Page 1

9 of 12 DOCUMENTS
Saunders v Vautier
LORD CHANCELLOR'S COURT
[1835-1842] All ER Rep 58; [1835-42] All ER Rep 58
HEARING-DATES: 2, 4, 5 JUNE 1841
5 June 1841
CATCHWORDS:
Will - Vesting - Postponed gift - Accumulation of dividends - Payment to be made on beneficiary attaining
twenty-five.
HEADNOTE:
By his will the testator bequeathed to his executors and trustees all the East India stock which should be standing in
his name at his death on trust to accumulate the dividends until his great-nephew, V, should attain twenty-five, and then
to transfer the principal, together with such accumulations, to V, his executors, administrators, or assigns absolutely.
The will also contained a residuary bequest. The testator had 2,000 pounds East India stock standing in his name at his
death.
Held: V took an immediate vested interest in the legacy although he was a minor at the testator's death and, the
stock, with its accumulations, would be transferred to him on his attaining the age of twenty-five,
Petition for re-hearing.
By his will, the testator, Richard Wright, gave and bequeathed to his executors and trustees thereinafter named all
the East India stock which should be standing in his name at the time of his death, on trust to accumulate the interest
and dividends which should accrue due thereon until Daniel Wright Vautier, the eldest son of his (the testator's)
nephew, Daniel Vautier, should attain his age of twenty-five years; and then to pay or transfer the principal of such East
India stock, together with such accumulated interest and dividends, unto Daniel Wright Vautier, his executors,
administrators or assigns absolutely; and the testator gave, devised, and bequeathed all his real estates, and all the
residue of his personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever, to his executors and trustees thereinafter named, their heirs,
executors, administrators and assigns, on trust to sell and convert into money all his real and personal estates
immediately after his decease, and to invest the produce arising therefrom in their names in the 3 pounds per cent
consolidated bank annuities, and to stand possessed thereof on trust for Daniel Vautier and Susannah his wife, and the
survivor of them, during their respective lives, and from and after the decease of the survivor of them, on trust for their
children, equally, when and as they should severally, being sons, attain the age of twenty-one years, or being daughters,
attain that age or be married, with the consent of their trustees and guardians, and in the meantime to apply the interest
and dividends of the respective shares of such children for their benefit, education or maintenance; and in case any child
should die before attaining a vested interest in the fund, then the testator directed that the share of the child so dying

Page 2
[1835-1842] All ER Rep 58; [1835-42] All ER Rep 58

should go and survive to the others. The testator nominated and appointed his friends John Saunders and Thomas
Saunders his executors and trustees. The testator died on 21 March 1832, at which time a sum of 2,000 pounds East
India stock was standing in his name. The executors, having proved the will, left that sum standing in the testator's name
but invested the dividends on it, as they accrued, in the purchase of like stock in their own names.
Shortly after the testator's death, this suit was instituted by the executors against Susannah Vautier and her children
(Daniel Vautier having died in the testator's lifetime) for the purpose of having the trusts of the will carried into
execution under the direction of the court; and a decree was made directing the usual accounts. A petition was
afterwards presented on behalf of Daniel Wright Vautier, who was then a minor, praying the appointment of a guardian
and an allowance for his past and future maintenance. The usual reference having been directed, the Master, by his
report, found, among other things, that the petitioner's fortune consisted of the sum of 2,277 pounds 6s 7d East India
stock, being the 2,000 pounds
with the accumulations thereon since the testator's death, and of one seventh share of the testator's residuary estate,
which would be divisible on the death of the petitioner's mother. He also found that the petitioner had been educated
and maintained since the death of the testator by his mother, and that she had properly expended in such maintenance
the sum of 338 pounds 2s, which he found ought to be paid to her by sale of a sufficient part of the 2,277 pounds 6s 7d
East India stock; and that the sum of 100 pounds per annum would be a proper sum to be allowed for the maintenance
and education of the petitioner for the time to come during his minority, and that it should be paid out of the dividends
of the East India stock. By an order of SIR CHARLES PEPYS, MR, dated 25 July 1835, that report was confirmed and
carried into effect, and in pursuance of that order the trustees continued during the minority of Daniel Wright Vautier to
pay the sum of 100 pounds out of the dividends of the stock, for his maintenance. Daniel Wright Vautier attained
twenty-one in March 1841, and being then about to be married, he presented a petition to the Master of the Rolls
praying that the trustees might be ordered to transfer to him the East India stock, or that it might be referred to the
Master to inquire whether it would be fit and proper that any and what part of the stock should be sold, and the produce
thereof paid to the petitioner, regard being bad to his intended marriage and for the purpose of establishing him in
business. The attention of the Master of the Rolls being called to the order of 25 July 1835, he declined to deal with the
question raised on the petition so long as that order remained; and it was arranged that the petition should stand over for
the purpose of enabling the other residuary legatees to present an appeal petition from that order to LORD
COTTENHAM, LC, which was done, the appeal petition praying that the order of 25 July 1835, might be discharged or
varied. The Lord Chancellor declined to deal with it as there was nothing to prevent the Master of the Rolls disposing of
the petition before him, notwithstanding the order of 25 July 1835. It was then arranged that a similar petition be
presented to the Lord Chancellor, and that the argument should proceed as if such petition were actually before the
court.
NOTES:
Notes
The periods for which accumulations of income under a settlement or other disposition are permitted are laid down
by s 164 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (20 HALSBURY'S STATUTES (2nd Edn) 771) and s 13 of the Perpetuities
and Accumulations Act, 1964 (44 HALSBURY'S STATUTES (2nd Edn) 884).
Distinguished: Curtis v Lukin (1842) 5 Beav 147. Considered: Leeming v Sherratt (1842) 2 Hare, 14. Applied:
Rammell v Gillow (1845) 15 LJ Ch 35; Re Colson's Estate (1853) 22 LTOS 183. Distinguished: Joy v Aspinwall (1854)
23 LTOS 206. Applied: Re Smith's Will (1855) 20 Beav 197. Distinguished: Oddie v Brown (1859) 4 De G & J 179.
Applied: Re Jacob's Will (1861) 29 Beav 402. Considered: Pearson v Dolman (1866) LR 3 Eq 315. Applied: Re Bevan's
Trusts, [1886-90] All ER Rep. 706. Distinguished: Re Jobson, Jobson v Richardson (1889) 44 Ch D 154. Applied: Re
Johnson, Mills v Johnston, [1894] 3 Ch 204; Harbin v Masterman, [1894] 2 Ch 184; Wharton v Masterman, [1895-9]
All ER Rep 687; Re Thompson, Griffith v Thompson (1896) 44 WR 582. Distinguished: Berry v Geen, [1938] AC 575.
Referred to: Lister v Bradley (1841) 1 Hare 10; Festing v Allen (1844) 5 Hare, 573; Packham v Gregory (1845) 4 Hare,

Page 3
[1835-1842] All ER Rep 58; [1835-42] All ER Rep 58

396; Re Rouse's Estate (1852) 9 Hare, 649; Chance v Chance (1853) 16 Beav 572; Re Colson's Will Trusts (1853) 2 Eq
Rep 257; King v Isaacson (1853) 1 Sm & G 371; Petty v Petty (1853) 22 LJ Ch 1065; Laxton v Eedle (1854) 19 Beav
321; Lonsdale v Berchtoldt (1854) Kay, 646; Re Clulow's Trusts (1859) 28 LJ Ch 696; Gosling v Gosling (1859) John
265; Ingram v Suckling (1859) 33 LTOS 89; Dundee v Wolfe Murray (1863) 1 Hem & M 425; Re Baxter's Trusts
(1864) 4 New Rep 131; Hilton v Hilton (1872) LR 14 Eq 468; Weatherall v Thornburgh, [1874-80] All ER Rep 382; Re
Judkin's Trusts, [1881-5] All ER Rep 979; Re Wrey, Stuart v Wrey (1885) 30 Ch D 507; Harbin v Masterman, [1895-9]
All ER Rep 695; Re Travis, Frost v Greatorex, [1900] 2 Ch 541; Re Nunburnholme, Wilson v Nunburnholme, [1912] 1
Ch 489; Re Jefferies, Finch v Martin, [1936] 2 All ER 626; Re Blake, Berry v Geen, [1937] 1 All ER 742; IRComrs v
Hamilton-Russell Executors, [1943] 1 All ER 474.
As to conditional gifts out of personal estate, see 39 HALSBURY'S LAWS (3rd Edn) 1129 et seq; and for cases see
44 DIGEST 444 et seq.
CASES-REF-TO:
Cases referred to:
(1) Vawdry v Geddes (1830) 1 Russ & M 203; Taml 361; 8 LJOSCh 63; 39 ER 78; 44 Digest 1095, 9447.
(2) Booth v Booth (1799) 4 Ves 399; 31 ER 203; 44 Digest 1087, 9381.
(3) Love v L'Estrange (1727) 5 Bro Parl Cas 59; 2 ER 532, HL; 44 Digest 1054, 9063.
(4) Monkhouse v Holme (1783) 1 Bro CC 298; 28 ER 1143; 44 Digest 1065, 9181.
(5) Hanson v Graham (1801) 6 Ves 239; 31 ER 1030; 44 Digest 1087, 9382.
Also referred to in argument:
Leake v Robinson (1817) 2 Mer 363; 35 ER 979; 44 Digest 1056, 9092.
Knight v Knight (1826) 2 Sim & St 490; 57 ER 433; 44 Digest 1088, 9386.
Batsford v Kebbell (1797) 3 Ves 363; 30 ER 1055, LC; 44 Digest 1087, 9380.
Judd v Judd (1830) 3 Sim 525; 57 ER 1095; sub nom. Judd v Hobbs, 8 LJOSCh 119; 44 Digest 1069, 9221.
Newman v Newman (1839) 10 Sim 51; 8 LJ Ch 354; 59 ER 531; 37 Digest (Repl) 127, 544.
Branstrom v Wilkinson (1802) 7 Ves 421; 32 ER 171; 44 Digest 1101, 9503.
Lane v Goudge (1803) 9 Ves 225; 32 ER 589; 44 Digest 1091, 9417.
Boraston's Case (1587) 3 Co Rep 16 a; 76 ER 664; 44 Digest 1041, 8972.
Manfield v Dugard (1713) Gilb Ch 36; 25 ER 26; sub nom. Mansfield v Dugard, 1 Eq Cas Abr 195; sub nom.
Mansfield v Mansfield, 2 Eq Cas Abr 363, LC; 44 Digest 1041, 8975.
Goodtitle d Hayward v Whitby (1757) 1 Burr 228; 1 Deny 506; 97 ER 287; 44 Digest 1047, 9018.
COUNSEL:
Wigram and Wood for Daniel Wright Vautier.; Anderdon for the trustees.; Richards for the residuary legatees.

Page 4
[1835-1842] All ER Rep 58; [1835-42] All ER Rep 58

PANEL: LORD COTTENHAM LC

JUDGMENTBY-1: LORD COTTENHAM LC:
JUDGMENT-1:
LORD COTTENHAM LC:
I should not have thought this a case of any difficulty, but the form in which it came before me, namely, a
re-hearing of an order made by me at the Rolls, though not, as I at first understood, at the suggestion of SIR CHARLES
PEPYS, MR, has called on me to give it my most careful attention. I have no recollection of the case, and have no
means of knowing how far my judgment was exercised on the construction of the will. I cannot, however, assume that
the order was made without my having considered the state of the property as stated in the Master's report, as that would
have been contrary to the course which I have always thought it my duty to adopt in such cases.
It is argued that the testator's great-nephew, Daniel Wright Vautier, does not take a vested interest in the East India
stock before his age of twenty-five, because there is no gift but in the direction to transfer the stock to him at that age.
But is that sot There is an immediate gift of the East India stock; it is to be separated from the estate and vested in
trustees; and the question is whether the great-nephew is not the cestui qua trust of that stock. It is immaterial that these
trustees are also executors; they hold the East India stock as trustees, and that trust is to accumulate the income till the
great-nephew attains twenty-five, and then to transfer and pay the stock and accumulated interest to him, his executors,
administrators or assigns. There is no gift over; and the East India stock either belongs to the great-nephew or will fall
into the residue in the event of his dying under twenty-five. I am clearly of opinion that he is entitled to it. If the gift
were within the rule, there would be circumstances to take it out of its operation. There is not only the gift of the
intermediate interest, indicative, as
SIR JOHN LEACH observes in Vawdry v Geddes (1) of an intention to make an immediate gift because, for the
purpose of the interest, there must be an immediate separation of the legacy from the bulk of the estate; but a positive
direction to separate the legacy from the estate, and to hold it on trust for the legatee when he shall attain twenty-five.
The decision in Vawdry v Geddes (1) and other cases, in which there were gifts over, cannot affect the present question.
Booth v Booth (2) is certainly a strong case and goes far beyond the present, and so does Love v L'Estrange (3) which is
a decision of the House of Lords. That case has many points of resemblance to the present; and although LORD
ROSSLYN, in Monkhouse v Holme (4) seems to question the principle of that decision, SIR WILLIAM GRANT, in
Hanson v Graham (5) justifies it on grounds, most of which apply to this case, particularly that the fund was given to
trustees till the legatee should attain a certain age and that it should then be transferred to him; from which and other
circumstances he thought it was to be inferred, that the fund was intended wholly for the benefit of the legatee, although
the testator intended that the enjoyment of it should be postponed till his age of twenty-four. Such, I think, was clearly
the intention of the gift in this case.
It was observed that the transfer is to be made to the great-nephew, his executors, administrators or assigns. It is
true that the addition of those words does not prevent the lapse of a legacy by the death of the legatee in the lifetime of
the testator, but they are not to be overlooked when the question is whether the legacy became vested before the age
specified; because, if it were necessary that the legatee should live till that age to be entitled to the legacy, then there
would be no question about his representatives at that time.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the order of 1835 was right, and that the petition of re-hearing must be dismissed,
and with costs; which I should not have ordered, if the Master of the Rolls had recommended the parties to adopt that
proceeding on a view of the merits of the case, but which I am now informed was not the case. The order for a transfer
of the funds on the regular evidence of the legatee having attained twenty-one will follow this decision on the
construction of the will.

Page 5
[1835-1842] All ER Rep 58; [1835-42] All ER Rep 58

DISPOSITION:
Petition dismissed.
[June 5. A petition having been presented, pro forma, the costs of all parties to the petition and, by consent, of the
petition at the Rolls were ordered to be paid out of the fund.]