DOCSLIB.ORG

Creation of Express Trusts Capacity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Creation of Express Trusts Capacity Creation of Express Trusts Capacity - ‘Legal competency or qualification’ - Two common exclusions = poor mental health, infancy - S1(6) LPA 1925: a minor cannot hold a legal estate in land (so cannot create a trust of land). THE THREE CERTAINTIES - Knight v Knight: Lord Langdale: for an express trust to be created the settlor must express 3 things with certainty. o Certainty of intention o Certainty of subject matter o Certainty of objects Certainty of Intention - Did settlor intend to subject the property to a trust obligation? - Two ways in which a trust can be created: o The settlor declares himself trustee of property that he already owns; o Settlor transfers property to another person directing that they hold it on trust for the beneficiary. - Has the settlor done enough to make clear his intention? - Re Kayford Ltd – Megarry LJ: ‘a trust can be created without using the words “trust” or “confidence” or the like; the question is whether in substance a sufficient intention to create a trust has been manifested’. - Company opened separate account, ‘Customer’s Trust deposit Account’ to pay in money received for goods not yet delivered, withdrawing the money only if goods were later delivered – so they could refund customers if goods not supplied (if company went into liquidation). - Held: trust had been created. - Paul v Constance: C separate from his wife + lived with P. A number of times C told P that the money was as much hers as his. o C died intestate + as he had not divorced his wife, wife was entitled to all of his estate. P brought an action arguing that C had declared an express trust over the money which would not form part of his estate. o Held: Use of those words on several occasions was sufficient to amount to a declaration of trust. BUT, isolated loose conversation will not suffice. - Jones v Lock: J returned from business trip. The nurse of J’s baby told him off for not bringing his son a gift. So, J produced a cheque + said ‘I give this to baby; it is for himself, and I am going to put it away for him, and will give him a great deal more along with it’. J died a few days later. o Held: he had not made an effective declaration of trust. o Lord Cranworth LC: ‘It would be very dangerous if loose conversation of this sort, in important transactions of this kind, should have the effect of declarations of trust’. - Gold v Hill: Mr Gilbert had separated from his wife + living with another woman + her children. He had not changed his will which left his estate to his wife. He was going on a business trip + took out life insurance nominating Mr Gold as beneficiary: ‘If anything happens to me you will sort things out – look after Carol and the kids. Don’t let that bitch (wife) get anything’. o Was this sufficiently certain? o Held: most likely interpretation = he intended that Gold hold the moneys as trustee for Carol for her to apply them for the use + benefit of herself + children. - Re Gulbenkian’s Settlements (Lord Upjohn): - “It is…the duty of the court by exercise of judicial knowledge and experience…, innate common sense and desire to make sense of the settlor’s or party’s expressed intentions however obscure and ambiguous the language…” Intention to impose mandatory obligation, rather than merely a moral obligation: - Re Snowden: S couldn’t decide how to leave the residue of her property between her nephews + nieces as she didn’t want it to be unfair. She left it to her brother saying that ‘he would know what to do’ + that he was perfectly aware of how she wished to distribute the money. When brother died, question = whether the gift of the residue was subject to a trust. o Held: no intention that brother should hold the property for benefit of nephews + nieces. o Megarry LJ: ‘There was no need to bind him by any legally enforceable trust; and I cannot see any real indication that she had any thought of doing this’. - McPhail v Doulton: Deed establishing a fund stated: ‘trustees shall apply the net income of the fund in making at their absolute discretion grants’ to the employees + ex-employees of a company, their relatives and dependents.’ o Held: mandatory nature of language (‘shall’) showed intention to create a trust + not a mere power. Recipients of the property were under an obligation to make grants but they had discretion to decide to whom they should be made. - R v Clowes: Investment company brochure: ‘All moneys received are held in a designated clients account + clients are the beneficial owners of all securities purchased on their behalf’. o Held: trust had arisen. Precatory words (expressing a wish/request) -Older cases: precatory words would automatically give rise to a trust. E.g. testator expressing his ‘desire’, ‘hope’, ‘wish’ or ‘confidence’ that it be used in a particular way. -This approach was rejected in 19th century. - Re Adams and Kensington Vestry: testator left property to wife ‘in full confidence that she would do what was right as to the disposal thereof between his children’. o Held: Precatory words alone were insufficient evidence of intention to create a trust. o Cotton LJ: ‘I think some of the older authorities went a deal too far…’ -Modern approach = precatory words do not automatically create a trust. Must look at context. - Re Steele’s Will Trusts: testatrix’s will: ‘I give my diamond necklace to my son to go and be held as an heirloom by him and by his eldest son on his decease and to go and descend to the eldest son…and so on…as far as the rules of law and equity will permit’. o The solicitor appeared to have copied this phrase from an older case. o Held: intention was evidenced not by precatory words but by the fact