In the dissenting opinion of Cartwright J. at p. 506-07, he observes as follows: ... I would have thought that there was a great deal to be said for the view that as at the date of his death the testator had parted with the Adelaide Street property the legacy to the appellant was adeemed and further inquiry was unnecessary, but I agree with the learned judge of first instance that the case of Hicks v. McClure is indistinguishable from the case at bar and requires us to construe the words of clause 3 as a gift not of the Adelaide Street property but of the proceeds of the sale thereof so long as those proceeds retain a form by which they can be identified as such.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.