McQUELLIN V. McQUELLIN 41/1930

McQUELLIN V. McQUELLIN 41/1930

The appeal is allowed because the will considered as a whole shows with reasonable certainty an intention to assimilate the trusts governing the proceeds of both real and personal estate after sale and conversion, despite apparent omission of words; necessary words may be implied to effect this intention.

Parties
Applicant: Hogue Lin; Respondent: Meque Lin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1930
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Wills, Omissions in Will, Trusts in Estate Administration
Wills and Estates Construction of Wills Omissions in Will Trusts in Estate Administration

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hogue Lin

Applicant

Meque Lin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeds of the testatrix's personal estate should be subjected to the same trusts as those of her real estate due to apparent omissions in the will
  2. 2 Whether an intention to assimilate the trusts governing realty and personalty can be inferred from the wording of the will

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the will considered as a whole shows with reasonable certainty an intention to assimilate the trusts governing the proceeds of both real and personal estate after sale and conversion, despite apparent omission of words; necessary words may be implied to effect this intention.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed