By the will of M., who died in 1867, the period of distribution of his residuary estate (called his " 'trust estate' ") was fixed as at the death of his last surviving child. The general plan of disposal of the trust estate provided, until the death of the last-surviving child, for the division of the income amongst M.' S children, substituting upon the death of each up to the last survivor, the children of the deceased's child as the recipients of the share of income which their parent otherwise would have received. The will then declared that when and so soon as the whole of his children should be dead the trustees should call in investments and sell the trust estate and should hold the trust estate " "upon trust for such of the issue then living of any child or children of mine who being a son or sons have attained or who shall attain the age of twenty-one years or being a daughter or daughters have attained or shall attain that age or have been or shall be married as tenants in common in a course of distribution according to the stocks and not to the number of individual objects the issue of deceased children taking by substitution as tenants in common the respective shares only which their deceased parent would if living have taken and should there be no child or children issue of any or either of my children living at the period of distribution of my trust estate then I give devise and bequeath the same unto my nephews and nieces sons and daughters of my two sisters" (naming them) " in equal shares and proportions as tenants in common and not as joint tenants." The testator was survived by seven children the last of whom died on 5th April 1940. Each of the seven surviving children had children (grandchildren of the testator) who

65 CLR 640

survived the testator. Before the period of distribution some of these grand- children had died. Of those who had died, some had left children (great grandchildren of the testator). Of these great grandchildren some died before the period of distribution leaving children (great great grandchildren of the testator) who were living at the period of distribution. Two grandchildren of the testator (cousins of each other) had intermarried. Both were dead at the period of distribution but three of their children (great grandchildren of the testator) were then living. All seven children of the testator had issue living at the period of distribution.

(1) That as it did not appear that the word issue was intended to be used in the secondary or restricted meaning of "children," the trust should be construed as a stirpital limitation to lineal descendants of the testator, unrestricted in point of degree of propinquity and

(2)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Matthews v Williams

Details

AGLC: Matthews v Williams [1941] HCA 32
Case: [1941] HCA 32
Decision Date: 7 November 1941

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Matthews v Williams* concerned the interpretation of a will made in 1867 by a testator who died in the same year. The dispute arose over the distribution of the testator's residuary estate, referred to as the "trust estate," which was to be distributed upon the death of the testator's last surviving child. The testator's will established a plan for the distribution of income among his children and, upon their deaths, to their children. The core of the dispute involved the ultimate beneficiaries of the capital of the trust estate. The appeal was brought from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the term "issue" as used in the trust of the corpus of the estate meant only "children" or extended to remoter descendants, and how the distribution was to be made "according to the stocks." Specifically, the court had to determine if the term "issue" was intended to be used in a restricted sense, and if so, what that restriction entailed. Further questions concerned the meaning of "children" within the phrase "issue of deceased children" and the precise stage at which the distribution "according to the stocks" was to commence.

The High Court determined that the word "issue" in the trust of the corpus was not intended to be restricted to "children" but rather encompassed all lineal descendants of the testator, without limitation as to degree of propinquity. The court reasoned that the prima facie legal meaning of "issue" is "descendants," and while this meaning can be restricted by clear indications in the will, such indications were not sufficiently strong or unambiguous in this instance. The court found that a specific provision regarding "issue of deceased children taking by substitution" logically implied that remoter issue, such as great-grandchildren, were intended to be included, as it referred to a deceased parent who would have taken a share. The court also interpreted "according to the stocks" to mean a stirpital distribution, commencing with the testator's children as the primary stirpes.

The High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. It held that the trust estate was to be distributed among all lineal descendants of the testator living at the period of distribution, provided they met the age or marriage qualifications. The court found that descendants tracing their lineage through two stocks were entitled to share by representation in the interests their respective deceased parents would have taken. The court also concluded that the gift over to nephews and nieces would only take effect upon a total failure of issue at the period of distribution.

Orders