Corbett v De Cantillon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1856
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
• Date: 12 May 1856

Chancery.

CORBETT

and

DE CANTILLON.

Montgomery v. M'Evoy Infra. p. 128, n.

1856. Chancery. NEWPORT v. BRYAN. Judgment. 126 CHANCERY REPORTS. to call in the trust funds, as such a necessity is explained, by the Vice-Chancellor in the passage above quoted ; and as I before said, I do not think that I should be warranted in holding that any such covenant could be spelled out from the deed. I think the only account should relate to the money actually come to the hands of the trustee, and as to the application of it; and' I must refuse to direct any account of the funds which, but for the wilful default or neglect of Mr. R. B. Bryan, might have been received, this suit not having been instituted for a period of more than six years after his decease. Reg. Lib., 17, f. 270. CORBETT v. DE CANTILLON. May 12. A. judgment ELIZA DE CANTILLON, at the time of her marriage, was seised of registered as a mortgage un- an estate tail in one-sixth part of a rentcharge of £200 per annum; der the pro visions of the charged upon the lands of Ballyvoe, and in the year 1850 inter- 13 & 14 ic., ed that c. V 290. 0, takes married with Edmond De Cantillon. It was alleg before precedence of the solemnisation of the marriage between Edmond and Eliza prior unregios- tered instru. De Cantillon, articles were executed, by which it was agreed that ments, of which the co- the said share of the annuity should be held upon trust for the nusee has no notice. separate use of Eliza De Cantillon for life, with remainders over. Statement. In the year 1851, the petitioner advanced the sum of £50, on the security of the joint and several bond, with warrant of attorney, of Mr. and Mrs. De Cantillon, and thereupon obtained several judgÂments against Mr. and Mrs. De Cantillon. On the 12th of August 1851, the petitioner made and registered affidavits in pursuance of the 13 & 14 Vic., c. 29, s. 6, setting forth the particulars of the said two judgments, and stating that Mrs. De Cantillon and Mr. De Cantillon, in her right, were entitled to the said sixth of the said rentcharge. Shortly after the registration of the said affidavits, Mr: and Mrs. De Cantillon executed a settlement, alleged to be in pursu CHANCERY REPORTS. 127 *nee of the articles before-mentioned. The petitioner had not notice, 1856. Chancery. at the time of the registration of the judgment, of any articles or set- CQRBETT tlement affecting Mr. and Mrs. De Cantillon's share of the rentcharge. v. The petition prayed that...