that there was an established precedent. -Sham intention (if no genuine intention to create a trust): - Midland Bank plc v Wyatt: W’s were joint legal owners of family home. They executed a declaration of trust in favour of Mrs W + their daughters, which was placed in a safe. Mr W then obtained credit to finance his business, secured by the interest in the house. Banks were unaware of the trust + its existence was only disclosed after the business had become insolvent. o Held: Declaration of trust was a sham (or a pretence) – so void and unenforceable. Consequence of a lack of certainty of intention? -If the words were used in conjunction with a transfer of property by will/inter vivos, then the recipient generally acquires the property free of trust. -If words were supposedly a declaration of trust by settlor, the settlor remains the outright owner. Certainty of Subject Matter -A trust can only exist in relation to specific property - Hemmens v Wilson Browne: Client instructed solicitor to draft a document giving C (client’s mistress), an immediately enforceable right to call at a certain date for a sum of £110,000 to enable her to buy a house for herself + daughter. After document was drafted + executed, solicitor told C that its effect was ‘akin to a trust’ but advised her to consult her own solicitors. Client refused to pay up. Had document created a trust over client’s general assets? o Held: no valid trust as there was no identifiable fund to which any trust could attach. - Palmer v Simmons: Testatrix attempted to create a trust of ‘the bulk of my residuary estate’. o Held: term ‘bulk’ = too uncertain. No valid trust. - Anthony v Donges: Husband made gift to wife by will of ‘such minimal part of my estate of whatsoever kind…she may be entitled to under English law for maintenance purposes’. o Held: Impossible to determine what she was entitled to. Gift = void for uncertainty of subject matter. - T Choithram International SA v Pagarini: P was seriously ill when he executed a trust deed establishing a philanthropic foundation appointing himself one of the trustees. Orally, he stated that he gave ‘all his wealth’ to the foundation. He added ‘all my balances with the company and my shares as well’. o Held: Clear that the deposit balances + company shares in the 4 defendant companies were sufficiently clearly identified (so didn’t matter whether ‘all my wealth’ was too uncertain). -The term ‘residue’ does not present a problem as it has a clear legal meaning – what is left of the estate after other bequests or testamentary gifts have been made. BULK V RESIDUE - Residue = remainder – this is certain - Bulk = uncertain - Re Golay’s Will Trusts: testator provided that a legatee was to receive a ‘reasonable income’ from the property. - Held: Testator intended by ‘reasonable income’ the yardstick which court would apply in quantifying the amount. So, direction is not defeated by uncertainty. - Boyce v Boyce: Testator had 2 houses. His executors were to convey whichever house his daughter Maria should choose to Maria, and the other house to the other daughter Charlotte. Maria died during the testator’s lifetime. - Held: M’s death made it impossible to ascertain subject matter of trust for C. Trust failed. -Tangible property in bulk - Re London Wine Co: Wine merchants with large stocks of wine in various warehouses. Customers would purchase wine as an investment. Contract of sale stipulated that the wine would become the customer’s property but would be stored by the company. - Customer’s purchase were entered into stock book + allocated a reference number. Company provided a certificate to customers stating the customers’ sole beneficial ownership of the wine they had purchased.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 17935A Certainties of Subject Matter of Trusts What China May Learn from English Trust Law (1).Pdf
    Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputs http://create.canterbury.ac.uk Please cite this publication as follows: Zhang, D. (2018) Certainty of subject matter: what China can learn from English trust law. Trusts and Trustees, 24 (10). pp. 1020-1030. ISSN 1363-1780. Link to official URL (if available): https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/tty154 This version is made available in accordance with publishers’ policies. All material made available by CReaTE is protected by intellectual property law, including copyright law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Contact: [email protected] Certainty of subject matter: what China can learn from English trust law By Daoning Zhang* Abstract: China transplanted English trust law in 2001. This article examines the judgment of a recent case delivered by the Supreme Court of People’s Republic of China on the issue of the certainty of subject matter of trusts. It analyses the reasoning and judgment of the Court in the light of English trust law and considers what China may learn from the well-established English trust law principles and doctrines. 1. Introduction of Chines trust law Since last a few decades, trust law was widely used for commercial purposes, whereas traditional trusts were donative trusts. 1 China, as a new learner of trust law, directly enacted Chinese trust law for financial institutions to make investments. The history of the modern Chinese trust law can be traced back to 2001when the Trust Law of People’s Republic of China (TLoPRC) came into effect.2Since then, trusts had been used as a popular vehicle for collective investment purpose by financial institutions named as ‘trust companies’.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Equity and Trusts
    ADVANCED EQUITY AND TRUSTS University of London LLM The course is led by: Professor Alastair Hudson Professor of Equity & Law Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London 2006/2007 1 www.alastairhudson.com | © professor alastair hudson Advanced Equity and Trusts Law Introduction This course intends to focus on aspects of equity and trusts in two specific contexts: commerce and the home. It will advance novel conceptual approaches to two significant arenas in which equitable doctrines like the trust are deployed. In the context of commercial activity the course will consider the manner in which discretionary equitable doctrines are avoided but also the significant role which the law of trusts plays nevertheless in commercial and financial activity. In the context of the home to consider the various legal norms which coalesce in the treatment of the home: whether in equitable estoppel, trusts implied by law, family law, human rights law and housing law. Teaching Organised over three terms, 2 hours per week, comprising a lecture in the first week followed, generally, by a seminar in the following week as a cycle. See, however, the three introductory topics which are dealt with differently. Examination / assessment Examination will be by one open-book examination which will ask students to attempt three questions in three hours. Textbooks It is suggested that you acquire a textbook and you may find it useful to acquire a cases and materials book, particularly if you have not studied English law before. Recommended general text:- *Alastair Hudson: Equity and Trusts (4th ed.: Cavendish Publishing 2005). Other textbooks:- Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity (17th ed., by Dr J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trust up and Running
    10 The trust up and running SUMMARY The duty of investment The Trustee Act 2000 The standard of prudence in making trust investments ‘Social’ or ‘ethical’ investing The delegation of trustee functions The power of maintenance The power of advancement Appointment, retirement, and removal of trustees Custodian, nominee, managing, and judicial trustees Bene" ciaries’ rights to information Variation of trusts 10.1 Trustees, as legal owners of the trust property, have all the rights and powers to deal with the trust property as would any other legal owner, although they must, of course, exercise these rights and powers solely in the interest of the benefi ciaries. Because they are trustees, however, they have further particular powers and duties arising from their offi ce, traditionally the most important of which are the duty of investment and the powers of maintenance and advancement. 110-Penner-Chap10.indd0-Penner-Chap10.indd 227272 55/29/2008/29/2008 111:03:521:03:52 PPMM The duty of investment | 273 e duty of investment 10.2 e duty of investment has two main aspects: (1) a duty to invest the trust property so as to be ‘even-handed’ between the diff erent classes of benefi ciary; and (2) a duty to invest so that the fund is preserved from risk yet a reasonable return on capital is made. Even-handedness between the benefi ciaries 10.3 In many trusts the benefi t of the property is divided between income and capi- tal benefi ciaries (3.19). In legal terms, income is whatever property actually arises as a separate payment as a result of holding the capital property.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Execution of a Trust Shall Be Under the Control of the Court” : a Maxim in Modern Times
    This is a repository copy of “The execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court” : A Maxim in Modern Times. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88217/ Version: Published Version Article: Nolan, Richard orcid.org/0000-0002-7134-5124 (2016) “The execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court” : A Maxim in Modern Times. Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law. pp. 469-496. ISSN 2368-4046 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ (2016) 2(2) CJCCL 469 “e execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court”: A Maxim in Modern Times Richard C Nolan* This article examines the ancient, well attested, but largely unexamined, inherent jurisdiction of the court to supervise, and if necessary administer and execute, any trust. It considers the modern and inventive use of this jurisdiction, and its vital role in the juridication of innovative trust practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Facts and Key Cases
    KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts 25726.indb i 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES The Key Facts Key Cases revision series is designed to give you a clear understanding and concise overview of the fundamental principles of your law course. The books’ chapters refl ect the most commonly taught topics, breaking the law down into bite- size sections with descriptive headings. Diagrams, tables and bullet points are used throughout to make the law easy to understand and memorise, and comprehensive case checklists are provided that show the principles and application of case law for your subject. Titles in the series: Contract Law Criminal Law English Legal System Equity & Trusts EU Law Family Law Human Rights Land Law Tort Law For a full listing of the Routledge Revision range of titles, visit www.routledge.com/law 25726.indb ii 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts Chris Turner and Judith Bray Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK 25726.indb iii 18/11/2013 10:40 First edition published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Chris Turner and Judith Bray The right of Chris Turner and Judith Bray to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Notes
