The Gazette 1955-58

the term of years to the Crown because the word " forfeited " in the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, s. i (i), was to be construed as meaning "liable to be forfeited" and accordingly the land comprised in the lease would not vest in the Crown unless and until Her Majesty took steps to enforce the forfeiture. Per Earl Jowitt :—The Court of Appeal had decided in Morelle p. Watenvorth in which a leasehold interest had been transferred to an Irish company without licence to hold lands in mortmain that an automatic forfeiture to Her Majesty had resulted and the Court of Appeal rightly decided in the present case, that they ought to follow this previous decision. We have, therefore, to consider whether Morelle, Ltd. v. Watertvortb was rightly decided. The consequences of the decision in that case are, indeed, far-reaching. It would follow that any person holding a short unexpired residue of a leasehold interest would merely have to transfer that interest to a company without licence to hold lands in mortmain to bring about the result that the unexpired residue would be vested in Her Majesty, so as to make Her Majesty liable under the covenants contained in the lease. Such covenants commonly involve an obligation to repair and, at the end of a long lease, such covenants may, and generally will, involve onerous burdens. It is not improbable, if this be good law, that many leasehold interests involving onerous burdens will be trans ferred indirectly to Her Majesty by the simple expedient of transferring such interests directly to a company without licence to hold lands in mortmain. (Attorney-Generalv. Parsons (1956). i AllE.K. 65.) Note :—The Court of Appeal had held that there was an automatic forfeiture of the residue of the term assignee! to Arffe, Ltd., notwithstanding that the assignment was by registered disposition and the terms of s. 80 and s. 23 of the Land Registration Act, 1925. In the House of Lords it was not necessary, in view of the majority decision, that a decision should be reached on this question. Two opinions were expressed on it. Earl Jowitt doubted the conclusion of the Court of Appeal, but Lord Morton of Henryton dissenting, considered that the Land Registration Act, 1925, did not negative forfeiture. A consequence of the present decision is, therefore, that Morelle, Lid. v. Wakelmg is over ruled in so far as it followed the ratio decidendi of automatic forfeiture, but stands as regards the effect of s. 23 and s. 80 of the Land Registration Act, 1925. Must an executor or trustee inform beneficiaries of his benefit under a mil or settlement ? Yes, said the High Court. In exercise of a special

power of appointment given to her by a settlement made in 1893, Mrs. M., by her will, appointed property to the plaintiff and C. (without words of severance). In 1930 Mrs. M. died and the plaintiff and C. (both of whom were then infants) became immediately jointly entitled to the fund appointed to them. In 1934 counsel gave a written opinion to the trustees that the plaintiff and C. took as joint tenants. The plaintiff attained his majority in February, 1939 and C. in February, 1942. The trustees of the settlement did not inform the plaintiff of his rights under the settlement and appointment and no part of the capital or income was paid to him. On March i9th, 1942, C. wrote to her solicitor asking him to pay the dividends into her account at Martin's Bank, Kensington. In September, 1942, C's share of the trust funds was transferred to her. Held by Havers, J., in an action for damages for conspiracy: (i) Immediately on his attaining the age of twenty-one years the plaintiff became entitled to receive one-half share of the income as it became payable notwithstanding that the joint tenancy had not, as regards the capital, been severed, (ii) The trustees of the settlement of 1893 were under a duty to inform the plaintiff on his attaining the age of twenty-one that he had an interest in the capital and income of the funds subject to the settlement of 1893; but there was no duty on the trustees to give the plaintiff legal advice or to inform him of his right to sever the joint tenancy, although they would be bound to disclose on demand any document relating to the trust including the opinion of counsel, (iii) The trustees were under a duty to pay the .income of the plaintiff's share to the plaintiff on his attaining the age of twenty-one years without any demand by him; and also to pay the capital to the plaintiff and C. as joint tenants on C.'s attaining the age of twenty-one years without any demand by them, or, after severance of their respective shares, to each of them without any demand. Per Havers, J.:—" Some argument was addressed to me on the question whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to income on attaining twenty-one. I can see nothing in the Trustee Act, 1925, which lays -down, or by inference indicates, that the trustees ought not to pay income to the plaintiff on attaining twenty-one, or the capital to him and his sister on both attaining twenty-one. So far as an executor is concerned, I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Lewis (1904) 2 Ch. 656) to hold that there is no legal duty on him to give notice of the terms of the legacy to the legatee. I see no reason, however, to extend this doctrine, which has no attraction for me on 94