Graves v Waters

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 March 1847
• Date: 15 March 1847
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

GRAVES

and

WATERS.

Crusie v. BaileyENR 3 P. Wms. 20.

Elton v. EltonENR 3 Atk. 504.

Atkinson v TurnerENR 2 Atk. 41.

Billingsley v. WillsENR 3 Atk. 209.

Batsford v. Kebbel 3 Ves. 362.

Thickness v. Liege 7 Br. P. C. 223.

Pope v. WhitcombeENR 3 Russ. 124.

Turkerman v. JoeffresENR Holt, 370.

Armstrong v. Eldridge 3 Br. C. C. 215.

Doe d. Bswell v. Abey 1 M. Wms. 428.

MAynell v. ReadENR Pollex. 425.

Scott v. BargemanENR 2 P. Wms. 68.

Beauman v. Stock 2 Ball & Bea. 406.

Mackell v. Winter 3 VEs. 236, 544.

Skyne v. BarnesENR 3 Mer. 335.

Beauman v. Stock 2 Ball & Bea. 406.

Bromhead v. Hunt 2 J. & W. 459.

Bayard v. Smith 14 Ves. 470.

Page v. PageENR 2 P. Wms. 489.

tonENR 13 Sim. 267.

Mackell v. Winter 3 Ves. 336.

Booth v. Booth 4 VEs. 399.

Sturgess v. PearsonUNK 4 Mad. 411.

Upton v. Lord Ferrers 5 Ves. 800.

Wilkinson v. Adam 1 VEs. & Be. 466.

Phlips v. Chamberlain 4 Ves. 59.

Neilson v. Awdrey 5 VEs. 465.

Booth v. Booth 4 Ves. 407.

Leake v. RobinsonENR 2 Mer. 363.

Scott v. Bargeman Ubi sup.

Skye v. Barnes Ubi sup.

Elton v. EltonENR 3 Atk. 504.

Leake v. RobinsonENR 2 MEr. 387.

Murray v. TancredENR 10 Sim. 469.

Scott v. Bargeman 2 Wms. 68.

BarnesENR 3 Mer. 335.

Templeman c. WarringtonENR 13 Sim. 267.

Beaman v. Stock 2 Ball & Bea. 415.

Vize v. Stoney 1 Dru. & War. 348.

Mackell v. Winter 3 Ves. 536.

Booth v. Booth 4 Ves. 403.

234 CASES IN EQUITY. 184 7. . Rollin ',....wwv~••=1 NOLAN v. NOLAN. Mu. G. MALLEY moved to amend the title of the answer of the defendant Edmond John Nolan. By mistake, in engrossing the answer, the defendant had been named in the title of it "Edmond Patrick Nolan." The MASTER OF THE ROLLS refused the application, suggesting that there might be difficulty if the title of the answer was altered, and the answer should be false, in indicting the party who swore it for perjury. But his Honor gave leave to take the answer off the file, in order that the error might be corrected and the answer re-sworn (a). (a) See Thatcher v. Lambert (5 Hare, 228). 1847. Jan. 14, 15. GRAVES v. WATERS. March 15. A testatrix THE bill stated that Maria Hely Hutchinson the younger (who was bequeathed £1500 to her the sister of the plaintiff Christiana) being entitled to considerable mother for life, personal estate, and in particular to a sum of £1500 charged upon and desired that it should the estates of John Hely Hutchinson, Earl of Donoughmore, made be given share her will, dated the 28th of August 1828, duly attested, in the words and share alike between her following :-" I Maria Hely Hutchinson spinster do make this my two sisters A and B last will and testament, and bequeath to my dear mamma Maria Hely after her mo- Hutchinson the whole of my personal property, viz., £1500 sterling, ther's decease in the event of together with any other sum or sums due or belonging to me, and their surviving her; butifnei - Placed at my disposal, during the term of her natural life ; and the - *her of her sis- above-named £1500 and all other sum or sums belonging to me I ters should survive her mother, she desired that the whole of the property should be left entirely to her mother and placed at her disposal. A died before, and B survived her mother. Held-first, that the gift to A and B was contingent, on the event of both surviving their mother; secondly, that there was a gift of the entire by implication to the surÂÂvivor in case either of the sisters died in the mother's lifetime, and therefore that, in the events which had happened, B took the whole £1500, and no part of it went to A's representative. Scott v. Bargeman (2 P. Rims. 68) and Skye v. Barnes (3 Mer. 335) distinguished and approved of. 'CASES IN EQUITY. 235 desire to be given share and share alike between my two sisters Louisa Hely Hutchinson and Georgiana Hely Hutchinson after my mother's decease, in the event of their surviving her; but if neither of my above-named sisters should survive my mother, I desire that the whole of the above-named property be then left entirely to my mother, and placed at her disposal." The bill then stated that the testatrix died unmarried on the 31st of August 1828, leaving her mother, the said Maria Hely Hutchinson the elder, and her sisters Louisa Hely Hutchinson, the defendant Georgiana Hely Hutchinson (who married Edward Waters, also a defendant), and the plaintiff Christiana, her sole next-of-kin. The bill then stated that Maria Hely Hutchinson the elder, the mother of the testatrix, obtained letters of administration with the will annexed, to the testatrix, and received the interest of the said £1500 from the Earl of Donoughmore down to the time of her death, which happened in April 1846; and by her will she appointed the defendant Georgiana Waters her executrix, who obtained proÂÂbate of said will ; that Louisa Hely Hutchinson, the sister of the said testatrix, died in 1830 intestate and unmarried, leaving her mother and the defendant Georgiana Waters and the plaintiff Christiana her sole next-of-kin, her surviving ; that the said Georgiana had obtained letters of administration to her sister Louisa, and administration de bonis non to her sister, the testatrix Maria Hely Hutchinson the younger. The bill then submitted to the Court that inasmuch as Louisa died in the lifetime of her said mother, and the bequest share and share alike to the said Louisa and Georgiana of the said. sum of £1500 and the other personalty had been made contingent upon the event of their both surviving their said mother, which event did not happen ; and inasmuch as the said Georgiana survived her said mother, and the bequest of the property to the testatrix's mother was contingent on the event of her said mother surviving both said Louisa and Georgiana, which event never happened, the testatrix Maria Hely Hutchinson the younger, in the events which had taken place, had died intestate, and that the plaintiff Christiana, as one of the next-of-kin of the said Maria (or Richard Corker Graves, her husband in her right), had become entitled to one moiety of the £1500, and the other personal estate of the said Maria Hely Hutchinson the younger, the defendant Georgiana, as the other next-of-kin of said Maria, or her husband in her right, being entitled to the other moiety. The bill then charged that if it was to be considered that Maria 1841. Roos. GRAVES WATERS. Statement. 236 CASES IN EQUITY. Hely Hutchinson the younger did not die intestate as to the whole of her property, yet that one moiety only of the £1500 and the other personal estate of said Maria vested in Georgiana, and that either the share of Louisa never vested in her at all, in consequence of her death in her mother's lifetime, or that if it did vest in her, the...