Re King, Deceased. King v King

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1898
• Date: 02 June 1898
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

IN RE KING, DECEASED.

KING

and

KING

Appeal.

Estate pur autre vie — Devolution of estate — Special occupant — Intestacy.

Blake v. Jones 1 H. & B. 227 n.

Blake v. Jones 1 Hud. & Br. 227.

Brenan v. BoyneUNK 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 87.

Doe d. Lewis v. LewisENR 9 M. & W. 662.

More-Smyth v. MountcashellENR 9 M. & W. 662.

Mountcashell v. More-SmythELR [1896] A. C. 158.

Philpotts v. JamesENR 3 Doug. 425.

Sheppard v. ManningELR [1897] 2 Ch. 67.

Wall v. ByrneENR 2 Jo. & Lat. 118.

THE IRISH REPORTS. [1899. Ix RE BING, DECEASED. KING v. KING (1). Estate pur entre vie—Devolution of estate—Special occupant—Intestacy. A lessee of lands which had been demised to the lessee, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, for three lives or for thirty-one years, by his will devised the lands to trustees in trust for A B, without any words of limitation in relation to either the legal or equitable interest. A B died intestate. One of the lives mentioned in the lease was still in existence. The term of years had long since expired. Held (affirming the decision of Porter, 11.R.), that the heir-at-law, and not the personal representative of A B, was entitled to the estate pur ware vie. THE facts of the case are reported—[1898] 1 I. R. 91. The plaintiff appealed. O'Connor, Q.C., and D. Kekoe, for the appellant : The interest in the lands passed to the administrator under the 6th section of the Wills Act. In the case of estates pur autre vie the heir can only take per formant doni, but here is no mention made of the heir of the devisee. The only time that the word " heir " is used is in the terms of the original grant. There is a distinction between leases for lives renewable for ever, and estates pur autre vie, properly so called, because the element of quasi inÂheritance which that tenure involves discriminates it from an estate pur mitre vie, properly so called. The head landlord might be disposed to grant a renewal to one person, " the heir," but not to a number of persons such as the next of kin. Blake v. Jones (2) and Nall v. Byrne (3) were eases of leases for lives renewable for ever. Furlong's work on Landlord and Tenant was published in the same year as the latter case, and at page 234 he states that the (1) Before Loan ASHBOURNE, 0., (2) 1 Had. & Br. 227. and FITZ GIBBON and Hams, L.JJ. (3) 2 Jo. & Lat. 118. VoL. 1.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 31 estate goes to the heir. Doe d. Lewis v. Lewis (1) is to the con- Appeal. trary effect. There was an earlier decision of Lord Mansfield in 1898. KING K Philpotts v. James (2) which is reported in a very meagre way. Sheppard v. Manning (3) is in our favour. In Mounteashell V. KING. More-Smyth (4) there was a devise to two trustees and their " heirs " in trust for two persons without any words of inÂheritance, and it was sought to carry on the words of inheritance from the estate of the trustees to that of the beneficiaries. The ground of the decision in the House of Lords was that there were no words of inheritance attached to the gifts to the son : see Lord Davey's judgment, p. 164. Wakely, for the Committee of the heir-at-law (a lunatic) :— There is no difference on this point between leases for lives renewable for ever and estates pur autre vie properly so called. The judgments in Blake v. Jones (5) and Wall v. Byrne (6) have always been considered as having settled the rule of law. They have remained unchallenged for over fifty years, and on the faith of these decisions a large amount of property has changed hands. Section 6 of the Wills Act and section 9 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1860, only provide for the cases where there is no 44special occupant." LORD ASHBOURNE, C. :— This is an appeal from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, -and it is important in consequence of the vast amount of property in Ireland held under leases par autre vie, and because we are asked to interfere with decisions that have prevailed in this country for over half a century. The question is raised with reference to certain lands demised in 1857 by Eyre Coote to James Bride, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, for three lives or thirty-one years concurrent. James Bride by his will devised these lands to trustees and executors upon trust for Nicholas King. Nicholas King died intestate, and in a proceeding for the adminis (1) 9 IL & W. 662. (4) [1896] A. C. 158. (2) 3 Doug. 425. (5) 1 Had. & Br. 227. (3) [1897] 2 Ch. 67. (6) 2 Jo. & Lat. 118. 32 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1899. Appeal. tration of his assets the Chief Clerk's certificate states the question 1898* which arose with reference to the matter thus :—" The plaintiff KING claims that the lands of Skiddoo, containing 319A. OR. 38P. statute U. KING. measure, situate in the barony of Nethercross, and county of Lord Dublin, held under lease dated the 31st October, 1857, from Eyre Ashbourne, C. Coote to James Bride, for three lives, of whom one is still surviving, to which the...