Brewer v. McCauley

Brewer v. McCauley

The inclusion of the word 'philanthropic' rendered the class of permissible objects uncertain and non‑charitable; the trustees' broad power of appointment could exhaust the residue so the second paragraph was at best precatory and a mode of carrying out the primary gift; therefore the supposed trust failed for uncertainty and the residue must be distributed as intestacy.

Citation
[1954] SCR 645
Parties
Appellants (executors): Winston C. Brewer and Herman S. Murray (Executors under the will of Alexandra Loggie); Appellant (defendant): The Attorney General of New Brunswick; Respondents (defendants): Elizabeth Fyfe McCauley and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From New Brunswick Chancery Division (wills/estates) / Final Judgment on Appeal (decision Dated 1954 10 05)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed; entire purported trust of the residue void for uncertainty; residue to be distributed as of an intestacy.
Legal Topics
Charitable Bequest, Certainty of Trust, Powers of Appointment, Precatory Trust, Construction of Will
Source Language
English
Estates Trusts Charity Law Wills Charitable Bequest Certainty of Trust Powers of Appointment Precatory Trust +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winston C. Brewer and Herman S. Murray (Executors under the will of Alexandra Loggie)

Appellants (executors)

The Attorney General of New Brunswick

Appellant (defendant)

Elizabeth Fyfe McCauley and Others

Respondents (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From New Brunswick Chancery Division (wills/estates) / Final Judgment on Appeal (decision Dated 1954 10 05)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the residue bequest limited to charitable purposes despite inclusion of the word 'philanthropic'
  2. 2 Whether the second paragraph constituted a binding educational trust/scholarship
  3. 3 Whether the trust failed for uncertainty and the residue accordingly fell into intestacy

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of the word 'philanthropic' rendered the class of permissible objects uncertain and non‑charitable; the trustees' broad power of appointment could exhaust the residue so the second paragraph was at best precatory and a mode of carrying out the primary gift; therefore the supposed trust failed for uncertainty and the residue must be distributed as intestacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed; entire purported trust of the residue void for uncertainty; residue to be distributed as of an intestacy.

Orders

  • Declare entire purported trust of the residue void for uncertainty
  • Residue of the estate to be distributed as of an intestacy