Brain Injury, Spine Injury, Lawyer, Howard Roitman pracitces in Las Vegas, Nevada
Info on : Personal injury and information on Car Crashes. Call me at 702.647.8550. I can help.
The will, if not purely Roman in origin, at least owes to Roman law its complete development, a development which in most European countries was greatly aided at a later period by ecclesiastics versed in Roman law. In India, the will was unknown before English conquest. In Christian tradition, Eusebius and others have related of Noah's
testament, made in writing, and witnessed under his seal, by which he
disposed of the whole world. Additionally, wills are spoken of in the Old Testament (in Genesis 48), where Jacob bequeaths to his son Joseph, a portion of his inheritance, double to that of his brethren.
The Ancient Greek practice
concerning wills was not the same in all places; some states permitted
men to dispose of their estates, others wholly deprived them of that
privilege. We are told by Plutarch, that Solon
is much commended for his law concerning wills; for before his time no
man was allowed to make any, but all the wealth of deceased persons
belonged to their families; but he permitted them to bestow it on whom
they pleased, esteeming friendship a stronger tie than kindred, and
affection than necessity, and thus put every man's estate in the
disposal of the possessor; yet he allowed not all sorts of wills, but
required the following conditions in all persons that made them:
That they must be citizens of Athens, not slaves, or foreigners, for then their estates were confiscated for the public use.
That they must be men who have arrived to twenty years of age, for
women and men under that age were not permitted to dispose by will of
more than one medimn of barley.
That they must not be adopted; for when adopted persons died
without issue, the estates they received by adoption returned to the
relations of the men who adopted them.
That they should have no male children of their own, for then their
estate belonged to these. If they had only daughters, the persons to
whom the inheritance was bequeathed were obliged to marry them. Yet men
were allowed to appoint heirs to succeed their children, in case these
happened to die under twenty years of age.
That they should be in their right minds, because testaments
extorted through the phrenzy of a disease, or dotage of old age, were
not in reality the wills of the persons that made them.
That they should not be under imprisonment, or other constraint,
their consent being then only forced, nor in justice to be reputed
voluntary.
That they should not be induced to it by the charms and
insinuations of a wife; for (says Plutarch) the wise lawgiver with good
reason thought that no difference was to be put between deceit and
necessity, flattery and compulsion, since both are equally powerful to
persuade a man from reason.
Wills were usually signed before several witnesses, who put seals to
them for confirmation, then placed them in the hands of trustees, who
were obliged to see them performed. At Athens, some of the magistrates
were very often present at the making of wills. Sometimes the archons
were also present. Sometimes the testator declared his will before
sufficient witnesses, without committing it to writing. Thus Callias,
fearing to be cut off by a wicked conspiracy, is said to have made an
open declaration of his will before the popular assembly at Athens.
There were several copies of wills in Diogenes Laertius, as those of Aristotle, Lyco of Troas, and Theophrastus; whence it appears they had a common form, beginning with a wish for life and health.
In the Leges barbarorum,
where they are unaffected by Roman law, the will, if it existed at all,
was of a very rudimentary character. The will is, on the other hand,
recognized by Rabbinical and Islamic law.
The early Roman will differed from the modern will in important
respects. It was effectual during the lifetime of the person who made
it; it was made in public vivâ voce; all knew of the legator's
intentions, the testator declaring his will in the presence of seven
witnesses; and it could not be changed – these they called nuncupative testaments;
but the danger of trusting the will of the dead to the memory of the
living soon abolished these; and all testaments were ordered to be in
writing.
The objective, as in adoption,
was to secure the perpetuation of the family. This was done by securing
the due vesting of the breed in a person who could be relied upon to
keep up the family rites. There is much probability in the conjecture
that a will was only allowed to be made when the testator had no known gentile relatives, unless they had waived their rights. The Romans were wont to set aside testaments, as being inofficiosa,
deficient in natural duty, if they disinherited or totally passed by
(without assigning a true and sufficient reason) any of the children of
the testator. But if the child had any legacy, though ever so small, it
was a proof that the testator had not lost his memory nor his reason,
which otherwise the law presumed. Hence probably has arisen that
groundless, vulgar error of the necessity of leaving the heir a
shilling, or some other express legacy, in order to effectually
disinherit him; whereas the modern law, though the heir, or next of
kin, be totally omitted, admits no querela inofficiosa, to set aside such testament.
It is certain from the text of Gaius that the earliest forms of will were those made in the comitia calata and those made in procinctu, or on the eve of battle. The former were published before the comitia,
as representative of the patrician genies, and were originally a
legislative act. These wills were the peculiar privilege of patricians.
At a later time the form of plebeian will developed (irs/amentum per aes ci libram), and the law of succession under testament was further modified by the influence of tile practor, especially in the direction of recognition of fideicommissa similar in some respects to testamentary trusts. Codicilli or informal wills, also came into use, and were sufficient for almost every purpose but the appointment of an heir.
In the time of Justinian a will founded partly on the jus civile, partly on the edict of the praetor, partly on imperial constitutions and so called testamentum tripertitum, was generally in use. The main points essential to its validity were that the testator should possess testamentary capacity,
and that the will should be signed or acknowledged by the testator in
the presence of seven witnesses, or published orally in open court. The witnesses must be idonci, or free from legal disability. For instance, women and slaves were not good witnesses.
The whole property of the testator could not be alienated. The
rights of heirs and descendants were protected by enactments which
secured to them a legal minimum, the querela inofficiosi testamenhi
being the remedy
of those passed over. The age at which testamentary capacity began was
fourteen in the case of males, twelve in the case of females. Up to 439 A.D. a will must have been in Latin; after that date Greek was allowed.
Certain persons, especially soldiers,
were privileged from observing the ordinary forms. The liability of the
heir to the debts of the testator varied during different periods. At
first it was practically unlimited. The law was then gradually modified
in favour of the heir, until in the time of Justinian the heir who duly
made an inventory of the property of the deceased was liable only for
the assets to which he had succeeded. This limitation of liability is
generally termed by the civiliansbeneficium inventarii.
Something like the English probate is to be found in the rules for breaking the seals of a will in presence of the praetor. Closely connected with the will was the donatio mortis causa,
the rules of which have been as a whole adopted in England (see below).
An immense space in the Corpus juris is occupied with testamentary law.
The whole of part v. of the Digest (books xxviii.-xxxvi.) deals with
the subject, and so do a large number of constitutions in the Code and
Novels.
The effect of Christianity upon the will was very marked. For instance, the duty of bequeathing to the Church was inculcated as early as Constantine,
and heretics and monks were placed under a disability to make a will or
take gifts left by will. A will was often deposited in a church. The Canon law follows the Roman law
with a still greater leaning to the advantage of the Church. No Church
property could be bequeathed. Manifest usurers were added to the list
of those under disability. For the validity of a will it was generally
necessary that it should be made in the presence of a priest and two witnesses,
unless where it was made in pias causes. The witnesses, as in Roman
law, must be done. Gifts to the Church were not subject to the
deductions in favour of the heir and the children necessary in ordinary
cases. In England, the Church succeeded in holding in its own hands for
centuries jurisdiction in testamentary matters.
This is practically in accordance with the definition of Modestinus in Digest xxviu. I, 1, voluntatis nostrae justa sententia de eo quod quis post mortem suam fieri velit.Ancient Law, chap. vi. dii. ioi.
The Roman law of wills has had considerable effect upon English law. In the words of Sir Henry Maine,
"The English law of testamentary succession to personalty has become a
modified English form of the dispensation under which the inheritances
of law. Ronian citizens were administered." At the same time there are
some broad and striking differences which should be borne in mind. The
following among others (as of 1911) may be noticed:
A Roman testator could not, unless a soldier, die partly testate,
and partly intestate. The will must stand or fall as a whole. This is
not the case in England.
There is no one in English law to whom the unirersitas furis of the
testator descends as it did to the Roman heres, whose appointment was
essential to the validity of a formal will, and who partook of the
nature of the English heir, executor, administrator, devisee and
legatee.
The disabilities of testators differed in the two systems. The
disability of a slave or a heretic is peculiar to Roman law, of a youth
between fourteen and twenty-one to English law.
The whole property may he disposed of in England; but it was not so
at Rome, where, except by the wills of soldiers, children could not be
disinherited unless for specified acts of misconduct. During the
greater part of the period of Roman law the heir must also have had his
Falcidian fourth in order to induce him to accept the inheritance.
In English law all wills must conform to certain statutory
requirements; the Romans recognized from the time of Augustus an
informal will called codicilli. The English codicil
has little in common with this but the name. It is not an informal
will, but an addition to a will, read as a part of it, and needing the
same formalities of execution.
The Roman testatum applied to both movables and immovables; in
England a legacy or bequest is a gift of personalty only, a gift of
real estate being called a devise.
The Roman will spoke from the time of making; the English speaks
from the time of death. This difference becomes very important in case
of alteration in the position of the testator between the making of the
will and his death, As a rule the Roman will could not, the English
can, pass after-acquired property.
Liberty of alienation by will is found at an early period in England. To judge from the words of a law of Canute, intestacy
appears to have been the exception at that time. How far the liberty
extended is uncertain; it is the opinion of some authorities that
complete disposition of land and goods was allowed, of others that
limited rights of wife and children were recognized. However this may
be, after the Conquest a distinction, the result of feudalism,
to use a convenient if inaccurate term, arose between real and personal
property. It will be convenient to treat the history of the two kinds
of will separately.
