The Estate of John Stinson and Thomas Stinson, Owners; Margaret M'Munn, Petitioner

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeRoss J.
Judgment Date14 December 1909
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Date14 December 1909
In the Matter of the Estate of John Stinson and Thomas Stinson
Owners
and
Margaret M'Munn
Petitioner.

Ross J.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1910.

Settlement — Rentcharge — Equitable estate — No words of limitation — Estate for life or in fee-simple — Intention.

By indenture of settlement, dated 15th October, 1808, the lands of B were charged with a perpetual rentcharge in fee. By indenture of marriage settlement, dated 1st September, 1858, the rentcharge was conveyed to a trustee, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, in trust to pay the rentcharge to the wife during her life, and after her death to and amongst the child or children of the intended marriage, in such shares and proportions as she should appoint; and, if there should be no child or children of the intended marriage, to the general appointees by deed or will of the wife. There were no further limitations of the rentcharge:—

Held, that, there being sufficient indication of intention, there was no resulting use for the heir-at-law of the settlor, but that the children, on the death of the wife without appointing, took equitable estates in fee-simple in the rentcharge.

By indenture of settlement dated 15th October, 1808, the lands of Ballymeeny were charged with a perpetual rentcharge of £20 in fee. By indenture of marriage settlement dated 1st September, 1858, and made between Robert M'Munn of the first part, Margaret Ruttledge of the second part, and Rev. Edward Lowe as trustee of the third part, reciting that Margaret Ruttledge was possessed of the yearly rentcharge of £20 charged upon and payable out of the lands of Ballymeeny, reciting further that it had been agreed between all the parties that the said Margaret Ruttledge should convey and assign all her right, title, and interest in and to the said yearly rentcharge to the said Rev. Edward Lowe, in trust to pay the said yearly rentcharge to the said Margaret Ruttledge, during her life, and, after the death of the said Margaret Ruttledge, then to and amongst the child or children of said Margaret Ruttledge and Robert M'Munn, her said intended husband, in such shares and proportions as she, the said Margaret Ruttledge, should by deed or will direct, limit and appoint, and, for want of such direction, then in such shares and proportions as he, the said Robert M'Munn, should by deed or will direct, limit, and appoint, and, if there should be no child or children of said intended marriage, then upon trust to such persons as the said Margaret Ruttledge should by deed or will appoint, it was witnessed that the said Margaret Ruttledge assigned, transferred and made over to the said Rev. Edward Lowe, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, the said annuity yearly rentcharge or annual sum of £20 charged upon and payable out of said lands of Ballymeeny, in trust to pay the said annuity to the said Margaret Ruttledge during her life, and after her death to and amongst the child or children of the said Margaret Ruttledge and Robert M'Munn, the said intended husband, in such shares and proportions as she, the said Margaret Ruttledge, should direct, limit, and appoint, and in default of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Re Cross's Trusts. Cross v Cross
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • July 20, 1915
    ...Trusts, Tringhum v. Greenhill, [1904] 2 Ch. 487, In re Houston, Rogers v. Houston, [1909] 1 I. R. 319, and In re Stinson's Estate, [1910] 1 I. R. 47, followed. Meyler v. Meyler, 11 L. R. Ir. 522, and Bennett's Estate, [1898] 1 I. R. 185, not followed. Summons. By an indenture dated the 12th......
  • The Estate of William A. Battersby
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • July 28, 1911
    ...370. (3) [1895 2 Ch. 100. (4) [1898] 2 Ch. 499. (5) 35 Ch. D. 607. (6) 19 Ch. D. 539. (7) [1900] 1 Ch. 774. (1) 4 Exch., at p. 124. (2) [1910] 1 I. R. 47. (3) 30 L. R. Ir. (4) Id., at pp. 80–81. (1) 67 L. J. Ch. 34. (2) [1893] 3 Ch. 363. (3) [1904] 2 Ch. 487. (4) 2 P. Wms. 349. (5) 2 Dr. & ......
  • Jameson and Scrutton v McGovern
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • April 27, 1934
    ...N. I. 191. (3) [1919] 1 I. R. 187. (4) 11 L. R. Ir. 142. (5) 11 L. R. Ir. 522. (6) [1898] 1 I. R. 185. (7) [1909] 1 I. R. 319. (8) [1910] 1 I. R. 47. (9) [1911] 1 I. R. (10) [1915] 1 I. R. 304. (1) 11 L. R. Ir. 522. (2) [1904] 2 Ch. 487. (3) [1894] 1 Ch. 661. (4) [1905] 1 Ch. 191. (5) [1915......
  • Gaussen and French v Ellis and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • May 29, 1930
    ...(5) [1905] 1 Ch. 191. (6) [1915] 1 I. R. 304, at p. 313. (7) [1910] 2 Ch. 181. (8) [1898] 1 I. R. 185. (9) [1909] 1 I. R. 319. (10) [1910] 1 I. R. 47. (11) [1919] 1 I. R. 187. (12) [1919] 1 I. R. 53. (13) [1919] 1 I. R. 205. (14) 17 W R. 988. (15) [1894] 1 Ch. 661. (16) 1 Bro. C. C. 92. (17......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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