Staunton v Staunton

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 April 1864
• Date: 16 April 1864
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Staunton

and

Staunton.

Rolls.

CHANCERY REPORTS,

BEING A SERIES OF

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY,

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY,

Rolls Court, Landed Estates Court,

AND

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.

The petition in this matter, which was referred to Master Murphy under the 15th section of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act 1850, was filed for the administration of the real and personal estate of William Barron Staunton. The testator was seised at the time of his death of one-sixth part of the lands of Killadangan, which he had purchased in 1855. Andrew Carberry filed a charge in the Master's office, on foot of a recognizance bearing date the 2nd of August 1848, for £149, which he claimed as a charge on the lands of Killadangan. The recognizance was acknowledged by Maurice Goff, Dominick Fallon, and John Donovan Barron, as sureties for the receiver in a cause of Carberry v. Cox, and was registered under the 8 & 9 Vic., c. 90. A scire facias was sued out on the recognizance in the Petty-bag side of the Court of Chancery, and judgment was obtained in that Court on the 8th of February 1860.

It appeared in evidence before the Master, that the connusee Barron's christian or bantismal name was John. He was made fee-farm grant of the lands of Killadangan, was made to him as John Laurence Barron.

The testator, William Barron Staunton, having become the purchaser of the lands of Killadangan on the 17th of August 1855, a deed was executed, whereby John Petterick, in whom the mortgage was vested, and John Laurence Barron, conveyed the one-sixth of the said lands of Killadangan to William Barron Staunton, and his heirs. The purchaser had no notice of the recognizance.

Some parol evidence was given before the Master, to the effect that the connusee of the recognizance was known as John Donovan Staunton. The result of it is stated in the judgment.

The Master, by his decretal order of the 25th of April 1863, declared that the recognizance was invalid against the purchaser for value of the testator and his registered conveyance of the 17th of August 1855, and that the recognizance was not a charge upon the sixth part of the said lands of Killadangan, and he disallowed the claim with costs.

Andrew Carberry now moved, by way of appeal, to vary the Master's order.

Argument.

The Solicitor-General and Mr. Thomas Harris, in support of the appeal, argued that, according to the evidence of members of his family, John Donovan Barron was the name by which the connusee of the judgment had been always known. Donovan was a surname which he had, and might lawfully have assumed: Barlow v. Bateman (a).

The name of a person is that by which he is usually known in the world: Rex. v. The Inhabitants of Billinghurst (b). John Donovan Barron was, on the evidence, the name by which the connusee was known in the world; and it was therefore the proper name to be inserted in the memorandum to be registered in pursuance of the 7 & 8 Vic., c. 90, s. 11, which requires “the name and the usual or last known place of abode, and the title, trade, or profession of the person whose estate is intended to be affected thereby.” In re Carew (a);

Reeves v. Slator (b); Gould v. Barnes (c); Mechane v. Henstaz (d); Sabine v. Johnston (e); Jones v. M'Quillan (f), Bevan v. Lord Oxford (g); Co. Lit. 3 a; 2 Thomas; Co. Lit. pp. 217, 218.

Mr. Norman, and Mr. George Foley, in support of the Master's order.

A man cannot have a christian name which was not conferred on him at baptism. Bacon's Abrid., Misnomer B; Gerrard v. Barnes (h); Jones v. M'Quillan (i); Green v. Richardson (k); Vin. Abr., Misnomer, C, 12. Therefore, the name of “Donovan” could not have been assumed as a christian name; and there is no evidence that he took that name as a surname, for he was made a ward of Court by the name of John Laurence Barron; and any act done by him in relation to this particular property was done in that name. The object of the statute was the identification, not of the individual, but of the estate to be charged; and that object could not be attained by registering the recognizance in a wrong name, and one under which he never dealt with the estate. The proper course would have been to have registered the recognizance in the name by which he took the estate, according to Bevan v. Lord Oxford; Fenelly v. Tucker (l).

Judgment.

The Master of the Rolls.

The petition was filed by Elizabeth Jane Staunton the elder, executrix of the will of William Barron Staunton deceased, and also devisee and legatee in the said will, for the administration of the real and personal estate of the said William Barron Staunton. The case was referred by the Lord Chancellor to Master Murphy, and the petitioner having married Archibald Dunlop, the suit was revived.

The Master made a decretal order in the cause, dated the 25th of April, and signed the 7th of July 1863, which states that several charges and discharges were filed; and, amongst others, a charge was filed by one Andrew Carberry, claiming to be a creditor upon the real estate of the testator William Barron Staunton, under a certain recognizance entered into on the 2nd day of August 1848, for the sum of £149. 10s. 8d., the validity of the registry of which, under the 8 & 9 of The Queen, c. 90, was disputed by the said petitioner, and also by the guardians of the minors (Elizabeth Jane Staunton the younger, and William Barron Staunton); and it is, by the said order of the Master, “adjudged and declared that the portion or share of the lands of Killadangan, purchased by and conveyed to the said testator William Barron Staunton, after the date of his will, did not pass under same, but descended to the said minor respondent William Barron Staunton the younger, as his heir-at-law, subject however to the incumbrances and debts of the said testator:” and then follows this declaration, which is appealed against;— “And it is also ordered that the recognizance claimed by the said Andrew Carberry is invalid against the purchase for value by the testator, and his registered conveyance bearing date the 17th of August 1855, and that the said recognizance is not a charge upon the real estate so purchased by the said testator (same consisting of the one-sixth part or share of the said lands of Killadangan), and that the claim of the said Andrew Carberry be disallowed with costs.”

The notice of motion by way of appeal has been served by Andrew Carberry, seeking to set aside the said declaration in the order, and that the Court should declare that the said recognizance bearing date the 8th of August 1848, entered into in the Court of Chancery, in the cause of Andrew Carberry plaintiff, Augustine Cox and others defendants, by Maurice Goff, Dominick Fallon, and John Donovan Barron...