Fitzmaurice v Sadlier

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1848
• Date: 20 November 1848
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

FITZMAURICE

and

SADLIER.

Doe. v. MarchantUNK 7 Scott, N. R. 644, 656.

Ravens v. TaylorENR 4 Beav. 425.

Doe v. MartinENR 1 N. & M. 512; S. C. 4 B. & Ad. 771.

Daly v. KirwanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 312.

Jenkins v. CrossENR 15 Sim. 76.

Blackburn v. StanilandENR 15 Sim. 64.

Lloyd v. Johnes 9 Ves. 37.

Harris v. PollardENR 3 P. Wms. 348.

Atwood v.ENR 1 Russ. 353.

Willet v. SandfordENR 1 Ves. Sen. 186.

Hitchins v. BassetUNK 1 Show. 537; Cases in Parlt. 146.

Coward v. Marshall Cro. Eliz. 721.

Murch v. MarchantUNK 7 Scott, N. R. 656.

Persse v. DalyUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 508.

Duffield v. Duffield 3 Bl. N. S. 345.

Hearle v. HicksUNK 1 Moo. & Sc. 768.

Hearle v. Hicks p. 764.

Shepperdson v. Tower 1 Y. & Col. C. C. 456.

Willet v. SandfordENR 1 Ves. sen. 186.

Doe v. MarchantUNK 7 Sc. N. R. 644.

Miles v. Clarke 1 Kee. 92.

Hearle v. HicksENR 8 Bingh. 476; S. C. 1 M. & Sc. 759.

Murch v. MarchantUNK 7 Scott, N. R. 644.

Holder v. Howell 8 Ves. 97.

