allowance could be made under sec. 107 (1) of the Act in respect of the annuity
SO far as it might accrue due and become payable after the death of the husband.
Per Rich and Dixon JJ.: Quare whether an agreement by a wife expressed in a deed of separation to live apart from her husband and not to molest or interfere with him in any way amounted to "full consideration in money or (N.S.W.)
money's worth wholly for his own use and benefit" within the meaning of sec. 107 (2) (a) of the Stamp Duties Act 1920-1931 (N.S.W.).
Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) Permanent Trustee Co. of N.S.W. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties, (1932) 32 S.R. (N.S.W.) 642, reversed. (HILL'S CASE.)
CASE STATED.
By a deed of separation executed in July 1924, the deceased, Frank Hill, covenanted with his wife that he, his executors or administrators would yearly during her life, and SO long as she should continue to observe and perform the covenants and conditions contained in the deed, pay or cause to be paid to her an annuity of £312 by equal monthly payments in advance of £26. The deceased died on 1st June 1931. His wife survived him and at the date of his death the covenant was in full force and effect, and all payments due under it up to that date had been made.
The executors of the deceased, Permanent Trustee Co. of New South Wales Ltd. and Francis Paul Couch Morris, claimed that in computing the final balance of the estate under the Stamp Duties Act 1920-1931 (N.S.W.), the Commissioner should make an allowance of the capitalized value of the annuity falling due after the death of the deceased. The Commissioner refused to accede to the executors' claim and stated that no allowance could be made other than the allowance provided for in sub-sec. 3 of sec. 107 of the Act, if and when that sub-section became applicable. The executors paid under protest the death duty as assessed by the Commissioner who, at the request of the executors, stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The material question (described in the judgments hereunder as the first question) in the case was:
Should any allowance (other than the allowance provided for in
sub-sec. 3 of sec. 107 of the Stamp Duties Act 1920-1931, if and when that section becomes applicable) be made in