a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

58 EXPRESS TRUSTS.
In re D'Angibau (1879), 15 Ch. D. 228; In re Anstis (1886), 31
Oh. D. 596 ; Green v. Paterson (1886), 32 Ch. D. 95.)
The rule that a voluntary trust is not enforceable if it is imperfect
is illustrated by the following cases :—
Illustrations.
1. A. by voluntary deed covenants with B. and C. to surrender
copyholds to them upon trusts for the benefit of his three daughters.
A. dies without surrendering the copyholds, and by his will devises
part of them to his wife, who is admitted. A.'s daughters cannot
enforce the covenant to surrender the copyholds against the wife.
Jefferys v. Jefferys (1841), Or. & Ph. 138.
t
2. A., being contingently entitled to a reversionary interest in
a trust fund (i.e., having a mere expectancy or spes successionis),
executes a voluntary assignment thereof to B., upon trust as to
part for A. and as to the remainder for B. himself. No notice is
given to the trustees of the fund. This does not establish the relation
of trustee and cestui que trust, and B. cannot enforce the
assignment. Meek v. Kettlewell (1842), 1 Hare, 464 ; (1843) 1 Ph.
342.
[Note.—This decision is not overruled by Kekewich v. Manning
(supra, p. 55, see In re Elleriborough, Towry Lawv. Burne, (1903) 1
Ch. 697). In Kekewich v. Manning there was a voluntary assignment
of a future interest in property, which is valid under 8 & 9 Vict.
c. 106, s. 6. In Meek v. Kettlewell and In re Ellenborough, there
was a purported voluntary assignment of a mere spes successions,
which is not enforceable.]
3. A. by voluntary settlement purports to assign copyholds to
trustees upon trust for himself for life with remainder to B., and
the settlement contains a covenant for further assurance. A. dies
without surrendering the copyholds. B. cannot enforce his interest
in the copyholds. Dening v. Ware (1856), 22 Beav. 184.
4. A. executes a voluntary deed purporting to assign bank
shares to B. upon trust for C. B. at the same time has a general
power of attorney from A. authorizing him to transfer the shares
and a further power authorizing him to receive the dividends, but
no transfer is in fact made. This is not a valid trust of the shares,