Rice v Begley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 June 1920
• Date: 23 June 1920
• Docket Number: (1918. No. 820.)
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

(1918. No. 820.)

Rice v. Begley.

ROSE RICE

and

MICHAEL BEGLEY and PETER BEGLEY

Statute of Limitations - Possession - Bailiff for infant - Change in character of possession - Evidence.

Action for administration of the personal estate of Stephen Begley, claiming that all proper directions be given, and accounts taken, and that the trusts of his will might, as far as necessary, be carried into execution, and that the folio of the lands of Roskeagh, formerly in possession of Stephen Begley, as entered in the record of the Local Registration of Title Office, should be amended by striking out the provision that the lands were free from equities; that the defendant Peter Begley might be declared a trustee for the plaintiff of her share of the lands as one of the next-of-kin of Stephen Begley, deceased. A like declaration in favour of the plaintiff was claimed as against the defendant Michael Begley, who was sued as the personal representative of Stephen Begley, deceased.

The defendant Michael Begley has not filed any defence in the action, although an appearance was entered for him.

Stephen Begley, deceased, was at and prior to his death possessed of part of the lands of Roskeagh, in the County of Louth, containing 84 acres 3 roods and 39 perches, held by him as tenant from year to year, at a yearly rent, and he was also possessed of stock, crops, chattels, and effects, and a policy of assurance on his life effected with the Scottish Amicable Assurance Co. for the sum of £500. He made his will on the 28th July, 1870, whereby he bequeathed all his property of which he might die possessed to his executors and trustees upon trust, immediately after his death, to pay to his wife Rose Begley the sum of £300 sterling, and to hand over to her all his "farming stock," cattle, and growing crops for her own sole use and benefit, and also the policy of assurance on his life with the Scottish Amicable Assurance Co. for the sum of £500, and he directed that the proceeds of the said policy should, immediately after his death, be raised and invested by his executors for the benefit of his children as therein provided, and that the proceeds of such policy should be divided equally amongst all his children when they should come of age. The testator appointed his wife guardian of his children, and he appointed the Rev. Peter McArdle, p.p., and Daniel McDonald and Arthur McDonald his executors. By his said will he did not dispose of the beneficial interest in the lands, and it is admitted that as regards these lands the deceased died intestate. The testator died on the 20th January, 1876, and probate of his will was granted to Daniel McDonald and Arthur McDonald on the 5th May, 1876. The Rev. Peter McArdle never proved the will or acted as executor. Daniel McDonald died before Arthur McDonald, and the latter died intestate on the 23rd May, 1895, without having administered the estate. On the 15th September, 1910, administration of the personal estate of the deceased, left unadministered by Daniel McDonald and Arthur McDonald was, with the said will annexed, granted to Michael Begley, one of the defendants.

Stephen Begley, on his death, left him surviving his widow Rose Begley, and the following seven children, namely:— Mary Anne Begley, then aged eighteen years; Catherine Begley, then aged sixteen years; the defendant Michael Begley, then aged fourteen years; the defendant Peter Begley, then aged twelve years; Elizabeth Begley, then aged nine years; Rose Begley, the plaintiff, then aged seven years; Bridget Begley, then aged four years.

The testator's widow and all these children were residing on the lands at the time of the testator's death.

Mary Anne Begley married in 1882, when she ceased to reside on the lands. Catherine Begley married in 1890, when she ceased to reside on the lands. Michael Begley married in 1901, when he ceased to reside on the lands. Elizabeth Begley married in 1894, when she ceased to reside on the lands. Rose Begley, otherwise Rice, the plaintiff, married in 1898, when she ceased to reside on the lands. Bridget Begley resided on the lands until she died in the year 1884, an infant, intestate, without ever having been married.

From the date of the death of Stephen Begley, the deceased, Rose Begley, his widow and guardian of his children, is stated to have worked the lands alone up to the year 1878, from which date Michael Begley assisted her in working the lands until he ceased to reside on them in 1901. The defendant Peter Begley also assisted in the working of the lands from about the year 1880, and continued to work the lands down to the present date. Rose Begley, the testator's widow, continued to reside on the lands until her death on the 28th April, 1918.

By fiat of the Irish land Commission dated 27th June, 1907, the fee-simple of the lands was vested in Rose Begley, subject to an annuity of £51 16s. 2d. The ownership was registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, subject to the rights or equities (if any) arising from the interest vested in Rose Begley, widow, being deemed to be a graft on her previous interest in the lands, or arising in any other manner from the existence of such previous interest.

On the 7th October, 1910, Michael Begley, as plaintiff and claiming as the administrator of the personal estate of Stephen Begley, deceased, and as a creditor and as one of the next-of-kin of the deceased, issued an originating summons to administer the personal estate of Stephen Begley, in which proceedings Rose Begley, the widow, and Peter Begley were defendants. An order was made on the 24th November, 1910, in the Court of the Master of the Rolls, declaring that the trusts of the will of the deceased ought to be performed and carried into execution, and the usual accounts and inquiries taken and made. If these proceedings had been continued, there would, of course, have been a decision as to the rights of the plaintiff and her sisters in this action in regard to the farm, and in my opinion it was the duty of Michael Begley as administrator de bonis non to have proceeded in the regular way; and I have no doubt that the rights of the plaintiff to a distributive share of the value of the farm would have been established, having regard to the nature of the possession of Rose Begley, Michael Begley, and Peter Begley. But this decision would not have suited these people, and it is quite apparent...