| 释义 |
rule in Strong v Bird
In Strong v Bird (1874) LR 18 Eq 315, a stepmother was the tenant of her stepson. She lent him a sum of money, which was to be repaid by a reduction in the stepmother’s rent each quarter. She paid the reduced rent for only two quarters, before reverting to paying the full sum. No further repayments were made when she died, appointing her stepson as her executor. It was held that by appointing her stepson as her executor she had released him from the debt. Hence the rule in Strong v Bird: when a creditor appoints his debtor as his executor, it releases the debtor from the debt, provided that there is a continuing intention until death to relieve the debt (Re Gonin [1979] Ch 16). The rule has been extended to perfecting imperfect gifts (Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251), and it may now apply when the debtor or purported donee of the imperfect gift administers the estate as a result of the rules of intestacy (Re James [1935] Ch 449). There have been many attempts to justify the rule, but it can be seen as a rule of practicality, as the administrator of an estate obtains title to the deceased’s property and it would be difficult to force an executor to sue himself for recovery of the property. Buckley J appeared to use similar reasoning in Re Ralli’s WT [1964] Ch 288, from which it may be stated that if a trustee obtains legal title to trust property, albeit circuitously and fortuitously, the trust will still be constituted. |