544 CASES IN EQUITY. defective in that respect in directing the share of the residue to be paid to the trustees of the settlement. I think this share of the residue was not affected by the codicil ; but it passed under the will, and is to be governed by the meaning which the word unmarried has in the will. The administrator of the son is therefore not entitled to any portion of this residue. Reg. Lib. 99, fol. 365, 1848. FITZMAURICE SADLIER. Nov.15, 20. A by his will devised certain lands to B and his heirs in trust for the use of his son R. for life, remainder to B to preserve contingent remainders ; remainder to the first and other sons of R. in tail male, with remainÂÂders over. A by a codicil, reciting that by his will he had devised these lands to It. and his heirs on the trusts therein mentioned, proceeded thus : -" I do hereby revoke that part of my will whereby I devised the said lands unto my son R., and I hereby devise, &c., the said lands unto my sons W. and R. and to the survivors of them and the heirs of such surviÂÂvor," upon certain trusts thereafter mentioned, " and to and for no other use, &O., whatever ; and I do hereby ratify and confirm my said will in all its parts save so far as it has been revoked and altered by this present codicil, which is to be taken as part of my said will." The trusts of the codicil did not exhaust the fee, and were such as might be satisfied during the life of It. Held, that the life estate of It. alone was completely revoked, and that, subject to the new trusts, the remainder to his sons in tail was unaffected by the codicil. The rules limiting the extent of revocations effected by codicils considered. * See Fitzmanrice v. Sadlier, ante, vol. 9, p. 595. CASES IN EQUITY. 545 his devisee or heir-at-law, but as devisee thereof under the limita- 1848. y. tions of the will of Richard Sadlier. The question raised on this Chancer branch of the case was, whether the will of Richard Sadlier, F - ITZ MAURICE whereby the defendant R. W. R. Sadlier would have taken an v. IE R. estate tail on the death of William Sadlier in those lands, was SA.DL revoked by the codicil of R. Sadlier so as to give an estate in fee Statement. to William Sadlier ? The case was fully argued at the Rolls,* and his Honor was of opinion that the codicil revoked the estate tail given by the will, and that the legal title in fee-simple in the lands was vested in the defendant. The plea was afterwards allowed to stand for an answer, and the cause was now heard on bill and answer. The will and codicil of Richard Sadlier, so far as material to the present question, will be found in the report of the case at the Rolls and in the judgment of the LORD CHANCELLOR. The Attorney-General, Mr. Christian and Mr. Burroughs, for Argument. the plaintiff. Mr. Greene, Mr. Brewster and Mr. William Smith, for the defendants. The arguments were the same as those at the Rolls. The folÂÂlowing additional cases were cited :-Doe v. Marchant (a); Ravens v. Taylor (b) ; Doe v. Martin (c); Daly v. Kirwan (d); Jenkins v. Cross (e); Blackburn v. Staniland (f) ; Lloyd v. Johnes (g); Harris v. Pollard (h); Atwood v - (i); 1 farm. on Wills, p. 160 ; White on Revivor, p. 119. The LORD CHANCELLOR. Nov. 20. This case comes before me on bill and answer. The bill professes Judgment. to be a bill to carry into execution against R. W. R. Sadlier a decree pronounced against William Sadlier, who is dead, and whose (a) 7 Scott, N. R. 644, 656. (b) 4 Bear. 425. (c) 1 N. & M. 512 ; S. C. 4 B. & Ad. 771. (d) 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 312. (e) 15 Sim. 76. (1) 15 Sim. 64. (g) 9 Ves. 37. (h) 3 P. Wms. 348. * Ante p. 136. (i) 1 Russ. 353. 1. pp. 144, 145. 69 546 CASES IN EQUITY. 1848. personal representative and heir-at-law R. W. R. Sadler is. The Chancery. defendant resists the execution of that decree, on the ground that in FITZ respect to the beneficial interest in the lands in question, though MAURICE v. they were bound by the decree in the hands of William Sadler, yet SADLIER. they are not so bound in the hands of the defendant R. W. R. Judgment. Sadlier, because the matters which he puts forward show that his estate is not derived through William Sadlier, but is an estate tail taken by him under the trusts of the will of Richard Sadlier his grandfather. It is perfectly plain that under that will the defendant R. W. R. Sadlier would take an estate in tail male on the death of his father Richard Sadlier. The devise is quite clear and technical. The lands of Cloughready are devised to Shadwell Hickman and his heirs, in trust for the use of Richard Sadlier for his life, then to Hickman to preserve contingent remainders, then to the use of the first son of the body of Richard and the heirs male of the body of such first son, and then to the second and other sons in tail male, and in default of such issue then to William Sadlier for life with remainder to his first, and other sons in tail male. The present defendant is the first son of the body of Richard, and therefore prima facie entitled to an estate tail under that devise. The defendant sets out the will of Richard Sadlier and the codicil, and insists that the latter does not revoke the devise in the will so far as regards this estate tail, but which the plaintiff insists it did revoke. The question therefore whether the defendant is bound in this supplemental suit depends upon the construction of this codicil. To understand this question it is necessary to go minutely into the consideration of both the will and codicil, and consider what was done by each. The will devises the land, as I have said, to Richard for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail, remainder then to William for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail, and an ultimate remainder to two grandsons of the name of Saunders. This is as to the lands of Cloughready, Coolnadown and FarranaÂÂcroghney. The next property is Sollohedmore ; this he gives simply _ to his son Richard, his heirs and assigns. Golden Garden is held,,for lives renewable for ever, and that he also gives to Richard, his heirs and assigns. So that under the will Richard Sadlier took an estate CASES IN EQUITY. 547 for life in the first devised lands, an estate in fee in the second, and an estate in quasi fee in the third. The next property mentioned in the will are the lands of Chantersland, which was a chattel interest, and was subject to an annuity of 200 a-year for the testator's daughÂÂter, Mrs. Armstrong, and he bequeaths all his interest in these lands, subject to a further annuity of 50 for Mrs. Armstrong, to his son Richard, and in case they shall prove insufficient to the payment of that annuity, then it is to stand charged on the lands of Cloughready, the subject of the first devise. The next devise is of the lands of Barrenstown and Roesborough to William, upon which no question arises ; and then follows the devise of Burntfurze to both his sons Richard and William and their heirs as tenants in common. The will then notices a policy of insurance for 3000 on the life of his son William Sadlier, effected for his own purposes, and it directs that the annual premiums on the policy shall be paid equally by...