Jones v Lock (1865) 1 Ch App 25

A father placed a cheque in the hand of his infant son while saying that he gave it to the child. He then took it back and retained it with his papers. The steps needed to complete an effective gift of the cheque were not taken. After the father died, the question arose whether the child nevertheless benefited under a trust. The argument relied on the father's statements and conduct as showing that he had committed the property to the child, despite retaining possession and failing to complete the attempted transfer.

Did the father's words and conduct declare a trust for the child, or merely attempt a gift that had not been effectively completed?

Lord Cranworth held that the attempted gift did not create a trust for the child. The father's words expressed an intention to give the cheque, but the gift had not been completed by the necessary transfer. They did not show a separate intention to hold the property himself as trustee. Equity could recognise a properly declared trust without consideration, but it would not recharacterise an incomplete gift merely to achieve a generous result. The claim therefore failed. The decision concerns the distinction between methods of disposition: the absence of effective transfer cannot be repaired simply by treating the donor as having chosen a different legal mechanism.

An incomplete gift is not perfected by construing it as a declaration of trust unless the words and conduct independently establish an intention to hold as trustee. Intending to give property and intending to declare oneself trustee are different methods of disposition.

Jones v Lock is a standard companion to Milroy v Lord on constitution of trusts. It prevents the requirement of effective disposition from being bypassed through a sympathetic reinterpretation of informal family words. The case does not require technical trust vocabulary where the necessary intention is otherwise clear, nor deny that a valid self-declared trust may benefit a volunteer. In a problem, identify the method actually intended and then ask whether its particular requirements were satisfied.