Bentley v Mackay

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 June 1851
Date26 June 1851
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 440

ROLLS COURT

Bentley
and
Mackay

440 BENTLEY V. MACK AY 15 BBAV. 12. [12] bentley v. mackay.(!) June 26, 1851. The Court, in order to give effect to voluntary settlements, requires, where the settlor is the legal owner, everything to have been done which is requisite to transfer the legal ownership ; and where he is the equitable owner, clear and distinct evidence of a declaration of trust in favour of the donee. A father being entitled, during the life of his son, to the dividends on funds standing in the names of himself and three other trustees, directed two of the trustees to pay over the dividends for the future to his son. They acted on the direction, and the testator afterwards recognised the gift. Held, that there was a valid and effectual voluntary settlement, which this Court would give effect to. This case came before the Court on exceptions to the Master's report. It involved a question as to the validity of a voluntary gift of the dividends of a sum of £10,000 consols, which it was alleged had been made by the testator, Spencer Mackay, to his son Thomas Henry in August 1845. The circumstances relating to the matter were detailed in the Master's report, who found as follows : - That by a settlement made on the marriage of the testator's son Thomas Henry Mackay, dated the 15th of July 1840, a sum of £10,000 consols was transferred from the testator's name into the joint names of Eichard Twining, William Brewster Twining, the testator, and James Alexander Gordon, upon trust, during the life of Thomas Henry Mackay, to pay the dividends to his father, Spencer Mackay, and afterwards on certain trusts for the wife and children of Thomas Henry Mackay. The Master found that the testator had received the dividends on this sum until July 1845, and that until that period the testator had made his son an allowance of £1000 a year, which then ceased. [13] And the Master found, that in July 1845, the testator wished and determined to secure to Thomas Henry Mackay an immediate fixed income of £1000 a year, in lieu of the voluntary allowance of the same amount which he had previously made ; and in order to effect that object, the testator also determined to make over to Thomas Henry Mackay, for his absolute use and benefit, the dividends thenceforth to accrue due on the said sum of £10,000 consols, to the extent of the testator's interest therein, amounting to £300 a year, and also to transfer to Thomas Henry Mackay absolutely such a sum of consols as would produce a sum of £700 a year ; and that thereupon, and with the view and object of effecting his said intention and determination, the testator, on the 7th of August 1845, wrote to Messra. Spurling, his stockbrokers, a letter in the following terms : " I have a trust open in the Bank of England for £10,000 settled in the names of myself, Richard Twining, William Brewster Twining, and James A. Gordon. I have hitherto received the dividends, and I want to make it over to my son Thomas Henry Mackay, and the next in the trust to receive the dividends, and pay it over to my son from time to time. I suppose it will be necessary for Eichard Twining to appear at the bank, and accept and sign his name again. I want as much stock in consols as yield £700 to the same (meaning to Thomas Henry Mackay}. You will oblige me if the above can be regularly done." And he found that on the 10th of August 1845 the testator wrote and sent to Messrs. Spurling another letter : " I enclose a cheque for £42, which you will oblige me by procuring a bank post-bill and prepare the transfer so much consols as will yield £700 per annum in favour of my son Thomas Henry Mackay. The explanation of the other affair is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Grey v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 2 November 1959
  • Corin v Patton
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Bridge v Bridge
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1852
    ...1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 507); Meek v. Kettlewell (1 Hare, 464, and 1 Phil. 342); Kekeunch v. Manning (1 De G. M. & G. 176); B&ntley v. Mackay (15 Beav. 12); Johnson v. Legard (3 Mer. 254, n.; 3 Mad. 302; 6 M. & S. 60; Turn. & R. 281); Smith v. Garland (2 Mer. 123) : M'Faddenv. Jenkyns (1 Hare, 4......
  • Gee v Liddell
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 11 June 1866
    ...on it, during his life, by paying the interest, and became a trustee for the Plaintiff; Ex parle Pye (18 Ves. 140); Bentley v. Mackay (15 Beav. 12). His assets, therefore, are to make it good. It is like a promise made to the testator, which the Court would enforce; Podmore v. Gunning (5 Si......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT