Re Abbott Fund [1900]
Share
Re Abbott Fund [1900] 2 Ch 326 concerned the issue of resulting trusts and whether or not a resulting trust existed for the benefit of the subscribers to a trust fund where the objects of the trust fund had died.
Dr Abbott, who had two deaf and dumb daughters, passed away in 1844, leaving a trust fund intended to support his daughters. By 1899, the funds were depleted, and Dr Fawcett collected contributions from friends to continue supporting the daughters. However, both daughters had passed away by 1899, leaving a remaining balance of £366 in the fund.
Stirling J held that the remaining money in the fund was held on a resulting trust for the subscribers who contributed to support the daughters. The judge reasoned that the purpose of the trust, which was to support the daughters, had been achieved. Importantly, Stirling J noted that the money was never intended to become the absolute property of the daughters. As they were not in a position to demand the transfer of the funds to themselves, the remaining money was to be treated as held for the subscribers.
The case raises an interesting question about the vesting of the beneficial interest in the trust before its failure. It emphasises that the purpose of the trust, which was the support of Dr. Abbott's daughters, had been fulfilled. The judge's conclusion that the money was never intended to become the absolute property of the daughters underscores the importance of understanding the intended beneficiaries and the purpose of the trust in determining the distribution of remaining funds. In this instance, the remaining balance was directed towards those who had contributed to the fund, recognising that the daughters were not in a position to claim the funds for themselves.
Dr Abbott, who had two deaf and dumb daughters, passed away in 1844, leaving a trust fund intended to support his daughters. By 1899, the funds were depleted, and Dr Fawcett collected contributions from friends to continue supporting the daughters. However, both daughters had passed away by 1899, leaving a remaining balance of £366 in the fund.
Stirling J held that the remaining money in the fund was held on a resulting trust for the subscribers who contributed to support the daughters. The judge reasoned that the purpose of the trust, which was to support the daughters, had been achieved. Importantly, Stirling J noted that the money was never intended to become the absolute property of the daughters. As they were not in a position to demand the transfer of the funds to themselves, the remaining money was to be treated as held for the subscribers.
The case raises an interesting question about the vesting of the beneficial interest in the trust before its failure. It emphasises that the purpose of the trust, which was the support of Dr. Abbott's daughters, had been fulfilled. The judge's conclusion that the money was never intended to become the absolute property of the daughters underscores the importance of understanding the intended beneficiaries and the purpose of the trust in determining the distribution of remaining funds. In this instance, the remaining balance was directed towards those who had contributed to the fund, recognising that the daughters were not in a position to claim the funds for themselves.
