Duckett v Warde

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date18 November 1845
Date18 November 1845
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 537

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Duckett
and
Warde

S. C. 15 L. J. Ch. 105; 9 Jur. 981.

Voluntary Transfer of Stock. Trust. Parent and Child.

[56] smith v. warde. duckett v. wasde. Nov. 17, 18, 1845. [S. C. 15 L. J. Ch. 105; 9 Jur. 981.] Voluntary Transfer of Stock. Trust. Parent and Child. A. directed his agents to invest part of his balance in their hands, in the purchase of 4000 stock, in the names of himself and his wife, in trust for his infant son. The agents made the purchase in the joint names; but without any trust expressed, because, as they afterwards informed A., the bank objected to trust accounts appearing on their books. A. allowed the stock to remain without any trust being declared, and received the dividends of it down to his decease. Held, that neither his son nor his wife (who survived him) were entitled to the stock, but that it formed part of his assets. On the 2d of April 1834 Sir Lionel Smith, the testator in the cause, who was then Governor of Barbadoes, wrote a letter to Mr. George Forbes, a partner in the house of Forbes & Co., his agents in London, which was in part as follows :-" Look at my account current, and see, when the quarter due shall be paid, what balance I may have; and, if my account can possibly bear it, make a purchase in some public stock you and your good father may think best, to the extent of 4000 or 5000, for my boy Lionel Eldred, who is this day twelve months old. Let it be in my own 538 SMITH V. WARDE 15 SIM. 57. name and in my wife's, Lady Isabella Smith's, in trust for Lionel Eld-red Smith." The writer concluded with requesting that, [57] when the purchase should be made, Mr. Forbea would communicate the contents of his letter to Lady Smith, who was then at Florence. On the 17th of April Forbes & Co., in compliance with Sir Lionel's request, purchased 4000 New three and a half per cents., in the names of Sir Lionel and Lady Smith; and, in May following. Mr. Forbes wrote to Lady Smith, and after informing her of the purchase, added that the bank objected to trust accounts being placed on their books. On the 3d of June Lady Smith acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Forbes's letter, and expressed herself highly gratified with the purchase that had been made, which she termed a present from Sir Lionel to hia dear sou. On the 24th of the same month Mr. Forbes wrote to Sir Lionel, and, after informing him of the purchase, added : " I now send you the transfer stock receipt, which, you will see, bears your own name and that of your wife's. It could not be done as you desired, for the bank objects to trust accounts on their books." Sir Lionel, in reply, thanked Mr. Forbes for the trouble he had taken in the investment of money in the stocks for his boy: and afterwards wrote a letter to Sir Charles Forbes, the father of Mr. Forbes, in which be thanked Sir Charles for his assistance in getting the little present secured to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Byrnes v Kendle
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 3 August 2011
    ...Treatise on the Law of Trusts, 11th ed (1904) at 85. 90 (1828) 2 Y & J 502 [ 148 ER 1017]. 91 (1842) 1 Hare 476 [ 66 ER 1119]. 92 (1845) 15 Sim 56 [ 60 ER 93 [1902] 1 Ch 403. 94 (1920) 28 CLR 178; [1920] HCA 45. 95 (1920) 28 CLR 178 at 181. 96 [1935] SASR 263 at 267. 97 (1940) 57 WN (NS......
  • Byrnes v Kendle
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 3 August 2011
    ...Treatise on the Law of Trusts, 11th ed (1904) at 85. 90 (1828) 2 Y & J 502 [ 148 ER 1017]. 91 (1842) 1 Hare 476 [ 66 ER 1119]. 92 (1845) 15 Sim 56 [ 60 ER 93 [1902] 1 Ch 403. 94 (1920) 28 CLR 178; [1920] HCA 45. 95 (1920) 28 CLR 178 at 181. 96 [1935] SASR 263 at 267. 97 (1940) 57 WN (NSW......
  • Topham v The Duke of Portland
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1863
    ...it would have passed to her creditors or representatives. It would still pass, for the order did not divest her property; Smith v. Wardt, (15 Sim. 56). There is no pretence here for saying that there was anything like delegation. No case goes to anything like the length contended for. In In......
  • Talbot v Cody
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 4 November 1875
    ...15 Beav. 529. Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 624. Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447. Wheatly v. ParrENR 1 Keen. 551. Smith v. WardENR 15 Sim. 56. Fowkes v. PascoeELR L. R. 10 Ch. App. 243. Hopkins v. AbbottELR L. R. 19 Eq. 222. Marshall v. CrutwellELR 8 L. R. 20 Eq. 328. Dalton v. The Midl......
  • 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