Is a father obligated to transfer shares to his son by way of a divorce settlement?

In the case at bar the father incurred an obligation to benefit the son by way of a divorce settlement. In the father's lifetime he has as a result of the 1961 trust agreement transferred to the son a total number of Conick shares in excess of that which he was required to transfer under the 1959 agreement. The principles which apply to the marriage settlement cases may also apply in this case to the extent that, in the words of the Lord Chancellor in Wood v. Briant supra, it would be "unnatural" to suppose that the father intented to benefit the son to the extent that he would receive the full number of shares set out in the 1959 agreement in addition to the shares he received as a result of the 1961 trust. I would not go so far, however, as to say that in this case there should be a prima facie finding of satisfaction, given that the obligation was incurred under a divorce settlement for the benefit of a third party.