Welcome

Jones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25

ResourcesJones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25

Facts

  • Mr. Jones, after returning from a business trip, placed a cheque for £900 into his infant son's hand, stating, "I give this to baby; it is for himself."
  • He subsequently reclaimed the cheque and placed it in a safe.
  • Mr. Jones died soon after the incident.
  • The dispute concerned whether the cheque formed part of Mr. Jones's estate or had been held in trust for his son.

Issues

  1. Whether Mr. Jones's actions and words demonstrated a clear intention to create a trust for his son over the cheque.
  2. Whether the manner in which the cheque was given constituted a valid gift or amounted to an effective declaration of trust.
  3. Whether informal or imprecise statements can satisfy the formal requirements necessary to declare a trust.

Decision

  • The Court of Chancery held that no valid trust had been created by Mr. Jones in favour of his son.
  • The court determined that Mr. Jones's conduct and statements did not show a clear and direct intention to declare a trust.
  • The purported gift of the cheque was ineffective as a valid transfer because legal title did not pass.
  • The court distinguished between informal expressions of intent and the necessity for formal steps to create a trust.
  • Certainty of intention is essential for the creation of a valid trust; mere wishes or ambiguous statements do not suffice.
  • Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift; the formal requirements for the transfer of property or declaration of trust must be satisfied.
  • Formal language and clear steps are necessary for both the effective disposition of property and the creation of trust obligations.
  • The case highlights the distinction between outright gifts and declarations of trust, emphasizing the need for precision and certainty.

Conclusion

Jones v Lock highlights the necessity of clear intention and compliance with formalities in trust creation; informal or vague expressions of intention cannot substitute for the legal precision required, and attempts to benefit others without such formality may fail.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.