It became the law after the Conquest, according to Sir Edward Coke, that an estate greater than for a term of years could be disposed of by will, unless in Kent, where the custom of gavelkind
Real prevailed, and in some manors and boroughs (especially property,
the City of London), where the pre-Conquest law was preserved by
special indulgence. The reason why devise of land was not acknowledged
by law was, no doubt, partly to discourage deathbed gifts in mortmain, a view supported by Glanvill,
partly because the testator could not give the devisee that seisin
which was the principal element in a feudal conveyance. By means of the
doctrine to uses, however, the devise of land was secured by a
circuitous method, generally by conveyance to feoffees
to uses in the lifetime of he (cuff or to such uses as he should
appoint by his will. Up to comparatively recent times a will of lands
still bore traces of its origin in the conveyance to uses inter vivos.
On the passing of the statute of Uses lands again became non-devisable,
with a saving in the statute for the validity of wills made before May 1, 1536.
The inconvenience of this state of things soon began to be felt, and
was probably aggravated by the large amount of land thrown into the
market after the dissolution of the monasteries. As a remedy an act was
passed in 1540 (which came to be known as the Statute of Wills), and a further explanatory act in 1542-1543.
The effect of these acts was to make lands held in fee simple
devisable by will in writing, to the extent of two-thirds where the
tenure was by knight service, and the whole where it was in socage.
Corporations were incapacitated to receive, and married women, infants,
idiots and lunatics to devise. An act of 1660, by abolishing tenure by
knight service, made all lands devisable, In the same reign the Statute of Frauds
(1677) dealt with the formalities of execution. Up to this time simple
notes, even in the handwriting of another person, constituted a
sufficient will, if published by the testator as such. The Statute of
Frauds required, inter alia,
that all devises should be in writing, signed by the testator or by
some person for him in his presence and by his direction, and should
also be subscribed by three or four credible witnesses. The strict
interpretation by the courts of the credibility of witnesses led to the
passing of an act in 1751-1752, making interested witnesses sufficient
for the due execution of the will, but declaring gifts to them void.
The will of a man was revoked by marriage and the birth of a child, of
a woman by marriage only. A will was also revoked by an alteration in
circumstances, and even by a void conveyance inter aims of land devised
by the will made subsequently to the tiate of tile will, which was
presumed to be an attempt by the grantor to give legal effect to a
change of intention. As in Roman law, a will spoke froni the time of
the making, so that it could not avail to pass after-acquired property
without republication, which was equivalent to making a new will, Copyholds
were not devisable before 1815, but were usually surrendered to the,use
of the will of the copyhold tenant; an act of 1815 made them devisable
simply. Devises of lands have gradually been made liable to the claims
of creditors by a series of statutes beginning with the year 1691.
The history of wills of personalty was considerably different, but
to some extent followed parallel lines. In both cases partial preceded
complete power of disposition. The general opinion of the best
authorities is that by the common law Personal of England a man could
only dispose of his whole personal property if he left no wife or
children; if he left either wife or children he could only dispose of
one-half, and one-third if he left both wife and children. The shares
of wife and children were called their pars rationabilis. This pars rationabilis is expressly recognized in Magna Carta
and was sued for by the writ de rationabili parte. At what period the
right of disposition of the whole personalty superseded the old law is
uncertain. That it did so is certain, and the places where the old rule
still existed--the province of York, Wales and the City of London--were
regarded as exceptions. The right of bequest in these places was not
assimilated to the general law until comparatively recent times by acts
passed between 1693 and 1726. A will of personalty could be made by a
male at fourteen, by a female at twelve. The formalities in the case of
wills of personalty were not as numerous as in the case of wills of
land. Up to 1838 a nuncupative or oral will was sufficient, subject,
where the gift was of 30 or more, to the restrictions contained in the
Statute of Frauds. The witnesses to a written will need not be
"credible," and it was specially enacted by an act of 1705 that any one
who could give evidence in a court of law was a good witness to a will
of personalty. A will entirely in tile testator's handwriting, called a
holograph will, was valid without signature. At one time the executor
was entitled to the residue in default of a residuary legatee. But the
Executors Act 1830 made him in such an event trustee for the next of
kin.
Jurisdiction over wills of personalty was till 1858 in the
ecclesiastical courts, probate being granted by the diocesan court if
the goods of the deceased lay in the same diocese, in the provincial
court of Canterbury (the prerogative court) or York (the chancery
court) if the deceased had bone notabilia, that is, goods to the value
of £5 in two dioceses. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction was of a very
ancient origin. It was fully established under Henry II,
as it is mentioned by Glanvill. In the city of London wills were
enrolled in the Court of Hustings from 1258 to 1688 after having been
proved before the ordinary. Contested cases before 1858 were tried in
the provincial court with an appeal originally to the Court of Delegates, later to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
There were also a few special local jurisdictions, courts baron, the
university coufts, and others, probably for the most part survivals of
the pre-Conquest period, when wills seem to have been published in the
county court. The ecclesiastical courts had no jurisdiction over wills
of land, and the common law courts were careful to keep the
ecclesiastical courts within their limits by means of prohibition. No
probate of a will of land was necessary, and title to real estate by
will might be made by production of the will as a document of title.
