82:
The testator left four houses on trust for his daughters, under the condition that his daughter Maria would choose the one she wanted, and the remaining three would then go to his other daughter
Charlotte. Maria died before her father, and it was unknown which house she would have chosen.
124:
335:
95:, the Vice Chancellor, held the trust failed because it was uncertain which house Maria would have chosen, and which would go to Charlotte.
117:
295:
438:
423:
215:
309:
267:
110:
428:
323:
62:
case, concerning the certainty of subject matter. Its outcome may have become outdated by the more recent judgments in
433:
70:
348:
241:
352:
59:
399:
Oosterhoff on Trusts : text, commentary and materials 8th edition, Carswell, 2014, pp 216
363:
281:
203:
179:
92:
165:
141:
245:
313:
299:
231:
169:
417:
255:
227:
64:
153:
285:
271:
102:
106:
41:
33:
25:
20:
118:
8:
337:West Yorkshire MCC v District Auditor No 3
125:
111:
103:
17:
374:
7:
37:(1849) 60 ER 959, (1849) 16 Sim 476
14:
216:Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd
1:
296:Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (no 2)
310:Re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts
268:Re Gulbenkian’s Settlements
455:
346:
332:
320:
306:
292:
278:
264:
252:
238:
224:
212:
200:
188:
176:
162:
150:
138:
46:
381:(1881-82) LR 19 Ch D 520
259:(1881-82) LR 19 Ch D 520
439:Court of Chancery cases
424:English trusts case law
324:Re Barlow’s Will Trusts
58:(1849) 60 ER 959 is an
71:Re Golay's Will Trusts
242:Re Harvard Securities
133:Trust certainty cases
429:1849 in British law
183:(1789) 2 Bro CC 585
353:English trusts law
157:(1865) 1 Ch App 25
60:English trusts law
364:English trust law
359:
358:
282:McPhail v Doulton
207:(1854) 2 Drew 221
204:Palmer v Simmonds
195:(1849) 16 Sim 476
180:Sprange v Barnard
93:Court of Chancery
51:
50:
29:Court of Chancery
446:
434:1849 in case law
400:
397:
391:
388:
382:
379:
338:
166:Paul v Constance
127:
120:
113:
104:
18:
454:
453:
449:
448:
447:
445:
444:
443:
414:
413:
408:
403:
398:
394:
389:
385:
380:
376:
372:
360:
355:
342:
336:
328:
316:
302:
288:
274:
260:
248:
234:
220:
208:
196:
184:
172:
158:
146:
145:(1840) 49 ER 58
142:Knight v Knight
134:
131:
101:
89:
80:
12:
11:
5:
452:
450:
442:
441:
436:
431:
426:
416:
415:
412:
411:
407:
404:
402:
401:
392:
383:
373:
371:
368:
367:
366:
357:
356:
347:
344:
343:
333:
330:
329:
321:
318:
317:
307:
304:
303:
293:
290:
289:
279:
276:
275:
265:
262:
261:
253:
250:
249:
239:
236:
235:
225:
222:
221:
213:
210:
209:
201:
198:
197:
189:
186:
185:
177:
174:
173:
163:
160:
159:
151:
148:
147:
139:
136:
135:
132:
130:
129:
122:
115:
107:
100:
97:
88:
85:
79:
76:
49:
48:
44:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
30:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
451:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
419:
410:
409:
405:
396:
393:
387:
384:
378:
375:
369:
365:
362:
361:
354:
350:
345:
340:
339:
331:
326:
325:
319:
315:
312:
311:
305:
301:
298:
297:
291:
287:
284:
283:
277:
273:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
256:In re Roberts
251:
247:
246:EWHC Comm 371
244:
243:
237:
233:
230:
229:
228:Hunter v Moss
223:
218:
217:
211:
206:
205:
199:
194:
193:
192:Boyce v Boyce
187:
182:
181:
175:
171:
168:
167:
161:
156:
155:
149:
144:
143:
137:
128:
123:
121:
116:
114:
109:
108:
105:
98:
96:
94:
86:
84:
77:
75:
73:
72:
67:
66:
65:In re Roberts
61:
57:
56:
55:Boyce v Boyce
45:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
21:Boyce v Boyce
19:
16:
395:
386:
377:
334:
322:
308:
294:
280:
266:
254:
240:
226:
214:
202:
191:
190:
178:
164:
154:Jones v Lock
152:
140:
90:
81:
69:
63:
54:
53:
52:
15:
314:EWCA Civ 11
300:EWCA Civ 10
232:EWCA Civ 11
418:Categories
406:References
170:EWCA Civ 2
390:1 WLR 969
349:Certainty
327:1 WLR 278
99:See also
87:Judgment
42:Keywords
34:Citation
219:PCC 121
91:In the
341:RVR 24
286:UKHL 1
272:UKHL 5
47:Trusts
370:Notes
78:Facts
26:Court
351:and
68:and
420::
74:.
126:e
119:t
112:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.