Homan v Andrews

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 November 1850
• Date: 04 November 1850
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

HOMAN

and

ANDREWS.

Fenn v. HarrisonENR 3 T. R. 762.

Linsell v. BonsonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 249.

Hill v. Stawell 2 Jebb & S. 389.

Channell v. DitchburnENR 5 M. & W. 494.

Mahon v. Davoren 2 H. & Br. 423.

Warrens v. O'Shea 5 Law Rec. N. S. 77

Farran v. BeresfordENR 10 Cl. & Fin. 319.

Kirkwood v. LloydUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 561.

Putman v. BatesENR 3 Russ. 188.

Atkins v. Tredgold 2 B. & Cr. 23.

Slator v. LawsonENR 1 B. & Ad. 396.

Way v. BassetENR 5 Hare, 55.

Richardson v. HastingsENR 7 Beav. 326.

Greene v. Poole 5 Br. P. C. by Toml. 504.

Attorney-General v. Lord TrimlestonUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 511.

Mare v. Malachi 1 M. & Cr. 576.

Archbishop of Dublin v. LordUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 251.

Lord St. John v. BoughtonENR 9 Sim. 219.

Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR 5 Sim. 419.

Linsell v. BonsonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 249.

Archbishop of Dublin v. Lord TrimlestonUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 265.

Warren v. BatemanENR Fl. & Kel. 454.

Law v. Baggwell 4 Dr. & W. 398.

Columbins v. ChichesterENR 2 Phill. 28.

Bright v. NorthENR 2 Phill. 230.

Goddard v. Ingram 3 Q. B. Rep. 839.

Gresson v. HindleyUNK 10 Jur. 383.

106 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1850. Rolls. HOMAN v. ANDREWS. May 30, 31. (In the Rolls.) Nov. 4. A payment THIS case came on to be heard on a demurrer to the bill taken by of principal or interest of two of the defendants, M. H. Andrews and Ellen his wife. The a sun of mo ney charged grounds relied on in support of the demurrer were the Statute of upon lands by a person Limitations and want of parties. The statements in the bill appear expressly or impliedly fully in the judgment. authorised to make it, will be equivalent Mr. Leahy and Mr. Greene, in support of the demurrer. to a payment by the party liable, so as to prevent the Mr. De Moleyns and Mr. F. A. Fitzgerald, for the plaintiff'. operation of the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 W 4, The following authorities were cited :-Story on Agency, p. 99; c. 27, s. 40). But a pay- Paley on Principal and Agent, pp. 192, 201; Story's Eq. Juris. went by a will s. 315 ; Fenn v. Harrison (a) ; Linsell v. Bonson(b); Hill v. stranger not. Stawell (c) ; Channell v. Ditchburn (d); Mahon v. Davoren (e); (a) 3 T. R. 762. (c) 2 Jebb & S. 389. (e) 2 H. & Br. 423. (g) 10 Cl. & Fin. 319. (1) 3 Russ. 188. (1) 1 B. & Ad. 396. (6) 2 Bing. N. C. 249. (d) 5 M. & W. 494. (f) 5 Law Rec. N. S. 77 (h) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 561. (k) 2 B. & Cr. 23. (m) 5 Hare, 55. CHANCERY REPORTS. 107 Mitf. on Pl. p. 164 ; Mare v. Malachi (a); Archbishop of Dublin 1850. Rlls. v. Lord Trimleston(b); Lord St. John v. Boughton (c); Green-01 wood v. Atkinson (d). HOMAN ANDREWS. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. In this case a demurrer to the bill has been filed by two of the defendants, Maunsell Hawtry Andrews, and Ellen his wife. The bill has been filed by the plaintiff, Lucinda Homan, executrix of Robert Homan deceased ; and it prays that a sum of 700 late currency may be declared to be well charged on the lands of Annaghmore and Dysart in the county of Kerry ; that an account may be taken of what is due on said charge, for principal and interest, an account of all other incumbrances, and a sale of the interest in the said lands, created by a lease of the 1st of May 1738, to pay what should be found due. The defence raised by the demurrer is, that on the facts stated in the bill, the claim of the plaintiff as against the said lands is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The facts of the case as appearing on the bill, so far as they are material to the decision of the demurrer, are as follows :-Richard Meredith the first being seised in fee of the lands of Annaghmore and Dysart, by lease bearing date the 1st of March 1738, demised them to William Meredith the first, and his heirs, for three lives, with a covenant for perpetual renewal, at the rent of 120. On the 1st of February 1768, certain articles of agreement were made and executed between the said William Meredith the first of the one part, and his eldest son Richard Meredith the second of the other part, whereby the said William Meredith the first agreed to convey his estate and interest in the said lands to Richard Meredith the second and his heirs, subject to a charge and provision for payment thereout of a sum of 2500, late currency, to be vested in trustees, for the payment of the portions of the five younger children of the said William (a) 1 M. & Cr..576. (6) 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 251. (c) 9 Sim. 219. (d) 5 Sim. 419. 108 CHAN CERY REPORTS. Meredith the first, in such shares and proportions as the said William should by deed or will appoint. The 500 sought to be raised by the present bill is part of the said sum of 2500. Frances Meredith, one of the younger children of the said William Meredith the first, married Robert Coote, and on the occasion of the marriage, on the 19th of August 1769, the said William appointed the said sum of 500, being part of the 2500, in the manner in the bill mentioned ; and the said sum of 500 became afterwards vested in the plaintiff Lucinda, who was one of the children of the said Robert and Frances Coote. Richard MereÂÂdith the second subsequently married Lucy Saunders, and the interest in the lease of 1738 was, by deed of the 20th of October 1770, put in strict settlement. William Meredith the second was the only son of the marriage ; and, he having attained his age, a deed was executed bearing date the 21st of October 1795, whereby the said Richard Meredith, who was tenant for life, and the said William Meredith the second, who was quasi tenant in tail, conveyed the estate and interest in the said lease, to the use of trustees for a term of five hundred years, upon trust to pay, by sale or mortgage of said lands, or a competent part thereof, the incumbrances and charges in the first and second schedules thereto mentioned, and after the expiration of the term, to the use of the said William Meredith and his heirs. The bill then charges that in the first schedule to the said deed, the said sum of 500 is...