White et Al v Galloway

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Hewlett, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 December 1977
• Neutral Citation: MS 1977 HC 6
• Docket Number: No. 24 of 1975
• Date: 16 December 1977

White et al

and

Galloway

Hewlett, J.

No. 24 of 1975

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. High Court

Will - Validity

Held: The deceased in changing her will did a rational act in a rational manner. Declaration granted in favour of the validity of the will.

Facts: The plaintiffs were executors of the deceased and sought a declaration that an alleged later will of the deceased wherein the defendants were the name executors was invalid in that the deceased at the date of its preparation and execution was not of sound mind and disposing memory. The issue was whether the deceased's facilities were so affected as to interfere with her capacity to make a rational disposition of her property.

Hewlett, J.

1 The plaintiffs are the executors named in the will of Sarah Octavia Greenaway (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) dated the 28 ^th march, 1969 and they have sued for a declaration that an alleged later will of the deceased wherein the defendants are the named executors dated the 10 ^th June, 1972 is invalid in that the deceased as the date of its preparation and execution was not of sound mind and disposing memory.

2 The facts of the case give a history of the deceased's activities and conduct between 1968 and 1974. She was a member of a large family and she lived with her husband in New York up to 1968 where together they ran a grocery business. In anticipation of her retirement to her native Montserrat, she built a home at Shand Street in Plymouth and moved into same in 1968, leaving her husband in New York. She had some 18 nephews and nieces but only four are mentioned by name in these proceedings and they are the three plaintiffs and the defendant Ellen Mulcare. Originally, the plaintiffs were the special objects of the deceased's regard but by 1962 the defendant Ellen had joined the favoured few.

3 In 1969 the deceased's husband fell ill and was hospitalised and the deceased accordingly returned to New York to wind up the grocery business. The plaintiff Lucine alleges that the plaintiffs were of considerable help to the deceased at this time and that she herself had for years assisted in keeping the accounts of the grocery. So is it then that before returning to Montserrat the deceased consulted her attorney, a Mr. Solon, and executed a will, the one dated 28 ^th March, 1969, disposing of all her estate to the plaintiffs, in equal shares, but reciting therein the fact that her husband had concurred in that disposition. The plaintiff Lucine was present at the preparation and execution of this will, and very remarkably a signed copy thereof was given to her while the deceased held the original.

4 In December, 1969, the deceased's husband died in New York. The deceased however did not attend his funeral and in fact it would appear she never returned to New York before the spring of 1971. She was then 71 years old and ailing somewhat and receiving medical attention. Her reason for that visit cannot be precisely stated but two things are clear, firstly, that the deceased was very concerned about her late husband's death benefit from the Social Security which had been collected by Lucine, and secondly, that she spent the first month of her stay in New York with friends and the remaining two months with Ellen. And these I consider to be significant facts because they seem to indicate that the plaintiffs had fallen from grace. It was Ellen and not Lucine who had visited with the deceased in Montserrat and it was with Ellen and not Samuel (the first-named plaintiff) that the deceased now lodged. And the persistence with which the deceased demanded from Lucine the return of the death benefit must surely disclose that there was more in the mortar than the pestle. Lucine would have us...