Brereton v Hutchinson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 March 1854
• Date: 16 March 1854
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

BRERETON

and

HUTCHINSON.

March v. Russell 3 M. & C. 13.

Hunt v. BatemanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 360.

Harding v. Grady D. & War. 340.

Francis v. GroverENR 5 Hare, 39.

Jenkins v. Roberts 22 Law Jour., N. S., 874.

Clifford v. LewisUNK 6 Mad. 33.

Dunne v. DoranUNK 13 Ir. Eq. Rep. 546.

Burke v. Jones 2 Ves. & B. 275.

Shiphard v. Lutwidge 8 Ves. 26.

Dundas v. BlakeUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 138.

Hodsden v. HarridgeENR 2 Saund. 65.

Parkinson v. Lilford Sir Wm. Jones's Rep. 450.

Cottram v. PartridgeUNK 4 M. & G. 285.

Anonymous caseENR 2 Mod. 293.

Bac. Abr. Vol. 3, p. 99.

Adair v. Shaw 1 Sch. & Lef. 243; vide 261.

Baker v. HunterENR 5 Sim. 380.

Dickenson v. Lord HollandENR 2 Beav. 310.

The Attorney General v. Higham 2 Y. & C. C. 634.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 361 band, in her right are entitled to be repaid the principal money of 1853. Chancery. such of the testator's debts as were paid out of the life estate of the minor, and which the other personal estate of the testator was LANAIIZE v. insufficient to discharge, with interest thereon from the death MALONE. of the minor. Judgment. evoNt141- Cpyrat y. 5'f8 CA, 04., BRERETON v. HUTCHINSON. • 1854. March 16. THE facts of this case are fully stated in the judgment of the Master In 1811, T. of the Rolls,(supra, vol. 2, p. 648). U. executed a bond, in which his heirs were not ,and Mr. Wm. Smith. for the appeal. bound on which he paid interest Mr. Lawson and Mr. R. R. Warren, contra. until his death, in 1820. T. H. In addition to the cases Mentioned in the Rolls and by the made his will, by which he LORD CHANCELLOR, the following were cited :-March v. Rue- left all his proÂperty to W. sell (a); Hunt v. Bateman (b) ; Harding v. Grady (c); Francis H. H., and di rected that all v. Grover (d); Jenkins v. Roberts (e) ; Clifford v. Lewis (f) ; his just debts, legacies, and 1 Eq. Abr., p. 384. funeral ex penses should be paid by W. pwhom a H. H H. The LORD CHANCELLOR. he , appointed H. ex W. This case has been brought forward before me on an appeal IIecut pro ved from an order pronounced by the Master of the Rolls, on the the will,an 'the 3rd of November 1853, by which he reversed a decretal order lands in 1821, without re ceiving a pecu niary equivalent ; he, however, paid interest on the bond until he died in 1843. The parties claiming under the deed of 1821 paid interest up to 1849, under a mistaken belief of their liability. A cause petition was filed in 1853, to recover the amount of the bond, from the representatives of W. H. H. Held (affirming the, order of the Master of the Rolls), that the claim against W. H. H., being founded on a breach of a trust created without a specialty executed by him, was a simple contract debt, and as such barred by the Statute of Limitations, 10 Car. 1, secs. 2, c. 6, s. 3 (Ii.)---[Dunne v. Doran, 13 Ir. Eq. Rep. 546, supported]. (a) 3 M. & C. 13. (b) 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 360. (e) D. & War. 340. (d) 5 Hare, 39. (e) 22 Law Jour., N. S., 874. (f) 6 Mad. 33. VOL. 3, 46 362 CHANCERY REPORTS. made by Master Murphy, and directed that the petition should be dismissed, without costs. By their appeal, the petitioners seek that the order of the Master of the Rolls should be reversed, and that I should affirm the order of Master Murphy. The -facts of the case are so fully detailed in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, of which a copy has been supplied to me by his Honour, that I do not feel it to be necessary minutely to go into them. The short outline of it is, that the petitioners seek payment, out of the assets of William Henry Hutchinson deceased, Of whom the respondents are the personal representatives, of the sum of £800 of the late currency, for which a bond was given by Thomas Hutchinson, the father of William Henry Hutchinson, on the marriage of the petitioner Anne, to the petitioner John Brereton, and Robert Kenny (who is since deceased), as trustees of the settleÂment executed on that occasion ; and they seek this relief against those assets, on this special ground, that under the will of Thomas Hutchinson the obligor, William Henry Hutchinson took estates thereby devised to him, affected by a trust for payment of the debts of .the testator, and in violation of that trust aliened those estates by his marriage settlement, so that no direct relief can now be had against them ; and they insist that this act constituted a breach of trust on his part, in respect of which his personal estate, is now liable to make good the amount of that security for £800, and interest. The petition, being in effect for the administration of the assets of William Henry Hutchinson, was referred to the Master, under the provisions of the 15th section of the Chancery Regulation Act, and he came to the conclusion that the petitioners had estabÂlished their claim, and that the demand was not barred by the Statute of Limitations, which constituted one of the defences relied on before him on the part of the respondent. The case having been brought, by appeal from this decision of the Master, before the Master of the Rolls, his Honour appears to have concurred with the Master in the views taken by him of the rights of the petitioners, except so far as regards the defence of the Statute of Limitations, which he ruled to be a valid defence. In his judgment, however, he expressly declared that he so decided the CHANCERY REPORTS. 363 ease against his own opinion, but as considering himself bound to 1854. Chancery. follow the decision of the Court of Exchequer in the case of Dunne )3RERETON v. .Doran (a). From that judgment the present appeal has been v. brought by the petitioners, and their claim has been resisted here HUTCHINSON. by the respondents, as well on the defence of the Statute of Limi- Judgm . ent tations as on the ground that in fact the petitioners had no demand against the assets of William Henry Hutchinson. To support that proposition, it is contended that, in fact, the debts of Thomas Hutchinson were not charged upon the lands devised by his will to William Henry Hutchinson ; or that if they were,. the latter was not a trustee of those lands for payment of the debts, as stated in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls. Thomas Hutchinson, by his will, devised to William Henry Hutchinson, who was his only son and heir-at-law, certain estates therein particularly mentioned, together with all the property,. real and personal, of which he should die possessed, save as therein.. after mentioned, and chargeable, as thereinafter mentioned, for ever ; and after certain bequests, not material to the present question, directed that all his just debts, legacies and funeral expenses should be paid by his said son, William Henry HutchinÂson, whom he appointed sole executor. Now, I think it is very plain that by these devises and declarations the testator intended that his debts should be charged on the lands devised ; and by the direction the they should be paid by his devisee, it is, I think, equally plain, that the latter is constituted a trustee for payment of them. The case in this respect resembles Morse v. Langham, cited at page 286 of the report of Burke v. Jones (b). It is true that in Shiphard v. Lutwidge (c) there was an express charge of debts, and so no question could then arise on that point'; but it was further held in that case that the devisee was a trustee, although there was not there, as...