Stack v Royse

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 November 1861
• Date: 04 November 1861
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

STACK

and

ROYSE.

Mornington v. KeaneUNK 2 D. & J. 292.

Wilkins v. Wilkins 4 Jur., N. S., 47.

Lewis v. Maddock 8 Ves. 149.

Hardey v. GreenENR 12 Beav. 182.

Prebble v. Boghurst 1 Swan. 309.

Maclurcan v. Lane 5 Jur., N. S., 56.

Averall v. Wade L1. & G., temp. Sug., 252.

Jones v. Kearney 1 Dr. & War. 159.

White v. Anderson 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 419.

Creed v. Carey 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 295.

Whitworth v. GaugainENR 1 Ph. 728.

Carleton v. LeightonENR 3 Mer. 617.

Lyde v. Wynn 1 M. & K. 683.

Toley v. Percival 4 Br. C. C. 421.

Mornington v. KeaneUNK 2 D. & J. 292.

Wellesley v. Wellesley 4 M. & C. 554.

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson 4 Jur., N. S., 47.

Orpen v. Moore 2 Jones, 435.

Berrington v. Evans Young, 276.

Williams v. LucasENR 2 Cox, 160.

Holroyd v. MarshallENR 2 Giff. 382.

Hope v. HaylyENR 5 El. & Bl. 830.

Congreve v. EvettsENR 10 Exch. 298.

Harnett v. Yielding 2 Sch. & Lef. 549.

Needham v. SmithENR 4 Russ. 318.

Ryal v. RowlesECAS 2 Wh. & Tu. Lead. Cases, 573-4, and notes.

Freemouth v. DedireENR 1 P. Wms. 429.

Meeke v. KettlewellENRENR 1 Hare, 476; S. C., 1 Ph. 342.

Kenny v. ClarkeUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 275, 280.

Parker v. Taswell 2 De G. & Jones, 570.

Jones v. RoeUNK 3 Term Rep. 93.

Hobson v. TrevorENR 2 P. Wms. 192.

Beckley v. Newland Ibid, 182.

Wetherhed v. WetherhedENR 2 Sim. 183.

Smith v. BakerENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 229.

Carleton v. LeightonENR 3 Mer. 672.

Mornington v. Keane 2 De. G. & J. 292.

Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York 1 M. & C. 547.

Lyster v. BurroughsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 175.

Creed v. Carey 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 295.

Lyster v. BurroughsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 149.

Neate v. The Duke of Marlborough 3 M. & C. 414.

246 CHANCERY REPORTS. is further ordered, that the petitioners Lucinda Bolton, Susan Bolton and Henrietta Bolton do pay to the respondÂÂents the costs of the motion and of this order, when taxed and ascertained. And, in taxing said costs, it is further ordered that the Taxing-master do have regard to the circumstance that this motion was at hearing for two days ; and that he do allow refreshers accordingly. But the Court doth direct that only one set of costs be allowed to the respondents. And it is further ordered that the deposit lodged with the Registrar of this Court be handed over in part payment of said costs. April 30. May 30. June 1. Nov. 4. STACK v. ROYSE. By a marriage THE facts of this case are stated at length in the judgment of the settlement, of 1794, A con_ MASTER OF THE ROLLS, infra., p. 251. So far as regards the ques- veyed tion of Law which was decided, they were shortly as follows :- specified lands, certain of which he Thomas Royse the elder, under a deed of 1770, was seised for life of was seised in tail in remain• the lands of Knocknalooby, held for lives renewable for ever, which, der, together with all other under a covenant in the said deed, were to be assigned to his first son the lands, &c., which he was who should attain twenty-one. He died in 1792, leaving two sons, then or there after might be Vere Royse (who attained his age of twenty-one years about the possessed of or entitled to, in same time) and Robert Royse. Vere Royse had been an idiot from reversion, re mainder, or his birth, and was so found under a commission, on the 9th of otherwise howsoever, to trustees, to the use of himself for life, remainder, as he should appoint, among the issue male of the marriage, remainder over ; and covenanted to do any act or exeÂÂcute any conveyance, if required, of and concerning the specified lands, or any other lands and premises of which he should, at any time thereafter, be possessed of or entitled unto, &c„ for the further, better, more perfect and absolute carrying the settlement, and the true intent and meaning of the parties thereto, into full, legal and perfect execution. In 1819, a judgment was recovered against A ; and, in 1839, he became entitled, as heir-at-law of his brother, to other lands not speciÂÂfied in the settlement. In 1859, A died.-Held, that the trusts of the deed of 1794 attached to the latter lands on their acquisition by A, without any further act by him, and that his eldest son, claiming under that deed, was entitled to hold them discharged of the judgment. The case of Britton v. M4 Donald (5 Ir. Eq. Rep.) disapproved of, and qualified. CHANCERY REPORTS. 247 May 1793. The inquisition found also that he was seised of the ssaid lands. By letters patent of 1796, the custody of the estates of Vere Royse was granted by the Crown to Robert Royse, in trust to pay 300 to the committee of the person of the idiot, and in trust to pay a jointure, and the interest of a charge to which the lands were subject. On the 17th of May 1794, a settlement was executed, on the marÂÂriage of Robert Royse with Elizabeth Stack, by which the lands of BalÂÂlinreenick, held in fee, and of which Robert Royse was then seised in tail in remainder, after a previous estate tail to Vere Royse, "togeÂÂther with all other the lands, tenements, hereditaments and premises which the said Robert Royse is now, or hereafter may be, possessed of or entitled to, in reversion, remainder, or otherwise howsoever, together with all and singular the rights, &c., and all other lands he may be hereafter possessed of or entitled unto, and every part and parcel thereof," were conveyed to trustees, to hold the said towns, lands, &c., "together with all and singular other the lands and premises that the said Robert Royse is now, or may be hereÂÂafter, possessed of or entitled to, with their and every of the appurtenances," to the use of Robert Royse for life, and, after his death, to the use that Elizabeth his wife should receive a jointure out of the said towns, lands, &c., or any other lands, tenements or premises "he may, at any time hereafter, be posÂÂsessed of or entitled unto," with a power of distress on the said lands, or " upon any lands, &c., which Robert Royse shall, at any time thereafter, be possessed of or entitled unto," and a power to the said Robert Royse, by deed or will, to appoint among the issue male of the marriage, or one or more of them, the said towns and lands, " or any other lands he may be hereafter possessed of; remainder, in default of appointment, to the use of the first son of the marriage, in tail," remainder over. Robert Royse covenanted with the trustees to do any act, or execute any convey ance, if required, of and concerning the aforesaid lands, " or any other lands and premises of which the said Robert Royse shall, at any time hereafter, be possessed of or entitled unto, be the same by fine, common recovery, or otherwise howsoever, for the fur 1861. Rolls. STACK v. ROYSE. Statement. 248 CHANCERY REPORTS. ther, better and more perfect and absolute carrying the indenture, and the true intent and meaning of the parties hereto, into due, full, legal and perfect execution." A renewal of the lease of the lands of Knockalooby was granted to Robert Royse, in 1801. On the 18th of November 1819, Robert Royse exercised, by deed, his power of appointment in favour of Thomas Royse the younger, his eldest son. On the 19th of November 1819, John Stack obtained a judgÂÂment against Robert Royse. Vere Royse died on the 27th of April 1839. On the 27th of February 1841, a receiver was appointed over the lands included in the settlement of 1794, and over the said freeÂÂhold lands, by Mr. Mahony, another judgment creditor of Robert Royse, and extended to John Stack's judgment. Robert Royse died on the 18th of April 1859, whereupon Thomas Royse the younger entered into possession of the lands, without obtaining the leave of the Court. A motion having been made, on the 30th of April 1861, by John Stack, to revive ,the proceedings in the receiver matter, the case was, by the consent of the parties, set down in the cause list for Trinity Term. Mr. Brewster, Mr. Warren and Mr. Exham, for Thomas Royse. Argument. Thomas Royse is a purchaser, for valuable consideration, of the lands, under the settlement of 1794. That settlement was a valid equitable transaction, binding on Robert Royse, who, when he acquired the legal estate, became a trustee on the trusts of the settlement. It was not, as in Mornington v. Keane (a), a contract binding him to do something at a future time. It was a complete, absolute and present contract, requiring nothing to be done to comÂÂplete it but the acquisition of the lands, and creating an actual lien on the lands : Wilkins v. Wilkins (b) ; Lewis v. Maddock (c); Hardey v. Green (d) ; Prebble v. Boghurst (e); Maclurcan v. Lane (f); Averall v. Wade (g); Jones v. Kearney (h); White v. (a) 2 D. & J. 292. (b) 4 Jar., N. S., 47. (c) 8 Ves. 149. (d) 12 Beay. 182. (e) 1 Swan. 309. (f) 5 Jar., N. S., 56. (g) Ll. & G., temp. Sug., 252. (h) 1 Dr. & War. 159. CHANCERY REPORTS. 249 Anderson (a); Creed v. Carey (b). A judgment creditor of Robert Royse has no higher right than he had himself, and is subject to all -the equities to which he was subject himself: Whitworth v. Gaze-gain (c). Mr. Serjeant Sullivan, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Tudor, for the judgment...