CO129-557-12 Armstrong and Turner v. Estate Duty Commissioner- appeal to Privy Council 18-5-1936 - 2-10-1936 — Page 107

123

In support of their contention they cite :-

A.G. v. Owen (1899) 2 4.B. 253.

Re Campbell (1902) 1 K.B. 113.

Re Weller (1916) 1 ch. 153.

A.G. v. watson (1917) 2 K.B. 427.

A.G. 7. Robinson (1893) 1 4.B. 293.

Re Booth (1916) 1 Ch. 349; 114 L.T.R. 498.

They refer to 13 Halsbury 229, Hanson's Death Duties,

8th Adn. 105 and Eymond's Death Duties, 7th edn. p.262.

They do not suggest that the whole of the residuary

estate is settled, but they contend the t there is a settlement

a slice of the residue - the "nɔtional fund" which would have

aufficed to meet the nnuity.

The appollen ta argue that if there were an express

direction to get muide a sum to meet the annuity there would

bo a settlement and the t it is a hair-splitting distinction

if auch & direction abould mko e settlement and e discretion

to set asi us should not do 80.

They further content tint es equity looks on that as done

which ought to have been done, equity will come to their aid

and any chate the residuery Legate night have come to the

Court and dernded epproprie tion (Harbin v. Masterman (1896)

1 Ca. 351), sanity will come to their add and regard the

notional fund es having been appropriated and set aside

although the trustees A1 not in hot mke any such appropria-

tion.

The appellants further contend that on the construo ti on

of the ill as a whole, the discretionery power conferred on

the trustees by olause 13 may be regarded as mere machinery

(Carmichsal v. Ose. 5 e.c. 588 at p.593) and that the words

in clause 8 "subject to mking provision for the payment of

any annuities" emount in fact to a direction to appropriate.

The respondents contend that we have here a case of the