Morton v. Brighouse

Morton v. Brighouse

Strong v. Bird did not apply: the 1912 will and the evidence defeated the required continuing present intention to give, the alleged gift was not of sufficiently identifiable property (and could not effectively cover after-acquired property), and therefore the respondent was accountable for all moneys of the deceased received by him since 26 February 1907 except for moneys in respect of which a gift was completed during the donor's lifetime.

Citation
[1927] SCR 118
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Frederick C. Morton; Respondent (defendant): Michael Wilkinson Brighouse
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 1927
Procedural Posture
Appeal Trust Accounting / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; declaration that respondent accountable as set out below.
Legal Topics
Trustee Accounting, Gift Versus Trust, Strong V Bird Doctrine, Power of Attorney, Constructive Trust, After Acquired Property
Source Language
English
Trust Equity Estate and Succession Property Law Probate Trustee Accounting Gift Versus Trust Strong V Bird Doctrine +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick C. Morton

Appellant (plaintiff)

Michael Wilkinson Brighouse

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Trust Accounting / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine in Strong v. Bird applies to alleged imperfect inter vivos gifts of the deceased's property held and managed by the donee
  2. 2 Whether respondent is accountable as trustee for moneys received under a 1907 power of attorney since 26 February 1907
  3. 3 Whether the 1912 will and subsequent conduct negate a continuing intention to gift such that Strong v. Bird could operate

Ratio Decidendi

Strong v. Bird did not apply: the 1912 will and the evidence defeated the required continuing present intention to give, the alleged gift was not of sufficiently identifiable property (and could not effectively cover after-acquired property), and therefore the respondent was accountable for all moneys of the deceased received by him since 26 February 1907 except for moneys in respect of which a gift was completed during the donor's lifetime.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; declaration that respondent accountable as set out below.

Orders

  • Declaration that respondent is accountable for all moneys of the late Sam Brighouse received by him since 26 February 1907 except moneys in respect of which the intended gift was completed within the lifetime of Sam Brighouse
  • Respondent entitled to all just and proper allowances for expenditures and for costs, charges and expenses incurred by him in relation to the affairs of the deceased