174 / 336
BOOK REVIEWS
Pettit (Philip H.) — Equity and the Law of Trusts —
Third Edition; Pp. cxxiii, 565. London: Butterworth,
1974; (limp) £6.20.
The fact that in 8 years there have been three
editions of this learned work speaks for itself. Professor
Pettit extended the text of the first edition published
in 1966, by 48 pages in the second edition in 1970 and
by 75 pages in the present edition. The author has
wisely omitted Mortgages and Restrictive Covenants as
pertaining to Land Law, and Administration of Assets
as pertaining to the Law of Succession. As a result he
has been able to treat the law of Trusts and Trustees
in great detail, devoting not less than 13 out of the 17
chapters in the book to this subject. Although the
amount of research into English Reports has been
most painstaking, it is quite surprising in mentioning
the Commonwealth decisions, that the better known
Irish cases such as "Knox — Barclay's Bank
(Channel Islands) v. Revenue Commissioners" —
(1963) IR, Saul's Trust—(1951) Ir. Jur. Rep., re Election
—and in Re Elwood—Fitzpatrick v. Maynooth Mission,
(1944) IR, re marshalling of charitable assets, and
Walsh v. Walsh—(1942) re presumption of advance-
ment, appear to have been omitted. Fortunately Mr.
Wylie's forthcoming book on Irish Land Law will
bring many of these Irish decisions to the notice of
English practitioners. Apart from that, Professor
Pettit has brought to our attention in the most
enlightened way all the important decisions relating
to the English Law of Trusts, and has made many
appropriate citations. Chancery practitioners will
benefit immensely, if they can master the contents
of this book, which has been so well brought out.
Thornton, C. E. and J. P. McBrien—Bui ding Society
Law; Cases and Materials; Second Edition. London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1975; xx, 174p.; paperback, £2.50.
It is well known that, apart, from Wurtzburg, there
has not been any textbook of note on the intricate
subject of Building Society Law, and the work of the
two learned solicitor authors, published under the
auspices of the Building Societies Institute, when it
first appeared in 1970, received great commendation.
Its excellence may be gauged by the fact that a second
edition has been called for in this specialised subject,
within 5 years. The first chapter headings are wisely
split up according to subject, such as Objects, Member-
ship, Rules, Directors, Meetings. The second chapter
is financial, and deals with such matters as Invest-
ments, Rights and Liability of Investors, Withdrawals,
Interest, Pass Books and Deposits. The third chapter
deals with mortgages and also
inter alia
with Advances
by Societies, Capacity of the Borrower, Creation of a
Mortgage, Rights of a mortgagee to enforce Mortgages,
Interest, the Borrowers' Covenant, Consolidation and
Mf.rchailing. Chapter 4 deals mainly with the Registrar
of Friendly Societies, Amalgamations and Office
Premises. In respect of every item mentioned, case
law is quoted in support of particular propositions. In
relation to mortgages, such up to date cases as Lloyds
Bank v. Marcan — (1973) l.W.L.R. — where the
mortgagees were granted possession because the
mortgagor granted a fraudulent lease to his wife with
intent to defraud creditors, and Cushmere Brick Co.
v. Mutual Finance Ltd. (1971) Ch.D. in which a
mortgagee, in exercising a power of sale, had not taken
reasonable precautions to ascertain the true value of
the property, and was thus refused possession, are
listed. Those who wish to learn their Building Society
Law in a relatively simple way could not do better
than study this book.
Harris, J. W.—Variation of Trusts; xv, 118p. London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1975; £1.25. (Modern Legal Studies).
The modern English legislation called the Variation
of Trusts Act, 1958, owes its origins to the decision
of the House of Lords in Chapman v. Chapman—
(1954) A.C. which decided broadly that the Court had
no inherent jurisdiction to override the Settlor's
express intentions on behalf of persons under
incapacity; it laid down that unless there were a
genuine dispute amongst the Beneficiaries about their
respective rights under the Settlement, the Court had
no jurisdiction to agree to a compromise on behalf of
persons under incapacity or unascertained beneficiaries.
Up to then it had been thought that the "Compromise
jurisdiction" was much wider. The English Law
Reform Committee published a 6th Report in 1957 on
"The Court's Power to sanction Variation of Trusts,"
and the proposals contained in the Report were largely
adopted in the 1958 Act; there is now equivalent
legislation in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. There are four distinct
jurisdictions under the Act: (1) The Conversion
Jurisdiction by which the Court may authorise a con-
version from land to money or
vice versa
, in the case
of trust property even though the trust confers no
power of conversion upon the Trustees; (2) The Salvage
or Emergency Jurisdiction recognises that the Court
had inherent jurisdiction to authorise the Trustees to
go beyond the administrative provisions of the settle-
ment in exceptional cases where this was essential to
preserve the trust; the leading case is In Re New—
(1901) 2 Ch.D; (3) The Maintenance Jurisdiction by
which the Court has inherent jurisdiction to authorise
trustees to appropriate income which the settlor has
directed to be accumulated or to be used for the
payment of debts, and to use it instead for the main-
tenance of beneficiaries who have not yet attained
vested interests in the property; (4) The Compromise
Jurisdiction previously explained. Section 57 of the
English Trustee Act, 1925, by granting wide powers to
the Court, ensured that trust property should be
managed as advantageously as possible in the interest
of the beneficirries, and is now largely superseeded by
the 1958 Act. Dr. Harris, a learned solicitor, has
succeeded admirably in summarising in a few succinct
and clear words the most intricate decision of the
1958 Act—a remarkable feat considering the difficulties
172