This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
See inter alia A.R. Mellows,The Law of Succession, Butterworths, 1993, 5th ed, 321.
See, e.g., D.H. Parry & J.B. Clark,The Law of Succession, Sweet & Maxwell, 1988, 9th ed., 381–83.
Mellows,supra n. 1.,The Law of Succession, Butterworths, 1993, 5th ed., at 321.
(1837), 2 Myl. & Cr. 309.
Real Propertty Limitation Act, 3 & 4 W.IV c.27, section 40.
(1861) 30 Beav. 384.
Ibid., (1861) 30 Beav. 384. at 386. See alsoRe Oliver, Theobald v.Oliver [1927] 2 Ch. 323 where the executors had set aside a fund for an annuity and having thereby become express trustees, were able to plead the limitation period of section 8(1) of the Trustee Act 1888. SeeKavanagh v.Best [1971] NI 89.
See In re Swain, Swain v.Brigneman [1891] 3 Ch. 233.
SeeIn re Page, Jones v.Morgan [1893] 1 Ch. 304.
Eaton v.Daines [1894] W.N. 32.
Re Timmis, Nixon v.Smith [1902] 1 Ch. 176.
Ibid.,Re Timmis, Nixon v.Smith [1902] 1 Ch. 186. at 183.
Attenborough v.Soloman [1913] A.C. 76.
Wise v.Whitburn [1921] 1 Ch. 460.
Supra n. 13.Attenborogugh v.Soloman [1913] A.C. 76.
An account submitted to the Inland Revenue for the purpose of capital taxation on death, declaring the net residue.
Suppra n. 17, at 83,per Viscount Haldane.
SeeRe Wise [1921] 1 Ch. 460.
In re Claremont [1923] 2 K.B. 718.
Ibid., In re Claremont [1923] 2 K.B. 718., at 721.
In re Rowe, Jacobs v.Hind (1889) 58 L.J.Ch. 703.
In re Mackay, Manckay v.Gould [1906] 1 Ch. 25.
In re Davis, Evans v.Moore [1891] 3 Ch. 119.
Ibid., In re Davis, Evans, v.Moore [1891] 3 Ch. 119. at 124.
Ibid., In re Davis, Evans, v.Moore [1891] 3 Ch. 119. at 125.
In re Barker, Buxton v.Campbell [1892] 2 Ch. 491.
The fact that the executors were also trustees of the will trusts did not in this case matter as the pecuniary legacy was not intended to be held on the will trusts.
Inre Lacy, Royal General Theatrical Fund Associations v.Kydd [1899] 2 Ch. 149.
In re Smith, Henderson-Roe v Hitchins (1889) 42 Ch.D. 778.
In re Adams, Verrier v.Haskins [1906] W.N. 220.
Supra (1837) Myl. & Cr. 309. n.4.
In re Ponder [1921] 2 Ch. 59.
Professor Ryder, “Re Kings's Will Trusts: A Reassessment?”, 29, Current Legal Problems (1976), 60, has argued thatRe Ponder must be a decision that there is always trusteeship on clearing irrespective of assent as it was impossible before 1926 to assent to the vesting of realty to an heir-at-law on intestacy, the transfer had to be made by way of conveyance. Unfortunately, however, there would have been trusteeship independent of clearing by virtue of the Land Transfer Act 1897, s.2(1), which it was declared that “presonal representatives of a deceased person shall hold the real estate as trustees.” No trusteeship of personalty was imposed by the Act, but it is possible to argue that there had been assent on the facts, despite the court expressely relying on trusteeship arising automatically on clearing.
Suppar, In re Ponder [1921], 2 Ch. 59. at 61,per Sargant J.
[1894] W.N. 32.
[1954] 2 Q.B. 367.
In re Cockburn's Will Trusts, Cockburn v.Lewis [1957] 1 Ch. 438.
SeeCommissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v.Livingston [1965] A.C. 694.
[1897] A.C. 11, at 15.
This however has been described as is “a clumsy and unsatisfactory device from a practical point of view”, according to Lord Radcliffe inCommissioner of Stamp Duties v.Livingston [1965] A.C. 694, at 707–708.
Rv. Myre (1974) 46 DLR (3d) 298) (Canadian Federal Court).
Supra Rv. Myre (1974) 46 DLR (3d) 298 (Canadian Federal Court). at 301.
Cray v.Willis (1729) 2 P. Wms. 529, 531.
[1928] 1 K.B. 578.
Ibid., [1928] 1 K.B., at 583.
[1962] 1 Ch. 643.
Suppra [1962] 1 Ch. 643, at 687–88.
Toates v.Toates [1926] 2 K.B. 30
Inre Trollope's Will Trusts, Public Trustee, v.Trollope [1927] 1 Ch. 596.
(1802) 7 Ves. 137.
Supra InRe Trollope's Will Trusts, Public Trustee v.Trollope [1927] 1 Ch. 596 at 604.
Supra InRe Trollope's Will Trusts, Public Trustee v.Trollope [1927] 1 Ch. 596. at 605.
Inre Yeburgh v.Yerburgh [1928] W.N. 208.
Inre Donkin, Public Trustees v.Cairns [1948] Ch. 74 contains ambiguous dicta on the effect of section 33; at one point it is said that the next-of-kin had a right to have the residuary estate distributed (p. 76), but later the right is referred to as a beneficial interest (at 78). There is no indication whether clearing or assent had taken place.
Re King's Wills Trusts, Assbeton v.Boyne [1964] 1 Ch. 542.
Administration of Estates Act 1925, s. 55(1)(vii), defines legal estate as “estates charges and charges in or over land which are by statute authorised to subsist or to be created at law.”
In re Edwards's Will Trusts, Edwards v.Edwards [1981] 2 All E.R. 941.
In re King's Will Trusts, supra n. 55.Assbeton v.Boyne [1964], 1 Ch. 542.
In re Hodge, Hodge v.Griffiths [1940] 1 Ch. 260.
InRe Campbell, deceased [1968] VR 46, 58–59, the Supreme Court of Victoria suggested that a personal representative could not informally assent to the vesting in a beneficiary (other than himself) of the equitable interest alone if the personal representative also held the legal estate.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
who at the time of writing this article was a part-time tutor at Cardiff Law School.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
thomas, M., Cooper, S. The nature of the beneficiary's interest and the role of the personal representative in the administration and distribution of an estate. Liverpool Law Rev 17, 69–81 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449954
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449954