Pringle v. Anderson

Pringle v. Anderson

Majority held the devise to the 'Trustees of the Building Fund' must be construed as a bounty to the trustees for building-related purposes generally rather than a gift confined to a specific bookkeeping fund; because the testatrix's motive was to benefit the congregation's building liabilities and the trustees were capable of taking and applying the gift, the legacy did not lapse and the Superior Court judgment was affirmed.

Citation
(1914) 50 SCR 451
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Jane Alexander Pringle; Respondent (defendant): David Anderson and Others, Trustees of St. Matthew's Church
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 December 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Superior Court, Sitting in Review (montreal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Construction of Will, Lapse of Devise, Purpose Trust, Interpretation of Testamentary Dispositions, Application of Civil Code Art. 964
Source Language
English
Estates Trusts Wills Property Law Civil Procedure Construction of Will Lapse of Devise Purpose Trust +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 Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Alexander Pringle

Appellant (plaintiff)

David Anderson and Others, Trustees of St. Matthew's Church

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Superior Court, Sitting in Review (montreal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the devise to the 'Trustees of the Building Fund' lapsed because the specific building fund ceased to exist before the testatrix's death
  2. 2 Whether the trustees were sufficiently identified and competent to take the gift
  3. 3 Whether the testatrix intended a gift to a particular fund or a general bounty for the church's building liabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the devise to the 'Trustees of the Building Fund' must be construed as a bounty to the trustees for building-related purposes generally rather than a gift confined to a specific bookkeeping fund; because the testatrix's motive was to benefit the congregation's building liabilities and the trustees were capable of taking and applying the gift, the legacy did not lapse and the Superior Court judgment was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.