the elder, Dr Rowland, was presumed to have died first, so his property would pass to his wife's estate unless the gift over applied.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the gift over did not apply. The majority said that the word coinciding meant simultaneous in point of time, and that there was no evidence that the deaths had been simultaneous. In the absence of evidence, section 184 applied, so Dr Rowland was presumed to have died first, and his property passed to his wife's estate. Lord Denning MR dissented, holding that the testator had used the word coinciding in the ordinary sense of dying on the same occasion, as in a common disaster, and that the will should be construed according to the testator's evident intention.
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.
