ANNUITY OR CASH?

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 214, 10 September 1931, Page 7

ANNUITY OR CASH?

A DAUGHTER'S LEGACY

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT,

Judgment was given by Mr, Justice Hcrdman tliis morning at tlie Supreme Court in an action heard on August 31 and September 1, in which an order was sought to. have the terms of a will varied to allow a beneficiary to be paid a sum of money, or portion ,of a sum of money, in lieu of an annuity being purchased. The plaintiff was Amy Ruby Elfreda Morris (Mr.-W. B. M. Glaister) and the defendant the Public Trustee (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), executors of the estate of William Wallace Wallis. Among the provisions of the deceased's will was one directing the trustee to invest the sum of £400 and any accumulation of income arising from time to time for a period of ten years in the purchase of an annuity for his daughter (the plaintiff). ' His Honor said a direction to apply a definite sum of money in the purchase of a life annuity was regarded as a legacy of. the sum. If, under lie;; father's will, Mrs. Morris acquired ho more than a, benefit derived from a sum of, or amount of, money invested in an annuity for life, the Inalienable Annuities Act applied. If, however, the annuity provided for lier Was what was termed a perpetual annuity, the position might be different. A consideration of the terms af the will convinced him '.that the testator intended to do. no more than provide his daughter with an income which would end with her- life. In giving judgment for defendant, his Honor said he would adjourn the matter further to enable plaintiff to file an affidavit supplying certain particulars ind facts asked for during the hearing of the action.