Keogh v Keogh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 January 1850
• Date: 16 January 1850
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

KEOGH

and

KEOGH.

Kingsmill v. KingsmillENR 1 Russ. & M. 617.

Lloyd v. LaunderUNK 5 Mad. 282.

Collins v. ShirleyENR 1 Russ. & M. 638.

Cashel v. Kelly 2 Dr. & War. 181.

Turner v. RobinsonENR 1 Sim. & Stu. 3.

Bennett v. Hamil 2 Sch. & Lef. 566.

Esdaile v. StephensonUNK 6 Mad. 366.

Forbes v. PeacockENR 12 Sim. 528.

Meagher v. Oƒ€™MaraUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 471.

Mendham v. Robinson 1 M. & K. 217.

Landon v. MorrisENR 5 Sim. 247.

Kingsmin v. KingsminENR Taml. 399.

Metcalf v. Pulvertoft 2 Ves. & B. 200.

Massy v. BatwellUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 382.

Jennings v. BondENR 2 Jo. & Lat. 720.

Battersby v. RochfordENR 2 Jones & Lat. 431.

Walker v. Flamstead 2 Ld. Ken. 57.

Walker v. Smalwood Ambl. 676.

Randal v. Munford 18 Ves. 420.

Monteith v. Taylor 9 Ves. 615.

Wheeler v. MalinUNK 4 Mad. 171.

Doe v. EdgarENR 2 Bing. N. C. 391.

Machell v. ClarkeENR 2 Ld. Raym. 778.

Metcalf v. PulvertoftENR 2 V. & B. 207.

Robinson v. Grady 1 Hog. 148.

Randal v. Mumford 18 Ves. 427.

Wheeler v. MalinsUNK 4 Mad. 171.

Turner v. RobinsonENR 1 Sim. & St. 3.

Sidebottom v. BarringtonENR 3 Beav. 328.

Lewin v. GuestENR 1 Russ. 329.

Hutton v. MayneENR 3 Jo. & Lat. 87.

Baker v. SouterENR 10 Beav. 347.

1850. Rolls. In re FAIR, a Minor. Judgment. 284 CASES IN EQUITY. to any liability of the minor, as representing the assets of Campbell Fair, I do not think that this point has been properly raised by the objections, the seventh objection being informal. I shall therefore overrule the objections, with costs. 1849. Nov. 8, 9. 1850. Jan. 16. KF,OGH v. KEOGH. By marriage THIS case came before the Court on :exceptions taken by John articles of 1767 it was agreed lll'Kay, the purchaser of the lands of Keoghville, to the Master's .that £1000, secured by the report of good title. The facts of the case were as follow : bond of A, the intended hus- In 1767 Edmond Keogh was seised in fee of the lands of Keogh- band, on which judgment was ville, and other denominations. By articles, executed previously to entered, should be divided the marriage of Laurence Keogh with Mary Fallon, and bearing date among the the 17th of September 1767, and made between Edmond Keogh and younger chil- dren of the marriage. By a deed of 1795 A conveyed the lands of K., of which he was seised in fee, to the use of himself for life, remainder, subject to £500 secured by a term for his younger children, to J., his second son, for life, remainder to his third, fourth and other sons in tail. In 1798 A made his will without noticing the deed of 1795, and devised the lands of K., subject to £1000 for his younger children, to J. A died, and bills were filed in 1803 and 1818 on behalf of somekof the;younger children to raise the £2000 secured by the articles and the will, but not noticing or' relying on the deed which was afterwards put in issue by one of the answers. In 1818 G., the fourth son, who was entitled to an estate tail in remainder under the deed, became .insolvent. He and his assignee were parties to the latter suit, but not in respect of that estate. A decree for a sale of the fee was pronounced for the sum due under the articles, and a part of the sum due under the deed. The abstract of title stated the insolvency of G., and that the heir of his assignee would join in the conveyance. The assignment ander the insolvency had been lost, but the deed of 1795 was referred to in the schedule. Held, on objections to title 1. That the abstract and schedule afforded sufficient evidence of au actual assignÂment of the estate tail in remainder under the Insolvent Act then in force. 2. That the assignment, though pendente lite, was valid, being made under the authority of a statute, and conveyed a base fee to the assignee, and the decree not being binding on him, the title was defective. 3. That the defect could not be cured by the heir of the assignee joining in the conveyance, as he was a trustee for the creditors of G., who did not appear to have been paid, and were not bound by the decree. 4. That under the circumstances the decree was not erroneous in directing:a sale of the fee for a portion of the sum secured by the term in the deed of 1795. CASES IN EQUITY. 285 Laurence Keogh of the first part, Daniel Fallon, on behalf of his daughter Mary, of the second part, and Thomas Lyster and Richard Rutledge of the third part, it was agreed that a bond and warrant of attorney, executed on the same day by Edmond Keogh and LauÂrence Keogh for £1000, should be vested in the said trustees as a provision for the younger children of the marriage, to be divided among them in such shares, &c., as Laurence Keogh and his intended wife, or the survivor of them, should appoint. The lands of Keogh-vile were not settled by the articles, but Edmond Keogh covenanted to do no act which would prevent 'the estate from descending on Laurence Keogh, who was his eldest son. Judgment was entered on the bond to the trustees in Hilary Term 1769. Edmond Keogh died some years afterwards, and on his death Laurence Keogh entered into possession of the lands. There was issue of the marriage of Laurence and Mary Keogh, eleven sons and two daughters. On the 24th of October 1795, an indenture was made between Laurence Keogh of the first part, Ross Mahon and Sir Thomas French of the second part, and John Kelly and Denis Kelly of the third part, whereby Laurence Keogh conveyed the lands of Keogh-vile to the said Ross Mahon and Sir Thomas French, and their heirs, to the use of Laurence Keogh for life, remainder (subject to an annuity of £50 to Edmond Keogh, the eldest son of Laurence) to the said John Kelly and Denis Kelly, for two hundred years, remainder to the use of John Keogh, second son of Laurence, for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail ; remainder to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sons of Laurence Keogh in tail male ; remainder to the right heirs of Laurence Keogh. The trusts of the term of two hundred years were to raise, by sale or mortgage, a sum of £500 for the younger children of Laurence Keogh (except John Keogh the second son) in addition to the £1000 secured by the judgment recovered by the trusÂtees of the articles of 1767, to be paid to them in such shares as Laurence Keogh should appoint, and in default of appointment, share and share alike. In Easter Term 1796 a fine was levied to the uses of the indenture of 1795. 286 CASES IN EQUITY. On the 17th of January 1798, Laurence Keogh made his will, by which he professed to deal with the estate as if the deed of 1795 had not been executed. He devised the lands of Keoghville to his second son, John Keogh, charged with £1000 for his younger chilÂdren, in addition to the £1000 secured by the judgment to the trustees of the articles of 1767, and he bequeathed the residue of his personal property amongst some of his younger children, and appointed Ross Mahon and Thomas Tully his executors ; but he did not exercise his power of appointment over the £1000 secured by the articles of 1767 and the judgment, or the £500 charged by the settlement of 1795. Laurence Keogh died on the 31st March 1800, and after his death some of his children, who were minors, were made wards of Court. John Keogh, the second son, entered into possession of the estate. Ross Mahon, one of the executors named in the will of LauÂrence Keogh, declined to prove the will, and probate thereof was granted to Thomas Tully, the other executor, on the 24th of June 1803, and he obtained possession of the personal estate. A report was had in the matter of the minors, on the 24th of June 1803, finding that it would be for the benefit of the minors that a bill should be filed against the executor of Laurence Keogh and against John Keogh, who was the guardian of the persons of the sons, for an account of the assets of Laurence Keogh. In pursuance of that report the original bill was filed, on the 12th of September 1803, by Mary Kelly, the mother and next friend of the minors. All the children of Laurence Keogh were parties to the suit except Thomas Keogh, the third son, who had left this country about the year 1800, and had not been heard of. His...