138:
24:
280:
one of the modes to which I have referred, the Court will not give effect to it by applying another of those modes. If it is intended to take effect by transfer, the Court will not hold the intended transfer to operate as a declaration of trust, for then every imperfect instrument would be made effectual by being converted into a perfect trust.
279:
in order to render the settlement binding, one or other of these modes must, as I understand the law of this Court, be resorted to, for there is no equity in this Court to perfect an imperfect gift. The cases I think go further to this extent, that if the settlement is intended to be effectuated by
250:
with Samuel Lord, for Lord to hold 50 shares on trust for
Eleanor. (This was in fact made in consideration of $ 1, but this was ignored.) He also gave Lord a power of attorney to receive dividends on the shares and to comply with the company constitution's formalities. Lord did not actually do it.
251:
Thomas Medley lived for three years after signing the deed with Samuel Lord, in which Samuel Lord was receiving dividends and passing them on. When Thomas Medley died the shares still remained in his name. Eleanor Milroy claimed that the shares belonged to her.
246:, and wished to transfer them. The bank required the shares be transferred according to regulations in the company constitution. He wanted to give them to his niece, Eleanor Milroy (maiden name Dudgeon). He signed a deed in
299:
was that if a debtor appointed to an estate as executor will have his debt forgiven if, and only if, the testator manifested an intention to forgive the debt and this intention continued until death. A second, set out in
270:
He might, however, have affected the legal title. It was in his power to make a transfer of the shares so as to confer the legal proprietorship on another person or other persons. But, as I have said, no such thing was
275:
Turner LJ concurred. Three ways to give something were (1) legal transfer of title to recipient (2) transfer of title to a trustee for a beneficiary (3) a self-declaration of trust. He continued.
266:
held the attempted transfer failed. An ineffective outright transfer could not be regarded as an effective declaration of trust. Knight Bruce LJ said the following.
345:
306:, is that the gift will be an effective transfer where the donor has done everything he is obliged to do to make the gift valid. Particularly after
390:
308:
338:
547:
115:
614:
599:
331:
49:
45:
96:
68:
609:
263:
75:
34:
53:
38:
604:
559:
536:
456:
82:
467:
230:
case that held trusts should not be used to save gifts from being defeated. It purported to follow one of the
64:
479:
501:
137:
525:
570:
431:
361:
227:
513:
419:
243:
142:
231:
89:
196:
254:
Stuart VC held that a trust had been created for
Eleanor, and the decision was appealed.
435:
490:
380:
223:
181:
409:
593:
445:
295:
395:
146:
23:
247:
200:
323:
365:
405:
302:
327:
17:
173:(1862) 4 De GF&J 264, All ER Rep 783, (1862) 7 LT 178
289:
There were subsequently a host of exceptions to the
206:
192:
187:
177:
169:
161:
153:
130:
242:Thomas Medley held shares in a company called the
212:Trusts, Constitution, formalities, imperfect gift
277:
268:
339:
8:
234:that "Equity will not assist a volunteer".
52:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
346:
332:
324:
136:
127:
116:Learn how and when to remove this message
391:T Choithram International SA v Pagarani
309:T Choithram International SA v Pagarani
7:
50:adding citations to reliable sources
293:rule. One, almost immediately from
316:would be decided in the same way.
