Arnott v Arnott

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: M. R.
• Judgment Date: 10 November 1905
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Docket Number: (1905. No. 800.)
• Date: 10 November 1905

Arnott

and

Arnott (No. 2).

M. R.

(1905. No. 800.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1906.

Will — Charity — “Religious purposes” — Scotch law.

A testator bequeathed to his trustees a sum of money, upon trust to invest it and apply the income for such religious purposes as his trustees and the Bishop of C. for the time being should, in their uncontrolled discretion, think fit. By a clause in the will immediately preceding this bequest the testator bequeathed a like sum of money to his trustees for the benefit of such charitable institutions connected with the counties of C. and D. as his trustees and the Bishop of C. for the time being should, in their uncontrolled discretion, think fit, irrespective of creed:—

Held, that the words “religious purposes” meant religious purposes which were charitable, and that the bequest was not void for uncertainty.

Grimond v. Grimond ([1905] A. C., H. L. Sc., 124) is a decision upon Scotch law, and does not affect the rule laid down in White v. White ([1893] 2 Ch. 41), and earlier cases, that a bequest for a religious purpose is prima facie a bequest for a charitable purpose.

Adjourned Summons.

Sir John Arnott, of Woodlands, Cork, Baronet, by clause 8 of his will, dated August 11, 1897, bequeathed to his trustees the sum of £20,000, free of legacy duty, upon trust that his trustees should invest the same, and apply the annual income thereof for the benefit of such charitable institutions in, or connected with, the city or county of Cork, as to £10,000, and the county and city of Dublin as to £10,000, as his trustees and the Protestant Bishop of Cork for the time being should, in their uncontrolled discretion, think fit, irrespective of creed.

By clause 9 the testator bequeathed to his trustees the sum of £20,000, free of legacy duty, upon trust that his trustees should invest the same, and apply the annual income thereof for such religious purposes as his trustees and the Protestant Bishop of Cork for the time being should, in their uncontrolled discretion, think fit. By clause 10 the testator empowered his trustees to postpone payment of legacies for twenty years after his death, interest at 4 per cent. to be paid on them meantime. By clause 11 the testator devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate to his trustees, upon trust, for sale, and to hold the proceeds, after payment of debts and legacies, upon trust, as to one-third for his wife during widowhood, and subject to appointment by her for all his children by her living at her death or second marriage, and the issue of any deceased child in equal shares, and as to one other third upon trust for his eldest son, John; and as to one other third for all his children living at his death, other than his eldest son, in equal shares. By clause 13 the testator provided that the shares of residue given to any son of his should be invested, and the income only paid to such son till he should die, or assign, or incumber, or attempt to assign or incumber, the same, and in such event should be applied for the benefit of such son and his wife and issue, in the discretion of the trustees, and in default of wife or issue, in favour of the other or others of his children, with a power to accumulate, and an ultimate gift on the death of such son upon such trusts as such son should by will appoint.

By codicil to his will, after reciting that by clauses 8 and 9 of his will he nominated the Protestant Bishop of Cork, for the time being, with his trustees to be the persons according to whose discretion the application of two legacies of £20,000 each for charitable and religious purposes, respectively, was left, the testator revoked the appointment of the Protestant Bishop of Cork, for the time being, and, in lieu thereof, appointed the Rev. Canon Harley to be the person, with his trustees, according to whose discretion the legacies under clauses 8 and 9 of his will should be applied.

The testator died on March 28, 1898, and his will was proved on April 13th, 1898, by his widow, Emily Jane, Lady Arnott, and his eldest son, John Arnott, the executrix and executor therein named, who were also appointed trustees of the will. The persons interested in the testator's residuary estate, at the date of his death, were the following:—His widow, the defendant, Lady Fitzgerald Arnott (1), his sons, the plaintiffs, Sir John Arnott, and David T. Arnott, and his daughters, Rosina Johnson and Margaret Arnott,

now Margaret Rowden, children by his first marriage; and his sons, Loftus Percival Arnott, Maxwell Arnott, and Mangerton Arnott, and his daughters Jessie Arnott, Lily Arnott—now Lily Rogers—Florence Arnott, Mary Mabel Arnott, and Emma Arnott—now Emma Bloomfield—children by his marriage with the defendant, Lady Fitzgerald Arnott. Mangerton Arnott died on December 16, 1901, and his will was proved by the defendants Leslie A. Johnson and William Morrogh. Mary Mabel Arnott was an infant.

By the last clause in his will the testator directed that if a question of difficulty arose, touching the carrying into effect of the trusts of his will, the same should be submitted by his trustees for the decision of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland.

Interest at 4 per cent. on the said two sums of £20,000 was applied, year by year, by the trustees for the benefit of charitable institutions and religious objects pursuant to the will.

On March 6, 1905, in Grimond v. Grimond (1); the House of Lords held, reversing the decision of the Second Division of the Court of Session, that where a testator directed his trustees to divide portion of the residue of his estate to and among such “charitable or religious institutions and societies as they might select,” the bequest was void for uncertainty. Sir John Arnott was advised that if the decision in that case was of general application and not confined to Scotch law, it made the validity of the bequest in clause 9 doubtful, and that it was, therefore, desirable to take the opinion of the Court thereon.

A summons was accordingly taken out on behalf of Sir John Arnott, as plaintiff, to determine whether the bequests in clauses 8 and 9 of the will were valid.

The defendants to the summons were Lady Fitzgerald Arnott and the persons interested in the residue, already mentioned, and the Attorney-General as representing charities.

The summons was adjourned into Court.

Ronan, K.C....