From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1900] 2 Ch 326 (ChD). A fund to support two elderly women was raised by their friends and relatives. After both had died, it was not clear how to distribute the surplus money, which was a substantial sum. The fund could have been construed as a gift to the women, in which case the surplus would have gone to their estates. However, Stirling J. decided that there was no evidence that this is what the donors intended, and that the surplus should be held for them on resulting trust.

It is not clear that this decision can be reconciled withWestdeutsche Landesbank v Islington (1996), which asserted that a resulting trust could only arise in circumstances such as those in Abbott if the legal owners of the trust fund knew, or should have known, that they were dealing with a trust fund, and not a gift. In addition, even where there is an express trust, the court may allow the beneficiary to continue to benefit from the trust even when its express purpose is fulfilled, if this accords with the settlor's general intentions (see, for example,Re Osaba (1979)).