CO129-557-12 Armstrong and Turner v. Estate Duty Commissioner- appeal to Privy Council 18-5-1936 - 2-10-1936 — Page 109

125

is applied, for instance, to cases where the surviving

spouse had en annuity simpliciter under the will of the

other spouse.

This statement by ao ominent an authority as Dymond

is, on the face of it,üls turbing, but the wording of the

paragraph in question leaves it open to doubt whether the

author purports to make a statement as to the law or

whether he is stating a practice of the Inland Revenue

Authoritier in Bagland.

notes amar

The cases cited by the parties are dealt with at some

length in the/ Judguats of his monour Sir Atholl MacGregor,

Chief Justice, and those of the eting Chief Justice (ur.

Lind sell) md the Acting ruisne Judge (är. Hayden) who

constituted the Full Court, and it seems unnecessary to

deal further with them in these instructions.

•

After the hearing by the fall wourt and before

judgment by that Court the appellants expressed a wish to bring to the notice of the Court the case re Booth, (1916)

1 Ch. 349, 114 ew imes sports 438. To this the

respondent's advisers consented sa the osse was brought

to the notice of the Court in the letter to the Registrar

dated 6th zebruary, 1966, which appears on pages 27 and 28

of the record.

The contentions of the parties as regards this

are fully set out in the latter and the respondent's

advisure consider that the fhots of this oase afford en

apt illustration of an annuity carved out of #lready settled

funda so distinguished from an annuity simplieiter.

-10-