a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

44 EXPRESS TRUSTS.
notions of common sense. It is quite obvious that a man in
pecuniary difficulties, having a great number of debts which he
could not meet, might put his property in the hands of certain
persons to realize and pay the creditors in the best way they could.
.... If it were supposed that such a deed as that created an
irrevocable trust in favour of every one of the persons who happened
at the time to be a creditor, the result might have been very often
monstrous. It would give him no opportunity of paying a creditor
who was pressing; no opportunity of settling an action ; no opportunity
of getting any food for himself or his family the next day,
or redeeming property pledged. .... Such a deed as this is to
be construed as a mandate, the same sort of mandate that a man
gives when he gives his servant money, with directions to pay it in
a particular way; it does not create any equitable or legal right in
favour of a particular creditor." The principle has been applied
in, amongst other cases, Wilding v. Richards (1845, 1 Coll. Ch. E.
655) ; Cornthwaite v. Frith (1851, 4 De G-. & Sm. 552) ; Johns v.
James (1878, 8 Ch. D. 744) ; KinJock v. Secretary of State for
India (1882,7 App. Gas. 619); Hcnderson v. Rothschild (1886,
33 Ch. D. 459), and In re Ashby (1892, 1 Q. B. 872).
The rule applies not only to trusts for the payment of debts but
of other sums of money. In Walwyn v. Coutts^ for instance, the
trust was for payment of annuities. It applies whether the debts
or sums of money are owing by the assignor or another—in Walwyn
v. Coutts they were owing by the assignor's son—and it is immaterial
whether the creditors or persons to whom the sums are
owing are specified or not; in Walwyn v. Coutts and Garrard v.
Lauderdale they were specified; in Acton v. Woodgate they were
not.
Although the trust is revocable, it was decided in Glegg v. Rees
(1871, L. E. 7 Ch. App. 71) that the property in these cases vests in
the trustee until the trust is revoked, and he can maintain a suit
therefor without joining the creditors.
The following cases are illustrations of the application of the
rule:—
Illustrations.
1. A. conveys property to X. and T. for the purpose of paying
off annuities granted by B. (A.'s son). The annuities are men-