a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

RULES DETERMINING INTENTION TO CREATE A TRUST. 41
C. shall, if she desire it, have the use of such portions of my household
furniture, linen, &c., as may not be required by my daughter "
B. This does not create a trust in favour of C. In re Diggles,
Gregory v. Edmondson (1888), 39 Ch. D. 253. In re Oldfield,
Oldfield v. Oldfield, (1904) 1 Ch. 549, is to the same effect.
11. A. gives diamonds to B., saying, " I give these diamonds
to you for your life with the request that at your death they may
be left as heirlooms." This is an absolute gift to B., and no trust
is created. Hill v. Hill, (1897) 1 Q. B. 483.
12. A. by his will gives his residuary estate to his wife B., her
heirs, executors, administrators and assigns absolutely, " in fullest
confidence that she will carry out my wishes in the following
particulars," viz., to pay the premiums due during her life on a
policy of insurance on her own life (which is B.'s own property),
and that B. by her will should leave the moneys payable under
the policy, and also the moneys payable at A.'s death in respect of
a policy on his life (which is A.'s property) to his daughter X.
This does not constitute a trust in favour of X. In re Williams,
Williams v. Williams, (1897) 2 Ch. 12. The case of In re Hanbury,
Hanbury v. Fisher, (1904) 1 Ch. 415, is to the same effect.
TRUST POWERS.
It is well established that the execution of a mere power of
appointment will not be compelled. But if a person gives to
another a power to appoint property among a class or in favour of
an individual, and makes no provision for the destination of the
property in the event of the power not being exercised, it is presumed
that the class or individual were intended to have the
property, in some shares. The donee of the power has the right to
Bay in what shares they shall take it, but if he does not exercise
this right, they are entitled equally.
" Where there appears a general intention in favour of a class,
and a particular intention in favour of individuals of a class to be
selected by another person, and the particular intention fails from
that selection not being made, the Court will carry into effect the
general intention in favour of the class." (Burrough v. Philcox
(1840), 5 My. & C. 72; Glide v. Worthington (1849), 3 De G. &
Sm. 389 ; Salusbury v. Denton (1857), 3 K. & J. 529 ; Reid v. Beid