Handcock v Handcock

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date19 May 1851
Date19 May 1851
CourtHigh Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

HANDCOCK
and

HANDCOCK.

UNK Vide 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 472.

Hyde v. Morley Cro. Eliz. 40; S. C. And. 133.

Humfrey v. Harneage Cro. Eliz. 756.

Iggulden v. May 9 Ves. 325.

Solly v. ForbesENR 2 Brod. & Bing. 38; S. C.4 Moo. 448. That case has been inadvertently omitted in the report in 10 Ir. Law Rep. of the argument in Handcock v. Handcock before the Common Pleas. It was cited there on behalf of the judgement creditors.

Nicholson v. RevillENR 4 Ad. & El. 683.

Averall v. Wade Ll. & G. temp. Sug. 252.

Hartley v. O'Flaherty Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 208.

Thompson v. HarrisonENR 1 Cox, 344.

Bernal v. DonegalENRENR 3 Dow. 133; S. C. 1 Bli. N. S. 594.

Henry v. Jones Alc. & Nap. 14.

Carroll v. Cooke 1 Jebb & Sy. 33.

O'Neill v. BrowneUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 131.

Barrow v. Gray Cro. Eliz. 551.

Hyde v. Morley Cro. Eliz. 40.

Neate v. Duke of Marlborough 3 Myl. & Cr. 417.

Hartley v. O'Flaherty Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 208.

Harbert's caseUNK 3 Rep. 14, b.

Ross v. Pope Plowd. 72.

Trot v. Spurling Moo. 811, pl. 1097.

Hawkshaw v. Parkins 2 Swanst. 550.

ENR ENR Vide Dean v. Newhall, 8 T. R. 168; Hutton v. Eyre, 6 Taunt. 289.

Lindo v. LindoENR 1 Beav. 496.

North v. Wakefield 18 L. J., N. S., Q. B. 214.

Solly v. Forbes 2 Bro. & B. 38.

Hutchinson v. Savage 2 Ld. Ray. 1306.

Butcher v. Butcher 1 Bos. & P., N. R. 113.

Hodges v. Smith Cro. Eliz. 623.

Smith v. MaplebackENR 1 T. R. 446.

Burgh v. PrestonENR 8 T. R. 486.

Ayloffe v. ScrimpshireUNKENRENR 1 Show. 46; S. C. Comb. 123, 124; 2 Salk. 473.

Thimbleby v. BarrowENR 3 M. & W. 210.

Forde v. Beach 5 Dow. & L. 610

Farran v. Ottiwell 2 Jebb & Sy. 150.

Henry v. Jones Alc. & N. 14.

Carroll v. Cooke 1 Jebb & Sy. 33.

Donohue v. Firman 1 Jones Exch. R. 511, 512.

Mannix v. Gray 1 Jebb & Sy. 42, n.

White v. White Ibid.

Keane v. Barry 8 Ir. Law Rep. 211.

Hannor v. MaseENR Hob. 283.

Brewster v. Kitchell Salk. 198.

Angell v. Angell 9 Q. B. 328.

Payler v. HomershamENR 4 M. & S. 423.

Lampon v. CorkeENR 5 B. & Ald. 611.

Wilford v. MorrisENRUNK 2 Lev. 214; S. C. 2 Show. 47.

Upton v. Upton 1 Dowl. P. Ca. 400.

Thompson v. LackENR 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 540

Solly v. Forbes 2 Brod. & B. 38.

Nicholson v. RevillENR 4 Ad. & E. 683.

Exparte Glendinning Buck. 517.

AnonymousENR 1 C. P. Coop. 609, Appx.

Philpott v. BriantUNKENR 1 Moo. & P. 754; S. C. 4 Bing. 717.

Nicholls v. NorrisENR 3 B. & Ad. 41.

Exparte Gifford 6 Ves. 805.

Kearsley v. ColeENR 16 M. & W. 128.

Hatchell v. Cremorne Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 236.

Hatchell v. Cremorne Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 236.

Barnes v. RacsterENR 1 Y. & C., C. C. 403.

Aldridge v. ForbesUNK 4 Jur. 20.

Averall v. Wade Ll. & G. temp. Sug. 252.

Brown v. Lynch 2 Jo. Exch. R. 706.

Gilmore v. Shuter Sir T. Jo. 108.

Towler v. ChattertonENR 6 Bing. 258.

Couch v. Jeffries 4 Bur. 2460.

Kay v. GoodwinENR 6 Bing. 576

Altham's caseUNK 8 Rep. 152.

Trot v. Spurling Moo. 811.

Ross v. Pope Plowd. 72.

Hyde v. Morley Cro. Eliz. 40.

Altham's caseUNK 8 Rep. 153, b.

