Lowry v Patterson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1874
• Date: 03 June 1874
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

LOWRY

and

PATTERSON.

Yonge v. Furse 26 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. pp. 117, 352; 8 D. M. & G. 756.

Bullock v. Bennett 24 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 397.

Dobbyn v. Adams 2 Ir. Jur. N. S. 143.

Crommelin v. Crommelin 3 Ves. 227.

Mahony v. DonovanUNK 14 Ir. Ch. Rep. 262, 388.

Scott v. Tyler 2 Wh. & Tud. 213 (Ed. 1872).

Clarke v. BerkeleyENR 2 Vern. 720.

Parnell v. LyonENR 1 V. & B. 479.

Wheeler v. WarnerENR 1 Sim. & St. 304.

Smith v. CorderyENR 2 Sim. & St. 361.

Hick v. DringENR 2 M. & S. 448.

Hotham v. Sutton 15 Ves. 319, 326.

Avison v. Simpson 1 John. 43.

Parker v. MarchantENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 304.

Woolcomb v. WoolcombENR 3 P. Wms. 112.

Lamphier v. Despard 2 Dr. & War. 62.

Mullins v. SmithENR 1 Dr. & Sm. 204.

Bullock v. Bennett 7 De G. M. G. 287.

Yonge v. FurseENR 8 De G. M. & G. 756.

Will — Construction — Marriage with consent — Consent to marriage after testator's death.

372 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Rolls. myself read the petition upon which the order teas founded, and 1874. it is perfectly plain that His Honor was led to think, by the state In re ments in it, that the 7 Geo. 4, c. 74, had been incorporated with COMM RS. OF the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, and he made the order ex parte. But, subse LUNATIC ASYLUMS. quently, when the point was brought before him in reference to the costs of the investment and the order1which were sought against the Commissioners, and when he had the argument of counsel for the Commissioners before him, he expressly decided that he could not give the costs, and thereby ruled that his order as to the investment was not regular. His reasons are quite decisive. The following is the order he then made upon the application that the CommisÂÂsioners should pay the costs " It is ordered that no rule be made on this motion, there being no clause in the 50 Geo. 3, c. 103, which statute was incorporated in the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 33, entitling the Petitioners to the costs sought by their notice, even if the said Act of the 50 Geo. 3 remains unrepealed as to cases falling within the enactments of the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 33, and there being no provision in the ,7 Geo. 4, c. 74, that its provisions should apply to the previous Act of the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 33." I presume that order was overlooked or forgotten when the present petition was presented. I must say no rule on the motion, the Petitioner to pay the Commissioners their costs. Solicitors for the Petitioner : Messrs. Hallowes 8f Hamilton. Solicittor for the Commissioners : Mr. A. N'Clintock. .Rolls. LOWRY v. PATTERSON. 1874. Feb. 4, 5. June 3. Will-Construction-Marriage with consent-Consent to marriage after testator's death. 1. A testator's consent to a marriage to take place after his death does not dispense with a condition of forfeiture annexed to a bequest in his will that the legatee shall forfeit the same in case he marry without the consent of persons named in the will. A. testator devised the lands he held in D., and his stock, crop, &c., to his son W. P. ;% provided that he should forfeit the same in case he should marry without the consent of A., B., and C., with a gift over in case of his marriage without such consent ; and he appointed a residuary legatee. It appeared by the evidence that after the date of the will the testator gave a qualified VOL. VIII.] EQUITY SERIES. 373 assent-i. e. he did not. object-to W. P.'s marriage with El if it took place after . his death. W. P. married E. after the testator's death without the .Rolls 1374. knowledge or consent of A., B., and t. :-Held, that he had forfeited his Lowirr bequest. v. TTERSON. 2., Under a bequest of lands, " stock, crop, farming implements, household PA furniture and effects, whatsoever and wheresoever," money in bank and debts due to the testator will pass. BILL by the executors of James Patterson for an administraÂÂtion of his estate, and that the trusts of his will be carried into execution under the direction of the Court. The will was dated the 6th of November, 1867. 'The testator died on the 6th of December, 1872. 'The bill stated, and it was admitted, that the personal estate was of the value of £2500, inÂÂcluding the value of the lands of Dernakelly, which were held for the residue of a term of years, worth £1000, farming stock and implements of the value of £700, and money in bank and debts due to the testator, amounting to about £800. The bill further stated that the Defendant, William Pattterson, married a lady named Eliza Catherine M'Clintock, on the 11th of February, 1873, and that he contracted the marriage without the consent of Thomas Patterson, Mrs. Blair, and James Lowry, and, in fact, they were not aware that any such marriage was likely to take place until after it had been solemnized ; and that the testator had in his lifetime expressed his disapproval of the marriage of William Patterson with Miss McClintock. The bill submitted the question whether the money in bank and debts due to the testator were included in the bequest to William Patterson, or whether they passed to the residuary legatee. It also submitted that difficulties arose by reason of the marriage of William Patterson, without the consent mentioned in the will, and as to the interest which the children of Mary Anne Blair, who were minors, and James Lowry, took, under the circumstances, in the property bequeathed to William Patterson. fr The answer of...