H v O
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | [1974 No. 4040 P.] |
| Date | 01 January 1980 |
(S.C.)
H
and
O
Lands - Legal right - Powers of personal representative - Widow of testator seeking particular division of lands -Executor not bound to exercise general powers at demand of beneficiary - Partition Act, 1868 (31 32 Vict. c. 40), s. 4 - Succession Act, 1965 (No. 27), s. 55.
The plaintiff, the widow of a testator, elected to claim her statutory share of his estate (which included agricultural land) instead of accepting the dispositions in her favour contained in the will of the testator. As the plaintiff resided in a dwelling on the land, she requested the executor of the will pursuant to the special provisions of s. 56 of the Succession Act, 1965, to exercise his powers of appropriation so as to divide the land...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 cases
-
Trinity College Dublin v Kenny
...the relevant circumstances” including those set out in s. 4(2) of that Act. 36 That was also the view of McWilliam J. in C.H. v D.G.O'D. [1978] 1 IR 194, where he considered that while a temporary depreciation in value was not in itself a good reason to refuse sale, it might be sufficient i......
-
Messitt v Henry
...S55(1) SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S55(10) SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S55(18) SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S56(3) HICKEY V ROCHES STORES LTD 1980 ILRM 107 H V O 1978 IR 194 SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S10(3) BEVERLY, RE: WATSON V WATSON 1901 1 CH 681 Synopsis Succession Succession; appropriation; deceased had died intes......
-
Strong (plaintiff) v Holmes, Holmes and Holmes
...deceased, within the meaning of s. 111(1) of the Succession Act of1965. 62 As to how "one half" could be construed HenchyJ. in H. v. O: [1978] I.R. 194 held at 204: "But nowhere in the [Succession] Act is there any specific statement as to how the personal representatives are to discharge t......