Crane v Crane [1949] HCA 52
The will's provisions do not rebut the application of the rule of convenience; the class of beneficiaries (children of George Joseph Crane) was closed when the eldest child attained twenty-one. Maintenance and advancement clauses in the will do not indicate an intention to keep the fund together or defer enjoyment, so William Clement Crane born later has no entitlement.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['interpretation of Wills' 'class Closing Rules' 'advancement Clauses' 'residuary Gift']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a child born after the eldest child attained twenty-one is entitled to an interest in the residuary estate' 'Interpretation of maintenance and advancement clauses as affecting the class closing rule' 'Disposition of share of a daughter who died unmarried under twenty-one']
Ratio Decidendi
The will's provisions do not rebut the application of the rule of convenience; the class of beneficiaries (children of George Joseph Crane) was closed when the eldest child attained twenty-one. Maintenance and advancement clauses in the will do not indicate an intention to keep the fund together or defer enjoyment, so William Clement Crane born later has no entitlement.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Costs of all parties to the appeal to be paid out of the estate; those of the trustees as between solicitor and client.']
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