Supreme Court Gives Decision On Intestate Farmer’s Estate

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27403, 16 July 1954, Page 9

Supreme Court Gives Decision On Intestate Farmer’s Estate

It was held by Mr Justice McGregor, in a reserved decision given in the Supreme Court yesterday, that a deed of assignment signed in 1937 by some of the beneficiaries in the estate of r -ui r d James Vanstone, a farmer, of Little River, had no valid or legal effect. His Honour also held that the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate, may property proceed to sell the land belonging to the estate in accordance with the order made by Mr Justice Hay on October 18, 1951 and further authority to sell should riot now be given to the Public Trustee. The case was heard on July 6 when the Public Trustee, as plaintiff, was represented by Mr A. C. Perry. Mr Th °mpson appeared for the Public Trustee as statutory administrator of the estate of Harriet Anna Vanstone, a daughter of Richard Vanstone. Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for seven members of the family and for the Public Trustee as statutory administrator of the estate of another member of the family. Richard James Vanstone died on April 13, 1900, without making a will. He was survived by his widow and 11 children, whose ages at that time ranged from a few months to 21 years, said his Honour in his judgment. Ten of the children were still alive. The widow of Richard Vanstone died on September 14, 1948, leaving a will by which she bequeathed the whole of her estate to the daughter, Harriet Anna Vanstone.

On the death of Richard Vanstone, his widow did not make application for letters of administration of his estate. She and the family continued to reside at the farm and, with the assistance of the older members of the family, carried on the farming operations until 1940, when both she and her daughter Harriet, who were then living at the farm in a derelict building partly destroyed by fire some years before, were committed to a mental hospital. They remained there for only a short period and were discharged “unrecovered.”

Until 1923 the widow apparently had no full information as to the distribution of her husband’s estate, said his Honour. At the time of his death the main asset was the small farm and the net estate amounted to than £lOO. In 1937 the Public Trustee prepared a deed of assignment with the intention that nine of the 10 surviving children should assign their interests in the estate to the widow and that the son Rupert, who would not agree to such a course, should be paid his share in cash. In the meantime the value of the farm had increased to about £2OOO, said his Honour. Eight of the children signed this deed, but the daughter Harriet Anna Vanstone refused to sign the deed. It Was retained by the Public Trustee, undated and unstamped. The questions which the Court was asked to answer were: had Harriet Anna Vanstone any valid claim as a creditor of the estate directly or as the sole beneficiary under the will of her late mother Harriet Ellen Vanstone? Had the document purporting to be a deed of assignment any valid or legal effect? Could the plaintiff properly proceed to sell the farm belonging to the estate pursuant to an order made by Mr Justice Hay? Should further authority to sell be given to the plaintiff? His Honour answered the last three questions as stated above. On the first question, his Honour said he had intimated at the commencement of the hearing that the validity of Harriet Anna Vanstone’s claim against the estate for more than £lO,OOO should not be adjudicated on in these proceedings.

There would be liberty to apply to the Court in regard to that question. His Honour said that the plaintiff was entitled to costs out of the estate and no order was required. As statutory administrator of the estate of Harriet Anna Vanstone, the Public Trustee would be allowed 25 guineas costs and disbursements, and the parties represented by Mr Mahon would be allowed 30 guineas costs and disbursements.