¹ McPhail v. Doulton [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110Google Scholar, 1125, per Lord Wilberforce. This case, the appeal from Re Baden's Deed Trusts [1969] 2 Ch. 388Google Scholar, is henceforth referred to as Re Baden.

² [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

³ See, e.g., Klug v. Klug [1908] 2 Ch. 67Google Scholar and, generally, Kiralfy, 17 The Conveyancer (n.s.) (1953), 285; Hawkins, 31 ibid. (1967), 117.

⁴ See Sugden, Powers, 4th ed., 1826, p. 503; Farwell, Powers, 3rd ed., 1916, Chapters 6–8.

⁵ “If [the power] has not been exercised, it does not devolve upon the Court.” Brown v. Higgs (1800) 5 Ves. 495, 501, per Sir R. P. Arden M.R.

⁶ Whishaw v. Stephens [1970] A.C. 508, 524, per Lord, Upjohn.Google Scholar This case, the appeal from Re Gulbenkian's Settlements [1968]Google Scholar Ch. 126, is henceforth referred to as Re Gulbenkian.

⁷ See Morice v. Bishop of Durham (1805) 10 Ves. 522; Re Astor's Settlement Trusts [1952]Google Scholar Ch. 534; Re Shaw [1957] 1 W.L.R. 729Google Scholar, affd. [1958] 1 All E.R. 245n., though cf. Re Denley's Trust Deeds [1969] 1 Ch. 373, p. 100Google Scholar, below.

⁸ Re Gestetner Settlement [1953]Google Scholar Ch. 672, 685, per Harman J.

⁹ Ibid., 688.

¹⁰ See Re Gestetner Settlement at 688, disapproving Blight v. Hartnoll (1881) 19 Ch.D. 294; see also Re Coates [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 495; Kilroy v. Parker [1966]Google Scholar I.R. 309; Re Gulbenkian [1970]Google Scholar A.C. 508.

¹¹ See , Fleming, “Hybrid Powers,” 13 The Conveyancer (n.s.) (1949) 20Google Scholar; Marshall, , “Trusts and Powers,” 35 Canadian Bar Review (1957) 1060.Google Scholar

¹² (1803) 8 Ves. 561, 570.

¹³ Emphasis supplied; see p. 96, below.

¹⁴ (1840) 5 My. & Ch. 72, 92.

¹⁵ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

¹⁶ Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962] 1 W.L.R. 943, 950–951Google Scholar, per Cross J.

¹⁷ [1955] Ch. 20, henceforth referred to as the Broadway Cottages Trust Case.

¹⁸ Ibid., 31.

¹⁹ Contrast Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed (above) at 953, per Cross J.: “I should have thought that the answer depended on what was probable and not on what was theoretically possible”; see also Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440Google Scholar, 447–448, per Lord Evershed M.R.

²⁰ [1969] 1 Ch. 563.

²¹ Ibid., 579, per Harman L.J.; see also Re H. J. Ogden [1933]Google Scholar Ch. 678, 682, per Lord Tomlin.

²² “A mere power is a different animal from a trust”: Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110Google Scholar, 1119, per Lord Hodson.

²³ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

²⁴ (1800) 5 Ves. 495, 505.

²⁵ Re Leek [1969] 1 Ch. 563, 581Google Scholar; see also Re Scarisbrick's Will Trusts [1951]Google Scholar Ch. 622, 635, per Lord Evershed M.R.

²⁶ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1125.

²⁷ Re Gulbenkian [1970]Google Scholar A.C. 508, 519, per Lord Reid; and see Re Leek [1967]Google Scholar Ch. 1061, 1073–1074, per Buckley J., for a penetrating analysis of them. See further [1968] C.L.J. 211, 212.

²⁸ [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1457.

²⁹ [1967] Ch. 1061, 1073–1074; see [1968] C.L.J. 211.

³⁰ At 1465.

³¹ See the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 20; Re Sayer [1957]Google Scholar Ch. 423; Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962] 1 W.L.R. 943Google Scholar; Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440.Google Scholar

³² See Re Gestetner Settlement [1953]Google Scholar Ch. 672; and see further, pp. 83 ff., below.

³³ [1969] 2 Ch. 388.

³⁴ Ibid., 397.

³⁵ Who was “conscious that [his] views [had] changed with almost alarming frequency … during the helpful and persuasive arguments which we have heard on both sides.”

