Newton v Newton

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 12 February 1862
• Date: 12 February 1862

Ch. Appeal.

NEWTON

and

NEWTON.

Newton v. Newton 6 Ir. Jur., N. S., 266.

Hillam v. Walker 1 Hag. 74.

Robins v. Dolphin Swa. & Tri. 518.

Fyson v. Westropp Swa. & Tri. 281.

Urquhart v. Fricker 3 Ad. 57.

Christian v. ForsterENR 1 Phil. 161.

Hopkinson v. EllisENR 10 Beav. 169.

Johnson v. ToddENR 8 Beav. 489.

Prinsep v. Dyce SombreENR 10 Moo. P. C. 232.

Ripley v. MoyseyENR 1 Keen. 578.

Pickford v. BrownENR 2 K. & J. 426.

Stringer v. HarperENR 26 Beav. 587.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 245 It is not necessary for me to go through the facts which have been 1861. . App so fully stated by the LORD CHANCELLOR. I have scarcely ever Ch eat. heard M d a case where the reasons on the ground of public policy were ' re In KENNA'S so strong for inducing the Court not to allow such stale claims as ESTATE. those in the present case. Judgment. Order reversed. NEWTON v. NEWTON. 1862. Feb. 4, 12. IN this case, the order of the Court below had directed the costs of Where the heir-at-law all parties to be paid out of the estate of the testator ; and upon this rTiscessts fpuriloYbate Court declaring that Mr. Newton had died intestate,* the appellants of a will of real estate, the insisted that this part of the order ought to be varied, and the costs Court of Pro bate has no declared to be payable merely out of the personal estate ; while the jurisdiction to charge the real respondent in this Court contended that the order was right in estate with the costs of the giving the costs out of the estate generally ; and that, if the expres- litigation. sion " the estate of the testator " were ambiguous, it ought to be Statement. varied by expressly directing them to be paid out of the real and personal estate of Mr. Newton. Mr. Battersby and Mr. J. E. Walshe, for the respondents in this Court. The costs of this litigation ought to be paid out of the real and personal estate of Mr. Newton. In the case of personal estate, before the Probate Act, this would have clearly been held to be a case in which the costs of the promovants propounding a will ought to have been paid out of the estate ; and, since the Probate Act, the powers and duties of the Court of Probate, with respect to realty as well as personalty, were the same as those of the Prerogative Court formerly were with respect to personalty alone : 20 & 21 Vic., c. 98, s. 34; * Vide supra, vol. 12, p. 118. Argument. 246 CHANCERY REPORTS. Newton v. Newton (a), before Judge Keatinge. The practice of the Prerogative Court in such...