Cooney v Holland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1866
• Date: 19 November 1866
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

COONEY

and

HOLLAND.

Kennedy v. KingstonENR 2 Jac. & W. 431.

Bielefield v. RecordENR 2 Sim. 354.

King v. Hake 9 Ves. 438.

Woodcock v. The Duke of Doset 3 Br. C. C. 570.

Hope v. Lord Clifden 6 Ves. 499.

Lambert v. FawcettELR Law Rep., 2 Eq. 151.

Perfect v. Lord CurzonUNK 5 Mad. 442.

Emperor v. Rolfe 1 Ves. 208.

Howgrave v. Cartier 3 Ves. & B. 79.

Stolworthy v. Sancroft 10 Jur., N. S. 762.

Emperor v. Rolfe 1 Ves, 208.

Powis v. Burdett 9 Ves. 435.

Powis v. Burdett 9 Ves. 428.

Skipper v. KingENR 12 Beav. 29.

Swallow v. BinnsENR 1 Kay & Johns. 428.

Clayton v. Lord Glengall 1 Dr. & War. 17.

Farr v. BarkerENR 9 Hare, 744.

Bielefield v. RecordENR 3 Sim. 354.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 201 has been made. On the principle that, if the item had been omitted, 1866. Rolls. the client might have paid the bill without taxation. In re ABBOT AND The MASTER OP THE ROLLS.* MOORE Solicitors. It would be carrying the rule to a great length to refuse leave to - Judgment. amend a mere mistake in copying a bill of costs before it is lodged for taxation. It would be quite a different matter if the bill of costs had been lodged and the taxation had proceeded, as in the case of Re Whalley (a). I shall make the order sought for in this case ; but as there has been some negligence on the part of the solicitor, he must pay the petitioner the costs of appearing on the motion. (a) 20 Beay. 576. * The Right Hon. T. 4. C. SHUR. Nov. 13, 19. BY a settlement dated the 19th of September 1833, and executed on A fund vas limited by a the marriage of Robert Geoghegan and Mary Daniel, it was, in settlement, in e dtrust,h consideration of the said intended marria , eat and in order to make a o the g after of the provision for the said Mary Daniel during her life, in case the said survivor of husband and intended marriage should take effect, and for the issue of said wife, for the benefit of the intended marriage, agreed that a sum of 2300, secured by a bond child or child ren, or other to the trustees of the settlement, and other property conveyed to issue of the marriage, then them, should be held by them in trust after the marriage to pay the in being, as the husband and interest to Mary Daniel for her separate use for life ; and after her wife should jointly ap- decease to Robert Geoghegan for life, if he should survive her; ; and point by deed, the in default after the decease of the survivor of them, upon trust, as to tne of such apÂÂprincipal, " for the benefit of the child or children, or other issue pointment, as the survivor of the said intended marriage, then in being, in such parts, shares, should by deed or will appoint, and proportions, and at such times and under and subject to such and in default of any ap pointment, to pay the fund to such of the children of the marriage as should be living at the decease of the survivor of the husband and wife, at twenty-one or marriage. Held,-That those children only who survived both parents were objects of the power. VOL. 17 26 202 CHANCERY REPORTS. • 1866. restrictions as the said Mary...