³⁶ Ibid., 400, 402.

³⁷ Ibid., 399; see also Winter v. Peratt (1843) 9 CI. & F. 606, 687, per Lord Brougham; Kilroy v. Parker [1966] I.R. 309, 321, per Budd, J.Google Scholar

³⁸ [1969] 2 Ch. 388, 400.

³⁹ See [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1115, per Lord Hodson: “a complete disposition with a primary duty to distribute, a trust for the whole period of its existence with a power to carry forward from year to year.” See also Ibid., 1121, per Lord Guest; 1126, per Lord Wilberforce (with whom Lord Reid and Viscount Dilhorne concurred).

⁴⁰ Contrast [1967] Ch. 1061, 1076, per Buckley J., with [1969] 1 Ch. 563, 580, 582, per Harman, Russell L.JJ.

⁴¹ See Re Leek, n. 29 above.

⁴² Re Baden [1969] 2 Ch. 388, 397, per Harman, L.J.Google Scholar

⁴³ Re Gulbenkian [1968] Ch. 126, 134, per Lord, Denning M.R.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962] 1 W.L.R. 943, 955, per Cross, J.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440, 445, per Lord, Evershed M.R.Google Scholar; see also Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1125, per Lord, Wilberforce.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See p. 69, above.

⁴⁷ See Unwin, 26 The Conveyancer (n.s.) (1962), 92; Pettit, Equity and the Law of Trusts, 2nd ed., 1970, p. 23.

⁴⁸ (1799) 4 Ves. 708.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 718–719.

⁵⁰ See Re Leek [1967] Ch. 1061, 1073–1074, per Buckley, J.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Moore v. ffoliott (1887) 19 L.R.Ir. 499, 502.

⁵² Powers, 3rd ed., 1916, p. 527.Google Scholar

⁵³ e.g., the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 20; Re Sayer [1957]Google Scholar Ch. 423; Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440Google Scholar; Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962] 1 W.L.R. 943Google Scholar; Re Leek [1969] 1 Ch. 563Google Scholar; Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1115, 1121, per Lords, HodsonGoogle Scholar, Guest. And cf. Farwell, op. cit., p. 530: “the distinction is not important, as the result is the same in both cases.”

⁵⁴ (1799) 4 Ves. 708.

⁵⁵ (1800) 5 Ves. 495.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 500.

⁵⁷ (1803) 8 Ves. 561.

⁵⁸ See (1813) 18 Ves. 191.

⁵⁹ For a like change in a modern case, see the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1955] Ch. 20, 30, 32, 35, per Jenkins, L.J.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ (1840) 5 My. & Cr. 72.

⁶¹ Ibid., 92; see p. 69, above.

⁶² Ibid., 89, emphasis supplied.

⁶³ (1883) 24 Ch.D. 244.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 249.

⁶⁵ [1964] Ch. 219, 230.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 236.

⁶⁷ See also Re Llewellyn's Settlement [1921] 2 Ch. 281, 285, per Russell, J.Google Scholar; Re Arnold [1947] Ch. 132, 134, per Wynn-Parry, J.Google Scholar, approving Wilson v. Duguid (above) and Lambert v. Thwaites (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 151.

⁶⁸ (1739) 1 Atk. 469.

⁶⁹ (1750) 2 Ves.Sen. 61.

⁷⁰ (1800) 5 Ves. 495, 506.

⁷¹ See also Salusbury v. Denton (1857) 3 K. & J. 529, 535, per Page-Wood V.-C. Wilson v. Duguid (above) at 249, per Chitty J.

⁷² See pp. 72–73, above.

⁷³ [1897] 1 Ch. 289.

⁷⁴ Op. cit., 528, 530.

⁷⁵ (1853) 3 Ir.C.L.Rep. 213, 215, per Pennefather B.

⁷⁶ (1870) L.R. 10 Eq. 267; (1871) L.R. 6 Ch.App. 597; and see Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1883) 27 Ch.D. 394, though cf. Shelley v. Shelley (1868) L.R. 6 Eq. 540, Re Steele's Will Trusts [1948]Google Scholar Ch. 603.

⁷⁷ Cf. Ames (1892) 5 Harvard Law Review, 389.

⁷⁸ See Re Combe [1925]Google Scholar Ch. 210; Re Perowne [1951]Google Scholar Ch. 785. And see, generally, Unwin, 26 The Conveyancer (n.s.) (1962)Google Scholar 92, 94. See also Re Sayer [1957] Ch. 423, 436–437, per Upjohn, J.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See note 67 above, also the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1954] 1 W.L.R. 659, 667, per Wynn-Parry, J.Google Scholar; [1955] Ch. 20, 35, per Jenkins L.J. Hawkins (31 The Conveyancer (n.s.) (1967) 117, 122) has suggested that “the reason why, before Re Weekes, a trust in default was so often implied was because the power in the will was a non-exclusive one. If exercised, all the objects would have had no benefit until the passing of Lord Selborne's Act [37 & 38 Vict. c. 37]. If not exercised, the fact that the power was non-exclusive by itself indicated that all the objects should benefit.” (See also Bennett v. Honywood (1772) Amb. 708, p. 94, below.) This may well be so, but it does not affect the argument advanced here.

⁸⁰ See, generally, Re Gestetner Settlement [1953] Ch. 672 and further, p. 83Google Scholar, below.

⁸¹ See Brown v. Higgs, Burrough v. Philcox, above. See also Re White (1860) John. 656; Walsh v. Wallinger (1830) 2 R. & M. 78; Longmore v. Broom (1802) 7 Ves. 125; Penny v. Turner (1848) 2 Ph. 1034; Little v. Neil (1862) 32 L.J.Ch. 627; Butler v. Gray (1869) L.R. 5 Ch. 26; Carthew v. Enraght (1872) 20 W.R. 743. As to the problems of the shares of deceased persons and persons born after the death of the testator, see Longmore v. Broom (above) at 129, per Sir W. Grant M.R.; Lambert v. Thwaites (1866) L.R. 2 Eq. 151 and, generally, Theobald, Wills, 12th ed., 1951, para. 931; Lewin, Trusts, 16th ed., 1964, p. 630.

⁸² [1894] 3 Ch. 565, 575.

⁸³ Cf. Re Sayer [1957] Ch. 423, 432, per Upjohn, J.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ (1857) 3 K. & J. 529.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 535.

⁸⁶ (1865) 2 Dr. & Sm. 527.

⁸⁷ See also Harding v. Glyn (1739) 1 Atk. 469; Mahon v. Savage (1802) 1 Sch. & Lef. 111.

⁸⁸ Jones, Gareth, History of the Law of Charity 1532–1827, 1969, p. 260.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid.

⁹⁰ See Gareth Jones, op. cit., pp. 260–262; Mahon v. Savage, above; Attorney-General v. Price (1810) 17 Ves. 371; Re Scarisbrick's Will Trusts [1951]Google Scholar Ch. 622.

⁹¹ See Attorney-General v. Price, above, at 374, per Sir W. Grant M.R.

⁹² As to the general question of certainty of objects, see p. 86, below.

⁹³ See the “relations” cases above. In the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 20, 33, Jenkins L.J. regarded these cases as sui generis and held that normally “the court cannot mend the invalidity of the trust by imposing an arbitrary distinction amongst some only of the whole unascertainable class.” Whether the trust in that case was necessarily invalid, however, is not clear: see p. 90, below. And see Kilroy v. Parker [1966]Google Scholar I.R. 309, 322–323, per Budd, J.Cf. Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 524, per Lord, Upjohn.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ [1954] 1 W.L.R. 659, 664; see also Innes v. Harrison [1954] 1 W.L.R. 668, 671, per Wynn-Parry, J.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ An admission seized upon in Re Hooper's Settlement (1955) 34 A.T.C. 3Google Scholar by Danckwerts, J. and by Wynn-Parry, J. himself in Re Eden [1957] 1 W.L.R. 788.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ [1954] 1 W.L.R. 659, 665.

⁹⁷ [1933] Ch. 678.

⁹⁸ Ibid., 683–684.

⁹⁹ Sir H. Samuel who, upon this occasion at least, did not sit upon the fence, informed the court that he would be able to provide an exhaustive list of all such federations and bodies.

¹ [1954] 1 W.L.R. 659, 664.

² [1955] Ch. 20.

³ See Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440, 446, per Lord, Evershed M.R.Google Scholar

⁴ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁵ See Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 521, per Lord, Upjohn.Google Scholar

⁶ (1841) Cr. & Ph. 240.

