Oldfield v Preston
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 932
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 256; 5 L. T. 650; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 107; 10 W. R. 257.
[398] oldfield v. preston. Before the Lords Justices. dm. 13, 14, 1861; Jam. 15, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 256; 5 L. T. 650; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 107 ; 10 W. R. 257.] A capital fund was formed by subscriptions upon lives, each subscriber subscribing upon the life of a nominee. The income was yearly to be divided rateably among those subscribers whose nominees were then living, and as soon as the number of nominees was so far reduced by death that the capital would give not less than JE1000 for each share, the fund was to be divided among the subscribers whose 3 DE a. F. & J. 39. OLDFLELD V. PBESTON 933 nominees were living. The capital became divisible after the passing of the Succession Duty Act. Held, that no succession duty was payable. Par the Lord Justice Turner, nemble, succession duty would have been payable but for the saving in tie 17th section of the Act. Per the Lord Justice Turner, the 17th section is not confined to cases where the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the parties, but extends to every case of a contract bonA fide for valuable consideration in money or money's worth for the payment of money or money's worth after the death of another person. This was a petition presented by some of forty-six subscribers to the first class of the Doncaster Universal Tontine, who had obtained a decree by which it was established that those forty-six subscribers were entitled in equal shares to the sum of 46,000 3 per cent, consols, the amount of the funds produced by the investment of the subscriptions to the first clasa of the tontine; and the petition prayed that it might be declared whether any and what succession duty was payable in respect of this fund of .46,000 3 per cent, consols. The tontine was founded on the 1st of September 1788, and by the deed of constitution of that date it was amongst other things provided, that the tontine should be open to subscriptions on lives of whatever ages in being on that day, according to a scale of value set forth in the deed, the scale varying according to the ages of the lives on which the subscription should be made; that the [399] subscribers might subscribe optionally on their own or on any other life or lives respectively, with provisions for several subscriptions on the same life or lives, and for dividing the tontine into several classes, each o which was to be a separate tontine on the several concurrent lives concerned therein respectively; that there should be a committee of directors and managers for the conduct and execution of the tontine; that the subscriptions, as they should come in, after payment of the expenses of management as thereinafter mentioned, should be funded in the 3 per cent, consols, there to remain invested until final partition, in the names of some of the directors for the time being, and should be so acknowledged ; arid that each subscriber, on payment of his or her subscription or subscriptions, should become a proprietary member of the tontine for and according to his subscription or subscriptions, and within its rules and provision to all intents and purposes ; " that the net annual dividends, interest or produce from the funded capital, subject to the charges and expeoses attending the management of the tontine, shall be partable on the 29th, or if that day fall on Sunday, then on the 28th day of August, but shall be payable from the 20th of September until the end of December in every year equally on all the then existing lives, and on those which may have lapsed within the year last foregoing, clistributively in and according to the several tontine classes ; and such like yearly distributive partition shall proceed with regard to each respective class until it shall be found and declared by the committee, either that the sum of the funded capital thereof can yield on division 1000 at least of such 3 per cent, stock on each then surviving life therein, or else that the class (if its capital shall happen to have been too small for such division thereof on lives) hath then become reduced to one sole surviving life, at which [400] prescribed period, so to be ascertained with regard to each class as aforesaid, the respective proprietors' rights to partition or to sole property, as the case may be, of and in the capital stock thereof shall vest and take place, and the same shall with all timely speed be divided or transferred and rendered accordingly." There were also provisions in the deed for proprietors transferring their interests; for annual meetings of the committee to audit the accounts and declare the dividends, both intermediate and final: for forfeiture of the interests of proprietors in certain cases mentioned in the deed; for dividends unproved or unclaimed falling into the common stock for the general benefit, and for all contingent accessions, accruing by forfeiture, non-claim or otherwise, being applied in aid of the annual dividends or funded as additional stock, at the discretion of the committee. The first class of the tontine consisted of shares subscribed for on lives under the age of one year ; 364 such shares were taken, and the investment of the subscriptions, after deducting expenses, produced 46,000 consols. At the time when the Succession Duty Act, 16 & 17 Viet. c. 51, came into 934 OLDFIELD V. PRESTON 3 DB G. F. & J.l. operation, the number of lives in this class was reduced to seventy-nine. In June 1860 when the suit was instituted, it was reduced to forty-six, and so the fund became divisible, the number of lives having been reduced so that the share of each would be 1000. The question raised by the petition was, whether the forty-six shareholders, among whom the fund had thus become divisible, were liable to any, and if any what, succession duty on their shares ? [401] A point also was raised as to the share of a Mr. John Charlesworth, the facts relative to which did riot appear on the petition. A Mr. Charlesworth subscribed for three shares, which were taken in the names and on the lives of his three infant children respectively. Two of the three died before the passing of the Succession Duty Act, but John Charlesworth, the third of them, was one of the forty-six survivors, and so one of the persons entitled to share in the 46,000 consols. the solicitor-general (Sir K. Palmer) and Mr. Hanson, for the Crown. The case depends on the 2d, 3d and 5th sections of the Succession Duty Act, taken in connection with the 12th & 13th. By the 2d section the subject called a "succession" is defined. The 5th section shews that the accretion of an additional interest upon death to a person who already has some interest is a succession within the meaning of the 2rl section. The 13th section provides for the case where the successor derives his succession from more persons than one and the proportional parts cannot be distinguished. These three sections taken together meet the present case, unless the Court should be of opinion that it comes within the 3d section, which will be considered presently. Taking the case apart from that section, here was a deed executed by a number of persons, which made a settlement of the aggregate fund contributed by those persons, and that settlement was such that upon the death of each of the cestuis /[ue vie (who might or might not be the same persons as those who were beneficially interested) there was to be an accruer or accretion of additional interest to the persons who were entitled to the shares of the surviving watuis que vie. That was, under the 5th section, an increase of benefit accruing to those persons upon the determination of the interest of the'[402] person whose interest depended on the life that was gone, and that, by the 5th section, is distinctly made a succession. Suppose, to put a simple case, that the deed had been executed immediately before the passing of the Act, and that only three persons, A., B. and C., were nominated under it, and that A. died after the passing of the Act. Thereupon the interest of B. and C. would become increased by the accretion of what previously belonged to A., whose interest was determined on his death. That is a primA fane case for inquiry who is the predecessor, making B. and C. the successors chargeable with duty under the Act. Should there be any difficulty arising in ascertaining the predecessor, in consequence of its being a joint fund, the 13th section meets the case ; we submit, however, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FLoyer v Bankes
...v. Baker (4 H. & N. 19); Attorney-General v. Yelverton (7 Ibid. 306); Rt Jenkinson (24 Beav. 64); Oldfield v. Preston (3 De G. F. & J. 398). Judgment reserved. Nov. 5. the lord chancellor. This case depends entirely on the proper construction of the 17th section of the Succession Duty Act. ......
-
The Right Honorable Edward Baron O'Neill, Successor to Real Estates Under The Wills of The Right Honorable C. H. St. J. Earl O'Neill, Deceased
...RIGHT HONORABLE C. H. ST. J. EARL O'NEILL, DECEASED. Lord Braybrooke v. The Attorney-General 9 H. L. Cas. 150. Oldfield v. PrestonENR 3 De G. F. & J. 398. Partington v. Attorney-GeneralELR L. R. 4 H. L. 100. Re De LanceyELR L. R. 5 Ex. 102. The Attorney-General v. The Marquis of AilesburyEL......