Onslow v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1891 |
| Year | 1891 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Revenue - Stamp - Settlement - Contingent Reversionary Interest - Stock vested in Trustees - Power to vary Investments -
By the Stamp Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), s. 3, and schedule, an ad valorem duty is imposed on “any instrument …. whereby any definite and certain principal sum of money … or any definite and certain amount of stock, or any security, is settled or agreed to be settled in any manner whatsoever”:—
Held (affirming the decision of the Divisional Court), that a settlement of contingent reversionary interests in certain specified amounts of stock which were vested in trustees with power to vary the securities was liable to an ad valorem duty under the section and schedule.
APPEAL from the decision of Pollock, B., and Hawkins, J., on a case stated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue pursuant to 33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, as to the amount of stamp duty chargeable on a settlement dated April 21, 1888.F1
The instrument was a settlement of certain moneys, stocks, funds, and securities set forth in three schedules thereto, or of the interest of Marion Oliver, the settlor, therein; and it also contained certain covenants not relating to such moneys, stocks, funds, and securities, or the said interest therein.
The property specified in the three schedules was, according to the average prices at the date of the settlement, of the total aggregate value of 209,370l. 11s. 5d.
The title of Marion Oliver to the funds settled is set forth in the previous report. It will be sufficient here to state the nature of her interest.
With respect to the property in the first schedule, she was entitled to one moiety in reversion expectant on the death of her mother Georgina Oliver of the net proceeds of the sale and conversion of the real and personal estate of her uncle, James Pickup, devised by his will, subject to diminution on the contingency of her mother having another child; and to the other moiety in reversion expectant on the death of her aunt, Ann L. Pickup, and her mother, contingent on the death of her aunt without issue. The whole of these funds were standing in the name of the surviving trustee, who had power to vary the investments.
With respect to the property in the second schedule, the settlor was entitled to the funds therein specified in reversion expectant on the death of her mother, and subject to diminution on the contingency of her mother having another child. These funds also stood in the names of trustees with power to change the investments.
With respect to the property in the third schedule, the settlor was entitled to the funds therein specified in reversion expectant on the death of her mother and aunt, and contingent on her aunt dying without issue, and subject to diminution on the contingency of her mother having another child. These funds also stood in the names of trustees with power to change the investments.
At the date of the settlement Ann L. Pickup, the settlor's aunt, was of the age of sixty years, and had never been married; and Georgina Oliver, the settlor's mother, was of the age of fifty-four years.
The Commissioners were of opinion that the instrument was chargeable as a “settlement” with an ad valorem duty of 5s. per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee
...approval on this point to Lord Esher MR's distinction between a "judgment" and an "order" in Onslow v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1890) 25 QBD 465, at…, namely "[a] 'judgment' is a decision obtained in an action, and every other decision is an order". 51 Mr. James Bonney, QC, on behalf o......
-
United States of America v Montgomery
...there was a distinction between judgments and orders, which was discussed by Lord Esher MR in Onslow v Inland Revenue ComrsELR (1890) 25 QBD 465. Put shortly, a judgment was a decision obtained in an action. Other decisions of the court were orders. But this distinction is impossible to tra......
- Sia Kim Yoke v Public Prosecutor
-
ServiceMaster of Canada Limited v. Meyer, 2019 ABCA 130
...of the decision of the court ... from which an appeal lies and includes a judgment, order ... .” See Onslow v. Inland Revenue Comm’rs, 25 Q.B.D. 465, 466 1890 per Lord Esher, M.R. (“A ‘judgment’ ... is a decision obtained in an action, and every other decision is an [102] The Queen v. Sheph......
-
Cases referred to in 1963
...90 Onisango v. Akinkunmi W.R.N.L.R. 1955-6, 39-40 115 Onisemo v. Fagbenro 21 N.L.R. 3. 90 Onslow v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 465 at 466. 175 Onyemachi v. Okeugo & Ors. (1958) 11 E.R.L R 29 205 Oshodi v. Balogun and Others 4 W ACA 1 278 Patterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. v......
-
NIG. WATER RESOURCES DEV. LTD V. JAIYESIMI
...4. Hadida v. Fordham & Sons Ltd. ( 893) 10 T.L.R. 139. 5. Moore v. Tayee 2 W.A.C.A. 43. 6. Onslow v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 465 at 466. 10 Agbaje-Williams for the Appellants. Odusote for the Respondent. ADEMOLA, C.J.F. On May 1st 1963 at Ibadan we struck out this a......