The donor executed a transfer of 50 shares. The shares were only transferable by entry in the books of the bank. No such transfer was ever made. The defendant had a power of attorney authorising him to transfer the donor’s shares and after the deed the donor gave him a further power of attorney authorising him to receive dividends on the shares. The donor died and an action was bought to enforce the transfer.
Held: The transaction was imperfect and incomplete and that the donor might have perfected it and completed it by a transfer.
Turner LJ said: ‘in order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual, the settlor must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him. He may of course do this by actually transferring the property to the persons for whom he intends to provide, and the provision will then be effectual, and it will be equally effectual if he transfers the property to a trustee for the purposes of the settlement, or declares that he himself holds it in trust for those purposes; and if the property be personal, the trust may, as I apprehend, be declared either in writing or by parol; but, 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 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. These are the principles by which, as I conceive, this case must be tried.’
Knight-Bruce LJ and Turner LJ
(1862) 4 De GF and J 264, [1862] EWHC Ch J78, [1862] EngR 951, (1862) 4 De G F and J 264, (1862) 45 ER 1185
Bailii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pennington and Another v Waine, Crampton and others CA 4-Mar-2002
The deceased had made a gift of shares. She had executed a transfer, and acting upon the promise, the donee had agreed to become a director which he could only do if he also became a shareholder. The transfer was delivered to the deceased’s agent, . .
Cited – Macedo v Stroud PC 1922
(Trinidad) The donor purported to give real property (in part) by memorandum which was not registered. Under the law of Trinidad the transfer did not pass any estate or interest in the land. The donor delivered the instrument to his solicitor . .
Distinguished – In re Rose, Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1952
The deceased had executed instruments of transfer and delivered them with the relevant certificates to the transferees.
Held: The transfers were transferred the whole of the deceased’s title both legal and equitable in the shares and all . .
Cited – Mascall v Mascall CA 13-Jun-1984
The question was whether a gift of land was completely constituted by delivery of the land certificate
Held: Equity will not come to the aid of a volunteer. Therefore, if a donee needs to get an order from a court of equity in order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Equity, Trusts
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.179865