Milroy v Lord
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 1185
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 798; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 806; 7 L. T. 178. Followed, Warriner v. Rogers, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 349; Richards v. Delbridge, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 13; Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 482; Heartley v. Nicholson, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 242; Bottle v. Knocker, 1876, 46 L. J. Ch. 161; In re Breton's Estate, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 416; In re Skield, 1885, 53 L. T. 6; Ex parte Todd, 19 Q. B. D. 189.
[264] milroy v. lord. Before the Lords Justices. Jime 2, 3, 4, July 26, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ch, 798 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 806; 7 L. T. 178. Followed, Ifamner v. Rogers, 1873, L. E. 16 Eq. 349; Richards v. Delbridgt, 1874, L. B. 18 Eq. 13 ; Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 482; Heartley v. Nicholson, 1875, L. E. 19 Eq. 242 ; Bottle v. Knacker, 1876, 46 L. J. Ch. 161; In re Breton's Estate, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 416 ; In re Shield, 1885, 53 L. T. 6 ; Exparte Todd, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 189.] T. M, executed a- voluntary deed purporting to assign fifty of his shares in the L. Bank to S. L., to be held by him upon certain trusts for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. The share* war* transferable only by entry in the books of the bank; but no such transfer was- earnr made. S. L. held at the time a general power of attorney authoriang; Mim to transfer T. M.'s shares, and T. M., after the execution of the settlement, gave him a further power of attorney authorizing him to receive the dividends on^his shares in the bank. T. M. lived three years after the execution of the dead, {taring which period the dividends an the shares were received by S. L. and ^Knitted by him to the Plaintiffs, sometimes directly and sometimes, through T. M. Held, that as iC was not the intention of the settlor to constitute himself a trustee of tho stares, bet to vest the trust in S. L., there was no valid trust of the shares created in the settlor. Held, further, that no valid trust of the shares was created in S. L., for although he held a power of attorney under which he might have vested the shares in himself, C. xxv.-38 1186 .MILRQY V. LORD 4PEO. P. & J. MB. he did not do so, and was not bound to do ao without directions from the settlor, since he held the power only as agent for the settlor. Held, therefore, reversing the decree appealed from, that the disposition of the shares failed, as being an imperfect voluntary gift. This was an appeal by the Defendant Otto, the personal representative of Medley, from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Stuart. The bill was filed by Andrew Row M'Taggart Milroy and Eleanor Rainey his wife, formerly E. R. Dudgeon, for the purpose of having new trustees appointed of a voluntary settlement made by the late Thomas Medley, and for recovering fifty shares of the Bank of Louisiana which formed the subject of the settlement, and thirteen North American Fire Insurance shares which were purchased with the income of the bank shares, together with the dividends upon all the above-mentioned shares so far as they had not been paid over to the Plaintiffs or one of them; and the bill also prayed that the Defendant Samuel Lord, the trustee named in the settlement, might be decreed to make compensation to the Plaintiffs and other the parties entitled under the settlement in respect of his having given up the certificates for the shares to the Defendant Otto, the executor of Thomas Medley. [265] The settlement in question was made by a deed-poll dated the 2d April 1852, which was as follows :- " Know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas Medley, of the City of New Orleans, oti account of the love and affection I have for my niece Eleanor Rainey Dudgeon, daughter of Daniel Dudgeon of England, and in consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, have conveyed, transferred, set over and delivered, and by these presents do convey, transfer, set over and deliver, unto Samuel Lord of the city and county of New York fifty shares of the capital stock of the Bank of Louisiana now standing in my name in the books of the said bank, together with the certificate or script thereof numbered 3457 and elated the 6th March 1852, under the corporate seal of the said bank, signed by \V. W. Montgomery, president, and