Fowler v Lightburne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 January 1861
• Date: 12 January 1861
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

FOWLER

and

LIGHTBURNE.

Beaumont v. The Marquis of SalisburyENR 19 Beav. 198.

Curtis v. Price 12 Ves. 89.

Wickham v. Wickham 19 Ves. 419.

James v. Bion 3 Swanst. 234.

Owen v. FlackENR 2 Sim. & St. 600.

Parkin v. ThoroldENR 16 Beav. 59.

Roberts v. MarchantENR 1 Ph. 370.

Curre v. BowyerENR 5 Beav. 6, n.

Lewis v. RoesENR 3 K. & J. 132.

Colmore v. TuyndallENR 2 Y. & J. 622.

Williams v. WatersENR 14 m. & W. 166.

M'Culloch v. GregoryENR 3 K. & J. 12.

Radford v. Southern 1 M. & Sel. 299.

Down v. DownENR 7 Taunt. 343.

Roe v. LidwellIR 9 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 184.

Jack v. M'IntyreENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 151.

Nott v. Riccard 22 BRav. 307.

Vicars Choral v. Auyres Sir W. Jones, 435.

Lyle v. Earl of Yarborough 1 John. 70.

Parr v. Lovegrove 4 Jur., N. S., 600.

Lewis v. ReesENR 3 Kay & J. 132.

Roberts v. MarchantENR 1 Hare, 547; S. C., Phil. 370.

M'Culloch v. GregoryENR 3 K. & J. 12.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 495 1860. Rolls. Nov. 16, 17. FOWLER v. LIGHTBURNE. 1861. Jan. 12. Tan petition was filed for the specific performance of two agreements A, seised in fee, conveyed for the sale of certain lands of Ardnamore, Fordstown and Little Fords- lands to B and C, and the sur- vivor of them, town ; and the principal question in the case was, whether Stafford and the heirs of the survivor, Lightburne, the heir-at-law of Joseph Lightburne, the vendor, who for was dead, was a necessary party to the conveyance ? It was alleged A to foth lifeu,sande, of by the petitioner that the legal estate had descended to Stafford - after his de cease, to the Lightburne, on the death of his father Joseph Lightburne. The use of B and C, and the respondent Penelope Lightburne, who was the widow and devisee of survivor, and the heirs of Joseph Lightburne, contended that the legal fee had been conveyed, such survivor, upon trust to by Joseph Lightburne, to the trustees of a certain settlement of the permit and suffer D to re- 22nd of January 1810. 8 10. The question, therefore, turned entirely on ceive a join- ture, and, after the construction of that deed, which is sufficiently stated by his the death of D, then to the Honor, infra, p. 497. use of the right heirs of A.-Held, that B Mr. Brewster, Mr. Norman and Mr. Warren, for the petitioner, and C took a legal estate in argued that the trustees of the settlement only took the legal estate fee in remain der. for the life of Penelope Lightburne ; and that the purchaser was A, having made a will, entitled to a conveyance of the entire fee, both legal and equitable : devising all his Beaumont v. The Marquis of Salisbury (a); Curtis v. Price (b); property to his wife, and hav- Wickham v. Wickham (c); James v. Bion (d); Owen v. Flack (e); ing contracted to sell the Parkin v. Thorold (f) ; Roberts v. Marchant (g). lands, and afterwards died :-Held, The Attorney-General, Mr. Serjearit Sullivan and Mr. Palles, a suit for specific per- for the respondent, relied on Lord St. Leonards on Yen. Pur., formance by the purchaser, that the heir-at-law of A was not a necessary party to the conveyance, as he had no legal estate in the lands, and no equitable estate, and no right to institute a suit to set aside the contract, having regard to the will of A, devising all his property to his wife, who, if the contract was set aside, would be entitled to the lands; and, if the contract was not set aside, would be entitled to the purchase-money.-[Roberts v. Merchant explained.] (a) 19 Beay. 198. (b) 12 Ves. 89. (c) 19 Ves. 419. (d) 3 Swanst. 234. (e) 2 Sim. & St. 600. 0) 16 Beay. 59. (g) 1 Ph. 370. 496 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1860. p. 157 ; Curre v. Bowyer (a); Lewis v. Rees (b); Colmore v. Rolls. Tyndall (c); Williams v. Waters (d); M'Culloch v. Gregory (e); FOWLER v. Radford v. Southern W ; Down v. Down (g); Roe v. Lid- - LIGHTBURNE. well (h); Jack v, MIntyre (i); Nott v. Riccard (k) ; Sheph. Argument. Touch., p. 248 ; Rol. Ab., p. 54, pl. 26 ; Vicars Choral v. Ayres (1); Lyle v. Earl of Yarborough (m); Parr v. Lovegrove (n). The MASTER OF THE...