14:
22:
1:
548:Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2)
182:Full transcript at bailii.org
264:Court of Appeal in Chancery
157:Court of Appeal in Chancery
631:
556:
544:
534:
522:
510:
498:
488:
476:
464:
454:
442:
428:
416:
402:
387:
373:
359:
211:
135:
560:Formality in English law
537:Law of Property Act 1925
468:Rochefoucauld v Boustead
457:Law of Property Act 1925
615:Court of Chancery cases
600:English trusts case law
354:Trust formality sources
312:, it is not clear that
505:(1855) 2 K & J 313
423:(1984) 50 P&CR 119
396:[2000] UKPC 46
282:
273:
480:Bannister v Bannister
46:improve this article
610:1862 in British law
449:(1874) LR 18 Eq 315
571:English trusts law
459:s 53(1)(b) and (2)
432:Pennington v Waine
362:Companies Act 2006
228:English trusts law
566:
565:
502:Wallgrave v Tebbs
420:Mascall v Mascall
244:Bank of Louisiana
216:
215:
143:Bank of Louisiana
126:
125:
118:
100:
622:
605:1862 in case law
526:Ottaway v Norman
348:
341:
334:
325:
232:maxims of equity
188:Court membership
140:
128:
121:
114:
110:
107:
101:
99:
58:
26:
18:
630:
629:
625:
624:
623:
621:
620:
619:
590:
589:
584:
579:
567:
562:
552:
540:
530:
518:
506:
494:
484:
472:
460:
450:
438:
424:
412:
398:
383:
369:
355:
352:
322:
287:
260:
240:
197:Knight-Bruce LJ
149:
122:
111:
105:
102:
65:"Milroy v Lord"
59:
57:
43:
27:
12:
11:
5:
628:
626:
618:
617:
612:
607:
602:
592:
591:
588:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
574:
573:
564:
563:
557:
554:
553:
545:
542:
541:
535:
532:
531:
523:
520:
519:
511:
508:
507:
499:
496:
495:
491:Wills Act 1837
489:
486:
485:
477:
474:
473:
465:
462:
461:
455:
452:
451:
443:
440:
439:
429:
426:
425:
417:
414:
413:
403:
400:
399:
388:
385:
384:
374:
371:
370:
360:
357:
356:
353:
351:
350:
343:
336:
328:
321:
318:
286:
283:
259:
256:
239:
236:
214:
213:
209:
208:
204:
203:
194:
193:Judges sitting
190:
189:
185:
184:
179:
175:
174:
171:
167:
166:
163:
159:
158:
155:
151:
150:
141:
133:
132:
124:
123:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
627:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
595:
586:
585:
581:
576:
572:
569:
568:
561:
555:
550:
549:
543:
538:
533:
528:
527:
521:
516:
515:
509:
504:
503:
497:
492:
487:
482:
481:
475:
470:
469:
463:
458:
453:
448:
447:
446:Strong v Bird
441:
437:
434:
433:
427:
422:
421:
415:
411:
408:
407:
401:
397:
393:
392:
386:
382:
379:
378:
377:Milroy v Lord
372:
367:
363:
358:
349:
344:
342:
337:
335:
330:
329:
326:
319:
317:
315:
314:Milroy v Lord
311:
310:
305:
304:
298:
297:
296:Strong v Bird
292:
291:Milroy v Lord
284:
281:
276:
272:
267:
265:
257:
255:
252:
249:
245:
237:
235:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
220:Milroy v Lord
210:
205:
202:
198:
195:
191:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
134:
131:Milroy v Lord
129:
120:
117:
109:
98:
95:
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67: –
66:
62:
61:Find sources:
55:
51:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
546:
524:
512:
500:
483:2 All ER 133
478:
466:
444:
436:EWCA Civ 227
430:
418:
404:
389:
376:
375:
313:
307:
301:
294:
290:
288:
285:Significance
278:
274:
269:
261:
253:
241:
219:
218:
217:
112:
103:
93:
86:
79:
72:
60:
44:Please help
32:
15:
381:EWHC Ch J78
147:New Orleans
106:August 2024
594:Categories
582:References
539:s 53(1)(c)
514:Re Snowden
410:EWCA Civ 4
364:s 113 and
178:Transcript
76:newspapers
248:Louisiana
201:Turner LJ
33:does not
529:2 WLR 50
517:1 Ch 700
471:1 Ch 196
366:LRA 2002
320:See also
258:Judgment
224:EWHC J78
207:Keywords
170:Citation
406:Re Rose
303:Re Rose
162:Decided
90:scholar
54:removed
39:sources
551:Ch 269
226:is an
92:
85:
78:
71:
63:
577:Notes
394:
271:done.
238:Facts
154:Court
97:JSTOR
83:books
558:see
262:The
165:1862
69:news
37:any
35:cite
493:s 9
368:s 4
48:by
596::
199:,
145:,
347:e
340:t
333:v
119:)
113:(
108:)
104:(
94:·
87:·
80:·
73:·
56:.
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
