McDonnell v Neil [1951] UKPCHCA 1
Upon the language of the will and having regard to authority, there is a trust of one moiety of the residuary estate for Grace for her life with remainder to her issue and a trust of the other moiety for Emily for her life with remainder to her issue. Thus, the issue of each daughter take their respective moieties, per stirpes.
- Parties
- Appellants: McDonnell and Others; Respondents: Neil and Others
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 1951
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Appeal From the High Court of Australia to the Privy Council
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Construction of Wills, Distribution of Residuary Estate, Per Stirpes Vs Per Capita Distribution, Trusts for Life With Remainder
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
McDonnell and Others
Appellants
Neil and Others
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appeal From the High Court of Australia to the Privy Council
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the residuary estate of William McDonald is to be distributed per stirpes or per capita among the issue of his daughters Grace and Emily under the terms of his will
- 2 Proper construction of a gift to daughters for life with remainder to their issue, with grandchildren if any taking per stirpes
Ratio Decidendi
Upon the language of the will and having regard to authority, there is a trust of one moiety of the residuary estate for Grace for her life with remainder to her issue and a trust of the other moiety for Emily for her life with remainder to her issue. Thus, the issue of each daughter take their respective moieties, per stirpes.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellants must pay the costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment