Strong v Bird Flashcards
Strong v Bird
Where an incomplete gift is made during the donor’s lifetime, and the donor appoints the
donee as executor (or in intestacy administrator) this act of vesting property in the donee
as executor/ administrator may be treated as completing the gift.
If you are loaned money/ property during donor’s lifetime but donor dies and you are
appointed executor, equity regards it as a gift that was, by appointment to executor, has
been perfected. Therefore, if you have a loan with the donor, and before it is all paid back
donor appoints you as executor – equity regards the gift as perfected.
Rationale: The executor is responsible for debts to testator’s estate; it would be illogical for the
executor to sue themselves. Therefore, equity perfects the gift to avoid an anomalous situation.
Lord Russell MR – debt had been released at common law by the appointment of Bird as
executor.
It was argued this ignores the fact trustees should not benefit from their position – Court
held equitable remedies are discretionary, and as the legatees could not show they were
more morally entitled to the money than Bird – (clear intention to forgive Bird of debt)
RESULT: an imperfect gift is perfected by the donee’s subsequent acquisition of title to the thing
intended to be given if the donor’s intention to give continues
Re Wilson
T demonstrated intention to make immediate gift of securities to son – the
transfer was incomplete at time of T’s death – son was executor of T’s will –
Key point in case was the intention to transfer the specific property immediately to the son until the time of death
Strong v Bird applied – by appointing son, assumed the transfer was intended to go through during T’s lifetime
However other properties father had promised to transfer son in the future did not fall within rule
Re Stewart
initially rule only applied for forgiveness of debt - rule was extended to include gifts of real property. It does not matter whether the donee is the only personal representative or one of several.
Re James
it was held that the same rule of transfer by operation of law applies also where there is no or a defective will, so that administrators have to be appointed.
Re Freeland
testatrix promised to give plaintiff car at future date but never did – she died and plaintiff became the executrix – claimed car
HELD: No case of perfecting an imperfect gift under Strong v Bird – there was no clear intention to make the gift up to the testatrix’s death
NB POINT: Donor must intend to make an immediate intervivos (during lifetime) gift – an intention to make a testamentary gift is NOT enough
Day v Harris (2014)
confirmed the rule is still valid and enforceable
Jaconelli (commentary)
criticises the rule as ‘a defective anomalous rule of dubious rationale.’
