LIBERTY OF BEQUEST v. COMPULSORY DESCENT.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR 1
am glad to notice that in your comment on the Walrond case you uphold the liberty of bequest. It does not always work well, but it is worth while to know that the compulsory descent of property as practised abroad is often far from being satisfac- tory. Allow me a few lines to give a personal experience as illustration.
After an absence of several years, I returned to Switzerland in 1876, and settled down in Bern. Having separate property, my wife and I wished to draw up a will to the purport that the sur- vivor should enjoy the whole. That seems simple enough. But to do it we had to apply to a lawyer. He informed me that, being a citizen of Basel, I could only make a will according to the laws of that town. Thereupon I applied to a lawyer in Basel, who answered that I, indeed, could make a will, provided the Government and my father and grandfather (if living) gave their consent. Thus the law gives the latter a right not only over my property, but that of my wife. I applied to the Government, and obtained readily their consent. It was of no avail,—my father and grandfather objected. In my perplexity, I called upon one of the most eminent lawyers of the country. He advised me to wait till a Bill had become law which would give me the option to choose between the law of Basel and Bern. Could I make a will then? No, the law regulated all.
Not being willing to lose any more time and patience—and lawyers' fees—we packed up and returned to this country, where• you can do with your own as you like.—I am, Sir, &c., C. C. S.
Previous page
