Anning v Anning [1907] HCA 13

Anning v Anning [1907] HCA 13

The gift was effectual only as to the Mount Sturgeon partnership share (an equitable interest), and bank deposits/book debts (subject to limitations), but not as to chattels in possession (for lack of registration), Crown leasehold (not in statutory form and not registered), or mortgage debt secured on NSW land (transfer not in prescribed form). The question for each property is whether the donor did all that was necessary on his part according to the property's nature. As to bank deposits, the assignment was ultimately effective because the donee (the widow) was also legal guardian and executrix, but otherwise the absence of notice would not perfect the assignment.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Louisa Elizabeth Anning; Respondent/defendant: Lillian Constance Anning; Respondent/defendant: Beatrice Louisa Anning; Respondent/defendant: Kathleen Olive Anning; Respondent/defendant: Ella Mildred Anning; Respondent/defendant: Evelyn Edith Anning
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 1907
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Order varied
Legal Topics
Deeds of Gift, Assignment of Choses in Action, Partnership Interests, Statutory Requirements for Transfer, Bills of Sale, Intestacy
Equity Property Law Succession Law Deeds of Gift Assignment of Choses in Action Partnership Interests Statutory Requirements for Transfer Bills of Sale +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louisa Elizabeth Anning

Appellant/plaintiff

Lillian Constance Anning

Respondent/defendant

Beatrice Louisa Anning

Respondent/defendant

Kathleen Olive Anning

Respondent/defendant

Ella Mildred Anning

Respondent/defendant

Evelyn Edith Anning

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of gift executed by William Anning was effective to convey various classes of personal property to the donees before his death.
  2. 2 For which classes of property did the donor complete all acts necessary for an effective gift under law and equity?
  3. 3 Whether imperfection in the gift could be perfected by trust or other mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi

The gift was effectual only as to the Mount Sturgeon partnership share (an equitable interest), and bank deposits/book debts (subject to limitations), but not as to chattels in possession (for lack of registration), Crown leasehold (not in statutory form and not registered), or mortgage debt secured on NSW land (transfer not in prescribed form). The question for each property is whether the donor did all that was necessary on his part according to the property's nature. As to bank deposits, the assignment was ultimately effective because the donee (the widow) was also legal guardian and executrix, but otherwise the absence of notice would not perfect the assignment.

Court Disposition

Order varied

Orders

  • The assignment of chattels in possession fell under the Bills of Sale Act and was ineffectual for lack of registration; as to any chattels still remaining in specie, future registration could cure the defect.
  • The mortgage debt secured on land in New South Wales was not effectually conveyed by the deed of gift.