Re Moses Houston, Deceased. Rodgers v Houston

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 July 1909
• Date: 09 July 1909
• Docket Number: (1909. No. 553.)
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

In re Moses Houston, Deceased.

Rodgers

and

Houston.

Wylie, J. (for Barton, J.)

(1909. No. 553.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1909.

Settlement — Real estate — Equitable estate in fee — No words of limitation — Intention.

Held, that the Court was at liberty to look at the intention of the settlor, as evidenced by the whole deed, and that there being a sufficient indication of intention, the persons named were entitled to equitable estates in fee simple.

Meyler v. Meyler (11 L. R. Ir. 522) not followed, having regard to subsequent authorities.

Originating Summons.

Application on behalf of George Rodgers, the surviving trustee of an indenture of 3rd July, 1897, for the determination of a number of questions, of which this report is concerned only with the following:—

Whether the estates of the first three defendants in the lands and premises comprised in the said indenture under the trusts created by it are for life only, or for what other estate?

By said indenture of the 3rd July, 1897, James Houston conveyed to trustees in fee certain lands, to hold in trust for Jane Rodgers Houston, Margaret Park Houston, and Elizabeth Houston, as tenants in common. The said indenture contained no words of limitation of the respective estates of the persons named, but provided that if any one of them “shall die before having attained the age of twenty-five years, or without having been married with the consent of the trustees, or without having issue, then in trust for the survivors of them, or of the issue of such survivors or survivor.” Margaret afterwards married Daniel Toye.

The further provisions of the deed relied on as indicative of the settlor's intention to give equitable estates in fee are fully stated in the judgment of Wylie, J., infra, p. 323.

In the event of the interests of the first three defendants being held to be life estates, and there being a resulting trust for James Houston, the settlor, the persons entitled to the lands on the termination of such life estates were the defendants, William Glenn and Alexander Houston, representing the estate of John Houston, deceased, to whom James Houston by his will left his real and personal estate.

Osborne, for the applicant, said there were conflicting authorities on the question involved. In Meyler v. Meyler(1) the Vice-Chancellor held in a similar case that he was precluded from going into the question of intention, and held that there being no words of limitation life estates only were given. But in two English cases, In re Tringham's Trusts; Tringham v. Greenhill(2), and In re Oliver's Settlement(3), it was held that the intention might be looked at, and that the equitable fee might be given without words of inheritance.

Chadwick, for Jane Rodgers Houston and Elizabeth Houston:—

No doubt, in Meyler v. Meyler(1) Chatterton, V. -C., held that in the absence of words of limitation it was not competent for the Court to endeavour to arrive at the intention of the settlor by looking to the entire deed, but that...