Casey v Lalor and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1855
• Date: 24 April 1855
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

CASEY

and

LALOR and others.

Nichollas v. Buthcer 18 Ves. 193.

Wilce v. WilceENR 7 Bing. 644.

Roe d. penwarden v. GilbertENR 3 Br. & B. 85.

Doe, Lessee WAll, v. LanglandsENR 14 East, 370.

Wrotesley v. Adams Plow. 195.

Bailis v. GaleENR 2 Ves. sen. 48.

Burton v. WhiteENR 7 Exch. 120.

Hogan v. Jackson Coop.

Doe d. Morgan v. MorganENR 6 B. & C. 512.

Noel v. HoyUNK 5 Mad. 38.

Morrison v. HoppeUNK 15 Jur. 737.

Footner v. CooperENR 2 Drew. 7.

Burton v. WhiteENR 7 Exch. 720.

Smith v. TindalENR 11 Mod. 90.

Doe d. WrightENR 8 T. R. 64.

Doe d. Crutchfield v. Pearse 1 pri 353.

Fisher v. HepburneENR 14 Beav. 626.

Roe d. Hilling v. YerrdUNK 2 B. & P., N. R., 214.

Doe d. Bunny v. RoutENR 7 Taunt. 79.

Lamphier v. Despard 2 Dr. & War. 59.

Doe d. Winder v. Lawes 7 A. & E. 195.

Doe d. lean v. Lean 1 Q. B. 229.

Lane v. StanhopeENR 6 T. R. 345.

Wilkinson v. MerrylandENR Cro. Car. 347.

Tilly v. SimpsonENR 2 T. R. 659, n.

Jongsma v. JongsmaENR 1 Cox, 362.

Timewell v. Perkins ENR 2 Atk. 102.

Roberts v. RobertsENR 7 Mees. & Wels. 382.

Doe d. Wall v. LanglandsENR 14 East, 370.

Morgan v. MorganENR 6 B. & C. 512.

Saunderson v. DobsonENR 7 C. B. 81.

Hodson 6 moo. P. C. Cas. 76.

O'Toole v. BrowneENR 3 E. & B. 572.

Roberts v. RobertsENR 7 M. & W. 382.

D'Almaine v. MoseleyENR 1 Drew. 632.

Stokes v. SalomonsENR 9 Hare, 84.

Hopewell v. AcklandENR 1 Salk. 239.

Cliffe v. Gibbons 2 Lord. Ray. 1324.

Marchant v. Twisden Gilb. Eq. Cas. 30.

Jongsma v. Jongsma 1 Cox Rep. 362.

O'Tolle v. Browne 3 El. & B. 572.

Evans v. EvansENR 9 Ad. & El. 719.

Scott v. Alberry Com. Rep. 337.

Saumerez v. SaumerezENR 4 My. & Cr. 531.

Scott v. Alberry Com Rep. 337.

The Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodsdon 6 Moo., P. C. C., 76.

Sanderson v. DobsonENR 7 C. B. 81.

COMMON LAW REPORTS.. 507 Upon the whole, we think that this demurrer ought to be allowed. We give no opinion as to whether that portion of the letter which imputes to the plaintiff a descent from a father who amassed through fraudulent means is a libel on the plaintiff or not ; we might have to decide that question if that portion were the only subject-matter of the action, but 'as the pleadings stand, it is not necessary for us to do so. H. T. 1856. ConnnonPleas. WHITE V. T YRRELL. TORRE NS, J., BALL, J., and JACKSON, J., concurred. Demurrer allowed. CASEY v. LALOR and others. M.. T. 1854.. Nov. 17, 18. E. T. 1855. April 24. EJECTMENT ON THE TITLE-tried before Mr. JUSTICE TORRENS, at A testator, by his will (made the Summer Assizes (1854), for the county of Kildare. This action before the passing of the was brought by the heir-at-law of the late James Casey, against the 7 W. 4, and 1 Vie., c. 26), representatives of the devisees under his will, to recover possession devised as fol- lows :-" To of part of the lands of Moone, in the county of Kildare. It appeared my brother that James Casey held the lands in question under a lease, dated M. C., and my sister M. the 1st of May 1807, for three lives therein named, and for the life C., conjointly, and to the sur- of the survivor ; and in case the said three lives should become vivor of either of them, the extinct or dead before the expiration of thirty-one years from the lands I hold, under the fol making of the lease, then for the portion of the thirty-one years lowing deno. minations, which should be unexpired at the time of the death of the surviving viz., the farms I hold from T. Y. P., &c., eestui que vie. the said lands Casey died in June 1828, having made his will, dated the 12th lying and of April 1828, in the following terms :-" To my brother Michael being in the townlands of , B and M. M " Casey, and my sister Margaret Casey, conjointly, and to the with the stock " survivor of either of them, the lands I hold under the following and property of every deno- " denominations, viz., the farms I hold from Captain Taylor, Mr. mination that I may be pos " Yeates, Mr. Power and Mr. Patrick Whelan,' of the city of sessed of at the time of my " Dublin ; the said lands lying and being in the townlands of decease." Held (BALL, J., dissenti ente), that the testators entire interest in the lands passed under the general word " property." 508 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T. 1854. " Moone, Birdtown and Battlemount, with the stock and property CommonPleas. " of every denomination I may be possessed of at the time of my CASEY " decease." V. LALOR. The devisees Michael and Margaret Casey were both dead, and the defendants claimed as their representatives. At the trial, the learned Judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants, reserving leave to the plaintiff to move to have the verdict changed into a verdict for him, if the Court above should think him entitled to recover. A conditional order, in pursuance of the leave reserved, having been obtained Macdonogh and Hayes, for the defendants. Under the word " property," the entire interest of the testator passes : Nicholls v. Butcher (a). The effect of the word "property" is not to be restricted in consequence of its being joined to other words : Wilce v. Wilce (b); Roe d. Penwarden v. Gilbert (c). In Doe, Lessee Wall, v. Langlands (d), it was held that the word " property," though followed by the words " goods and chattels," was sufficient to pass the realty. There, there were no introductory words. As to the word " farm," see Brooke's Abr., " Grant," pl., 1.55 ; Wrotesley v. Adams (e); 1 Stephen's Blackstone, p. 496. The rule noscitur a sociis is now much restricted, and general words must now have their effect, unless a contrary intention be manifested by the will. The following cases were also cited : Bailis v. Gale (f); BurÂÂton v. White (g) ; Hogan v. Jackson (h) ; Doe d. Morgan v. Morgan (i); .Noel v. Soy (k); Morrison v. Hoppe (1); Footner v. Cooper (m). (a) 18 Ves. 193. (c) 3 Br. & B. 85. (e) Plow. 195. (g) 7 Exch. 120. (i) 6 B. & C. 512. (1) 15 Jur. 737. (b) 7 Bing. 644. (d) 14 East, 370. (f) 2 Ves. sen. 48. (h) Coop. (h) 5 Mad. 38. (m) 2 Drew. 7. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 509 J. T. Ball and Osborne, for the plaintiff. A clear intention on the part of the testator to devise his entire property cannot be gathered from this will, neither are there any introductory words to that effect. The rule noscitur a sociis should apply. Real estate will not pass under the word " property," where that word is coupled with a particular description of personalty, and the other words do not include the entire of the personal estate. The following cases were cited : Burton v. White (a); Smith v. Tindal (b); Doe d. Child v. Wright (c); Doe d. Crutchfield v. Pearse (d); Fisher v. Hepbourne (e); Roe d. Haling v. Yerrd(f); Doe d. Bunny v. Rout (g) ; Lamphier v. Despard (h); Doe d. Winder v. Lawes (i); Doe d. Lean v. Lean (k); Lane v. StanÂÂhope (1); Wilkinson v. Merryland (m); Tilly v. Simpson(n); Jongsma v. Jongsma (o); Timewell v. Perkins (p). Cur. ad yule. Their Lordships now delivered their respective judgments. E. T. 1855. April 24. JACKSON, J. The question in this case arises on the construction of the will of James Casey, a very short, and, one would think, a very plain and intelligible document.-[Here his Lordship read the words of the will.]-It appears that the testator had some farms of land, and some stock and other articles of property. I believe few, if any, intelligent, educated farmers could doubt that, if they made a will in those words, it would convey whatever interest the testator had in his farms, and also whatever property of any description he possessed. However, we must be governed by the rules of construction which have been established by decided cases. (a) 7 Exch. 720. (b) 11 Mod. 90.. (c) 8 T. R. 64. (d) 1 Pri. 353. (e) 14 Beay. 626. (f) 2 B. & P., N. R., 214. (g) 7 Taunt. 79. (ii) 2 Dr. & War. 59. (1) 7 A. & E. 195. (k) 1 Q. B. 229. (1) 6 T. R. 345. (m) Cro. Car. 347. (n) 2 T. R. 659, n. (o) 1 Cox, 362. (p) 2 Atk. 102. 510 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1855. In this case the testator held the farm, concerning which this CommonPleas. question arises, for three lives ; and there being no words of in CASEY beritance or limitation added to the devise of the farms, the devisees V. LALOR. only take life estates to them, and the survivor of them, under the first clause. There is, therefore, a reversionary interest after their life estates, and the question is, does that reversionary interest pass under the word " property," in the second clause ? In other words, did the devisees under the will take that reversionary interest ?-or did the testator die intestate with regard to it, and did it accordingly pass to the heir-at-law ? The plaintiffs here claim in right of the heir : the defendants claim under the devisees of James-viz., Michael and Margaret Casey. We must carefully examine the terms of this will ; and I appreÂÂhend that, though it appears so simple, it may not be found so easy to form a very confident opinion upon its construction, having reÂÂgard to the ingenious and often subtle distinctions which have been taken in the cases, where similar or equivalent words have received a construction in decided cases. It must be admitted that no case has been cited, nor have I found any, in which the words "my farm" have been held sufficient in a deed or will to convey the whole interests which the testator or grantor had in the lands ; on the contrary, it has been held, I think, in a case of Roberts v. Roberts (a), that the term " farm" is only descriptive of the land, and not of the interest. We must, therefore, look for other words in the will to.carry the reversionary interests ; and those claiming under the will rely upon the words, " and property of every denomination." The heir-at-law contends that though the word " property," per se, might be sufficient to carry it, yet being associated with "stock," it must be...