    THREE CERTAINITIES • An express trust must be certain in three (3) distinct respects (Knight v Knight (1840)): 1) Certainty of intention: settlor must have intended to create a trust of the property as opposed to making a gift or lending it to another; 2) Certainty of subject-matter: property must be specified with reasonable certainty; 3) Certainty of objects: the beneficiaries of trust must be sufficiently identifiable. • Charitable trusts are not required to satisfy the requirement of certainty of objects. • Resulting and constructive trusts will not satisfy the requirement of certainty of intention. CERTAINTY OF INTENTION • The settlor must’ve intended to create a trust of their property as opposed to making a gift or a loan. • An intention to create a trust is an intention to impose on a property owner an obligation to apply the property for the benefit of identified beneficiaries or for recognised charitable purposes. • The settlor must’ve intended to create a legally binding relationship. • The settlor need not need to use the word “trust” or any particular words: Re Armstrong [1960]. • The intention is determined by reference to the settlor’s objective intention: Byrnes v Kendle [2011], question is whether a reasonable person would consider that in all the circumstances the settlor intended to create the trust? Must consider the settlor’s words and actions to assess whether they manifested a sufficient objective intention to create a trust: Paul v Constance [1977]. • A settlor must intend to create a trust which takes effect immediately (unless consideration had been provided to create trust at later time): Harpur v Levy [2007].
    [Show full text]
  • Proprietors of Wakatū V Attorney-General
    Identifying Identifiability Re-Assessing Certainty of Subject-matter of Trust in Light of Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General Nicholas White A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago – Te Whare Wananga o Otago October 2018 Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Professor Jessica Palmer for the invaluable time, knowledge and insight she has offered me while supervising this dissertation, for challenging me, and for always bringing me back to the big picture; To Nicola, for the constant support, and dealing with all the late nights, caffeine fuelled stress and a generally unhealthy focus on the particularities of trust law; To my friends, flatmates and family, for putting up with me through this; And to my parents, for everything. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I: The Uncertainty in Certainty of Subject-matter ............................................................. 8 A. Certainty of Subject-Matter in Trusts......................................................................................... 8 B. The Three Conflicting Cases ...................................................................................................... 9 I. Re London Wine ...................................................................................................................... 9 II. Hunter v Moss.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts
    TEXT, CASES AND MATERIALS ON EQUITY AND TRUSTS Fourth Edition Text, Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts has been considerably revised to broaden the focus of the text in line with most LLB core courses to encompass equity, remedies and injunctions and to take account of recent major statutory and case law developments. The new edition features increased pedagogical support to outline key points and principles and improve navigation; ‘notes’ to encourage students to reflect on areas of complexity or controversy; and self-test questions to consolidate learning at the end of each chapter. New to this edition: • Detailed examination of The Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2006. • Important case law developments such as Stack v Dowden (constructive trusts and family assets), Oxley v Hiscock (quantification of family assets), Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust (review of the test for dishonesty), Abou-Ramah v Abacha (dishonest assistance and change of position defence), AG for Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (review of the test for dishonesty), Re Horley Town Football Club (gifts to unincorporated association), Re Loftus (defences of limitation, estoppel and laches), Templeton Insurance v Penningtons Solicitors (Quistclose trust and damages), Sempra Metals Ltd v HM Comm of Inland Revenue (compound interest on restitution claims) and many more. • New chapters on the equitable remedies of specific performance, injunctions, rectification, rescission and account. • Now incorporates extracts from the Law Commission’s Reports and consultation papers on ‘Sharing Homes’ and ‘Trustee Exemption Clauses’ as well as key academic literature and debates. The structure and style of previous editions have been retained, with an emphasis on introduc- tory text and case extracts of sufficient length to allow students to develop analytical and critical skills in reading legal judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity & Trusts
    CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2021 LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 – EQUITY & TRUSTS Note to Candidates and Learning Centre Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide candidates and learning centre tutors with guidance as to the key points candidates should have included in their answers to the January 2021 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which candidates may have included in their responses to the questions. Candidates will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Candidates and learning centre tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ comments contained within this report, which provide feedback on candidate performance in the examination. CHIEF EXAMINER COMMENTS The better performing candidates exhibited similar characteristics, in that they possessed both good knowledge and understanding of case law and statute, which they were then able to deploy in providing relevant legal analysis, argument or advice. Weaker candidates were found wanting in one or more of these respects. A number of weaker candidates tended simply to recite everything that they were able to recall about a particular topic (whether or not it was immediately relevant to the question posed). In many (but, unfortunately, not all) cases, they would then conclude with a single sentence along the lines of ‘this shows/proves/demonstrates that….’, or ‘I therefore agree/disagree with the statement in the question’, or ‘It follows that X has a claim for/should (not) do …’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Irish Restitution Law
    THE FUTURE OF IRISH RESTITUTION LAW NIAMH CONNOLLY* Irish restitution law exists within the gravitational field of English law. On the surface, it is very similar to English law, based on the orthodox unjust factors model. It has evolved in two distinct phases over the past 40 years. The first phase saw judicial innovation that laid the foundations for an indigenous law of unjust enrichment. In contrast, the second phase was characterised by the conscious alignment of Irish law with English law. Yet there remain doctrinal differences between the two systems. The main difference lies in the availability of the constructive trust as a remedy in Irish law, both where the requirements for an unjust enrichment claim are fulfilled, and independently of orthodox unjust enrichment rules. Looking ahead, Irish law’s trajectory will substantially depend on the path it is already on. With a view to identifying this, the first three parts of this article identify the doctrinal principles and rules that have evolved in Irish restitution law, examine how the law is applied in practice in trial courts and appellate courts, and evaluate judicial openness to innovation and to influences from other common law jurisdictions. Drawing on these findings, the final part offers some predictions about the future development of Irish restitution law. A. THE LAW IN IRELAND As a small jurisdiction, Ireland has relatively few restitution cases with which to fill in the detail of the law. This makes it a very convenient heuristic to assume that Irish restitution law is the same as English restitution law. However, it would be too simplistic to say that Irish restitution is identical to English law and will simply adopt developments in our neighbouring jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Constructive Trust 133
    Deconstructing the Constructive Trust 133 Deconstructing the Constructive Trust Leonard I. Rotman' With the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Depuis I'arret Soulos c. Korkontzilas rendu par la Soulos v. Korkontzilas, the constructive trust has Cour supreme du Canada, la ftducie par again become the subject of contention in Canadian interpretation est redevenue un sujet controversi en law. Over the years, jurists and scholars have droit canadicn. Alt fit du temps, les juristes out generated significant debate over the nature and engage d'importants debats stir la nature el la function of the constructive trust and where it ought fonction de lafiducie d'interpretation etl'usagequ 'il to be used. While constructive trusts have been convient d'cn faire. Bicn que les fiducies par implemented in a variety ofsituations, there has not interpretation soient invoquees dans diverses always been agreement over whether all such uses circonstances, leur hien-fonde ne fait pas are appropriate. This debate continued in the I'unanimite. La Cour supreme du Canada a Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Soulos. poursuivi ce tie bat dans I'arrel Soulos. Quoique la While the majority decision in Soulos has clarified decision majoritaire ait elucide ce recours possible, the availability of the constructive trust in Canadian le caractere ouvert de la decision majoritaire et la law, the open-endedness of the majority judgment vehemence du juge dissident suggerenl que la and the vociferous dissent suggest that the issue question est loin d'etre reglee tine Join pour Unites. may not yet be put to rest. In this article, the author Dans le present article, Vmiteur examine I'arret critically examines the Soulos judgment and its Soulos et les consequences possibles de la fiducie potential effects on the law of constructive trusts in par interpretation an Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Contract July 2010
    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 - EQUITY AND TRUSTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2014 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2014 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 (a) “Every effort” test The transfer of the legal title to company shares is not complete until the transferee is registered by the company. Similarly a gift of the legal estate in land is not effective until the donee is registered at the Land Registry. In these cases the final stage in the transfer formalities is in the hands of a third party and is outside the donor’s control. Such gifts are effective in equity before the legal title is transferred if the donor has done everything required of him or her to transfer legal title (Milroy v Lord (1862); Re Rose (1952)). In Re Rose it was held that this stage is reached for gifts of shares when the transferor has parted with the stock transfer form and share certificate beyond recall and it lies in the transferee’s power to be registered as the new shareholder.
    [Show full text]