Re The Matter of The Estate of Christopher Plunkett, Owner; John Dooner, Petitioner

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date31 January 1861
Date31 January 1861
CourtIncumbered Estates Court (Ireland)

L. E. Court.

In re the Matter of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER PLUNKETT,
Owner;

JOHN DOONER,
Petitioner.

Delmare v. RobelloENR 3 Bro. C. C. 446.

Holmes v. Custance 12 Ves. 279.

Stringer v. GardinerENR 27 Beav. 35.

Newbolt v. PryceENR 14 Sim. 354.

Doe d. Gains v. Rouse 5 C> B., O. S. 422.

Standen v. Standen 2 Ves. jun. 589.

Smith v. Campbell 19 Ves. jun. 400.

Stockdale v. Bushby 19 Ves. jun. 381.

Bernasconi v. AtkinsonENR 10 Hare, 345.

Smith v. Coney 6 Ves. jun. 41.

Bradshaw v. BradshawENR 2 Y. & C., Exch., 72.

Bennett v. MarshallENR 2 K. & J. 740.

Camoys v. Blundell 1 H. of L. Cas. 786, 791.

Feltham's TrustsENR 1 K. & j. 528.

Baeumont v. FellENR 2 P. Wms. 141.

Adams v. JonesENR 9 Hare, 486.

Bernasconi v. AtkinsonENR 10 Hare, 350.

Lord Camoys v. Blundell 1 H. of Lords Cases, 778.

Newbolt v. PryceENR 14 Sim. 354.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 361 1861. L. E. Court. I a ma t 4! Is tate 4. cf.0 In the Matter of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER PLUNKETT, Owner; - JOHN DOONER, Petitioner: Jan. 31. This case arose from an incorrect description having been appended to the name of a devisee in the will of Francis Macnamara, which was duly made and published in the year 1820. The testator had, at that time, and at the time of his death, which occurred in. July 1822, a daughter named Maria Faulkner, and two grand-daughters, Maria Faulkner and Catherine Faulkner. He was far advanced in life ; but no proof of mental incapacity given. The will, as far as it is material to the present case, was couched in the following terms :- " I bequeath to my dearly beloved daughter Maria Faulkner all my estate, and all my personal property, in as large a manner as I do or may enjoy the same at my decease, during her natural life; and, after her decease, I leave and bequeath unto my grandson Francis MacÂnamara Faulkner and to his sister Maria Faulkner my grandÂdaughter share and share alike, said Maria Faulkner now living in France with her uncle Martin, all my estates in the town of Ennis or elsewhere ; and, in case my said grand-daughter shall die before she arrives at the age of twenty-one years, or else rdarried with the consent of her guardians, then I bequeath her share to my grandson," &c. Under these circumstances, Catherine Faulkner, by way of objection to 'the allocation schedule, claimed a moiety of the estates devised to Francis Macnamara Faulkner and Maria Faulkner, on the ground that, notwithstanding the use of the name " Maria," she Catherine must have been the person intender': by the testator, since the description was applicable to her, but not to Maria. It appeared from the affidavits of Maria Faulkner (now Maria vol.. 11. 46 362 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1861. Papeira) and Catherine Faulkner (now Catherine Plunkett) that L. E. Court. Catherine had gone to reside, in 1817, with her uncle William In re PLUNKETT'S Martin, in France, and had stayed with him until 1822. That ESTATE. Maria had never resided in France ; but the preponderance of Statement. testimony went to show that she did not reside with the testator ; that she had lived ,at various times in Malta, England, Wales and Ireland, and that, at the time of making the will, she was most probably resident in Carlow with her uncle Henry Faulkner. The testator, at the time of making his will, was seventy-one years of age ; and it was sworn that, soon after that time, he became incaÂpable of managing his affairs. These were the only material facts in the case. Mr. M. B. Smith, for the petitioner. Mr. S. B. Millar and Mr. Trevor, for the objector, Catherine Plunkett. Mr. .1. E. Walsh and Mr. .1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Fowler v Fowler. Dodwell v The Attorney-General. Dodwell v Fowler
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 15 January 1866
    ...464. Gould v. BarnesENR 3 Taunt. 504. Williams v. BryantENR 5 M. & W. 447. Rex v. BillinghurstENR 3 M. & S. 250. Reidy v. PierceUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 361. Stultz's case 4 D. M. & Gor. 404. Baggett v. MeuxENR 1 Ph. 627. Com. Dig., Condition O. Sarel's TrustsUNK 10 Jur. 876. Baker v. Brady 7 D.......
  • Colclough v Smyth
    • Ireland
    • Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 12 January 1864
    ...myself.* (a) 8 East. 538. (b) 14 Sim. 354. (c) 3 Br., C. C., 446. (d) 12 Ves. 279. (e) 29 Beav. 115. (f) 9 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 184. (g) 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 361. (h) 8 Bing. (i) 5 M. & W. 363. (k) 12 Sim. 467; on Appeal, 1 Ph. 279; 1 H. of L. C. 728. (l) 1 H. of L. C. 786. (m) 2 K. & J. 740. (n) 6......
  • Colclough v Smyth
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)
    • 28 April 1864
    ...any loss or injury has resulted from it, he alone must bear it. * For pedigree, see next page. (a) Supra, p. 347. (a) 14 Sim. 354. (b) 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 361. (c) 5 C. B. (d) 29 Beav. 114. (e) 1 H. of L. Cas. 778. (f) 8 H. of L. Cas. 172. (g) 11 Sim. 467. (h) 1 K. & J. 528. (a) 8 East, 538. (b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT