Richardson v Murphy

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date12 March 1903
Date12 March 1903
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)

RICHARDSON
and

MURPHY

Chancery Division

Appeal

Trust — Charity — Charitable purpose, for the repose of souls — Selection by legatee — Masses — Uncertainty.

Attorney-General v. DelaneyUNKIR I. R. 10 C. L. 104.

Blair v. DuncanELR [1902] A. C. 37.

Boyle v. Boyle I. R. 11 Eq. 433.

Heath v. ChapmanENR 2 Drew. 417.

Morice v. Bishop of Durham 10 Ves. 522.

Morice v. Bishop of Durham 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 522.

Re MacduffELR [1896] 2 Ch. 451.

West v. ShuttleworthENR 2 My. & K. 684.

Williams v. KershawENR 5 Cl. & Fin. 111.

VOL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 227 RICHA.RDSON v. MURPHY. Trust—Charity—Charitable purpose, for the repose of souls—Selection by legatee—Masses—Uncertainty. A testator bequeathed the residue of his estate to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin for the time being " to be applied by him in such charities as he shall select for the repose of the souls of myself, my wife, and my parents " :— Held, a valid charitable gift and not void for uncertainty. BY his will, dated 19th September, 1881, John Kinsley proÂvided as follows :—" I will and bequeath three sums of £10 each, making in all £30 sterling, unto the Rev. Mathew M'Entee, of the Star of the Sea Chapel, Sandymount, county of Dublin, to procure the celebration of Masses—first, for the repose of my own soul ; second, that of my late wife Anne Kinsley ; and third, that of my father and mother. I will and bequeath to my housekeeper Mary Howe a sum of £15 sterling, and, subject to the payment of the foregoing legacies and my just debts and funeral expenses, I will and bequeath all I shall die possessed of or entitled unto to the said Rev. Mathew M'Entee aforesaid and Laurence Murphy, to hold same as trustees for the following purposes." The trusts declared were to pay the interest arising from the trust funds to the testator's daughter Frances Richardson " for the support of herself and my grandson John Kinsley Richardson, and until he shall attain the age of twenty-one years, and after that for her own support for the period of her natural life. . . . After the decease of my said daughter my trustees are to hold said trust funds as aforesaid until my said grandson shall attain the age of twenty-five years, when they are to pay him over the same." The will also provided as follows :—" In the event of my said grandson dying under the age of twenty-five years, then upon the death of my said daughter my trustees are to hold said principal sum, &c. (the trust property), and pay over or assign one-half thereof to my brother-in-law Laurence Murphy or his heirs for T2 228 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. M. B. his or their own proper use and benefit, and the other half thereof 1903. unto the Roman Catholic Archbishop having pastoral jurisdiction RICHARDSON for the time being in the city of Dublin, to be applied by him in v. MURPHY. such charities as he shall select for the repose of the souls of myself, my wife, and my parents." John Kinsley died 12th February, 1883, and probate of his will was granted on 6th March, 1884, to Laurence Murphy (the other executor having renounced). Frances Richardson, who was testator's only child, died 20th December, 1894 ; John Kinsley Richardson died 23rd May, 1902, aged under twenty-five years, intestate and without issue, leaving his widow Margaret RichardÂson surviving. An action was commenced for the administration of the personal estate of the testator John Kinsley, and by order of the Court made on further consideration, dated 28th October, 1896, it was declared that the funds in Court to the credit of the action were subject to the trusts of the will of John Kinsley, the testator in the action, as to said testator's residuary personal estate. Laurence Murphy died in 1898, having...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • O'Hanlon v Logue
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 5 February 1906
    ...(5) Amb. 201. (6) 1 Ves. Jun. 546. (7) 1 Keen, 803. (8) 3 Drew, 245. (9) I. R. 11 C. L. 292. (10) [1897] 2 I. R. 426, at p. 449. (11) [1903] 1 I. R. 227. (1) I. R. 10 C. L. 104. (2) 4 Rep. 104. (3) 1 Dr. & War. at pp. 319-324. (1) 1 Dr. & War. 258, 300. (2) I. R. 10 C. L. 104. (3) 7 Ir. Eq.......
  • Burke v Power
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 21 November 1904
    ...I so hold. r. w. l. (1) 21 L. R. Ir. 12. (1) I. R. 11 Eq. 433. (2) I. R. 10 Eq. 152. (3) [1896] 2 I. R. 291; [1897] 2 I. R. 426. (4) [1903] 1 I. R. 227. (5) L. R. 12 Eq. (6) 38 Ir. L. T. R. 235. (7) 17 Ir. Ch. R. 43. ...
  • Arnott v Arnott
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 10 November 1905
    ...2 Ch. 41. (2) 1 Keen, 224. (3) 3 Hare, 257. (4) L. R. 5 Ch. 570. (1) [1902] A. C. 37. (2) 7 Simon, 352. (3) [1898] 1 Ch. 565. (4) [1903] 1 I. R. 227. (5) L. R. 5 Ch. (6) [1893] 2 Ch. 41. (7) 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 521. (8) 3 Mer. 17. (9) [1899] A. C. 309. (1) 10 Ves. 521. (2) [1903] 1 I. R. 22......

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