Jones v Lock [1865]
Share
Jones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25 addressed the issue of the formality required for creating a gift and the potential consequences if the proper legal form for the gift was not completed. The central question was whether equity would intervene to perfect an imperfect gift by establishing a trust if the necessary formality had not been fulfilled.
A father who, upon returning from a business trip without a physical gift for his son, handed a £900 cheque to the baby. The father expressed his intention to give the money to the baby, stating that it was for the baby himself, and he would add more to it. When concerns were raised about the baby tearing the cheque, the father asserted that it belonged to the baby, and he could do as he pleased with it. The father then locked the cheque in a safe but passed away six days later. The argument centred on the absence of an outright transfer, as the father had not endorsed the cheque by signing it, leading to the question of whether a trust of the cheque for the baby existed.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal in Chancery, led by Lord Cranworth LC, held that there was no trust established in this case. Despite the incomplete formality of the gift, the court emphasised the father's clear intention for an outright transfer. The court explicitly refused to perfect the imperfect gift by declaring a trust. The decision in Jones v Lock reinforced the principle that, in the absence of proper formalities for a gift, equity would not intervene to create a trust if the donor's intention was for an outright transfer.
A father who, upon returning from a business trip without a physical gift for his son, handed a £900 cheque to the baby. The father expressed his intention to give the money to the baby, stating that it was for the baby himself, and he would add more to it. When concerns were raised about the baby tearing the cheque, the father asserted that it belonged to the baby, and he could do as he pleased with it. The father then locked the cheque in a safe but passed away six days later. The argument centred on the absence of an outright transfer, as the father had not endorsed the cheque by signing it, leading to the question of whether a trust of the cheque for the baby existed.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal in Chancery, led by Lord Cranworth LC, held that there was no trust established in this case. Despite the incomplete formality of the gift, the court emphasised the father's clear intention for an outright transfer. The court explicitly refused to perfect the imperfect gift by declaring a trust. The decision in Jones v Lock reinforced the principle that, in the absence of proper formalities for a gift, equity would not intervene to create a trust if the donor's intention was for an outright transfer.