Napier v Staples

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 November 1859
• Date: 25 November 1859
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

NAPIER

and

STAPLES.

Mills v. DrewittENR 20 Beav. 632.

Pinnell v. HalletENR Amb. 106; S. C., 2 Ves. 276.

May v. BennettENR 1 Russ. 370.

Johnson v. Routh 3 Jur., N. S., 1048.

Wood v. WoodENR 7 Beav. 183.

Hales v. DarrellENR 3 Beav. 324.

Crompton v. SaleENR 2 P. Wms. 553.

Lady E. Thynne v. The Earl of Glengall 2 H. L. Cas. 131.

Haynes v. Mico 1 Br. C. C. 129.

Garner v. Holmes 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 412.

Jeacock v. FalkinerENR 1 Br. C. C. 295; S. C., 1 Cox, 37.

Barrett v. Beckford 1 Ves. 519.

Devese v. PontetENR 1 Cox, 188.

Plunkett v. LewisENR 3 Hare, 316.

Ashwell's Will 1 John. 112.

Knight v. Bowyer 27 L. J., Ch., 520.

Turner v. NewportENR 2 Phil. 143.

Howard v. PrinceENR 10 Beav. 313.

Wilkinson v. DuncanENR 23 Beav. 469.

Davis v. ProutENR 7 Beav. 256.

Pennington v. BuckleyENR 6 Hare, 457.

Bainbrigge v. BaddeleyENR 2 Phil. 705.

Kendall v. RussellENR 3 Sim. 424.

Pinnell v. HalletENR 1 Amb. 106.

Lady Londonderry v. Wayne Ambl. 424.

Baker v. BakerENR 6 H. L. C. 616.

Wilcocks v. Wilcocks 2 W. & T. 302.

Alcock v. Sloper 2 M. & K. 699.

Hinves v. HinvesENR 3 Hare, 609.

Pickering v. Pickering 4 M. & N. 289.

Baird v. FardellENR 7 De G., M. & G. 628.

Brown v. Carter 5 Ves. 862.

White v. Mansergh 2 Ir. Chan. Rep. 393.

M'Namara v. BlakeUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 527.

Gray v. Pearson 6 H. L. Cas. 61.

Lewis v. ReesENR 3 K. & J. 147.

Pinnell v. Hallet 1 Amb., 2nd ed., 106.

Mills v. DrewittENR 20 Beav. 632.

Church v. Mundy 15 Ves. 406.

Lessee Crowe v. Noble Sm. & B. 33.

Read v. HodgensUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 32.

Blachford v. Long 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 90 to 94.

Howe v. Lord Dartmouth 7 Ves. 137.

Hinves v. HinvesENR 3 Hare, 611.

Wightwick v. Lord 6 H. L. Cas. 228.

Downes v. BullockENR 25 Beav. 54.

In re Ashwell's Will 1 John. 112.

Knight v. Bowyer 2 De G. & Jones, 443.

