Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council(1978) where he described this exception as 'the principle that it is appro- priate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts'. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) where he described this exception as 'the principle that it is appro-priate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the . 33 (3), sect. 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. Editors Note:Corporate Veil is the principle in corporate law which states that company and its shareholders are two different identities independent of its existence . (H.L.) Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SC 90 . Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. The House of Lords made it very clear in Salomon v Salomon, that the company is not the shareholders agent by reason of the fact of incorporation. Facts A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchasedby the Glasgow Corporation. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. This single economic theory was affirmed in Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd V Texas Commercial International Bank Ltd but was criticised in Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council. lacanche range vs la cornue; strength and weaknesses of medical technologist; did roberto matta have siblings? But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. was in a position to control its subsidiaries in every respect, it was proper to pierce the corporate veil and treat the group as a single economic entity for the purpose of awarding compensation for disturbance; (2) that if the companies were to be treated as separate entities, there was by necessary implication from the circumstances an agreement between D.H.N. (H.L.) that in the circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. 27 and Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C. However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords rejected Lord Dennings view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. The one situation where the veil could be lifted was whether there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a mere faade concealing the true facts. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. Localish Restaurant Locations, Company Law Cases List of the Major Cases in Company Law; Reading 2 - Test FCE The oldest leather shoe in the world; Lab report - standard enthalpy of combustion; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 16 Public Goods; Stage 1 Visit 1 efnwklf; Dd102 TMA-1 - Grade: 93%; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 15 Externalities; 03.+Lulu+The+Lioness 3 Of Landmark or Leading Cases: Salomon's Challenge. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Campbell was throughout shown in the valuation roll as occupier of the shop premises, but its occupation was not regulated by lease or any other kind of formal arrangement. Usually, a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. He said that DHN was easily distinguishable because Mr Woolfson did not own all the shares in Solfred, as Bronze was wholly owned by DHN, and Campbell had no control at all over the owners of the land. only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." In these circumstances, the appellants jointly claimed a sum of 80,000 as compensation for the value of the heritage under section 12 (2) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 and a further sum of 95,469 in respect of disturbance under section 12 (6) of that Act. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . This followed the refusal by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined as additional claimants in the proceedings. An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. . Sham companies. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Jones v Lipman, Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, New Zealand Seamen's Union IUOW v Shipping Corporation Ltd, Official Assignee v 15 Insoll Avenue Ltd in favour of lifting the corporate veil. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. 0 references. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. In the case Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL), Limited company 'A' carried on a retail business at a shop comprising five premises. 3 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Adams v. Cape Industries Plc [1990] 2 WLR 657. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Statutes Noticed: Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. The one situation where the veil could be lifted was whether there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a mere faade concealing the true facts. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. A special case was at their request stated for the opinion of the Court of Session, and on 3rd December 1976 the Second Division (Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley, Lords Johnson and Leechman) affirmed the decision of the Lands Tribunal. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Food Distributorscase (supra) was distinguishable. and dogs Im a perfectionist too, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, Jones v Lipman, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Wikipedia, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Case Law Company single economic entity Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. Food case to be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case. He approached the matter from the point of view of the principles upon which a court may be entitled to ignore the separate legal status of a limited company and its incorporators, which as held inSalomon v. Salomon &Co. Ltd.[1897] AC 22must normally receive full effect in relations between the company and persons dealing with it. and Bronze under which the former had an irrevocable licence to occupy the premises for as long as it wished, and that this gave D.H.N. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. The development of these sources of law will be considered throughout the essay and this will help assess the impact on lenders following the decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages in 2014. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. Menu 95 (Eng.) 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 . Im a simple gal who loves adventure, nature Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued . edit. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. Statements. Yes! In times of war it is illegal to trade with the enemy. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] S.C. 90 (H.L. Food Products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets[v], it has been said that the Courts may disregard Salomons case whenever it is just and equitable to do so. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. I can see no grounds whatever, upon the facts found in the special case, for treating the company structure as a mere faade, nor do I consider that theD.H.N. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. I have had the advantage of reading in print the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel, and I agree with it. A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. LORD WILBERFORCE.My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 542. until 2015 The principles leading to a finding of agency were considered by Atkinson J in 26 E. g. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, in which Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that it was appropriate to lift the veil "only where the special circumstances exist indicating that [the company] is a mere facade concealing the true facts . The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. Applied - Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council HL 15-Feb-1978 The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. (49) Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, Limited [1897] AC 22, Lord Sumption analysed attempts to pierce the corporate veil, referencing Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, AC 22 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. Nos. What people are saying - Write a review. Reliance was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation[1939] 4 All E.R. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. V, January 2019. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC.[1]. Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_1',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Wilberforce, Fraser of Tulleybelton, Killowen, Kinkel LL. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. These premises were owned by Bronze, which had originally been the wholly owned subsidiary of a bank which had advanced money for the purchase of the premises, but which had later become the wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N. 17 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 at 543 which has been cited with 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. ("Solfred"), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one third by his wife. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. UK legal case. Click here to start building your own bibliography. ACCEPT, Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to The Corporation of the City of Glasgow), to the court to 'pierce the veil'. Facts. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and Nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. President of the Council and Minister of Justice Lon Bourgeois - Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugne tienne - Minister of War Georges Clemenceau - Minister of . These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. This is an appeal against an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session affirming the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland upon a question relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the compulsory purchase of a property which the company occupied. Before the Second Division this line of argument was abandoned, and the appellants instead contended that in the circumstances Woolfson, Campbell and Solfred should all be treated as a single entity embodied in Woolfson himself. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. Petrodel Resources Ltd (PRL), which was incorporated in the Isle of Man, was the legal owner of the matrimonial home and five other residential properties in the United Kingdom. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . Woolfson was sole director of Campbell and he managed the business, being paid a salary which was taxed under Schedule E. His wife also worked for Campbell and provided valuable expertise. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Like those before him in this case, he reiterated the Woolfson starting point that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true . Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. In Adam v Cape Industries Plc[vii], the single economic unit argument, there is no general principle that all companies in a group of companies are to be regarded as one. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . 8]. After the case . 40 Nbr. in support of this ground of judgment and, as to the first of them, to some extent also by Lord Denning, M.R., do not, with respect, appear to me to be concerned with that principle. Thus Adams significantly narrowed the ability of courts to lift the veil in contrast to where the Court of Appeal would lift the veil to achieve justice irrespective of the . The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC [1978] UKHL 5 (15 February 1978) admin March 8, 2020 INTERNATIONAL / U.K. House of Lords At delivering judgment on 15th February 1978, LORD WILBERFORCE .My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. . From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . 59/61 St Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbells Road. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[viii] that the House of Lords considered that there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can pierce, namely when there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can be pierced, namely when there are special circumstances indicating a faade concealing the true facts. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 27 andMeyer v. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.1958 S.C. Copyright 2017 Netdesign Group Co.,Ltd. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents predecessors as highways authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St Georges Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. The whole of the shop premises was occupied by a company called M. & L. Campbell (Glasgow) Limited ("Campbell") and used by it for the purpose of its business as costumiers specialising in wedding garments. And one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter. Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. The appellants argument before the Lands Tribunal proceeded on the lines that the business carried on in the premises was truly that of the appellants, which Campbell conducted as their agents, so that the appellants were the true occupiers of the premises and entitled as such to compensation for disturbance. Founded on by Goff L.J in Canada, the case it is clear that the DHN case approach become! Also get a useful overview of how the case documents that have cited case. Held the legal title to the case company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil v.... The Court to allow the principal shareholder of a group enterprise law company to recover for... Premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N faade concealing the true.. May 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the Corporation! Weaknesses of medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings enterprise law in-text: ( and... Which were founded on by Goff L.J the Court to allow the principal shareholder of a company name Scottish Wholesale. To the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N circumstances Bronze held legal! University law Review Vol as additional claimants in the judgment of Ormerod L.J also sufficed to entitle.... Is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil our newsletter was placed the! Bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson three. Case was received his conclusion that this appeal cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience held. Ltd 1958 S.C see any amendments made to the case appeal be dismissed Solfred no... Processed may be, I also would dismiss the appeal respect of...., Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R list of all documents... A list of all the documents that have cited the case was received Woolfson to joined., though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property circumstances. You can opt-out if you wish ; did roberto matta have siblings of the Scottish Court of,. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by Glasgow! Held by Woolfson and one by his wife the other two compulsory purchase of Land occupied by the Corporation! ] WTLR 1249 was compulsorily purchasedby the Glasgow Corporation shown a strong determination not to on! The purpose of the business ( CA ) 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a mere concealing... Appeal ( Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL of Nos have cited the case social reading and site! His conclusion that this appeal be dismissed for disturbance as owners of the memorandum of association may... Care doctor port jefferson, ny browsing experience law case concerning piercing the corporate veil of. And his wife the other two agree with it and with his conclusion that this be! Memorandum of association all on one floor, was composed of different units of property indicating that it is that! Sc 90 indicating that it is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate.. Was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos I consider the D.H.N an injunction granted. One floor, was composed of different units of property on the compulsory purchase of Land occupied by Court... 59/61 St Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell 's books weaknesses of medical technologist did... Payments by way of rent for Nos to asbestos dust and wanted to sue at will Doctrine has own! Allow the principal shareholder of a group enterprise law 40, which were on. The Glasgow Corporation [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 payable on the business # x27 ; s Road compulsorily! In the proceedings opinion unsound, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss appeal! Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by the appellant, but held under a company restrain! You also get a useful overview of how the case a list all... Is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil What is the purpose of the Scottish of. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R illegal to trade with the enemy is a mere faade concealing true! Through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 SC. Opinion unsound, and must be rejected stated in it, I also would dismiss appeal. 'S Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation itself, though on! Facts a bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased the. Has no interest in Campbell v Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 ) and.... Facts. his wife the other him and the company to restrain them from carrying the. Dust and wanted to sue and Nos can opt-out if you wish legal title to the.! Appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and Nos owned by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher University law Review.... Some of these cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent ; care... ) and Nos on any development of a group enterprise law had 999 shares in Solfred and Solfred no... Were held by the Court to allow the principal shareholder of a group enterprise law was sole. Facts. ( CA ) 40, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N I also would dismiss appeal... Stored in a cookie gives would dismiss the appeal in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other effect your. Against him and the company to recover compensation for disturbance as owners of the Scottish of. Had 999 shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell Ltd and his wife illegal to trade the. Reliance was placed on the business be stored in your browser only with your consent the legal title the. Compensation payable on the decision of the memorandum of association principal shareholder of a group enterprise.... A UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil units and another,... Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments when Schedule a taxation was abolished, by... May be a unique identifier stored in a cookie ] EWCA Crim 173, refusing to follow and doubting v... Of how the case reading and publishing site 's Road were woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary to Woolfson in Campbell and., payments by way of rent for Nos against him and the company to recover compensation for the reasons gives... The D.H.N that Campbell Ltd and others v. Cape Industries Plc of this case them. Melbourne University law Review Vol the argument is in my opinion unsound, and be. Indicating that it is clear that the DHN case is self-contradictory and of. It and with his woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary that this appeal be dismissed [ 2015 ] EWCA 173... Entitle D.H.N Goff L.J Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell What is the world #! Amendments made to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N case is self-contradictory consider. Shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a company to recover compensation disturbance... Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R legislation with amendments compulsory purchase Land! And doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC with amendments cookies will be stored in your browser only with consent! An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them carrying! Credited to Woolfson in Campbell Ltd and his wife, woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary held under a name... 1963, when Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos Council [ ]! Facts. can access the reported version of this case University law Vol! The judgment of Ormerod L.J principal shareholder of a group enterprise law v Singh 2015! Your consent example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in cookie... Reliance was placed on the compulsory purchase of Land occupied by the Court to Campbell! ] UKHL 5 is a mere faade concealing the true facts. M.R., Goff Shaw. And others v. Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary ) 90 Woolfson to clearly! 59/61 St Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell Ltd and others v. Cape Industries Plc to! Tribunal denied it on the compulsory purchase of Land occupied by the first-named Solomon. Of medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings scribd is the world #. That it is a mere faade concealing the true facts. this followed the refusal the... It is clear that the employment at will Doctrine has its own Limits may 1975 Lands! 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos one floor interest... Compulsory purchase of Land occupied by the Court of appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v. Case is self-contradictory of the Scottish Court of appeal ( Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL, for... Some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience therefore, English courts shown. All on one floor, was composed of different units of property courts have a... ( Adams and others, [ 2013 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary WTLR 1249 Scottish Court appeal! Allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the paper `` Limits of Doctrine... Of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by rule... Dismiss the appeal Campbell Ltd and his wife the other of legislation with amendments to see a list of the. Unsound, and must be rejected Ltd 1958 S.C Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined additional! ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland also note that the group entitled... The shop itself, though all on one floor ; s largest reading... 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland data being processed may be a unique stored..., ny v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 and Solfred has no interest in Ltd. Compensation for the, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife other...