Bell v Bell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 March 1872
• Date: 06 March 1872
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

BELL

and

BELL

Blowen v.Moret 2 Ves. 420.

Heath v. DendyENR 1 Russ. 543.

Stahlschmidt v. Lett 1 Sm. & Gif. 421

Lewin v. Lewin 2 Ves. 415.

Davies v. BushENR Younge, 341.

Creed v. CreedENR 11 Cl. & Fin. 491.

Foster v. smithENR 1 Ph. 629.

Playfair v. CooperENR 17 Beav. 187.

In re Tyndall 7 Ir. Ch. R. 12.

Birch v. SherrattELR L. R. 2 Ch. App. 644.

Carter v.Salt Ir. R. 1 Eq. 97.

Phillips v. Gutteridge 32 L. J. N. S. Ch. 1.

Darbon v. RickardsENR 14 Sim. 537.

Booth v. CoultonELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 684.

Sheppard v. SheppardENR 32 Beav. 194.

Baker v. BakerENR 6 H. L. C.616.

Heneage v. Lord AndoverENR 2 Y. & J. 360

Miller v. HuddlestoneUNK 3 M. & G. 513

Wright v. Calender 2 D. M. & G. 652.

Addecott v. AddecottENR 29 Beav. 460.

Baker v.BakerENR 6 H. L. C. 616.

Stelfox v. SugdenENR John. 241-2.

Carter v. Salt 1 R. 1 Eq. 97.

Stelfox v. SugdenENR John. 234.

Will — Construction — Annuity, whether charged on Inheritance or Rents — Priority.

Von. VI.] EQUITY SERIES. 239 formally drawn, it would have been in substance and effect a good Rolls. conveyance of the fee, if John Crawford had been seised in fee ; 1871. and that it is sufficient within the Statute to bar the estate tail, NELSON which it was manifestly intended to effect. V. AGNEW. Then, the only remaining question is, whether the latter obÂÂÂjection raises such a doubt on the title, that the Court, on settled principles, should not force it on the purchaser. The authorities on this point have been fully reviewed during the argument, and the rule they lay down is plain enough. I myself entertain no doubt, in any point of view, that this deed barred the estate tail ; and as I have said, I hold the first objection utterly groundless. Under the circumstances, I think that the purchaser must take the title. I think it right to add, that I have construed the deed before me strictly according to the principles of the Common Law, and as if I were a Judge trying an ejectment on the title for these lands. I guard myself against being supposed to have drawn in aid any principle of equity, to make the deed barring the entail bear a difÂÂÂferent construction from that which the principles of the Common Law would warrant. I shall make a decree declaring that the Defendant is bound to accept the title, and he must pay the costs of the suit. Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Mr. J. M. Magee. Solicitor for the Defendant: Mr. Ogle. BELL v. BELL. Rolls. Will-Construction-Annuity, whether charged on Inheritance or Rents- Priority. A testator devised all his estates to trustees upon trust-after payment of head rents and quit rents-out of the rents and profits, to pay to his wife an annuity of £300 for her life, as and for her jointure, and in lieu of £125 proÂÂÂvided for her jointure out of a part of his estates by his marriage settlement, and in bar of dower or thirds, with the usual remedies by distress or otherwise; and-subject thereto, and subject to the payment of £2500, which he charged upon and directed to be levied and raised from a part of his estates, with inÂÂÂterest from the day of his decease, and subject to another sum of £2300, from the decease of his wife-upon trust, to pay and hand over all the rest and resi! 1872. March 4, 6. THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. due of the rents and profits to his eldest son J. B., during the joint lives of him and his said wife, to and for his own use and benefit, and after the death of his wife, " subject as aforesaid," to the use of his eldest son J. B., and his heirs:- Held, 1. That the annuity of £300 was charged on the corpus of the estates : 2. That it had priority over the charge of £2500. Stelfox v. Sugden (1 John. 234), and the observations of Lord Hatherly, L. C. (pp. 241-2) distinguished. APPEAL from a decretal order pronounced by the Master in a Cause Petition matter instituted by the widow of James Bell for administration of his assets. By a settlement of the 6th of December, 1830, made on the marriage of James Bell and Rosetta Lancaster, his lands in the County of Armagh were conveyed to trustees, in trust to secure her a jointure of £125, in satisfaction of dower and thirds, with the usual powers of distress and entry; and, subject to the jointure, the lands were settled on the children of the marriage (of which there were several) as James Bell should appoint.. James Bell had considerable property, real and personal, in addition to the lands comprised in the settlement, and on the 4th of December, 1863, he made his will as follows : " I give, devise, and bequeath all lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and all moneys, goods, chattels, estate, property, and effects, as well real as personal, &c., of or to which I shall at the time of my death be possessed or entitled, &c., to, &c., upon trust thereout, in the first place, to pay and discharge all my just debts, &c. ; and subject thereto, as to, for, and concerning all my estate, &c., in the counties of Down and Armagh, &c., upon trust, in the first place, by and out of the rents and profits thereof, to pay and discharge, all or any head rents, &c.; and after payment thereof, then upon trust, out of the rents, issues, and profits thereof, to pay to my dear wife, Rosetta Bell, otherwise Lancaster, the annual sum of £300, for and during the term of her natural life, as and for her jointure, and in lieu and stead of the annual sum of £125 provided for her jointure by the settlement executed on our marriage...