167:
37:
and had a joint will, whereby both spouses bequeathed their half of the joint estate to each other. Being safety-conscious, each night the deceased's husband slept with a loaded revolver under his pillow. One night the revolver accidentally went off while the couple was sleeping; the bullet struck
59:
rule, which means that no one may benefit from the death of their own victim, still applies and has not become obsolete by disuse. Accordingly, the deceased's husband was not allowed to inherit but could take half of the common estate in terms of the
208:
45:
The legal question arose of whether or not someone who negligently killed another may inherit in terms of the deceased's will. The court found that the answer was 'no'.
201:
242:
232:
194:
30:
227:
73:
151:
Klein and
Viljoen. Beginner's Guide for Law Students. Juta. Third Edition. 2002. Page 82. See also the Fourth Edition.
237:
89:
100:
48:
In general terms anyone may benefit from a will, however, an exception is made in the Roman-Dutch law: the
174:
53:
61:
34:
39:
178:
221:
166:
96:
38:
the deceased, who subsequently died. The deceased's husband was convicted of
26:
139:
49:
95:
Klein and
Viljoen. Beginner's Guide for Law Students. Juta.
182:
127:
Casey No v The Master and Others 1992 (4) SA 505 (N)
99:. 2002. Pages 75 and 81. See also pages 67 and 68.
103:. 2010. See pages relating to the bloedige hand.
33:, the deceased and her husband were married in
202:
8:
209:
195:
123:
121:
119:
117:
113:
135:
133:
7:
163:
161:
181:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
165:
86:Casey No v The Master and Others
74:South African law of succession
31:South African law of succession
1:
243:South African case law stubs
259:
160:
233:1992 in South African law
173:This article relating to
19:The facts of the case in
175:case law in South Africa
62:matrimonial property law
16:South African legal case
140:bloedige hand principle
228:South African case law
35:community of property
142:at papers.ssrn.com.
22:Casey v The Master
190:
189:
40:culpable homicide
250:
238:1992 in case law
211:
204:
197:
169:
162:
152:
149:
143:
137:
128:
125:
258:
257:
253:
252:
251:
249:
248:
247:
218:
217:
216:
215:
158:
156:
155:
150:
146:
138:
131:
126:
115:
110:
82:
70:
25:, an important
17:
12:
11:
5:
256:
254:
246:
245:
240:
235:
230:
220:
219:
214:
213:
206:
199:
191:
188:
187:
170:
154:
153:
144:
129:
112:
111:
109:
106:
105:
104:
101:Fourth Edition
93:
81:
78:
77:
76:
69:
66:
52:held that the
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
255:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
229:
226:
225:
223:
212:
207:
205:
200:
198:
193:
192:
186:
184:
180:
176:
171:
168:
164:
159:
148:
145:
141:
136:
134:
130:
124:
122:
120:
118:
114:
107:
102:
98:
97:Third Edition
94:
91:
87:
84:
83:
79:
75:
72:
71:
67:
65:
63:
58:
56:
51:
46:
43:
41:
36:
32:
28:
24:
23:
183:expanding it
172:
157:
147:
85:
54:
47:
44:
21:
20:
18:
222:Categories
80:References
88:1992 (4)
92:505 (N).
68:See also
55:bloedige
29:in the
177:is a
108:Notes
50:court
179:stub
57:hand
27:case
224::
132:^
116:^
90:SA
64:.
42:.
210:e
203:t
196:v
185:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
