Jones v Lock
An ineffective gift will not be treated as a declaration of trust, because the intention to make a gift is different from an intention to hold the property on trust.
Facts
Mr Jones returned from a business trip to Birmingham, and his family complained that he had not brought a present for his baby son. He took out a cheque for £900 made out to himself, put it in the baby's hand and said: I give this to baby for himself. He then took the cheque back and put it in his safe. He told his solicitor that he intended to add £100 and settle it on the baby, but he died a few days later without doing so, and without endorsing the cheque. The question was whether the cheque belonged to the baby.
Legal principle
Lord Cranworth LC held that the baby was not entitled to the cheque. There was no valid gift, because the cheque had not been endorsed, so the legal title had not been transferred. Nor could the court treat the words and conduct as a declaration of trust, because Mr Jones had intended to make an outright gift, not to make himself a trustee. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift by treating it as a declaration of trust, because the two are different in nature.
Related cases on certainty of intention and subject matter
- Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394
- Boyce v Boyce (1849) 16 Sim 476
- Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84
- Re Golay's Will Trusts [1965] 1 WLR 969
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- Hunter v Moss [1994] 1 WLR 452
- Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279
- Knight v Knight (1840) 3 Beav 148
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
