The Trusts of The Will, Dated The 7Th September, 1879, of Christopher Neville Bagot, Decd. Between John Christopher Bagot, Plaintiff, and Arthur White, William Fry, Alice Emily Wynne Roberts, Catherine Meagher, The Representative Body of The Church of Ireland, William Hugh Neville Bagot, Josephine Isabella Bagot, George, and Milo Victor Neville Bagot, Defendants

JurisdictionIreland
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date16 April 1903
Date16 April 1903

Chancery Division

Ross, J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUSTS OF THE WILL, DATED THE 7TH SEPTEMBER, 1879, OF CHRISTOPHER NEVILLE BAGOT, DECD. BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTOPHER BAGOT, PLAINTIFF, AND ARTHUR WHITE, WILLIAM FRY, ALICE EMILY WYNNE ROBERTS, CATHERINE MEAGHER, THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND, WILLIAM HUGH NEVILLE BAGOT, JOSEPHINE ISABELLA BAGOT, GEORGE, AND MILO VICTOR NEVILLE BAGOT, DEFENDANTS.

Adams v. LopdellUNK 25 L. R. Ir. 311.

In re Bagot's Estate Ibid. 496.

In re Bowes; Earl Strathmore v. VaneELR [1896] 1 Ch. 507.

In re Herbage Rents, Greenwich; Charity Commissioners v. GreenELR [1896] 2 Ch. 811.

In re LofthouseELR 29 Ch. D. 921.

Odlum v. ThompsonUNK 31 L. R. Ir. 394.

Pertwee v. TownsendELR [1896] 2 Q. B. 129.

Sligo Railway v. WhyteUNK 31 L. R. Ir. 316

Swift v. KellyUNK 24 L. R. Ir. 107, 478.

Priority — Claimants on rents collected — Distribution according to equities arising after collection.

