Fitzgerald v Simpson

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date09 November 1866
Date09 November 1866
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

FITZGERALD
and
SIMPSON.

Hardman v. Ellames 2 M. & K. 745.

Adams v. Fisher 3 M. & Cr. 526.

Peyton v. LambertUNK 6 Ir. Ch. Rep. 9.

Ball v. Flanagan 6 Ir. Jur., N. S. 97.

Bate v. BateENR 7 Beav. 518.

Halliday v. Temple 8 D., M. & G. 86.

Glover v. HallENR 2 Ph. 484.

Milligan v. MitchelENR 6 Sim. 186.

Dawson v. Clarke 8 Ves. 158.

Southwell v. DalyUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 7.

Princess of Wales v. The Earl of Liverpool 1 Swanst. 580.

The Marquis of Sligo v. HildebrandUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 118.

Halliday v. Temple Ubi supra.

Merteus v. Haigh 11 W. R. 792.

Taylor v. HemmingENR 4 Beav. 237.

Halliday v. Temple 8 D., M. & G. 99.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 141 1866. Rolls FITZGERALD v. SIMPSON. Nov. 8, 9. THE petition was filed by the next-of-kin of Clarissa Hussey deceased. It stated that, by her will, dated the 10th of November 1837, she bequeathed the residue of her personal property to the respendent Richard Simpson, whom she described in the will as her long tried and affectionate friend, and appointed him executor. That the testatrix died on the 14th of August 1864. The 7th, 9th, and 10th paragraphs of the petition were as follows:- 7. " That the said Clarissa Hussey was, at the time of her decease, upwards of eighty-one years of age, and was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and very much under the control of her spiritual advisers, and was in the habit during her life of giving large sums from time to time to Roman Catholic clergymen for Roman Catholic charities ; and, in fact, the day or two after the execution of the first codicil of her will, she executed to the Rev. Dr. Moriarty, Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry, a deed of gift of 3000 for a charitable purpose, which was witnessed by the venerable Michael O'Hea, Roman Catholic archdeacon." 9. "That the respondent Richard A. Simpson was the friend and confidential solicitor of the said Clarissa Hussey, for upwards of thirty years, and she was always in the habit of consulting him in reference to the disposition of her property and in all matters of business, and was very much influenced by his advice, and placed the greatest reliance and confidence in him." Held, that the respondent was not entitled to the production of the letter, on the authority of Hardman v. Ellames (2 M. & K.). Held also, that the respondent was not entitled to a production of the letter before answer, under the 4th General Order of November 1852. Semble-To entitle a party to the production of a document ,under that Order, it is not necessary that possession of it should be admitted. Semble also-As a general rule, the Court will not, before answer, order the proÂÂduction of a document under that Order. 142 CHANCERY REPORTS. 10. "That the said respondent Richard A. Simpson is a Roman Catholic gentleman of advanced age, a bachelor, and of considerable wealth, and is also solicitor for, or trustee and director of several Roman Catholic charitable institutions ; and has frequently had legacies and estates bequeathed to him upon trust for Roman Catholic charities, and enjoys in a high...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Philips v Pennefather and Vincent
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 16 Noviembre 1868
    ...VINCENT. Hardman v. Ellames 2 Myl. & K. 732. Peyton v. Lambert 6 Ir. Ch. R. 9. Taylor v. HemingENR 4 Beav. 235. Fitzgerald v. Simpson 17 Ir. Ch. R. 141. Halliday v. TempleENR 8 De G. M. & G. 99. Halliday v. Temple; Fitzgerald v. Simpson; Turner v. BurkinshawENR 4 Giff. 399. Taylor v. Heming......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT