Rotheram v Rotheram
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1884 |
| Date | 23 June 1884 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Ireland) |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H. L. Cas. 823.
Jesson v. Wright 2 Bligh, I.
Doe v. RucastleENR 8 C.B.876.
Crozier v. Crozier 3 Dr. & War. 353.
Blackhall v. GibsonUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 49.
Yarrow v. Knightly 8 Ch. Div. 736.
Madan v. Taylor 45 L. J. Ch. (N.S.) 569.
Re Pollard's Estate 3 De.G. J. & S. 541.
Knight v. Selby 3 M. & Gr. 92.
In re PollardENR 3 De G. J. & S. 541.
Morris v. MorrisUNKUNKIRIR I.R.6 C. L. 73; I. R. 7 C. L. 295.
Batteste v. Maunsell I.R.10 Eq. 97, 314.
Blackhall v. GibsonUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 49.
Lees v. Mosley 1 Y. & C. 589.
Montgomery v. MontgomeryIR 8 I. E. R. 740.
Crozier v. Crozier 3 Dr. & W.373.
Mitchell v. Coulson 1 H. & Br. 210.
Toovey v. Bas-setENR 10 East, 460
Glover v. MoncktonENR 3 Bing. 15.
In Doe d. Cannon v. RucastleENR 8 C. B. 876.
In Doe d. Willis v. MartinUNK 4 Term Rep.39.
Owen v. SmythENR 2 H.BL.595.
Maden v. Taylor 45 L.J. Ch. (N.S.) 369.
Wat-kins v. Frederick 11 H. L. Cas. 358.
Knight v.Selby 3 M. & Gr. 92.
Challenger v. Shep-pardENR 8 T. R. 597.
Smith v. SmithENR 11 C.B.(N.S.) 121.
Montgomery v. MontgomeryENR 3 Jo.& Lat. 47.
Lethieullier v. TracyENR 3 Atk. 774, 795.
Baker v. Tucker 3 H. L. Cas. 106.
Doe d. Cannon v. RucastleENR 8 C.b.876.
Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H. L. Cas. 823.
Kavanagh v. MorlandENR Kay, 16.
Roddy v. FitzgeraldELR 5 App. Cas. 447.
Clifford v. Koe I. R. 4 Eq. 263.
Colclough v. Col-Clough 4 De. G. M. & G. 73.
Key v. Key 15 Ves. 564.
Weight v.LeighUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 49.
Blackhall v. GibsonENR 3 De G. J. & S. 541.
Challenger v. SheppardENR 8 T. R. 597.
Knight v. Selby 3 M.& Gr. 92.
Andrew v. Andrew 1 Ch. Div. 410.
De Windt v.De WindtELR L. R. 1 H. L. 87.
Toovey v. BassettENR 10 East, 460.
Doe. d. Gallini v.GalliniENR 5 B. & Ad. 621; on Appeal, 3A.& E. 340.
Mitchell v. Coulson 1 H. & Br. 210
Morris v. MorrisUNKUNKIRIR I.R.6 C. L. 73; I. R. 7 C. L. 295.
Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H. L.Cas. 823.
Marquis of StaffordENR 7 East, 521.
Doe d. Willis v. MartinUNK 4 Term Rep. 39.
Whitelaw v. Whitelaw 5 L. R. I. 120.
Montgomery v. Montgomery 3 J. & L. 47.
Hockley v. Mawbey 1 Ves. Jun. 142.
Leeming v. SherrattENR 2 Hare, 14.
Morris v. MorrisUNKIR I. R. 7 C. L. 295.
Robb v. DorrianUNKIR I. R. 11 C. L.292.
Kavanagh v. MorelandENR Kay, 16, 26
Colclough v. Colclough I. R. 4 Eq. 263.
Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H.L.Cas.823.
Jesson v. WrightENR 2 Bligh, 1.
Kananagh v. MorelandENR Kay, 15, 26.
Colclough v. Colclough I. R. 4 Eq. 294.
Will — Estate for life or in quasi tail — Issue taking as purchasers — Estate taken by trustees — Fee-farm grant to tenant in quasi tail.
Yu,. XIII.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 429 have regard to what the form of such settlement would be. I V. C. must declare, therefore, that none of the children who have taken 1884. T.RE IL M appointed shares can claim any portion of the unappointed residue v, without bringing their appointed shares into hotchpot. Gomm. Solicitor for the Plaintiff : Air. G. Hill Major. Solicitor for G. V. Stewart :.Dlr. R. Hudson. Solicitor for Elizabeth Miller : Hr. .3P Gusty. Solicitor for Robert and William Miller : Mr. Burton Booth. Solicitors for John and Sophia Gulson : Messrs. JP Mahon Lane. Solicitors for Alexander and Mary Stewart Mitchell: Messrs. Crawford Lockhart. ROTHERAM v. ROTHERAM. Will-Construction-.Estate for life or in quasi tail-Issne taking as purÂchasers-Estate taken by trustees-Fee-farm grant to tenant in quasi tail. A testator, who held certain lands under a lease for lives renewable for ever, by his will, which came into operation prior to the passing of the Wills Act, 1837, devised all his estate in the lands to trustees upon trust, in the first place, out of the rents and profits to pay such sum or sums as the guardians of his third son G. S. R. should appoint for the maintenance of his son during minority; and he directed that the residue of the rents should accumulate at interest in GovernÂment securities for the benefit of G. S. It. until he attained twenty-one, and that as soon as he attained twenty-one or married with the consent of his guardians, then the accumulations and Government securities should be handed over to him. And as to the said lands, the testator declared that they were so given and devised to the said trustees, upon trust, in the first place, that the rents should accumulate during the minority of G. S. R. until he should attain twenty-one, or marry with the consent of his guardians ; and, in the next place, to suffer G. S. R. to take the rents of the said lands for life, and after his death then to the use of the issue of G. S. I. lawfully begotten, male and female, in such shares and proportions as G. S. I. should by deed or will appoint ; and for want of such appointment, the said lands to go to and among all the lawful issue of G. S. It. living at the time of his death, share and share alike, and, if but one child living, then the whole of said lands to go to such only child, male or female, his or her heirs or assigns for 430 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). V. C. ever. If G. S. R. should happen to die without leaving issue male or female, 1884. the testator devised the lands to E. R. and T. R. in fee ; and in case G. S. R. ROTHERAM should marry without the consent of his guardians, or should die under twenty one without leaving issue, he directed that the lands should be conveyed by the ltOTHERA.M. trustees to E. R. and T. It. in fee. G. S. It. attained age, and obtained a fee-farm grant of the said lands, in which it was recited that G. S. R. was tenant for life. G. S. It. died without issue, having made a will not purporting to dispose of these lands, but containing a residuary devise. In an action by his residuÂary devisee against persons claiming under E. It. and T. R. :- Held, by CHATTERTON, V. C., that G. S. R. took an estate in quasi tail in the lands ; that by obtaining the fee-farm grant he had barred the entail and that the lands passed under his will to the Plaintiff. Held, by the Court of Appeal, reversing the judgment of the VICE-CHANCELÂLOR, that G. S. R. took an estate for life only in the lands, -with remainder to his issue living at his death, in quasi fee, and that on his death without having had such issue E. R. and T. R. became entitled in quasi fee. Roddy v. Fitzgerald (6 H. L. C. 823) commented on and distinguished. GEORGE ROTHERAM, being entitled to the towns and lands of Little Annagh and of Tourbridestown, in the barony of Demifore, in the county of Meath, under a lease for lives renewable for ever, dated 24th May, 1734, by his will dated 7th June, 1813, gave, devised and bequeathed unto James Lenox William Naper and James Gibbons, and the survivor of them, and the heirs of such survivor, all his estate, right, title and interest of, in and to the towns and lands of Little Annagh and of Tourbridestown, together with certain other lands therein mentioned, in trust, in the first place, out of the rents and profits thereof to pay the chief rents payable thereout, and in the next place, out of the rents and profits to pay such sum or sums of money as the guardians of his third son George Smith Rotheram should appoint, for the mainteÂnance, clothing and education of his said 'son during his minority ; and as to the remainder of the rents, issues and profits of said lands, he declared his will to be that same should accumulate at interest from time to time in Government securities in the name of Edward Rotheram and James Gibbons and the survivor of them, for the benefit of his said son George Smith Rotheram until he attained the age of twenty-one years ; and as soon as he should attain twenty-one years, or marry with the consent of his guardians VOL. XIII.] CHANCERY DI VISION. thereinafter named, or any two of them, then the testator ordered and directed that said accumulations and Government securities should be handed over and assigned to his said son George, his executors, administrators and assigns. By his said will the said testator declared as follows: " And as to, for and concerning the said towns and lands of Little Annagh and Tourbridestown, so given and devised by me to the said James Lenox William Naper and James Gibbons, my will and intention is, that said last-mentioned lands and premises are so given and devised to my said trustees upon the trusts and for the uses and purposes hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, upon trust in the first place, that the rents, issues and profits thereof shall accuÂmulate and be disposed of during the minority of said George Smith Rotheram in manner hereinbefore mentioned, until the said George Smith Rotheram shall attain the age of twenty-one years, or marry with such consent as hereinafter mentioned ; and, in the next place, to permit and suffer my said son George Smith Rotheram and his assigns to use, occupy and enjoy the said lands of Little Annagh and Tourbridestown, and receive the rents and profits of the said lands during the term of his natural life, without impeachÂment of or for any manner of waste ; and from and after the decease of my said son George Smith Rotheram, then to the use of the issue lawfully begotten of the said George Smith Rotheram, male and female, in such shares and proportions as the said George Smith Rotheram shall by deed or will under his hand and seal, attested by two or more credible subscribing witnesses, direct, limit and appoint ; and for want of such direction or limitation, the said lands and premises to go to and among all the lawful issue of the said George Smith Rotheram, male or female, living at the time of his death, share and share alike, and if but one child living, lawfully begotten, then the whole of said lands to go to such only child, male or female, his or her heirs or assigns for ever. And in case my said son George Smith Rotheram shall happen to die without leaving lawful issue, male or female, then my will is, and I hereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial