3.

Rule in *Strong V Bird

 Intention to release a debt or make a gift is manifested and affected, by appointing

the debtor or donee as executors of the creditors or donors of the will.
 Under the rule in Strong V Bird – until the time of his death, testator maintains a
continuing intention to make a gift,
- The requirement to transfer the legal title can be fulfilled by vesting the legal title
in the donee as executors by the operation of law on the death of the donor.
- Appointment of the intended donee as executor perfects the intention of the
donor and thereby it completes the gift.
 Facts in brief
- Defendant borrowed from the step mother £1000.
- Step mother stayed in the house, paying 200.
- Defendant agreed to accept 100 and the remaining 100 was deducted in order to
pay the debt.
- Stepmother out of her generosity, continued to pay the full amount. (this
amount to release of the debt)
- Later she appointed the defendant as the sole executor of the will.
- It was argued, that the defendant’s attempt to release the debt was ineffective
since it was not made by deed.
- It was nothing more than a bare promise not to sue.
- Held – there was evidence that, up until the moment of her death, testatrix has
had a continuing intention to release the debt.
- The fact that the creditor continued to pay 200 was sufficient evidence.
- This rule will apply even though there are more than one executors since the
entire legal estate vests in each executor.

 This rule extends beyond the release of debt to imperfect transfers of all kind of
property.

Shihan Ananda
  In *Re Stewart it was held – any ineffectual gift made to each persons, who later
becomes donor’s executor was perfected by his appointment as such.

Need for the continuing intention.

 In *Re Freeland
- Testatrix promised to give P a motor car at a future debt.
- However he never did so.
- Subsequently, lent it to a friend.
- It remained with the friend until her death.
- Upon testatrix death, Plaintiff became Testatrix’s executor, and claimed that the
imperfect gift had been perfected following Strong V Bird.
- Held – no continuing intention.
- Intention was negative by lending the property to a friend.

 *Re James
- Rule was extended to administrators (appointed by courts)
- Imperfect gif of real property was perfected when the donee was appointed as
one of two administrators of his estate.

 It is not been expressly decided as to whether the rule applies where executor or
beneficiary acts as trustee, rather than beneficiary.
 In *Re Wale such objection was never made. And Parker and Mellows say it is highly
likely that the rule will apply in such a situation.

Shihan Ananda
4. Rule in *Re Ralli’s WT.

- Wife was covenanted in her marriage settlement, to transfer any existing or after
acquired property.
- She got a reversionary interest after he mother’s death which her father left to
her mother.
- She never transferred the property as per the covenant and died.
- There was a sole trustee of the marriage settlement and the same person was
the executor of the will. And he became the legal owner of the reversion.
- It was contended that, wife ought to have transferred the property when she
first received it.
- *And the property became subject to the settlement trust by fortuitious since
the trustee of the settlement was the same person as the executor of the will.
 However it is worthy of noting that, the rule in Re Ralli is different from Strong V
Bird. Due to below stated reasons.*
1) Rule in Re Ralli is only an Obiter statement in the first instance case.
2) It applies even though there is no continuing intention.
3) Rule applies to an unperformed promise to give rather than for a failed
donation.
 Moreover the rule in Re Ralli is appeared to be inconsistent with Re Brooks ST.
 It is therefore questionable whether Re Ralli should be followed and whether it
reflects correct modern law.

Shihan Ananda