Dean v. HindENR Cro. Eliz. 797; S. C. Yelv. 12.

Very v. Carew Moo. 535, pl. 700.

Hickson v. CollisUNK 10 Ir. Eq. rep. 447.

Hyde v. Morley Cro. Eliz. 40; S. C. And. 133.

Barrow v. Gray Cro. Eliz. 551.

Ross v. Pope Plowd. 72.

Everard v. Herne Littleton's rep. 191.

Payler v. HomershamENR 4 M. & S. 423.

Upton v. Upton 1 Dowl. Prac. Cases, 406.

Solly v. Forbes 2 Brod. & B. 38.

Everard v. Herne Littleton's Rep. 191.

Kearsley v. ColeENR 16 M. & W. 135.

Thompson v. LackENR 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 551.

Thompson v. LackENR 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 540.

Henry v. Jones Alc. & Nap. 14.

Carroll v. Cooke 1 Jebb & Sy. 33.

Adams v. The Heir and Terretenants of SavageENR 2 Salk. 601.

Mannix v Gray 1 Jebb & Sy. 42,n.

White v. White Ibid.

Averall v. Wade Ll. & G. temp. Sug. 252.

Hartley v. O'Flaherty ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 208.

Barnes v. Racster 1 Y. & Col., C. C. 403.

Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113

Keane v. Barry 8 Ir. Law Rep. 211.

Heighington v. GrantENR 1 Beav. 228

Hartley v. O'Flaherty Beatty, 61; S. C. on appeal, L1. & G. temp. Plunk. 208.

Averall v. Wade L1. & G. temp. Sug. 252.

Vide supra, pp. 474, 475.

Long v. ShortENRENR 1 P. Wms. 403; S. C. 2 Vern. 756.

Eyre v. GreerENR 2 Coll., C. C. 527.

Cook v. ArundelENR Hard. 87.

Webber v. SmithENR 2 Vern. 103.

Sir William Harbert's caseUNK 3 Rep. 11.

Barnes v. RacsterENR 1 Y. & C., C. C.401.

Bugden v. BignoldENR 2 Y. & C., C. C. 377.

Averall v. Wade L1. & G. temp. Sug. 252.

Treatise on Vendors p. 1028.

Deacon v. SmithENR 3 Atk. 323, 326.

Freemoult v. DedireENR 1 P. Wms. 429.

Hartley v. O'Flaherty Beatty, 61; S. C. L1. & G. temp. 208.

L1. & G. temp. Plunk. 219.

Ibid, 225.

444 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1850. Chancery. Feb. 25,26,28. May 24,25,27. 1851. HANDCOCK v. HANDCOCK. Feb. 28. May 3, 5, 19. W. H. being WILLIAM HENRY HANDCOCK being, previously to and in the year seised ofan estate tail in 1824, seised of an estate in tail male in possession in the lands of Whiteacre, Carrintrilly, &c., several judgments were in Trinity Term in that certain judg- ments were year recovered against him, viz.-first, a judgment obtained by obtained against him in Walter Peter in the penal sum of £1600; secondly, a judgment 1824. Upon his marriage, in the penal sum of £1500, obtained by John Egan and Henry subsequently in that year, Derinzy ; thirdly, a judgment obtained by the same John Egan in Whiteacre was settled upon the penal sum of 12000 ; fourthly, a judgment obtained by Thomas him for life, . . with remain- Gillespie in the penal. sum of £600 ; fifthly, a judgment obtained tees over for the benefit of by Elias Robinson Handcock in the penal sum of £290 ; sixthly, the issue of another judgment obtained by the same person in the same amount. the marriage ; and a recovery was suffered to the uses of the settlement. In 1825 W. H., by purchase, acquired Blackacre in fee. In 1826 several other judgments were obtained against him. In 1829 the plaintiff agreed to lend to W.H. £2000 upon mortgage of his fee in Black-acre, and of his life estate in Whiteacre, provided that the judgment creditors of 1824 would release Blackacre from their judgments, to which they assented, and then (1829) executed a deed-poll, which recited that W. H. being desirous to have Blackacre clear of incumbrances, had requested the judgment creditors of 1824 to release it from the incumbrances thereupon by their judgments ; and that they, being satisfied that the residue of W. H.'s lands were a sufficient security for their judgÂments, agreed thereto ; and by the operative part they released, exonerated and for ever discharged Blackacre from their respective judgments, and from all writs of execution and executions, and every other writ then sued out, or thereafter to be sued out, against Blackacre, by virtue of their respective judgments, or otherwise in relation thereto ; and they agreed (for their respective judgments only) to indemnify W. H. for all costs, damages and expenses which should at any time be incurred by reason of Blackacre being attached in execution under those judgments. AfterÂwards W. H. executed the proposed mortgage to the plaintiff. Held, that both at law and in equity the operation and effect of the deed-poll of 1829 was to exonerate Whiteacre as well as Blackacre from the rights and remedies of the judgment crediÂtors of 1824. A scire facias under O'Neill's Act, issued subsequently to the execution of the above mentioned release, and to the death of IV. H., at the suit of one of the above mentioned judgment creditors of 1824, against the three infant daughters of W. H. (who were tenants in tail of Whiteacre under the marriage settlement of 1824) as his co-heiresses-at-law, and against certain other persons as terretenants of White-acre. The Sheriff in his return stated that he had summoned the three infants, " co-heiresses of the above named W. H., deceased," and also that he had sumÂmoned the terretenants of Whiteacre specially named in the sci. fa., and testified that there was not any other heir or heiress of 'W. H., and that he (the Sheriff) had not served any other terretenants of Whiteacre, or of any other lands of W. H., except those specially named in the sci fa. Judgment of revivor was obtained on default. Held, that the original judgment was by the revivor re-established as against CHANCERY REPORTS. 445 The firstly named judgment was, by an indenture of the 28th of March 1829, assigned to William Elias Handcock (the plaintiff). The secondly named judgment having by assignment become vested in Cecilia Mangan, ultimately devolved, as did also that thirdly named; upon Sarah Egan as executrix of James Egan, in whom both of those judgments had been duly vested by assignment. The fourthly named judgment became vested in Henry Richard Gillespie as administrator of Thomas Gillespie. The fifthly and sixthly named judgments, by assignment of the 20th of September 1824, were vested in Patrick Hanbury, and by further assignment of the 14th of June 1827, were vested in William Burke, and ultimately vested in the Rev. Dr. John M`Hale as his executor. All these judgments had been duly redocketed under 9 G. 4, c. 36 ; and in Michaelmas Term 1844 the secondly and thirdly named judgments were revived by Sarah Egan against the co-heiresses of William Henry Handcock and the terretenants of the lands of Carrintrilly, &c. Subsequently to the rendition of the judgments of Trinity Term 1824, by a settlement made, on the 2nd of September in the same year, upon the marriage of William Henry Handcock with Catherine Kelly, he conveyed all the lands of Carrintrilly, &c. (subject to two Whiteacrc, and that the infants, having pretermitted their opportunity of pleading the release to the sci. fa., could not afterwards set up that release as a defence in equity against raising the amount of that judgment out of Whiteacre. A person, seised of an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • O'Meagher v Daly
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 20 April 1917
    ...DIVISION Barton J. O'MEAGHER and DALY. Batten v. Dartmouth Harbour CommissionersELR 45 Ch. D. 612. Handcock v. HandcockUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 444. Hilliard v. MoriartyIR [1894] 1 I. R. 316. Leonard v. KellettUNK 27 L. R. Ir. 418. Northern Banking Co. v. Sloan See 2 N. I. J. 54. Wright v. KirbyE......
  • M'Carthy v M'Carthy (No 2)
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 26 November 1903
    ...R. Ir. 271. (9) 1 De G. M. & G. 393. (10) I. R. 4 Eq. 15. (11) 3 Mac N. & G. 683. (12) [1893] 2 Ch. 461. (13) 1 Y. & C. C. C. 401. (14) 1 Ir. Ch. R. 444. (1) 32 Beav. (2) [1893] 2 Ch. D. 54. (1) 1 Y. & C. C. C. 401. (2) 17 Yes. 520. (3) 1 Deac. 288. (1) 3 Mac. & G. 683. (2) L. & G. temp. Su......
  • The Estate of Francis Peter Gervais, Owner; Maurice Seely Maude and Another, Petitioners
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 27 January 1903
    ...v. BrembridgeENR 2 K. & J. 174. Ex parte Trueman 1 Deac. & Chitty's Rep. 464. Forbes v. JacksonELR 19 Ch. D. 615. Handcock v. Handcock 1 Ir. Ch. R. 444. Newton v. ChorltonENR 10 Hare, 646, at p. 650. Nicholson v. Revill 4 A. & E. 675. Robinson v. GeeENR 1 Ves. Sen. 250. Rouse v. The Bradfor......
  • Re Roche's Estate
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 10 February 1890
    ...L. & G., Temp. Plunket, 216. Averall v. Wade L. & G., Temp. Sugden, 252. Aicken v. Macklin 1 Dr. & Walshe, 621. Handcock v. Handcock 1 Ir. Ch. R. 444. Barnes v. Racster 1 Y. & C. C. c. 401. Gibson v. SeagrimENR 20 Beav. 614. H. v. M'Cowan 7 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 389. Beere v. Head 3 Jo. & L. 340......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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