⁷ “A trust for such members of a given class of objects as the trustees shall select is void for uncertainty unless the whole range of objects eligible for selection is ascertained or capable of ascertainment” [1955] Ch. 20, 35–36, per Jenkins, L.J.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ See Re Dean (1889) 41 Ch.D. 522 and see Morris and Leach, The Rule against Perpetuities, 2nd ed., 1962, pp. 309, 312.

¹⁰ See Re Astor's Settlement [1952]Google Scholar Ch. 534; Re Shaw [1957] 1 W.L.R. 729Google Scholar; Leahy v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1959]Google Scholar A.C. 457; Re Endacott [1960]Google Scholar Ch. 232. See also Morris and Leach, op. cit., p. 320. But cf. Re Denley's Deed Trusts [1969] 1 Ch. 373.Google Scholar

¹¹ E.g., Re Sayer [1957]Google Scholar Ch. 423; Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962[ 1 W.L.R. 943Google Scholar]; Re Leek [1969] 1 Ch. 563Google Scholar; see also Re Baden [1969] 2 Ch. 388, 402, per Russell, L.J.Google Scholar (C.A.), [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1117, 1122, per Lords Hodson, Guest.

¹² [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440, 447; and see p. 73, above.

¹³ See Re Hooper's Settlement (1955) 34 A.T.C. 3Google Scholar; Re Rank, The Times, 23 February 1955Google Scholar; Re Eden [1957] 1 W.L.R. 788.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Re Gulbenkian [1968]Google Scholar Ch. 126, 134.

¹⁵ [1955] Ch. 20.

¹⁶ [1970] A.C. 508.

¹⁷ Ibid., 524, and see [1969] C.L.J. 30, 32.

¹⁸ [1970] A.C. at 525.

¹⁹ Cf. Lord Denning M.R. and Winn L.J. in the Court of Appeal.

²⁰ But cf. Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1131, per Lord, Wilberforce.Google Scholar

²¹ [1955] Ch. 20.

²² [1953] Ch. 672. It may be noted, however, that the opinion of Harman J. in Re Gestetner Settlement was anticipated by some years by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland in Brown v. Gregg [1945]Google Scholar I.R. 210 where, in declaring valid a power to distribute “amongst such of [the testator's] Irish relatives as [his sister] shall see fit,” Murnaghan J. stated, at 229: “It is not, I think, necessary for the valid exercise of a power of appointment that the donee should be able to range in his mind every person capable of taking under the power. It is sufficient if the person chosen as an object comes properly within the description of the class.”

²³ [1932] 1 Ch. 580.

²⁴ [1945] Ch. 105.

²⁵ (1881) 19 Ch.D. 294.

²⁶ [1953] Ch. at 685.

²⁷ Ibid., at 688; see also Re Coates [1955] Ch. 495, 497, per Roxburgh, J.Google Scholar

²⁸ See [1968] C.L.J. 211, 215.

²⁹ [1956] 1 W.L.R. 563.

³⁰ Ibid., 577.

³¹ See also Re Allan [1958] 1 W.L.R. 220Google Scholar; Re Sayer [1957]Google Scholar Ch. 423.

³² [1967] 1 W.L.R. 42; see also Re Coates [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 495.

³³ [1967] 1 W.L.R. 49.

³⁴ See also Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440, 445, per Lord, Evershed M.R.Google Scholar; Fawcett Properties v. Buckingham C.C. [1961] A.C. 636, 693, per Lord, Jenkins.Google Scholar

³⁵ [1967] Ch. 1061.

³⁶ [1967] 1 W.L.R. 42.

³⁷ [1956] 1 W.L.R. 573.

³⁸ [1968] Ch. 126. See, in especial, Lord Denning M.R. at 134: “if the trustees can say of any particular person that he is clearly within the category, the gift is good.” Re Gresham was expressly overruled.

³⁹ [1969] 1 Ch. 563. See Sachs L.J. at 583, where he stated that, having had an initial tendency to agree with Lord Denning M.R. and Winn L.J. in Re Gulbenkian (above), he “at once felt somewhat as one condemned shortly to go to a colony of outcast heretics” but was cheered by “a chance that Lord Denning M.R. and Winn L.J. might be [his] companions there.”

⁴⁰ [1968] 1 Ch. 373.

⁴¹ [1968] 1 W.L.R. 681.

⁴² [1970] A.C. 508, and see [1969] C.L.J. 30.

⁴³ [1956] 1 W.L.R. 573.

⁴⁴ [1970] A.C. at 522.

⁴⁵ In Re Gresham at 578, Harman J. had stated in holding the power void for uncertainty, that he was giving “the most benevolent meaning” to the clause that he could.

⁴⁶ [1970] A.C. at 523.

⁴⁷ See also Lord Reid at 518: “If the classes of beneficiaries are not defined with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether a particular person is, or is not, on the facts at a particular time within one of the classes, then the power must be void for uncertainty.”

⁴⁸ Ibid., 525.

⁴⁹ See [1968] Ch. 126, 134, 138.

⁵⁰ [1970] A.C. 508, 526.

⁵¹ (1841) Cr. & Ph. 240.

⁵² See pp. 81–83, above.

⁵³ [1968] Ch. 128, 134.

⁵⁴ [1970] A.C. 508.

⁵⁵ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁵⁶ [1970] A.C. 508.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 518.

⁵⁸ Davies, J. D., Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law, 1969, p. 369Google Scholar. See also Farwell, Powers, 3rd ed., 1916, p. 10.

⁵⁹ [1953] Ch. 672, 688.

⁶⁰ Emphasis supplied.

⁶¹ Some of the logical difficulties are explored by Lord Reid in Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. at 519 where he concludes: “I gravely doubt some of the arguments used by the Court of Appeal,” in the Broadway Cottages Trust Case [1955]Google Scholar Ch. 20.

⁶² (1804) 9 Ves. 399; (1805) 10 Ves. 522.

⁶³ See also Chichester Diocesan Fund v. Simpson [1944]Google Scholar A.C. 341.

⁶⁴ The Law of Trusts, 3rd ed., 1967, vol. 2, p. 924Google Scholar; see also Scott, , “Trusts for Non-Charitable and Benevolent Purposes” (1945) 58 Harvard Law Review 548, 565CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glanville, Williams, “The Three Certainties” (1940) 4 M.L.R. 21, 22Google Scholar; Marshall, , “The Failure of the Astor Trust” (1953) 6 Current Legal Problems 151, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar And see Potter, 13 The Conveyancer (N.S.) (1949), 418.

⁶⁵ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁶⁶ (1805) 10 Ves. 522.

⁶⁷ Ames, “The Failure of the Tilden Trust” (1891–92) 5 Harvard Law Review, 389, 395. Cf. Kilroy v. Parker [1966] I.R. 309, 335Google Scholar; Mitchell's Trustees v. Fraser [1915]Google Scholar S.C. 350.

⁶⁸ Ames, loc. cit., 396; cf. Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 518, per Lord, Reid.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. Scott, , The Law of Trusts, 3rd ed., 1967, vol. 2, p. 921Google Scholar: “It would seem to be the height of technicality to hold that if a testator authorizes a legatee to divide the property amongst such of the testator's friends as he might select, he can properly do so; but that if he directs him to make such a selection, he will not be permitted to do so.”

⁷⁰ “Gifts for Non-Charitable Purposes” (1902) 15 Harvard Law Review, 510, 515.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Scott, “Trusts for Non-Charitable and Benevolent Purposes” (1945) 58 Ibid., 548, 563.

⁷² See Re Astor's Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch. 534, 548, per Roxburgh, J.Google Scholar

⁷³ And perhaps neither argument is conclusive in the matter. See p. 82, above.

⁷⁴ [1955] Ch. 20 and see p. 81, above.

⁷⁵ See Re Gestetner Settlement [1953]Google Scholar Ch. 672, 688.

⁷⁶ See note 67 above.

⁷⁷ Scott, , The Law of Trusts, 3rd ed., 1967, vol. 2, p. 926.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ (1805) 10 Ves. 522.

⁷⁹ Ames, loc. cit., 395.

⁸⁰ [1970] A.C. 508, 518. See also Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1126, per Lord, WilberforceGoogle Scholar: “just as in the case of a power it is possible to underestimate the fiduciary obligation of the trustee to whom it is given, so, in the case of a trust (trust power), the danger lies in overestimating what the trustee requires to know or inquire into before he can properly execute his trust. The difference may be one of degree rather than of principle.”

⁸¹ But cf. Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 524, per Lord, Upjohn.Google Scholar

⁸² [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1125, emphasis supplied.

⁸³ Ibid., 1132–1133.

⁸⁴ See Wilson v. Turner (1883) 22 Ch.D. 521.

⁸⁵ See Klug v. Klug [1918] 2 Ch. 67.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Re Gestetner Settlement [1953]Google Scholar Ch. 672; also Brown v. Gregg [1945]Google Scholar I.R. 210; Re Sayer [1957] Ch. 423, 431, per Upjohn, J.Google Scholar; Re Hain's Settlement [1961] 1 W.L.R. 440, 447, per Lord, Evershed M.R.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁸⁸ See Re Saxone Shoe Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1962] 1 W.L.R. 943, 950–951, per Cross, J.Google Scholar; Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 525, per Lord, Upjohn.Google Scholar And see Jarman, Wills, 8th ed., 1951, p. 898.

⁸⁹ Re Gestetner Settlement [1953] Ch. 672, 688. per Harman, J.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁹¹ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁹² [1970] A.C. 508; and see [1969] C.L.J. 30; [1970] C.L.J. 35.

⁹³ See, generally, Marshall, , “The Failure of the Astor Trust” (1953) 6 Current Legal Problems 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁴ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁹⁵ For which some authority and much persuasive argument may be adduced. See pp. 73–80, above.

⁹⁶ [1955] Ch. 20, 36.

⁹⁷ [1970] A.C. 508, 525.

^97a [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1132.

⁹⁸ See Trustee Act 1925, s. 41: “The court may, whenever it is expedient to appoint a new trustee or new trustees, and it is found inexpedient, difficult or impracricable so to do without the assistance of the court, make an order appointing a new trustee …” And see Letterstedt v. Broers (1884) 9 App.Cas. 371, 386, per Lord Blackburn.

⁹⁹ See Trustee Act 1893, s. 10 (3); Trustee Act 1925, s. 43.

¹ [1955] Ch. 20, 35; see also Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1130Google Scholar; cf. Re Gestetner Settlement [1953]Google Scholar Ch. 672, 688.

² [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

³ [1952] Ch. 534.

⁴ Ibid., 548; see also Re Allen-Meyrick's Will Trusts [1966] 1 W.L.R. 499, 503, per Buckley, J.Google Scholar

⁵ See, in especial Marshall, loc. cit., note 93, above.

⁶ [1952] 2 All E.R. 483, 486.

⁷ (1772) Amb. 708.

⁸ Cf. Brunsden v. Wooldredge (1765) Amb. 507; Supple v. Lowson (1773) Ibid., 729, both decisions of Sir T. Sewell M.R. Each was a “poor relations” case and in each, a scheme of distribution was ordered to be made. Cf. Isaac v. Defriez (1754) Ibid., 595.

⁹ See Mahon v. Savage (1803) 1 Sch. & Lef. 111; cf. Re Sacrisbrick's Will Trusts [1951] Ch. 622 and see Kilroy v. Parker [1966] I.R. 309, 323, per Budd, J.Google Scholar

¹⁰ [1952] Ch. 534.

¹¹ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 110.

¹² See note 8, above.

¹³ (1841) 1 Hare 580, 583; see also Rippon v. Norton (1839) 2 Beav. 63.

¹⁴ Though cf. the reluctance of Cross J. to order such inquiry in Re Saxone Co. Ltd.'s Trust Deed [1961] 1 W.L.R. 943, 953.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, e.g., Re Lofthouse (1885) 29 Ch.D. 921; Re Gee (Infants) [1899] 1 Ch. 719.

¹⁶ See p. 79, above.

¹⁷ See p. 98, below.

¹⁸ In Longmore v. Broom (1802) 7 Ves. 125, 129; see also Penny v. Turner (1848) 2 Ph. 493, 494, per Lord Cottenham L.C.; Farwell, Powers, 3rd ed., 1916, p. 528.

¹⁹ See, for example, Maddison v. Andrew (1747) 1 Ves.Sen. 57, 59, per Lord Hardwicke L.C.

²⁰ [1970] A.C. 508.

²¹ In especial, Lord Upjohn at 524.

²² And in Brown v. Higgs (1803) 8 Ves. 561, 570, Lord Eldon in his classic formulation of the principle involved stated that the court would execute the trust power only “to a certain extent” (see p. 69, above) though, it must be admitted, the greater part of his judgement does proceed upon the assumption that equal division would normally be appropriate.