344 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1859. Rolts. NAPIER v. STAPLES. Tan. 18, 23. Nov. 25. By a marriage THE facts of this case are stated at length in the judgment of the settlement, ex ecuted in 1797, MASTER OF THE ROLLS. reciting that W. C. S., the intended hus- Mr. Hughes, oners etiti Mr. Lawson and Mr. H. Barry, for the p, band, was en- titled to real contended estate on the decease of his 1.-On the construction of the settlement of 1799, that the father, and to certain sums plain intention was to secure to the petitioner a jointure of £600 in the English funds, and a-year. The assets of William Connolly Staples were, under the sums of money, &c., as covenant, liable to that amount, and, therefore, to the deficiency residuary lega tee of his grandmother, W. C. S. covenanted with the trustees, that he would, as soon as he could after the execution of the settlement, transfer to them the said sums of money, and invest in such funds as should be thought most advisable, iu the names of the trustees, such further sum, the interest of which should amount to £600 a-year, free from all deductions, in trust for W. C. S., for his life, and, after his death, upon trust to pay the interest to A., his intended wife, as a jointure, with a power to W. C, S. to revoke the trust of the fund so to be invested, on conveying to the trustees real estate of the value of £600 a-year, to be held on the same trusts. W. C. S. died in 1798, leaving one son who died in 1812. In 1799 and 1801, his executors transferred to the trustees of the settlement £4 per cent. stock, then producing £600 a-year, but which was, by successive Acts of Parliament, ultimately, in 1854, reduced to £3 per cent. stock, and became insufficient to pay the £600 a-year.--Held, that A. was not entiÂtled to have the deficiency made good out of the assets of W. C. S., the covenant having been performed by the transfer of stock, which, in 1801, produced £600 a-year, W. C. S., by his will, after directino. his debts to be paid, and bequeathing certain legacies, left all the residue of directing personal estate to his executors, in trust to pay the interest to his wife A. for life.-Held, that the reversionary interest in the stock transferred to the trustees to answer the jointure passed by the residuary bequest, no intention to exclude it appearing by the will. Held also, that A was entitled to have the reversionary interest sold at the end of one year from the testator's death, and the proceeds invested, and the dividends paid to her for her life. But that not having been done, the Court directed an inÂquiry to ascertain what sum in stock could have been purchased with the value of the reversionary interest at that period, and that so much of the assets should be set apart, and the amount of the dividends which would have been payable to A., if the investment had been made, should be paid to her. Held also, that A. was not barred in 1859, by the Statute of Limitations, or by lathes, there being a subsisting fund liable to her demand. A portion of the residuary property consisted of a sum of stock which was set apart to meet a life annuity which determined in 1829. In a suit to administer the assets of W. C. S., the dividends of the stock which accrued after the death of the annuitant were decreed to be paid to A. and her second husband.-Held, that A. was not entitled to any relief against the assets, by reason of the stock not having been sold a year after the death of W. C. S. CHANCERY REPORTS. 345 arising from the reduction of the interest of the stock transferred 1859. Rolls. to the trustees, for the purpose of supplying the jointure : Mills v. Drewitt (a); Pinnell v. Hallet (b); May v. Bennett (c). NAPIER v. 2.-That the bequests in the will of William Connolly Sta- STAPLES. pies were not a satisfaction of the claim under the settlement : Argument. Johnson v. Routh (d); Wood v. Wood (e); Hales v. Darrell (f); Crompton v. Sale (g); Lady E. Thynne v. The Earl of Glen-gall (h); Haynes v. Mico (i); Garner v. Holmes (k); Jeacock v. Falkiner (1); Barrett v. Beckford (m); Devese v. Pontet (n); Plunkett v. Lewis (o). 3.-That the petitioners' claim was not barred by the StaÂtute of Limitations, or by lapse of time : Ashwell's Will (p) ; Knight v. Bowyer (q); Mills v. Drewitt. 4.-That the petitioners were entitled, under the residuary be quest in the will of William Connolly Staples, to have had the reversionary interest in the respective sums of £15,000 and £1185 , stock sold, at the expiration of a year from the death of William Connolly Staples, and the dividends of the produce paid during the, life of the petitioner A. L. Napier, and that she was now enÂtitled to be recouped from the loss arising from that course not having been followed, out of the assets of William Connolly Staples : Turner v. Newport (r) ; Johnson v. Routh. 5.-That there was nothing in the relief- sought in that reÂspect inconsistent with the decrees and orders in the suit for the administration of the estate of William Connolly Staples: Howard (a) 20 Beay. 632. (1)) Amb. 106 ; S. C., 2 Ves. 276. (a) 1 Russ. 370. (d) 3 Jur., N. S., 1048. (e) 7 Beay. 183. (f) 3 Beay. 324. (g) 2 P. Wms. 553. (h) 2 H. L. Cas. 131. (s) 1 13r., C. C. 129. (k) 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 412. (1) 1 Br. C. C. 295 ; C., 1 Cox, 37. (in) 1 Yes. 519. (n) 1 Cox, 188. (o) 3 Hare, 316. (p) 1 John. 112. (q) 27 L. J., Ch., 520. (r) ,2 Phil. 143. voL. 10. 44 346 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1859. v. Prince (a); Wilkinson v. Duncan (b) ; Davis v. Prout (e); Rolls. Pennington v. Buckley (d); Bainbrigge v. Baddeley (e). NAPIER V. STAPLES. Mr. Brewster, Mr. Norman, Mr. Warren, Mr. Chatterton, Mr. Argument. W. Henderson, Mr. .11PCausland, Mr. H. Barry, Mr. Graydon and Mr. J. P. Kennedy, for the respondents. 1.-The covenant in the settlement of 1;99 was performed by the transfer of the stock to the trustees, sufficient at the time to answer the jointure. The executors were not answerable for the subsequent reduction of the stock, any more than William Connolly Staples would have been answerable for a depreciation in the value of real estate, bad it been conveyed to the trustees in lieu of the stock, under the power contained in the settlement to that effect : Kendall v. Russell ( f); Pinnell v. Hallet (g); Lady LondonÂderry v. Wayne (h); Baker v. Baker (i). 2.-The benefits conferred by the will were a satisfaction of the claim : Wilcocks v. Wilcocks (k). 3.-The intention of the testator manifestly was not that the reversionary interest in the stock should be sold, which it must have been, according to the rules of the Court, if it has passed under the residuary bequest ; Alcock v. Sloper (1); Hinves v. Hinves (m). 4.-There has been acquiescence and laches for so many years, that the Court will, on that ground, refuse the petitioners relief : Pickering v. Pickering (n); Baird v. Fardell (o); Brown v. Carter (p); White v. Mansergh (q). S.-The Statute of Limitations is a bar to the claim. 6.-The claim on foot of the £1185 stock is precluded by the decrees in the former suit of .Napier v. Staples : MqVamara v. Blake (r). (a) 10 Beay. 313. (6) 23 Beay. 469. (e) 7 Beay. 256. (d) 6 Hare, 457. (e) 2 Phil. 705. (f) 3 Sim. 424. (g) 1 Amb. 106. (h) Ambl. 424. (i) 6 11: L. C. 616. (k) 2 W. & T. 302. (1) 2 M. & IC,. 699. (m) 3 Hare, 609. (a) 4 M. & N. 289. (o) 7 De G., M. & G. 628. (p) 5 Ves. 862. (q) 2 Ir. Chan. Rep. 393. (r) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 527. CHANCERY REPORTS. 347 The MASTER OP THE ROLLS. 1859 The cause petition in this case has been filed by Mrs. Anne Rte_ Louisa Napier, wife of Richard Napier, Esq., by her next friend, NAPIER v. to make the assets of her first husband, William Connolly Staples, STAPLES Esq., responsible for certain claims of the said Anne Louisa Napier, Nov, 25. put forward in the petition. The claim which it will be convenient Judgment. to consider in the first instance (although not first put forward in the prayer of the petition) is that which is founded on the provisions contained in the settlement executed on the marriage of the said Anne Louisa Staples with the said William Connolly Staples. The settlement bears...