The liability of the executor and legatee for the debts of the testator
has been gradually established by legislation. In general it is limited
to the amount of the succession. Personal liability of the executor
beyond this can by the Statute of Frauds only be established by
contract in writing.
Such were the principal stages in the history of the law as it
affected wills made before 1838 or proved before 1858. The principal
acts now in force are the Wills Act 1837,
the amending act of 1852, the Court of Probate Act 1857, the Judicature
Acts 1873 and 1875 and the Land Transfer Act 1897. All but theacts of
1837 and 1852 deal mainly with what happens to the will after death,
whether under the voluntary or contentious jurisdiction of the Probate
Division. Some of the earlier acts are still law, though of little
importance since the more modern and comprehensive enactments.
The testamentary jurisdiction of the archdeacon's court is alluded to by Chaucer in the "Friar's Tale," but it was afterwards completely superseded by the bishop's court.
The earliest on the statute roll is an act of Henry III
(1236), enabling a widow to bequeath the crops of her lands. Before the
Wills Act uniformity in the law had been urgently recommended by the
Real Property Commissioners in 1833. It appears from their report that
at the time of its appearance there were ten different ways in which a
will might be made under different circumstances.
The act of 1837 affected both the making and the interpretation of
wills. Excluding the latter for the present, its main provisions were
these. All property, real and personal, and of whatever tenure, may be
disposed of by will. If customary freeholds or copyholds be devised,
the will must be entered on the court rolls. No will made by any person
under the age of twenty-one is valid. Every will is to be in writing,
signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator or by some person in
his presence and by his direction, and such signature is to be made or
acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses
present at the same time, who are to subscribe the will in the presence
of the testator. It is usual for the testator and the witnesses to sign
every sheet. Publication is not necessary. A will is not void on
account of the incompetency of a witness. Gifts to a witness or the
husband or wife of a witness are void. A creditor or executor may
attest. A will is revoked (except where made in exercise of a power of
appointment of a certain kind) by a later will. or by destruction with
the intention of revoking, but not by presumption arising from an
alteration in circumstances. Alterations in a will must be executed and
attested as a will. A will speaks from the death of the testator,
unless a contrary intention appear. An unattested document may be, if
properly identified, incorporated in a will, but such a document, if
executed subsequently to the will, is inoperative.
Rules of interpretation or construction depend chiefly on decisions
of the courts, to a smaller extent on statutory enactment. The law was
gradually brought into its present condition through precedents
extending back for centuries, especially decisions of the court of
chancery, the court par excellence of construction, as distinguished
from the court of probate. The court of probate did not deal unless
incidentally with the meaning of the will; its jurisdiction was
confined to seeing that it was duly executed. The present state of the
law of interpretation is highly technical. Some phrases have obtained a
conventional meaning which the testators who used them probably did not
dream of. Many of the judicial doctrines which had gradually become
established were altered by the Wills Act.
These provisions of the act have since that time themselves become
the subject of judicial decision. Among other provisions are these,
most of them to take effect only in the absence of a contrary
intention. A residuary devise is to include estates coitiprised in
lapsed and void devises. A general gift of the testator's lands is to
include copyholds and leaseholds. A general gift of real or personal
estate is to include real or personal estate over which the testator
had a general power of appointment. A devise without words of
limitation is to pass the fee simple. The words "die without issue," or
similar words, are to mean die without issue living at the time of the
death of the person whose issue was named, not as before the act, an
indefinite failure of issue, an estate tail being thus created.
Trustees under an unlimited devise are to take the fee simple. Devises
of estates tail are not to lapse if the devise, though he predeceased
the testator. left issue inheritable under the entail. Gifts to
children or other issue leaving issue living at the testator's death
are not to lapse. Rules of interpretation founded on principles of
equity independent of statute are very numerous, and for them the works
devoted to the subject must be consulted. Some of the more important,
stated in as general a form as possible, are these. The intention of
the testator is to be observed. This rule is called by Sir E Coke the
pole star to guide the judges. There is a presumption against
intestacy, against, double portions, against constructing merely
precatory words to import a trust, etc. One part of the will is to he
expounded by another. Interlineations and alterations are presumed to
have been made after, not as in deeds before, execution. Words are
supposed to be used in their strict and primary sense. Many words and
phrases, however, such as "money," "residue" and "issue" and other
words of relationship, have become invested with a technical meaning,
but there has been a recent tendency to include illegitimate children
in a gift to "children." Evidence is admissible in certain cases to
explain latent ambiguity, and parol evidence of the terms of a lost will may be given as in the famous case of Sugden v. Lord St Leonards (1876), 1 Prob. Div. 154.
A will may be void, in whole or in part, for many reasons, which may
be divided into two great classes, those arising from external
circumstances and those arising from the will itself. The main examples
of the former class are revocation by burning, tearing, etc., by a
later will, or by marriage of the testator (except as below),
incapacity of the testator from insanity, infancy or legal disability
(such as being a convict), undue influence and fraud, any one of which
is ground for the court to refuse or revoke probate of a will, A will
being ambulatory is always revocable, unless in one or two exceptional
instances. Undue influence is a ground upon which frequent attempts are
made to set aside wills. Its nature is well explained in a judgment of
Lord Penzance's: "Pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the
fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to overpower the volition without
convincing the judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid
will can be made. There is nothing corresponding to the querela inofficiosi testamenti,
but unnatural provisions may be evidence of mental defect. The
circumstances appearing on the face of the will which make it open to
objection may either avoid it altogether or create a partial intestacy,
the will remaining good as a whole. Where the will is not duly
executed, e.g. if it is a forgery or if it is not signed by the
testator or the proper number of witnesses, the will is not admitted to
probate at all. Where it contains devises or bequests bad in law, as in
general restraint of marriage, or tending to create perpetuities,
or contrary to public policy, or to some particular enactment, only the
illegal part is void. A remarkable instance is a well-known case in
which a condition subsequent in a devise was held void as against
public policy, being a gift over of the estate devised in case the
first devisee, the eldest son of an earl, did not before his death
obtain the lapsed title of Duke of Bridgewater.
There are some wills of an exceptional kind which demand special notice. It was resolved in parliament in Richard II's
reign (1392) that the king, his heirs and successors, might lawfully
make their testaments.i in some later cases parliamentary authority has
been given to royal wills, in others not. The executors of Henry IV were confirmed in their office by letters patent of Henry V, those of Henry V by parliament. The largest testamentary powers ever conferred on an English king were given to Henry VIII by an act of 1533-1534, empowering him to limit and appoint the succession to the crown by will, in default of children by Jane Seymour or any future wife. By 39 & 40 Geo. III
c. 88 the king and his successor may devise or bequeath their private
property. No court, however, has jurisdiction to grant probate of the
will of a king.
As a general rule wills deal with property, but even at common law a
will simply appointing a guardian was good. In English law, fathers
were allowed to dispose of the custody of unmarried infant children by
will by an act of 1860. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 extended
such powers in certain cases to the mother. (This article does not yet
have information on English guardian law after 1911.)
While in the 21st century, married women have substantially the same
rights in making wills as married men, at least in English and American
law, this was not the case in the past.
At English common law a married woman could not (with a few
exceptions) make a will without her husband's licence and consent, and
this disability was specially preserved by the Wills Acts of Henry VIII
and of 1837. A common mode of avoiding this difficulty was for the
husband to contract before marriage to permit the wife to make an
appointment disposing of personalty to a certain value. Courts of
equity from an early time allowed her, under certain restrictions, to
make a will of property held for her separate use. In some cases her
husband could dispose of her property by will, in others not. The Married Women's Property Act 1882
made much of this previous law obsolete, enabling a married woman to
dispose by will of any real or personal property as her separate
property as a feme sole without the intervention of any trustee. The
act also enabled a married woman who is executrix of a will to act as
if she were a feine sole. The Married Women's Property Act of 1893
extended the act of 1882 by making it unnecessary for the will of a
married woman to be reexecuted or republished after the death of her
husband.
Before 1870 an alien enemy resident in England could only dispose of
property by will with the king's licence. The Naturalization Act 1870
enables him to do so as fully as a natural-born British subject. But if
he be an alien domiciled abroad he cannot avail himself of Lord Kingsdown's Act (see below).
Wills of soldiers in actual military service, and of sailors, are
subject to special legislation, and are excepted from the operation of
the Wills Act. The privilege only applies to wills of personal estate.
Such wills may usually be made when the testator has attained the age
of fourteen, and are not revoked by marriage only but by marriage and
the birth of a child. Wills of soldiers on an expedition may be made by
unattested writing or by nuncupative testament before two witnesses.
Wills of petty officers and seamen in the navy, and of marines, as far
as relates to their pay or prize-money, mtist be attested by an
officer, and wills made by a seaman in the merchant service must, if
made at sea, be attested by the master or mate, if made on land by a
superintendent of a mercantile marine office, a minister of religion,
justice of the peace, or consular or customs officer. See the Merchant
Shipping Act 2894, 5. 177. The wills of prisoners of war are subject to
special regulations, and the Admiralty may at its discretion waive the
due execution of wills in other instances. The effects of seamen,
marines and soldiers, killed or dying in the service, are exempt from
duty. Pay, wages, prize money and pensions due to persons employed in
the navy may be paid out without probate where the whole assets do not
exceed £32. The Board of Trade may at its discretion dispense with
probate of the will of a merchant seaman whose effects do not exceed
£50 in value. By an act passed in 1868 the existing exemptions are
extended to the sum of £100 in the case of civil service pay or
annuities, of civil or military allowances chargeable to the army
votes, and of army prize money.
Under English law in 1911, a will made under a power of appointment
was not revoked by marriage when the real or personal estate thereby
appointed would not in default of appointment pass to the testator's
executor or administrator or to the next of kin. Before the Wills Act a
will exercising a power of appointment had to conform to any special
requisitions in the power, but since the act the power is duly
exercised if executed and attested like an ordinary will.
Under English law in 1911, in the register counties memorials of
wills affecting lands in those counties must be registered. Member of
friendly society, etc. Members of friendly, industrial and provident
societies, depositors in savings banks, and servants in certain public
offices, may under the pro visions of numerous acts make a nomination
to an amount not exceeding £100. Such nomination is practically
equivalent to a will, and may be made at the age of sixteen. Since 1911
the possibilities of making nominations have been gradually withdrawn
until there are currently none.
At common law there could be no larceny of a will of lands. But by
the Larceny Act of 1861 stealing, injuring or concealing a will,
whether of real or personal estate, was punishable with penal servitude
for life. Forgery of a will (at one time a capital crime) rendered the
offender liable to the same penalty. Fraudulent concealment of a will
material to the title by a vendor or mortgagor of land or chattels is,
by the Law of Property Amendment Act 1859, a misdemeanour punishable by
fine or imprisonment or both. It should be noticed that a. contract to
make a will containing provisions in favour of a certain person or
certain persons is valid if it fulfil the requirements of the law
regulating contract. A good example is Synge v. Synge (1894) I K.B. 466.
The principal authorities for the English law are, for the formalities, Sir EV Williams, Executors; Holdsworth and Vickers, Law of Succession;
J Williams, Wills and Succession; for the construction, the works of
Sir James Wigram and of Messrs Jarman, FV Hawkins and Theobald.
Precedents will be found in Hayes and Jarman's Concise forms of Wills, and in ordinary collections of precedents in conveyancing. For comparative law see E Lambert, Le Regime successoral (Paris, 1903).
The act of 1837 applied to Ireland.
The main difference between the law of the two countries is that in
Ireland a bequest for masses land for the repose of the testator's soul
is valid, provided that re a" ' the masses be public, in England such a
bequest is void as tending to superstitious uses.
In the 21st century, eighteen is the typical age of testamentary capacity.
Full liberty of disposition is not universal. In particular, many
states normally grant spouses the right to at least half the estate
regardless of what the will says (or if no will can be found). Some
require that children cannot be disinherited without good cause. In
many case, children omitted in a will may still take their share. Louisiana followed French law,
by which the testator can under no circumstances alienate by will more
than half his property if he leave issue or ascendants. In 1911, the
husband's consent was sometimes required for a married woman's will to
be valid, but this is no longer the case. Nuncupative and holographic wills
are valid in some states, but are forbidden in others. The former are
confined to personality and must generally be reduced to writing within
a short time after the words are spoken. In Louisiana the mystic or
sealed will still existed in 1911. The number of witnesses necessary
for the validity of a will of any kind is usually two, but Vermont
requires three. To be valid, witnesses must not be heirs under the
will. In 1911, wills of soldiers and sailors were privileged, as in
England.
In modern U.S. law, wills are not required to be registered prior to
death in most states, but are registered and put in the public record
after the person making the will dies and the estate is probated.
However, it is often still a good idea to have the signing and
witnessing of a will notarized, to reduce the risk of disputes over the
will's validity after death. Wills can be used to nominate guardians
for minor children, but because children are not property, the will
cannot have the final word on the question. Guardianship is decided by
courts, though the usual outcome is that guardianship is awarded to the
other surviving parent, or, if no parents survive, to the guardian
nominated in the last surviving parent's will.
Up to 1868 wills of immovables were not allowed under Scots law. The usual means of obtaining disposition of heritage after death was a trust disposition and settlement by deed depraesenti,
under which the truster disposed the property to trustees according to
the trusts of the settlement, reserving a life interest. Thus something
very similar to a testamentary disposition was secured by means
resembling those employed in England before the Wills Act of Henry VIII. The main disadvantage of the trust disposition was that it was liable to be overthrown by the heir, who could reduce ex capite lecti
all voluntary deeds made to his prejudice within sixty days of the
death of his ancestor. In 1868 the Titles to Land Consolidation Act
made it competent to any owner of lands to settle the succession to the
same in the event of death by testamentary or mortis causa deeds or
writings. In 1871 reduction ex capite lecti was abolished. A will of
immovables must be executed with the formalities of a deed and
registered to give title. The disability of a woman as a witness was
removed by the Titles to Land Consolidation Act. As to wills of
movables, there arc several important points in which they differ from
corresponding wills in England, the influence of Roman law being more
marked. Males may make a will at fourteen, females at twelve. A
nuncupative legacy is good to the amount of £100 Scots (£8, 6s. 8d.),
and a holograph testament is good without witnesses, but it must be
signed by the testator, differing in this from the old English
holograph. By the Conveyancing Act 1874 such a will is presumed to have
been executed on the date which it bears. Not all movables can be left,
as in England. The movable property of the deceased is subject to jus relictae and legitime. See McLaren, Wills and Succession, for the law, and Judicial Styles for styles.