²³ Lewin, The Law of Trusts, 16th ed., 1964, p. 630.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 525, emphasis supplied.

²⁵ (1802) 7 Ves. 125.

²⁶ (1842) Hare 580; p. 95, above.

²⁷ Yale, Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, vol. 2, 1961, Introduction, p. 134.Google Scholar

²⁸ (1677) Ibid., Case No. 653; S.C. sub nom. Cawkry v. Parrett, 2 Fre. 18.

²⁹ (1682) Yale, op. cit., Case No. 1165; S.C. Vern. 66.

³⁰ See also Woolaston v. Swetnam (1677) Yale, op. cit., Case No. 770.

³¹ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

³² (1802) 7 Ves. 125.

³³ (1673) Rep.t.Finch; S.C. Yale, op.cit., vol. 1, 1957, Case Nos. 351, 497.

³⁴ (1694) 2 Fre. 198.

³⁵ It may be noted that Mosley v.Moseley (above) was cited as authority for the proposition accepted, which proposition it clearly does not support. Baker v.Barrett (probably Craker (Cawkry) v. Parrett) (above) is correctly cited.

³⁶ Sugden, Powers, 4th ed., 1826, p. 503; 8th ed., 1863, p. 601; see also Yale, op. cit., vol. 2, Introduction, p. 137.

³⁷ (1702) 1 Bro.P.C. 1.

³⁸ See also Carr v. Bedford (1678) 2 Cha.Rep. 146.

³⁹ “ I hope they did not lay too much stress upon his being bred to the law.” Kemp v. Kemp (1801) 5 Ves. 849, 857, Per Sir R. P. Arden M.R.

⁴⁰ Later Lord St. Leonards, Lord Chancellor, 1852.

⁴¹ (1801) 5 Ves. 849, 858.

⁴² Potter v.Chapman (1750) Amb. 98, 100, citing Warburton v. Warburton.See also Gower v. Mainwaring (1750) 2 Ves.Sen. 87, 110, Per Lord Hardwicke L.C.

⁴³ See Kilroy v. Parker [1966] I.R. 309, 328, Per Budd, J.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ (1702) 1 Bro.P.C. 1.

⁴⁵ (1760) 7 Bro.P.C. 318. The case had been described as Trollopian: see (1970) 33 M.L.R. 686. Whether it would have appealed principally to Bishop Proudie, to Archdeacon Grantly or to Mr. Slope is a matter for conjecture.

⁴⁶ 7 Bro.P.C. at 324.

⁴⁷ Re Baden [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1127, Per Lord, Wilberforce.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 7 Bro.P.C. at 325.

⁴⁹ Ibid., at 326–327.

⁵⁰ Ibid., at 330. Cf. Potter v. Chapman (1750) Amb. 98, where an attempt to prevent the egregious Chapman from securing a living for himself at Chichester was less successful.

⁵¹ (1673) Rep.t.Finch 53.

⁵² (1694) Fre. 199.

⁵³ (1760) 7 Bro.P.C. 318.

⁵⁴ (1800) 5 Ves. 495, 504.

⁵⁵ (1702) 1 Bro.P.C. 1.

⁵⁶ In Kemp v.Kemp, 5 Ves. 849, 857.

⁵⁷ See p. 89, above.

⁵⁸ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁵⁹ [1970] A.C. 508, 524.

⁶⁰ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁶¹ Ibid., at 36.

⁶² [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁶³ See p. 82, above.

⁶⁴ [1969] 1 Ch. 373.

⁶⁵ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁶⁶ Ibid., at 1133. See also Re Gulbenkian [1970] A.C. 508, 518, Per Lord, ReidGoogle Scholar; cf. Kilroy v. Parker [1966] I.R. 309, 328, Per Budd, J.Google Scholar Whether a clear distinction can be drawn between “semantic” uncertainty and uncertainty which arises upon other grounds is, perhaps, moot.

⁶⁷ (1805) 10 Ves. 522.

⁶⁸ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110.

⁶⁹ [1955] Ch. 20.

⁷⁰ [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1110, 1129, emphasis supplied.

⁷¹ [1969] 1 Ch. 373.

⁷² Davies, J. D., Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law, 1969, p. 369.Google Scholar

⁷³ [1970] 2 W.L.R. at 1128.