Noblett v Litchfield

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 May 1858
• Date: 26 May 1858
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

NOBLETT

and

LITCHFIELD.

Heron v. Stokes 2 Dr. & War. 89.

Douglas v. WillesENR 7 Hare, 318.

Samuel v. WardENR 22 Beav. 347.

Samuel v. WardENR 22 Beav. 350.

Folkes v. Western 9 Ves. 456.

Pitt v. JacksonENR 2 Bro. C. C. 51; S. C., 2 Ves. jun. 698, sub Smith v. Lord Camelford.

Noel v. WalsinghamENR 2 S. & S. 99.

Lee v. HeadENR 1 K. & J. 620.

Folkes v. Western 9 Ves. 460.

Medcalfe v. IvesENR 1 Atk. 63.

Cox v. BelithaENR 2 P. Wms. 272.

Tomkins v. LadbrokeENR 2 Ves. sen. 593.

Garon v. TrippettENR Amb. 189.

The Duke of Cleveland 1 West's Rep., temp, Hardw. 106.

Allingham v. Allingham Dr. & W. 380.

Walmsley v. Vaughan De G. & Jo. 126.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 57s went, or by actual enjoyment of any part of the soil of any part of the bog, in right of proprietorship thereof, as now claimed for Lord Mayo, has been given in evidence. In this state of things, with the title thus set forth in the patents, explained by the Book of Distributions, and confirmed by the user and enjoyment, in conformity with the construction put upon the documents, I do not see any sufficient reason for refusing to have this undivided proprietorship made the subject of partition. There must be a reference to ascertain the shares, and a commission to divide the bog, in accordance with the finding upon the reference ; and upon these grounds I will decree accordingly. Reg. Lib. 23,f. 260. NOBLETT V. LITCHFIELD. THE petition in this case stated the facts following :- By the mar riage settle By indenture, bearing date the 18th of November 1816, being the ment of L., a fund was settlement on the marriage of William Litchfield, certain charges, vested in trus- tees upon trust, amounting to £2400, of the late currency, and the sum of £3180 after the de- cease of L., Government stock, estimated in value as £2500, were assigned to and his in- trustees, upon trust for William Litchfield for life, with remainder tended wife, for the chil- to his intended Wife for life, with remainder for the issue of the dren of the marriage, as L. should appoint ; in default of appointment, equally : there was a hotchpot clause, but no advancement clause in the settlement. The fund produced £4700, and was, with £300 belonging to L., invested on mortgage. There were five children of L.'s marriage; and in 1844, on the marriage of A., one of these children, L. settled £1000 of his own upon A., her husband and issue. In 1845, L. made his will, and thereby appointed and bequeathed the £5000 invested upon mortgage, as to £1000, to J., another of his daughters, and as to the residue among his remaining children excepting A. By the will he also bequeathed £1200 to the trustees of A.'s settlement, for her benefit. In 1848, L., on the marriage of J., gave £1000 of his own, and secured £1200 upon trusts for J., her husband and issue. By a subsequent codicil, L. revoked the appoint. ments and bequests made to J., by his will, " in consequence of what he had paid and secured on her marriage." Held, that the sum appointed to J., and revoked by the codicil, was to go as in default of appointment. Held, further, that A. and J. were not excluded from sharing in the said sum. Held, further, that L. could not be taken to be a purchaser of the shares of A. and in the unappointed part of the settled fund. Folkes v. Western (9 Ves. 456) appfoved of 576 CHANCERY REPORTS. marriage, as the said William Litchfield should by deed or will apÂpoint ; in default of appointment, as. the intended wife should apÂpoint; in default, for all the children of the marriage who should attain twenty-one, or be sooner married, in equal shares : the settleÂment then contained a hotchpot clause, and a power to vary securities. There was issue of the marriage seven children, John, Clayton, Anne, Jane, Charlotte, Elizabeth, and Letitia. Elizabeth and Letitia both died in the lifetime of their father, under the age of twenty-one, and unmarried. Both of these children had died before 1845. The sum settled on the marriage of William Litchfield realised the sum of £4701. 3s. 9d., and was, with a small sum belonging to William Litchfield, invested on a mortgage for £5000. In the month of March 1844, Anne Litchfield intermarried with the Rev. Richard Chester. On the occasion of that marriage, William Litchfield secured by his bond the sum of £1000, which was put in settlement for Mr. and Mrs. Chester and their issue. On the 4th of January 1845, William Litchfield made his will ; and thereby stating the whole sum of £5000 as subject to the power in the settlement, and reciting his intention to appoint among his five children then surviving, except Mrs. Chester, who had been proÂvided for upon her marriage, he appointed 11000 to John, £2000 to Clayton, and £1000 each to Jane and Charlotte. He then bequeathed £1200 to the trustees of Anne Chester's settlement, to be held on the trusts thereof, and, after leaving certain other legacies, he gave all the residue of his estate to John Litchfield. In March 1848, Jane Litchfield married Samuel Tyndall. On the occasion of that marriage, the sum of £1000 was paid, and the sum of £1300 was secured by William Litchfield, and these two sums were put in settlement for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Tyndall and their issue. Shortly after the marriage of Jane, the testator executed a codicil, dated the 2nd of January 1848, by which he revoked the appointment and bequests made to her by his will, in consequence of the provisions made by the settlement upon her marriage. William Litchfield died in 1854, his wife in 1857 ; and the present petition was presented by Henry Noblett, who had been appointed a CHANCERY REPORTS. 577 trustee of the settlement of 1816. It alleged that John Litchfield 1858. claimed, as residuary legatee of his father, to be entitled to the Chancery. sum of £1000, appointed to Jane Tyndall, on the ground that it NOBLETT had been purchased by the provisions made by the father in the set LITCHFIELD tlements above mentioned. That demands were also made for the Statement. said sum by Jane and Anne, on the ground that it had not been appointed, and that the other children were barred from all claims by the hotchpot clause ; while it was, on the other hand, contended that all the children were entitled to share in it equally. The petition prayed a declaration of the rights of all parties in the said sum of £5000. The language of the documents is more fully stated in the LORD CHANCELLOR'S judgment. No answering affidavits were filed. Mr. F. W. Walsh, for the petitioner...