Gilbert v Stanton [1905] HCA 1

Gilbert v Stanton [1905] HCA 1

The appointment and mortgage formed part of a single transaction; however, the mortgage money was properly distributed between the appointor and appointee with due regard to their respective interests, and the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or improper benefit. Thus, the appointment was valid, as was the subsequent mortgage.

Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Yartha Evelyn Gilbert; Plaintiff/appellant: Lavinia Kilmartin; Plaintiff/appellant: Rose Ann Palmer; Plaintiff/appellant: Alma Eleanor Louisa Stanton; Defendant/respondent: Sarah Ann Stanton; Defendant/respondent: Rheuben Stanton; Defendant/respondent: Alfred Stanton; Defendant/respondent: Joseph Robert Stanton; Defendant/respondent: Susan Isabel Nicholls; Defendant/respondent: Robert Harvey; Defendant/respondent: Arthur Davies; Defendant/respondent: The Tasmanian Loan Guarantee and Finance Company Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Perpetual Trustees Executors and Agency Company of Tasmania Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hector Ross (Curator of Intestate Estates)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed, bill dismissed with costs against the Finance Company, decree varied as to plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
Power of Appointment, Fraud on a Power, Mortgages, Benefit to Appointor
Equity Property Law Trusts Power of Appointment Fraud on a Power Mortgages Benefit to Appointor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yartha Evelyn Gilbert

Plaintiff/appellant

Lavinia Kilmartin

Plaintiff/appellant

Rose Ann Palmer

Plaintiff/appellant

Alma Eleanor Louisa Stanton

Plaintiff/appellant

Sarah Ann Stanton

Defendant/respondent

Rheuben Stanton

Defendant/respondent

Alfred Stanton

Defendant/respondent

Joseph Robert Stanton

Defendant/respondent

Susan Isabel Nicholls

Defendant/respondent

Robert Harvey

Defendant/respondent

Arthur Davies

Defendant/respondent

The Tasmanian Loan Guarantee and Finance Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

The Perpetual Trustees Executors and Agency Company of Tasmania Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hector Ross (Curator of Intestate Estates)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of land was made in fraud of the power by benefitting the appointor
  2. 2 Whether the appointment and mortgage formed parts of one transaction
  3. 3 Whether the mortgage money raised was properly distributed with respect to interests of appointor and appointee

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment and mortgage formed part of a single transaction; however, the mortgage money was properly distributed between the appointor and appointee with due regard to their respective interests, and the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or improper benefit. Thus, the appointment was valid, as was the subsequent mortgage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed, bill dismissed with costs against the Finance Company, decree varied as to plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed.
  • Finance Company's cross-appeal allowed.