Grant v Grant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1865 |
| Date | 10 July 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 776
ROLLS COURT
See Baddeley v. Baddeley, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 115; In re Breton's Estate, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 420. On point as to evidence, dissented from, Browne v. Collins, 1872, 21 W. R. 222.
[623] grant v. grant. July 7, 8, 10, 1865. [See Baddeley v. Badddey, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 115; In re Breton's Estate, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 420. On point as to evidence, dissented from, Brmune v. Collins, 1872, 21 W. R. 222.] Gifts of chattels by a husband to his wife supported. A husband may constitute himself a trustee for his wife; the declaration need not be in writing, but the words must be clear, unequivocal and irrevocable. The Court will not act upon the unsupported testimony of a claimant upon the estate of a deceased person. The testator Mr. Grant married Miss Bayley in 1857, and he died in 1863. He made his brother, the Defendant, his executor, and gave him the residue of his property. The widow of the testator claimed, as gifts to her from her husband, several chattels which were at the testator's residence at Nuttall Hall at his decease. These consisted of two statuettes of "Highland Mary "and "Lavinia," and two pedestals belonging to them, a piano, a souffl? and hash dish, a Bohemian glass dessert service, a marble dessert service, a copy of " The Madonna Delia Sedia," and four engravings, namely, " Midsummer Night's Dream," " Miss Nightingale at Scutari," " The Rescue " and " The Sanctuary." By this suit, the widow sought to have a declaration of her right to these articles, and to have them delivered up to her by the Defendant. Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. W. W. Karslake, for the [624] Plaintiff, cited Lucas v. Lucas (1 Atk. 270); Northey v. Nwthey (2 Atk. 77); Graham v. Lomlonderry (3 Atk. 393); Mews v. Mews (15 Beav. 529) ; Tipping v. Tipping (1 Peere, W. 729); Jervoise v. Jervoise (17 Beav. 566). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Kay, for the Defendant, cited M'Lean v. Longlands (5 Ves. 71); Walter v. Hodge (2 Swan. 92); and as to costs, Governesses' Benevolent Institution v. Rusbridger (18 Beav. 467). July 10. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romillyl In this case, after reading the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree. It has been very properly observed, on both sides, that, in cases of this description, the question in equity is merely one of evidence, and that it cannot now be disputed that a husband may be a trustee for his wife. That is perfectly settled, and the only question is, whether he has constituted himself such a trustee or not. I apprehend that the fact of the transaction taking place between the husband and the wife, instead of between strangers, makes no difference, in this respect, further than this :- that, in the case of a gift of chattels by one stranger to another, there must be a delivery of the chattels in order to make the gift complete, whereas, in the case of MBHAV. M. GRANT V. GRANT 777 husband and wife there cannot be a delivery, because, assuming they are given [625] to the wife, they still remain in the legal possession of the husband, and therefore it is impossible to give that completion to the gift that would be necessary to give effect to it betwean strangers. Therefore, this comes under that class of cases in which it has been held that, though there is not an absolute delivery a declaration of trust is sufficient. The question here is whether the husband has used words which are equivalent to a declaration of trust. In the first place, these words need not be in writing, that is quite settled by the authorities. They must be clear, unequivocal and irrevocable, but it ia not necessary to use any technical words, it is not necessary to say, " I hold the property in trust for you," nor is it necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ang Guan Yau and Another; Lee Phek Choo
- Khoo Oon Jin Eugene; Loo Cheng Suan Sabrina
- Lau Tiong Ik Construction Sdn Bhd v Lau Chung Ping and Another
- Toolukannaammah @ Mariayee and Others (as administrator for estate of Arumugam a/l Nagappan) v Perumal a/l Nagappan