The law is mainly contained in ss. 967–1074 of the Code Napoleon. Wills in France may be of three kinds:
holograph, which must be wholly written, dated and signed by the testator;
made as a public instrument, i.e. received by two notaries before
two witnesses or by one notary before four witnesses; this form of will
must be dictated by the testator and written by the notary, must be
read over to the testator in the presence of the witnesses and must be
signed by testator and witnesses;
mystic, which are signed by the testator, then closed and sealed
and delivered by him to a notary before six witnesses; the notary then
draws up an account of the proceedings on the instrument which is
signed by the testator, notary and witnesses.
Legatees and their blood relations to the fourth degree may not be
witnesses. Nuncupative wills are not recognized. Soldiers' and sailors'
wills are subject to special rules as in most other countries. Full
liberty of disposition only exists where the testator has no ascendants
or descendants, in other cases his quantile disponible is subject to
reserve; if the testator has one child he may only dispose of half his
estate, if two only one-third, if three or more only one-fourth; if he
has no descendants but ascendants in both lines he may dispose of half,
if ascendants in one line only he may dispose of three-fourths. The
full age of testamentary capacity is twenty-one years, but minors over
the age of sixteen may dispose by will of half of the estate of which
they could dispose had they been of full age. There is no restriction
against married women making wills. A contract to dispose of the
succession is invalid, s. 791.
The civil codes of southern Continental Europe are in general accordance with the French law.
Most of the law will be found in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch,
ss. 2064–2273. A holograph will, either single or joint, is allowed.
Other wills must be declared before a judge or notary or (outside
Germany) a consul. Two witnesses are required, unless the witness be a
notary or the registrar of the court, who is sufficient alone. The
formalities may be relaxed in certain cases, such as imminent death, a
state of siege, a prevailing epidemic, etc. Descendants, ascendants and
the husband and wife, are entitled to compulsory portions (pflicht-teilsberechtigt). But those prima facie
entitled may be deprived of their share for certain specified kinds of
misconduct. A contract to make any specified testamentary disposition
is inoperative. But a contract of inheritance (Erbvertrag) made
inter mvos by direct disposition is valid in certain cases and will
operate on the death of the contractor. The modes of revocation are
much the same as in England (except marriage). But there is one
peculiar to Germany, the inconsistency of a will with an Erbvertrag; in such an event the will is wholly or pro tanto revoked.
There are three main directions which the opinion of jurists and the practice of courts have taken, as of 1911:
The whole property of the testator may be subjected to the law of
his domicil. To this effect is the opinion of Savigny and the German
practice. Certain modifications have been made by modern law,
especially by the Einführungsgesetz of 1896.
The property may be subjected to the law of the place where it happens to be at the time of the testator's death.
The movable property may be subjected to the law of the domicil.
The immovable (including leaseholds) to the law of the place where it
is situated, the lex loci rei sitae. England and the United States follow this rule.
Testamentary capacity is generally governed by the law of the
testator's domicil at the time of his death, the form of the instrument
in most countries either by the law of his domicil or the law of the
place where the will was made, at his option. The old rule of English
law was to allow the former alternative only. The law was altered for
the United Kingdom in 1861 by the Wills Act 1861 (known as Lord
Kingsdown's Act), by which a will made out of the United Kingdom by a
British subject is, as far as regards personal estate, good if made
according to the forms required by the law of the place where it was
made, or by the law of the testator's domicil at the time of making it,
or by the law of the place of his domicil of origin. Subsequent change
of domicile does not avoid such a will. Another act passed on the same
day, the Domicile Act 1861, enacted that by convention with any foreign
government foreign domicil with regard to wills could not be acquired
by a testator without a year's residence and a written declaration of
intention to become domiciled. By the same act foreign consuls may by
convention have certain authority over the wills and property of
subjects of foreign states dying in England.
In the United States some states have adopted the narrow policy of
enacting by statute the old common law rule, and providing that no will
is valid unless made in the form required by the law of the state of
the testator's domicile. The capacity of the testator, revocation and
construction of a will, are governed by the law of the domicile of the
testator at the time of his death-except in cases affected by Lord
Kingsdown's Act, as he must be supposed to have used language in
consonance with that law, unless indeed he express himself in technical
language of another country. A good instance is Groos' Case (1904),
Prob. 269, where it was held that the will of a Dutch woman (at the
time of her death domiciled in England) duly made in Holland was not
revoked by her marriage, that being no ground of revocation by the law
of Holland.