370 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUSTS OF THE WILL, DATED THE 7TH SEPÂTEMBER, 1879, OF CHRISTOPHER NEVILLE BAGOT, DECD. BETWEEN JOHN CHRISTOPHER BAGOT, PLAINTIFF, AND ARTHUR WHITE, WILLIAM FRY, ALICE EMILY WYNNE ROBERTS, CATHERINE MEAGHER, THE REPRESENÂTATIVE BODY OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND, WILLIAM HUGH NEVILLE BAGOT, JOSEPHINE ISABELLA BAGOT, GEORGE HINDS BAGOT, BERNARD WILLIAM NEVILLE BAGOT, AND MILO VICTOR NEVILLE BAGOT, DEFENDANTS. Priority—Claimants on rents collected—Distribution according to equities arising after collection. Prior to the appointment of a receiver over the lands of A, B, and C, the trustees for the infant owner, tenant in tail, had collected certain rents. R., an annuitant, whose annuity, though not in arrear when the rents were colÂlected, was in arrear when the application was made to the Court, was the first chargeant on A and B. Upon C an incumbrance for £25,000, the interest on which was in arrear at the date of the collection of the rents, and still in arrear, was the first charge. The trustee applied to Ross, J., by originating summons, for directions as to the application of the rents : Held, that they should be applied having regard to the equities affecting them when the matter was brought before the Court on summons, and not when they were collected, and consequently that R. should be paid the rents arising out of A and B, and the incumbrancer for £25,000 those arising out of C. ORIGINATING SUMMONS, by permission of the Court, brought by John Christopher Bagot, trustee of the will of Christopher Neville Bagot, for the determination, under Order LV., R. 4 (a) (e) (f) and (g) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Ireland), 1891, of the following questions : 1. Is the plaintiff at liberty out of the sum of £1433 16s. 6d. in his hands as such trustee to appropriate the sum of £500, or any and what other sum, in or towards the expenses of the mainÂtenance and education, or otherwise for the advancement or benefit of the late minor Milo Victor Neville Bagot ? VoL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 371 2. If the plaintiff is at liberty to make such appropriation as Boss, above mentioned, can he lawfully apply any portion of the sum so 1903. appropriated in or towards the payment of the costs incurred by In re &GOT. and on behalf of the said late minor in the proceedings now R GOT pending for the sale of the land devised by the will of Christopher V. Neville Bagot ? WHITE. 3. If such appropriation is lawful, how should the residue of the said sum of £1433 16s. 6d. be applied and dealt with? 4. If such appropriation is unlawful, how should the said sum be applied and dealt with ? 5. How should the costs of and incident to this application be borne or provided ? The summons was grounded on the affidavit of the plaintiff, which stated that he was the sole trustee of the will of Christopher Neville Bagot in the title hereof referred to, having been apÂpointed trustee thereof in the room of William Eden Holmes, and jointly with Bernard William Bagot, by deed dated the 20th February, 1897. Bernard William Bagot died on the 22nd January, 1899. The real estate devised by the will was, as hereinÂafter stated, the subject of proceedings for sale in this Court. John Lloyd Bagot and Thomas Edward Lloyd Neville Bagot, his eldest son, who were first and second tenants for life of the mansion-house and demesne lands of Aughrane under the will of ChrisÂtopher Neville Bagot, died prior to the appointment of the plaintiff as trustee. Upon the death of Thomas Edward Lloyd Neville Bagot the trustees or trustee of the will became entitled, under the provisions thereof, to enter into possession and receipt of the rents and profits of the mansion-house and demesne lands of Aughrane during the minority of the defendant Milo Victor Neville Bagot, the first tenant,in tail male under the will. William Eden Holmes and Bernard William Bagot, the trustees, entered into possession thereof, and received the profits thereof, and subsequently John Christopher Bagot, on his appointment As trustee jointly with Bernard William Bagot, and afterwards as surviving trustee, conÂtinued to manage the property down to the appointment of a receiver by the Land Judge on the 10th July, 1899. Milo Victor Neville Bagot attained the age of twenty-one years in the year 1901. There remained in the hands of the surviving trustee John THE IRISH REPORTS. [1903. Christopher Bagot, the plaintiff, the sum of £1433 16s. 6d., being the rents and profits of the real estates of Christopher Neville Bagot collected during the years 1898 and 1899, and prior to the appointment of the receiver ; of this sum £663 13s. 7d. consisted of the surplus moneys received for the grazing of the demesne lands of Aughrane after payment of all expenses of management, and the balance consisted of the rents and profits of the remaining lands of the estate after payment of outgoings and the annual sums and interest payable thereout. At the death of Christopher Neville Bagot the only charge or incumbrance affecting his said estate was an annuity of £1000 to Mrs. Wynne Roberts ; this was paid by the trustees, and they also paid the interest on the mortgages created under the powers conferred by the Bagot Estate Act, and the annual sum bequeathed to Mrs. Meagher, to the gale day preceding the appointment of the receiver. -When the receiver was appointed there were considerable arrears of interest due to William Hugh Neville Bagot, and of the annuity due to the Representative Church Body. No interest had been paid on the two sums of £5000 and the sum of £10,000 bequeathed by the will. Save a sum of £70 paid towards the maintentenance and education of Milo Victor Neville Bagot in the year 1897 out of the profits of Aughrane, no other sum was paid for his benefit. Milo Victor Neville Bagot had by his guardian incurred certain costs principally in opposing the appeal of William Hugh Neville Bagot to the Court of Appeal ; and the plaintiff was desirous of applying towards these costs and otherwise for the benefit of Milo Victor Neville Bagot £500, portion of the sum of £663 13s 7d. In opposition to the proposed application, Mr. John R. Lloyd, of the firm of Messrs. Moore, Kelly, Lloyd, solicitors for William Hugh Neville Bagot, filed an affidavit setting out that under section 3 of the Bagot Estate Act, 1881, all the lands comÂprising the estate for sale in the Land Judge's Court in the matter of the estate of Milo Victor Neville Bagot, owner, Arabella White, petitioner, and of Milo Victor Neville Bagot, owner, William Hugh Neville Bagot, petitioner, were charged with payment to William Hugh Neville Bagot of the sum of £25,000 with interest from the 22nd of April, 1880, at 3 per cent. That VOL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 373 by the order fixing priorities the charge of £25,000 was No. 5 R088, J. in the schedule to the order, and when the rents referred to in 1903. the originating summons were collected there were large arrears R In re of interest thereon to the amount of £8276 7s. 6d. That the only BAGOT charges prior to the charge for £25,000 in the priority order V. WHITE. were : (1) the annuity of £1000 to Mrs. Wynne Roberts ; (2) the annuity of £200 to Mrs. Meagher ; (3) arrears amounting to £400 of an annuity of £100 to the Representative Church Body; and (4) the costs mortgages for £6600 and £6000. At the date of the appointment of the receiver the only arrears on foot of these charges were those on the annuity to the Representative Church Body. Mr. William Hugh Neville Bagot consequently claimed that the sum of £1433 16s. 6d. should be applied in payment of the arrears of interest on his charge of £25,000 ; that the owner not having, under the order of the Court of Appeal of the 20th of June, 1900, been allowed any costs against the estate, should not be entitled to the sum of £500...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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