Gambar halaman

sion upon

Where a conversion is directed, the fact that the trustees have a discretion as to time will not alter the general rule. Doughty v. Bull, 2 P. W. 320.

When conversion is to take place upon request the Converquestion is whether the conversion was intended to be

request. made in all events, and the request is only an additional safeguard, or whether no conversion was intended till request.

If the conversion is to be upon request of certain persons, and the property is disposed of, whether converted or not, there is no conversion till the request. Taylor's Settlement, 9 Ha. 596; Davies v. Goodhew, 6 Sim. 585.

On the other hand, if there is a general intention to convert evidenced by the fact that the limitations are applicable only to the property as converted, and by the fact that the conversion is to be at the request of certain persons, or the survivor or the executors or administrators of the survivor, the property will be considered as converted. Thornton v. Hawley, 10 Ves. 129; see Lechmere v. Earl of Carlisle, 3 P. Wms. 211.

Where there is an express trust to convert, a power to Power to continue any government stocks and real securities will

governbe confined to such as are of a permanent character. ment seTickner v. Old, 18 Eq. 422.

there is a But where the trust was to convert such parts as should trust to not be invested in the public funds or government securi

convert. ties, long annuities were held within the exception, and enjoyable in specie. Wilday v. Sandys, 7 Eq. 455. Where trustees have an absolute discretion to convert or Absolute

discretion not, the property remains unconverted till the discretion is

to trustees. exercised. Polley v. Seymour, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 708; Yates v. Yates, 6 Jur. N. S. 1023; Brown v. Bigg, 7 Ves. 279 ; Bourne v. Bourne, 2 Ha. 35.

Similarly, where trustees have an option to convert either into realty or personalty, the property will be considered of


curities where

[ocr errors]

Van v.

may be


that species into which the trustees convert it.
Barnett, 19 Ves. 102; Walker v. Denne, 2 Ves. jun. 170;

Rich v. Whitfield, L. R. 2 Eq. 583.

The option of the trustees may, however, be controlled controlled by the general intention expressed in the will. Thus, if by the

the property to be converted is settled to uses exclusively applicable to realty; as, for instance, in tail with remainders, the property will be considered as realty notwithstanding the option. Earlom v. Saunders, Amb. 241; Hereford v. Ravenhill, 5 B. 51; Evans v. Ball, 38 L. T. N. S. 141 ; see Minors v. Battison, 1 App. C. 428.

And in such a case an ultimate limitation to the testator's right heirs, executors, and administrators will not prevent the property being considered as land with respect to the prior interests. Cowley v. Harstonge, 1 Dow. 361.

The fact that personalty which trustees have an option to convert is given to a person, his heirs and assigns, is not sufficient to limit the option of the trustees. . Atwell v. Atwell, 13 Eq. 23.

But if it is given to a person and his heirs for ever, the property will apparently be considered converted notwithstanding the option of the trustees. Cookson v. Reay, 5 B. 22; see 12 Cl. & F. 121.



Direction 1. Where realty is directed to be converted and form that converted part of the personal estate, it will be subject to all the realty should

limitations of the personal estate, and will pass by the form part residuary bequest. Kidney v. Coussmaker, 1 Ves. jun. personal 436; Robinson v. Governors of London Hospital, 10 Ha.

19, 27; see Bright v. Larcher, 3 De G. & J. 148; Field v. Peckett, 29 B. 568; quære, whether Collier v. Wakeman, 2 Ves jun. 683, would be followed.


But notwithstanding a direction that moneys to arise from a sale of realty are to be considered as part of the personal estate, they will not pass under a gift of the residuary personalty, if the residuary gift is followed by a gift of the moneys arising from the sale. Amphlett v. Parke, 4 Russ. 75; 2 R. & M. 221. 2. It seems clear that under the old law a gift of the Gift of the

residue of residue of the proceeds of sale of realty fell under the the pro

ceeds of same rule as an ordinary residuary devise, and did not sale of carry legacies given out of the proceeds, which failed realty

under the through lapse or otherwise. Jones v. Mitchell, 1 S. & St. old law. 290; Hutcheson v. Hammond, 3 B. C. C. 128. 3. Upon the question whether conversion is directed Whether

converted for all the purposes of the will, so that interests in realty the proceeds of sale of realty which are undisposed of passed by

a residuary or fail by reason of lapse or otherwise, are intended to

bequest. pass by a general bequest of residuary personalty, the cases run into fine, though, perhaps, not irreconcileable distinctions.

a. When conversion is directed at the death of a tenant Direction for life, and the proceeds are to be divided among a class at a cerof persons who at that time may not be in existence, or and divide may never come into existence; for instance, such of the among perchildren of the tenant for life as attain twenty-one, con- may not version is not merely for the purpose of division, but for existence. all the purposes of the will, and the property passes to the residuary legatee as personalty. Wall v. Colshead, 2 De G. & J. 683. b. Where there is an absolute direction to sell realty not Absolute

direction limited to any particular purpose, the surplus proceeds to sell. will pass to the residuary legatee. Singleton v. Tomlinson, 3 App. C. 404, affirming S. C. nom. Watson v. Arundell, I. R. 11 Eq. 53.

c. If the realty is to be sold for a particular purpose, for Sale for instance, to pay legacies, the surplus proceeds will not pass purposes.

to convert

tain time

sons who

then be in





under a gift of residuary personalty. Maugham v. Mason,

1 V. & B. 410. Gift of a

d. Where realty and personalty are once for all blended fund to be together, and directed to be converted, interests undisposed converted.

of will

pass to the residuary legatee. Durour v. Motteur, i Ves. sen. 320; 1 S. & St. 292 n.; Byam v. Munton, 1 R. & M. 503; Green v. Jackson, 5 Russ. 35; 2 R. & M. 238; Salt v. Chattaway, 3 B. 576; Spencer v. Wilson, 16 Eq 501 ; Court v. Buckland, 45 L. J. Ch. 214; Norreys v. Franks, I. R. 9 Eq. 18. Cruse v. Barley, 3 P. Wms. 20, may probably be accounted for on the principle that the gift of residue there was not of a real residue, but of the residue of a real residue. The residue had in effect already been given among the testator's children, and the subsequent words only indicated what shares in that residue each was to take, and upon lapse of one of those shares a

portion of the residue was thereby undisposed of. Realty e. But when the realty directed to be converted and directed to be con. the personalty are the subject of separate gifts, and are verted the subject of

treated as distinct funds, the residuary bequest will not carry a separate interests undisposed of in the realty. Maugham v. Mason, gift.

1 V. & B. 410; Hutcheson v. Hammond, 3 B. C. C. 128. Realty and f. Intermediate between the last two classes of cases falls personalty blended

a class of cases where the real and personal estate are but treated blended together, but the two funds are treated as distinct as distinct funds. and independent, in which case the interests in the realty

undisposed of will not pass to the residuary legatee.

Thus, though realty and personalty are blended together and directed to be converted, if the proceeds of the sale of the realty are treated as a separate fund for certain payments, interests undisposed of will not pass under the gift of the residuary personalty. Dixon v. Dawson, 2 S. & St. 327.

So, too, if there is a gift as well of the residue of the moneys to arise from the sale as of the residue of the personal estate, the latter residue will not carry legacies given out of the proceeds of sale which lapse. Gravenor v. Hallum, Ambl. 643 ; Gibbs v. Rumsey, 2 V. & B. 294.

But the fact that the residue of the money to arise from the sale of realty is expressly given will not prevent such money from passing under the residuary personalty, if the residue of the money is only mentioned as part of the enumeration of the things of which the residuary personalty consists. Kennell v. Abbott, 4 Ves. 802.



titled to

be con

tion that

Conversion directed by a testator is a conversion only Who is enfor the purposes of the will, and all that is not wanted for

property these purposes goes to the persons who would have been directed to entitled but for the will. Therefore, where real and per- verted but

undisposed sonal estate is directed to be sold, and after payment of of by the

will. debts and legacies the residue is given to persons, some of whom die before the testator, the lapsed shares go proportionally to the heir-at-law and next of kin. Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 B. C. C. 503.

A declaration that the proceeds of the sale of realty are Declarato be part of the personal estate for all purposes will not proceeds of deprive the heir of such proportion of the proceeds of

realty are realty as is undisposed of, there being no express gift to to be perthe next of kin. Shallcross v. Wright, 12 B. 505; Taylor estate. v. Taylor, 3 D. M. & G. 190, overruling Phillips v. Phillips, 1 M. & K. 649.

Nor will a declaration, that the proceeds of the sale shall not lapse for the benefit of the heir, exclude the heir, if a disposition is intended to be made of the property. Flint v. Warren, 16 Sim. 134; Fitch v. Weber, 6 Ha. 145.

But if the surplus of the sale of real estate is directed to be personal estate, and given to the executors, they

sale of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »