courts will not enforce a contract to assign an expectancy unless there is a valuable consideration. for example, under a settlement of property the respondent "the son" would have been entitled to an equal portion of properties along with his other siblings which was gained in a settlement by his mother. this portion was only his when allocated to him at his mothers discretion. prior to this allocation being made, the respondent allotted his benefit to trustees for a voluntary settlement. he was assigning or purporting to assign something which he might become entitled to in the future, not a contingent interest. the judgment held it ineffective and elaborated on previous points to state the respondent cannot be compelled to allow the trustees to retain the appointed sum.