Brennan and Alman v Morphett [1908] HCA 16

Brennan and Alman v Morphett [1908] HCA 16

The declaration of trust of 20th March 1900 was ineffective as a trust with respect to shares in a future company, and no consideration supported it as a contract. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled only to one-fifteenth (less one-sixth) of the purchase money and shares actually received by the respondent for the sale of the claim, and not to one-fifteenth of the company as floated or its entire capital. Registration of the declaration did not estop the respondent from asserting his rights. The trial judge's decision was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Martin Joseph Brennan; Appellant: Henry Alman; Respondent: James Hurtle Morphett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Declaration of Trust, Resulting Trust, Mining Tenement, Authority to Sell, Trusts in Unformed Companies, Estoppel
Equity Property Law Trusts Mining Law Declaration of Trust Resulting Trust Mining Tenement Authority to Sell +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Joseph Brennan

Appellant

Henry Alman

Appellant

James Hurtle Morphett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the declaration of trust of 20th March 1900 created an enforceable trust regarding shares of a future company
  2. 2 Whether consideration existed to support the alleged trust or contract
  3. 3 Whether registration of the declaration operated as an estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The declaration of trust of 20th March 1900 was ineffective as a trust with respect to shares in a future company, and no consideration supported it as a contract. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled only to one-fifteenth (less one-sixth) of the purchase money and shares actually received by the respondent for the sale of the claim, and not to one-fifteenth of the company as floated or its entire capital. Registration of the declaration did not estop the respondent from asserting his rights. The trial judge's decision was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • The judgment of Chubb J. in Brennan v. Morphett, 1908 St. R. Qd., 45, affirmed.