Re Meade's Trusts

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1881
• Date: 21 February 1881
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

V. C.

IN RE MEADE'S TRUSTS.

Bielefield v. RecordENR 2 Sim. 354.

Beale v. Connolly I. R. 8 Eq. 412.

Walsh v. WallingerENR 2 Russ. & M. 78.

Winn v. FenwickENR 11 Beav. 438.

Reid v. ReidENR 25 Beav. 469.

Denis' Trusts I. R. 10 Eq. 81.

Jeyes v. SavageELR L. R. 10 Ch. 555; per James, L. J., at p. 564.

Swift v. SwiftENR 8 Sim. 168.

Lees v. Lees I. R. 5 Eq. 549.

Meredith's Trusts 3 Ch. Div. 757.

Cordwell v. MackrillENR Amb. 514.

Churchill v. ChurchillELR L. R. 5 Eq. 44.

Woolridge v. Woolridge 1 John. 63.

Leigh v. Norbury 13 Ves. 340.

Howard's Trusts 7 Ir. Ch. R. 344, per Smith, M. R., at p. 348.

Marriage settlement — Construction — Power of appointment — Objects of power — "Issue" read "children" — Power to appoint to issue living at the death of husband and wife — Child dying in lifetime of parents — Appointment be-coming inoperative — Implied gift in default of appointment — Appointment of partial interest in appointed share.

Von. VII.] CRINCENY IN RE MEADE'S TRUSTS. v. a 1881. Marriage settlement-Construction-Power of appointment-Objects of powerÂ" Issue" read " children"-Power to appoint to issue living at the death of husband and wife-Child dying in lifetime of parents-Appointment beÂcoming inoperative-Implied gift in default of appointment-Appointment of partial interest in appointed share. By marriage settlement, a trust fund was settled inter alia in trust that, upon the death of the husband and wife, but not before, the principal of the fund should go to the issue as the husband should by will or deed appoint ; and if there should be only one child living at the death of the survivor of the husband and wife, then in trust for such one child ; and failing such appointÂment, or in case there should be no issue of the marriage living at the death of the husband, upon trat for the- wife absolutely, if then living ; or, in case the husband should survive the wife, and there should not be any issue of the marÂriage living at the death of the husband, then in trust for the husband :- Held (1), that " issue" was to be read " children." (2). That those chilÂdren only who survived the husband and wife were objects of the power, and that, therefore, an appointment to a child who afterwards died in his parent's lifetime became inoperative. (3). That such surviving children were entitled. equally to any unappointed part of the trust fund. The husband appointed part of the fund in trust for a daughter, M. C. (who survived both parents), and her children, but purported to give her a life interest only in the income, the principal being divisible amongst her children, subject to appointment by her ; and if she should survive her children, to be held in trust for her absolutely. Held (1), that the appointment, so far as it purported to be in. favour of the children of M. C., was void. (2). That M. C. took under the appointment a life interest only in the income, with a contingent interest in the principal of the share so affected, in the event of her surviving her children. BY indenture of settlement, dated the 8th of January, 1827, executed on the marriage of John Roache Meade and Eliza Conlon, a sum of £2000 was vested in John Conlon and William Conlon, junior, upon trust to invest and to pay the yearly income to John R. Meade for life or until his bankruptcy; and in the event of his being a bankrupt, or from his death, in trust to pay the yearly inÂcome to Eliza Conlon, the intended wife, or her assigns during her life ; and in ease there should be issue of the said intended marriage VOL. VII. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. then that the said principal sum of £2000 should upon the death of the said Eliza Conlon and John Roache Meade, but not before, go and be paid to and belong to such issue in such shares and proÂportions, and with such...