The Court held that substantial funds transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant over several years, including $575,000 used to purchase rural property, were gifts for a predominant charitable purpose — establishing a rural subsistence community — and not held on resulting trust for the plaintiff. The purpose of creating a self-sustaining community providing free food to the broader public was found to constitute a valid charitable trust under the fourth head of Pemsel, notwithstanding the unconventional and esoteric terminology used by the parties and the incidental benefit to the defendant's family of having a place to live. Claims of undue influence and unconscionable conduct were rejected on the facts, with the Court finding the plaintiff was a willing and enthusiastic participant who was not under any special disadvantage.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.