Bestall v Bunbury
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 03 June 1862 |
Date | 03 June 1862 |
Court | Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland) |
Ch. Appeal.
Mara v. ManningUNK 3 Jon. & L. 311; S. C., 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 218.
Johnson v. Gallagher 7 Eng. Jur., N. S., 273.
Hughes v. WellsENR 9 Hare, 749.
Stead v. NelsonENR 2 Beav. 245.
Shaw v. Steward 1 Adol. & Ell. 300.
Box v. JacksonUNK Dru. 42; S. C., 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 174.
Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York 1 Myl. & Cr. 547.
Donne v. Hart 2 Russ. & Myl. 360.
Crofts v. MiddletonENR 8 De G., M. & G. 192.
Butcher v. ButcherENR 14 Beav. 222.
Headen v. RosherENR 1 M'Cl. & Y. 89.
Batt v. Cuthbertson 4 Dr. & War. 393.
318 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1862. Ch. Appeal. Court of ppraiI in ebanttrp. BESTALL v. BUNBURY. THIS was an appeal from an order of the Master of the Rolls, who had reversed the decision of Master Fitz Gibbon ; and the question in the cause, and which was the subject of discussion on the present appeal, was, whether a certain mortgage, of the 20th of May 1857, to which the respondent Lucy Bunbury was a party, created a valid charge upon her interest in the mortgaged premises, viz., an estate for her separate use, contingent upon the insolvency of her husband, which event had not happened when the mortgage was executed. The principal facts were as follows :-By a postnuptial settlement, dated the 25th of May 1853, made between John Bunbury of the first part, Lucy Sunbury of the second part, Arthur Neville, the father of said Lucy, of the third part, and John Thorp and FredeÂrick William Baily of the fourth part, the said John Bunbury assigned to the trustees certain premises in Baggot-street, in the city of Dublin, and in Kingstown, held for a term of lives and years, and three annuities, charged on lands in the county of Carlow; and the said Arthur Neville assigned to the same trustees certain premises in Seville-place, North Anne-street and Campbell-place, in the city of Dublin, held for terms of years, upon trust to permit the said John Bunbury and his assigns to receive the rents of all said proÂperties during his life, or until he became bankrupt, or took the benefit of any Act for the relief of Insolvent Debtors, or assigned his property for the benefit of his creditors, or otherwise failed in his circumstances ; and from and after the happening of any such events, or from and after the decease of the said John Bunbury, whichever should first happen, then, and in case the said Lucy Bunbury should be then living, upon trust to pay to the said CHANCERY REPORTS. 319 Lucy Bunbury and her assigns, during the term of her life, the 1862. yearly rents arising out of said several premises. And it was pro Ch. Appeal. vided that, in case of the happening of any of the events aforesaid...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James Russell Keays and John Keays, Infants, by Thomas Hennesy Crofts, Their Next Friend, Petitioners. James Lane, Robert P. Russell, John Graham, Christopher John Keays, Samuel Keays, and Eliza Keays, His Wife, Respondents
...M. & G. 609. Taylor v. TabrumENR 6 Sim. 281. Mara v. Manning 8 Ir. Eq. R. 218. Luther v. Bianconi 10 Ir. Ch. R. 194. Bestall v. Bunbury 13 Ir. Ch. R. 318. Raby v. Ridehalgh 7 Dc G. M. & G. 109. Taylor v. TabrumENR 6 Sim. 281. Atwood v.ENR 1 Russ. 353. Mara v. ManningUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 218. ......
-
The Earl of Charlemont v Spencer
...Noble v. WillockELR L. R. 8.Ch. App. 778, 787. Bernard v. MinshullENR Johns. 276. Brownrigg v. Pike 7 Prob. Div. 61. Bestall v.Bunbury 13 Ir. Ch. R. 318. Mara v. ManningENR 1 Bro. C. C. 16. Peacock v. Monk 2 Ves. 190. Married woman Will Future separate estate Assent of husband. LAW REPORTS ......
-
The Estate of Francis Smallman and Maria C. Smallman, His Wife, Owners; Francis T. Butler, Petitioner
...v. Byrne Cited in In re Casey's Trusts. Lester v. GarlandENR 5 Sim. 205. Mara v. ManningUNK 2 J. & Lat. 311. Bestall v. Bunbury 13 Ir. Ch. R. 318. Keays v. Lane I. R. 3 Eq. 1. Taylor v. Meads 34 L. J. Ch. 203; 13 W. R. 394. Pride v. BubbELR L. R. 7 Ch. App. 64. Married woman — Realty — ......