M'Carthy v Daunt

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date08 February 1848
Date08 February 1848
CourtCourt of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

M'CARTHY
and
DAUNT.

CASES IN EQUITY. 1848. Chancery. ArCARTHY v. DAUNT. BEFORE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS, THE bill in this case was filed in 1848, to raise the sum of 400 alleged to be charged on the lands of Kilcascan. It stated that William Daunt being seised in fee-simple of the lands of Kilcascan, in the barony of the west division of East Carberry, in the county of Cork, by his marriage settlement executed in the month of June 1775, " charged or entered into some contract or covenant to charge " those lands, amongst others, with the sum of 600 for the younger children of the then intended marriage, subject to a power of appointment thereby reserved to William Daunt ; as appeared from the recital of this deed (which was not forthcomÂÂing) in the indenture of 1793 next mentioned. William Daunt, upon the occasion of the marriage of his daughÂÂter Elizabeth Daunt with Francis M'Carthy, the plaintiff's father and mother, by indenture made the 30th of September 1793, which was never registered, after reciting " that by a certain deed of marriage settlement made on the marriage of the said William Daunt with the said Jane Gumbleton, in or about the year 1775, the said William Daunt was thereby empowered to limit, appoint and charge the lands of Kilcascan in said county, with other lands therein mentioned, with a sum of 600 for the younger children of the said marriage," in pursuance of such power, thereby charged and incumbered these lands with the sum of 400 for the marriage portion of Elizabeth Daunt ; and the sum of 400, part of the said sum of 600, was thereby assigned to John Rashleigh and Roger O'Connor, their executors and administrators, " upon the following trusts, that is to say, from and after the solemnization of said inÂÂtended marriage to permit and suffer the sail/Francis M'Carthy and Elizabeth Daunt, during their joint lives and the life of the survivor, * Heard before JACKSON, J., MOORE, J., and BROOKE, M. C. 30 CASES IN EQUITY. to receive and make use of the interest and profits thereof, and from and after the decease of the survivor of them upon trust to pay and dispose of the said sum of 400 to and among the issue of the said Francis M'Carthy and Elizabeth Daunt in such manner as the survivor of them should by deed or will direct, and for want of such direction to be equally divided between such issue." There were the plaintiff and several other children issue of the marriage. Francis M`Carthy died in November 1838 ; and his widow died in January 1845, without having made any appointment of the 400 amongst her children. William Daunt the settlor died in 1807, leaving Joseph Daunt his eldest son...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Attorney-General and Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland v Howley
    • Ireland
    • Unspecified Court
    • February 17, 1914
    ... ... Commissioners of Works (2); The Attorney-General v. Fetherstonhaugh (3); Irish Land Commission v. Ryan (4); M'Carthy v. Daunt (5); Barcroft v. Murphy (6); Pentland v. Stokes (7). The Solicitor-General in reply. Palles C.B.:— This is an appeal ... ...
  • The Estate of Sir James D. T. Power
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • October 28, 1913
    ... ... Further, there never was a hand to receive any portion of the charge so as to enable a discharge to be given to the inheritance: M'Carthy v. Daunt (5). The executors of Sir James Power could not have done so qua the £4999: In re Hughes’ Trusts (6). All the owners of the charge could have done ... ...
  • The Estate of William A. Battersby
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • July 28, 1911
    ... ... Booth ( 1 ), and M'Carthy v. Daunt ( 2 ). In my opinion, therefore, even assuming that the heir-at-law of the settlor became entitled on the deaths of the children to their ... ...
  • John Wisdom v Joshua Robert Fennell
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • April 23, 1850
    ...Dunbar v. TredenwickUNK 2 B. & B. 319. Lloyd v. BaldwinENR 1 Ves. sen. 173. Dunch v. KentENR 1 Vern. 260. Mƒ€™Carthy v. DauntUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 29. Cadwallader v. PriceUNKENR 11 Jur. 134; S. C. 16 M. & W. 603. Clay v. JonesUNK 13 Jur. 825. The King v. Lyme Regis Doug. 158. Cadwallader......

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