The persons who are to take under a will are decided by different
rules according as the property is movable or immovable, the former
being governed by the law of the domicile, the latter by the Lex loci
rei sitae. It was held, however, in 1881 by the court of appeal in
England that, under the will of an Englishman domiciled in Holland,
leaving personal property to children, children legitimated per
subsegitens matrimonium could take, as they were legitimate by the law
of Holland, though not by the law of England (re Goodman's Trusts, 17
Ch. D. 266). This principle was carried further in re Grey's Trusts
(1892), 3 Ch. 88, where it was held that a legitimated child was
entitled to share in a devise of English realty. But it is to be noted
that a person born out of lawful wedlock, though legitimated, could not
succeed as heir to real estate in England as of 1911[update]
(Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 2 Cl. and F. 895). A will duly executed abroad
is generally required to be clothed with the authority of a court of
the country where any property affected by the will is situate.
Corporation Service Company ("CSC") is the second largest Registered Agent
service company in the world representing hundreds of thousands of
business entities worldwide including a substantial number of the
Fortune 1000.[citation needed]
CSC commenced business in 1899. Otho Nowland, then President of
Equitable Guarantee & Trust Company suggested to a young lawyer
named Christopher Ward that they together establish an agency to assist
and facilitate in organizing business entities (Corporations, LLC's,
etc.) and subsequently acting as their registered agent.
With only an initial investment by Nowland and Ward, "The Delaware
Incorporators' Trust Company" was created. A similar company was formed
separately by Josiah Marvel who was a well-respected attorney and then
leader of the American Bar Association, The Delaware Bar Association and the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce.[1]
In 1920, Ward and Marvel combined their companies under the name "Corporation Service Company" (CSC).[2] Through the 1970s, CSC continued to serve only Delaware business entities.
The company increased in size along with Delaware's then reputation as
"The Corporate State". In 1975, Daniel R. Butler joined CSC as
part-time president. At this time, CSC had only 12 employees. From 1976
to 1979, under the direction of Butler, CSC underwent a campaign of
advertising and marketing and increasing the number of sales staff to
facilitate growth. During this time, CSC grew from a small "Delaware
only" service provider to the industry's leading privately held company
and achieved record annual sales.
From 1980 to 1985, CSC continued to grow and received an infusion
from the sale of its subsidiary company, the "Delaware Charter
Guarantee & Trust Company", which it had acquired in 1977.[3] In 1990, CSC acquired Florida-based
"Corporate Information Services" (CIS). This acquisition was the first
of many designed to expand CSC's scope beyond the State of Delaware.
Between 1990 and 1998, CSC continued expanding through acquisitions of
9 other service providers including Prentice Hall Legal & Financial
Services in 1995 and Entity Service Group, LLC in 1998. After this period, CSC had a solid footprint outside the State of Delaware in major cities throughout the United States.
Between 1990 and 1999, CSC acquired The Company Corporation (which
was one of the first companies to provide incorporation services via
the internet),[4] and Corporate Agents.
In 2002 CSC acquired Powerbrief's litigation management application
in order to facilitate offering litigation and matter management
solutions to their clients. This same year, CSC's subsidiary,
"Corporate Domains, Inc." became an ICANN
accredited domain registrar and began managing domain names for CSC's
many Fortune 500 clients. The culmination of CSC's acquisition strategy
resulted in the release of RecordsCenterSM which is an online application combining "Compliance, Governance and Intellectual Property" tools.
In 2003, CSC acquired Lexis-Nexis Document Solutions[5] to supplement its Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), secured lending, and motor vehicle services.
In 2006, CSC launched and expanded to offer incorporation and
registered agent services to specific small-business sectors. They also
created a new trust company, "The Capital Trust Company of Delaware"
which provides corporate trustee services for personal and Delaware
business trusts.
As of October 2006, CSC represented 121,979 entities in Delaware and 9,500 active entities in Nevada.[6]
In recent years, CSC has been positioning themselves as an
integrated solution to corporate governance. Through acquisitions of
other firms, they have grown and amassed governance tools and name
management systems. They are known to be fiercely competitive and it is
rumored that every new employee at CSC is given an actual golden spike and told that they are to drive it through the heart of CT Corporation, CSC's larger competitor.[citation needed]
The current president of CSC, Bruce R. Winn is known as an aggressive
personality that makes known his strong desire to surpass CT
Corporation as the largest agent service company.[citation needed]
's Judicial and Legislative Branches
have partnered to promote the creation of an interme-diate appellate court -
the Nevada Court of Appeals - and are in the process of doing so again
.
A new study compiled by the Nevada Supreme Court at the
behest of the Nevada Legislature demonstrates that the time is right to
establish the new court level
.
Nevada
is one of just 11 states that do have an intermediate appellate court,
placing the burden on the Nevada Supreme Court to resolve all appeals
.
Currently, the seven-member Court must address
more than 2,000 matters annually – one of the heaviest caseloads in the
nation
