3- Rule in Strong v Bird

Question 1

Strong v Bird (1874)

Answer 1

Case: Mother lived with son and his wife, paying them board. Son had borrowed £1,000 from his mother and it was agreed that the debt should be repaid to her by her deducting £100 for each quarters rent.

She made deductions for two quarters and then stopped and no longer held him to the agreement and paid full board until her death.

This arrangement did not dischagre the debt because her son provided no consideration for it. BUT son later became the sole executor of her estate.

Issue: was the loan repayable from him to her estate?

Decision:

1. The transfer of the remaning debt son owed to mother was considered perfected when he was appointed as administrator, so the debt was extinguished.

2. Rule: If donor has intention to give, and intended donee obtains legal title through another capacity, this will perfect the gift.

3. Logic behind Strong v Bird: Do not actually need Equity’s assistance – title already passed/ Not essential that donor has deliberately created situation whereby title passes (indicated in Strong).

Mother in writing her will had appointed B. She had made the decision to put him in that role, however she had not done this in order to transfer title to release the debt.

Question 2

Strong v Bird Requirements?

Answer 2

1. Donor must intend to make an immediate gift or relase of debt- obvious in PQ.
2. The intent to give must be continuing- Re James, Re Gonin, Day v Royal College of Music, Re Wale
3. Legal title must vest in the intended donne- Strong v Bird (by being executor), Re James (by being administrator)
4. Property must be capable of enduring death of the donor- Re Gonin (not possible for unendorsed cheque).

Question 3

Re James (1935)

Answer 3

Case for must be continuing intention to give (was right up to death) and for title must vest in the donee (as administrator)

Case: Donee was an unpaid housekeeper of James. She had been told his house would be hers when he died. On his death his son inherited the house, and gave her the title deeds to it. The son died in testate, and she was appointed administrator of his estate by the court.

Decision:

1. The rule in Strong v Bird extends to the situation where legal title has vested in a donee fortuitously, i.e not through deliberate act of the donor. Here the court appointed her administrator.
2. Farewell- I am completely satisfied that there was a continuing intention in the donor up to the time of his death to give the property to the defendant”
3. Evaluation: This extension has been criticised because the appointment of an administrator is different to that of executor. It is not an act of the deceased- it is a matter of chance operation by law.
4. The better view is that the rule should be applied to administrators too because the rationale of the rule is that legal title has been obtained by B in a capacity that is sufficient to perfect his title to the prop, and so it is immaterial whether this occurred through the act of the testator or operation of law.

Question 4

Day v Royal College of Music [2014]

Answer 4

Continuing intention to give.

Case: Manuscripts of Sir Malcom Arnold. C able to establish that A had the intention to give him the manuscripts right up to the point of his death, even though they were not actually handed over to him.

Decision: Gift perfected when donee became (joint) executor of will.

Question 5

Re Gonin 1979

Answer 5

Continuing intention to give- not found

Case: Mother wanted to give house to daughter but believed it impossible because daughter was born out of wedlock. So left cheque of £33,000 to daughter instead, but cheques terminate on death so cannot be left in a will.Daughter appointed administratrix of estate so legal title to house vested in her.

Decision:

1. Strong could not apply. Mother had not intended to give her daughter the house because she believed she couldn’t, so there was no continuing intent.

2. Walton- intention changed when the deceased drew her cheque in favour of her daughter.

Question 6

Re Wale (1956)

Answer 6

Continuing intention to give- not found

Case: Testatrix had purported to settle certain investments, and then forgot about the settlement and treated the investments as her own.

Decision: Rule not applicable because no continuing intent to settle the investments.

Question 7

Re Ralli’s Will Trusts [1964]

Answer 7

Analogous situation to Strong v Bird.

Case: Property vested in trustee, but in capacity as trustee of other settlements.

Decision:

1. Trust constituted by vesting of legal title in trustee, doesn’t matter that happened by means other than that intended.
2. The decision did not involve the application of the Strong v Bird rule because the settlor had not intended to make an immediate gift, but an analogy can at least be drawn between them such that it should not matter in what capacity a trustee receives title to property, it is the conveyance of legal title to the trustee that will constitute the trust.