Hodson v Barnes (1926) ~ The Egg Will

🔍 Behind the Will: Hodson v Barnes (1926) – The Eggshell Will & the Meaning of “Writing”

This week’s Behind the Will explores one of the most unusual cases in succession law — Hodson v Barnes (1926), better known as “the Eggshell Will”. This curious decision tested how far the courts will stretch the meaning of a will being “in writing”.

⚖️ Case of the Week: Hodson v Barnes (1926) – Can a Will Be Written on an Egg?

In Hodson v Barnes, the testator inscribed on an eggshell:

“17–1925. Mag. Everything I possess.”

“Mag” referred to his wife, and the egg was discovered among his possessions after his death. The question before the court was whether such an inscription could constitute a valid will.

The court concluded that there was no legal reason why a will could not be written on an unconventional material — even an eggshell — as long as it met the formal requirements of the Wills Act 1837: writing, signature, intention, and attestation.

However, the document ultimately failed because it was not properly witnessed or executed. The court confirmed that while the medium of a will can vary, compliance with statutory formalities cannot.

🔑 Key Takeaways:

1. “In Writing” Is Flexible:

A will does not need to be on paper. As long as words are visible and permanent, the medium can be valid: whether parchment, wood, or even an egg.

2. Formalities Are Non-Negotiable:

The most imaginative will still fails if it isn’t properly signed and witnessed. Creativity cannot cure procedural defects.

3. Intention Matters ~ But So Does Compliance:

Courts aim to respect a testator’s wishes, but they cannot bypass statutory requirements, even for genuine intentions.

4. A Lesson in Drafting Discipline:

Hodson v Barnes serves as a reminder that while the law values intention, it insists on precision. Proper process remains the cornerstone of will validity.

đź’¬ Practical Tip for Practitioners:

If a client insists on something unconventional, ensure every step of the formalities is beyond reproach. Novelty may attract attention ~ but careful compliance protects both the will and the practitioner.

Stay tuned for next week’s Behind the Will case commentary, where we’ll explore another intriguing decision shaping modern inheritance law.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *