A WIDOW'S CONSENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 232, 1 October 1925, Page 6

A WIDOW'S CONSENT.

a * TO SALE OF LAND. NO BREACH OF TRUST. A question raised in the Supreme Court as to whether the trustees of Thomas Rawson. deceased, committed a breach of trust when they, without the consent in writing of his widow, sold certain land which formed part of his estate, was settled this morning by Mr. Justice Herdman. The widow of deceased, Mary Rawson (Mr. P. J. O'Regan, instructed by Mr. J. J. Sullivanl, raised the question in an action against the surviving trustees, Joseph Rawson and Alfred Andrew Martin (Mr. V. R. Meredith). The trustees were appointed to the office by a deed of appointment dated October 4, 191(i.

j It was claimed by the plaintiff' that | before land could be sold by the trustees j the precedent consent in writing, of testator's widow was necessary, first, because of a provision in the will which I vested the testator's real and residuary personal estate in the trustees upon a ' trust which declared in the following j language: — ! Upon trust with the consent in writing of my wife while she shall continue ;my j v.-idow and any son of mine shall be under i the age of 21 years, or any daughter of mine shall be under that age, not having hoon married, and afterwards in the discretion of my trustees to sell, convert, ami get in such real and residuary personal estate, but with full discretionary power to suspend, so long as my said wife shall continue my widow, or any child of mine, being a son. shall be under the age of 21 years, or, being :i daughter, shall be under that age not having been married, the sale, conversion, or getting In of my said estates, or any part, or parts thereof, respectively. Second, because it was contended that tho Settled Land Act, 190 S. made the consent of the widow, who was tenant for life, necessary. His Honor did not think that the clause in the will meant that, notwithstanding that the children had all attained their majority, the consent of tbe widow to a sale of land was still indispensable. With regard to the other question raised by the plaintiff, his> Honor said it seemed to be quite clear that the consent of a tenant for life to the sale of settled land was necessary when a power to sell only was conferred upon the trustees by the will. His Honor was satisfied that in the present ease tliere was a direction to the trustees to sell. If the wife continned to be testator's widow, a"d {he children were under the age of 2), the wife's consent to a sale was necessaty. because the testator had so provided, but should the wife cease to be testator's widow, or the children attain the age of 21, then, in his Honor's opinion, the wife's consent was no longer necessary, for the trustees were directed to sell, with power to suspend the sale so long as testator's wife should continue his widow, or so long as any child, being a son, should be under the age of 21, or. being a daughter. should be under that age, not having been married. The testator seemed to have had it in his mind that the widow's consent was desirable till cither of two events happened, but that it would serve no good purpose after one event or the other had happened. His Honor accordingly held that when the trustees sold the land the consent of the widow was not necessary.