attested by R. M. Davis, cashier, and the dividends and profits thereof, to have and to hold to the said Samuel Lord and his legal representatives upon the trusts and conditions following, to wit, in trust to collect and receive the dividends and profits of the said stock and apply them to the use and benefit of the said Eleanor Rainey Dudgeon if I be living until the time of the marriage of the said Eleanor, and upon the further trust in case I die before the marriage of the said Eleanor leaving her surviving me, then to transfer the said shares of stock or the proceeds thereof to the said Eleanor for her own use and benefit; and upon the further trust in case the said Eleanor should during my lifetime marry with my previous consent and approbation, then to apply the said dividends and profits to the use of the said Eleanor for life, and after her death to convey and transfer the said stocks or the proceeds thereof to her issue if she leave any her surviving, and in default of such issue to convey and transfer the said stock or its proceeds to my next of kin ; and upon the [266] further trust if the said Eleanor shall have died before me without having married, or shall during my lifetime marry without my consent, then to reconvey and re-transfer the said stock or its proceeds to me; and upon the further trust, on my direction at any time during my lifetime, or in his discretion after my death, to convert the said stock into money by sale thereof, and after such conversion to invest the proceeds thereof in his discretion in other stocks or upon a bond or mortgage at iuterest, to be held on the like trusts and subject to the like powers of conversion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennington and Another v Waine and Others
...Legal title only passed on registration of the share transfer by the company. 18 In support of these submissions Mr Weatherill relies on Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De G.F. & J 264, Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App Cas 25, Warriner v Rogers LR 16 Eq 340, Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, I......
-
Low Gim Har v Low Gim Siah
...Assurance Company, Limited [1925] AC 619 (refd) Miller & Maund v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1950] Tas SR 94 (refd) Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264; 45 ER 1185 (distd) Oriental Inland Steam Company, In re; Ex parte Scinde Railway Company (1874) LR 9 Ch App 557 (refd) Ponder, In re;Po......
-
Choithram Intl SA v Pagarani
...was based on the fact that in his view the gift was revocable. He founded his decision on the ground that the requirements laid down in Milroy v. Lord (1862) 4 De G. F. & J. 264 had not been satisfied. It may well be that an immediate declaration of trust even though expressly or impliedly......
- Cope v Keene
-
Detrimental Reliance And The Dangers Of Emails: Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648
...gift in favour of someone who has not supplied any consideration has not been completed) exemplified by cases such as Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264. Contrary to the conclusion reached by Kerr J, the Court of Appeal held that the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden had not intended to re......
-
Sources of Rights
...10,000 company shares to his wife as a gift and another 10,000 shares to her and the company’s secretary to hold in 78 Milroy v Lord (1862), 4 De G F & J 264, 45 ER 1185 (CA); Richards v Delbridge (1874), LR 18 Eq 11. 79 FW Maitland, The Forms of Action at Common Law (Cambridge: Cambridge U......
-
Table of Cases
...239 Miller v Tipling (1918), 43 OLR 88, 43 DLR 469 (CA) .......................................147 Milroy v Lord (1862), 4 De G F & J 264, 45 ER 1185 (CA) ............................... 190 Miner v CPR (1910), 18 WLR 476, 3 Alta LR 408 (CA) ..................................... 193 MJ Jone......
-
GIFTS AND CONTRACTS : A COMPARISON WITH QUEBEC CIVIL LAW.
...[1964] SCR 614 at 622-23, 46 DLR (2d) 1. (33) Dewar, supra note 26 at 1538-39. (34) Milroy v Lord (1862), 4 De G F& J 264 at 274-75, 45 ER 1185; Bayoff Estate, Re, 2000 SKQB 23 at paras 14-15. Cf Pare c Pare (Succession de], 2014 QCCA 1138 [Pare]; Briere, supra note 17 at para 145, citi......
-
Common law divergences.
...(43) See, eg, Furs Ltd v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583. The cases involving fiduciary obligations are numerous. (44) (1862) De GF & J 264; 45 ER 1185. See, eg, Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049. (45) See, eg, Birmingham v Renfrew (1937) 57 CLR 666 (mutual wills); Black v S Freedman & Co......