Re Murray. Murray v Condren

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barton J.
• Judgment Date: 09 June 1916
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 09 June 1916

In re Murray.

Murray

and

Condren.

Barton J.

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.

1916.

Estate pur autre vie — No words of Limitation — Devolution of Estate — Special Occupant — Intestacy.

A lessee of lands which had been demised to the lessee, his heirs, and assigns for three lives or thirty-one years, conveyed the lands by deed to M. to hold the same unto and to the use of M. for the existing lives, without using words of limitation. M. afterwards died intestate as regards the lands.

Held, that M's. interest in the lease passed on his death to his personal representative, and not to his heir-at-law.

Originating Summons.

Charles Murray, who died in 1915, was, at the time of his death, entitled to the messuages and premises 32, 33, 34, Ferry-bank, Arklow, held under lease dated the 10th August, 1867, from the Earl of Wicklow to Joseph Kearon. By that lease the premises were demised to Joseph Kearon, his heirs, and assigns, for the lives of the Duke of Connaught, the Duke of Albany, and Princess Henry of Battenberg, and the lives and life of the survivors and survivor, or thirty-one years from the 25th March, 1867.

By indenture dated the 2nd August, 1901, made between William Kearon and others of the first part, and Charles Murray of the second part, reciting the lease of the 10th August, 1867, and reciting an agreement by the vendors to sell to Charles Murray all their interest under the lease, the parties of the first part, being the persons entitled under the will of Joseph Kearon, deceased, conveyed to Charles Murray all the hereditaments and premises comprised in and granted by the recited indenture of lease, to hold the same unto and to the use of Charles Murray for and during the lives of the Duke of Connaught and the Princess Henry of Battenberg, and the lives and life of the survivors and survivor, subject to the rents, covenants, and conditions reserved by and contained in the lease.

The plaintiff, Mary Jane Murray, widow of Charles Murray, brought the present summons against the defendants, the executors of the will of Charles Murray, asking for certain accounts, and for the determination of certain questions.

It was admitted that the premises comprised in the lease passed on the death of Charles Murray as if Charles Murray had died intestate as regards the premises.

Poole, for the plaintiff:—

Under the circumstances, the personal representative and not the heir of Charles Murray takes; Sect. 6 of the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), repeating similar provisions in the Statute of Frauds; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 154), sect. 9. “It has long since been established that in determining the quality of an estate pur autre vie, that is, whether it goes to a special occupant or by statute to the executor, you look to the terms of the last conveyance of the estate and not to the original grant, to ascertain whether it goes to the heir or to the legal personal representative. If it is to go to the heir, my present impression is that express words are necessary, and that in a deed, at all events, the word ‘heir’ must be used for the purpose of designating the special occupant”: per Lord Davey in Earl of Mountcashell v. More-Smyth (1). Wall v. Byrne (2) was the case of a will, and has no application to the present case. Certain dicta in King v. King (3) are against me, but they conflict with Croker...