Royal Trust Co. and McMurray v. Crawford et al

Royal Trust Co. and McMurray v. Crawford et al

Majority held that the will, properly construed, did not demonstrate the requisite clear intention to allow enjoyment in specie; the rule in Howe v. Dartmouth therefore applied, imposing a duty to convert unauthorized/hazardous securities and treat the special dividend as capital to be apportioned rather than as income in specie to the widow. The appellants failed to discharge the onus of showing the rule was excluded.

Citation
[1955] SCR 184
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants (executors and Trustees): Royal Trust Company and Robert W. McMurray, Executors of the Estate of William Marr Crawford; Defendant/appellant (widow and Life Tenant): Catherine Mclean Crawford; Defendants/respondents (remaindermen): Catherine Graham Crawford and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1955
Procedural Posture
Appeal Wills/estates/trusts / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Conversion of Unauthorized Securities, Rule in Howe V. Dartmouth/apportionment, Life Tenant Rights/enjoyment in Specie, Construction of Wills, Powers of Trustees to Retain/postpone Conversion
Source Language
English
Wills Trusts Estates Equity Conversion of Unauthorized Securities Rule in Howe V. Dartmouth/apportionment Life Tenant Rights/enjoyment in Specie Construction of Wills +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 Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Trust Company and Robert W. McMurray, Executors of the Estate of William Marr Crawford

Plaintiffs/appellants (executors and Trustees)

Catherine Mclean Crawford

Defendant/appellant (widow and Life Tenant)

Catherine Graham Crawford and Others

Defendants/respondents (remaindermen)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Wills/estates/trusts / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accumulated undistributed corporate dividends paid to executors are income payable in specie to the life tenant or capital subject to conversion and apportionment
  2. 2 Whether the rule in Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth requiring conversion of unauthorized or hazardous securities applies
  3. 3 Whether the will's clauses conferring power to postpone conversion and to retain investments, and the gift of "net annual income," manifest an intention to permit enjoyment in specie and thereby exclude the rule

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the will, properly construed, did not demonstrate the requisite clear intention to allow enjoyment in specie; the rule in Howe v. Dartmouth therefore applied, imposing a duty to convert unauthorized/hazardous securities and treat the special dividend as capital to be apportioned rather than as income in specie to the widow. The appellants failed to discharge the onus of showing the rule was excluded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of all parties to be paid out of the estate