Purcell v Blennerhassett

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 February 1848
• Date: 07 February 1848
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

PURCELL

and

BLENNERHASSETT.

Wilson v. Poe.UNKUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 139; S. C. 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 114.

Mannix v. DrinanUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 108.

Kniht v. Maclean 3 Br. C. C. 406.

Hughes v WynneENR 1 My. & K. 20.

Wilson v. Poe Ubi sup.

Wilson v. PoeUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep 114.

470 CASES IN EQUITY, required an express declaration that the jointure was to be in bar of dower ; but on reading the statute I find there is not a word in it requiring such an express declaration. When the provision made is for the purpose of a jointure, it is a bar to dower, though not expressed to be so. That puts an end to the case ; and if our attention had been directed to the statute more pointedly yesterday, we need not have heard so much discussion about it. The use of the word " jointure " alone constitutes it a bar to dower, the word " jointure " itself implying it. That makes this quite unlike the case before Lord Plunket. PURCELL v. BLENNERHASSETT. BEFORE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.* Tam bill in this case was filed by a specialty and simple contract creditor of Arthur Blennerhassett deceased. The litigation had been going on since 1822 ; but the original bill filed by the present plainÂÂtiff, who was personal representative of the original creditor, was filed on the 21st of August 1828 (a). Bills of supplement and revivor had been since filed, and at the former hearing of the case a decree was made for the plaintiff, by- which it was declared that he "is now entitled to the principal sum of 700 of the late currency of Ireland, equal to the sum of 660. 3s. ld. of the present currency, secured by the bond of the said Arthur Blennerhassett in the pleadings named, and dated the 1st day of September 1814, together with interest on the said principal sum from the 21st day of August 1828, being the day of the filing of the original bill in this cause;" and after a direction respecting interest on a simple contract debt of 2500, it proceeded thus:-" It is ordered that the Master do take an account of what sum is due thereon for principal and interest from the said 21st day of August 1828, and also what is so due as aforesaid for principal and interest on foot of the said bond of 700 of the late Irish currency. And the Court doth declare that the plaintiff is not in any event to be (a) See the report of the case at the former hearing, ante vol. 9, p. 103. LEFROY, B., JACKSON, J., and MOORE, 3. CASES IN EQUITY. 471 entitled to interest on either of the said principal sums of...