1803. TAGGART V. TAGGART. Then what is the usual course of settling property of this kind? In Williams v. Jekyll, 2 Ves. 681, the words " to the use of his issue lawfully begotten," were held to create a joint-tenancy; but that was the case of an actual conveyance: if it had been upon articles or agreement, I conceive that there would have been no ground to hold it a jointtenancy. Joint-tenancy as a provision for the children of a marriage, is an inconvenient mode of settlement, because during their minorities, no use can be made of their portions for their advancement, as the joint-tenancy cannot be severed. No doubt, therefore, if the parties in this case had come into a court of equity shortly after the marriage to have a settlement made pursuant to the articles, the disposition would have been, to the father for life, with remainder to the children as tenants in common, subject perhaps to a power of appointment in the father. The case of Hanbury v. Hanbury, (cited, 3 Atk. 372) before Lord TALBOT, I have no doubt determined this point; it was a case upon articles to settle a sum of money: the words are these; "Item. A. agrees to make a provision of 4,000l. for the younger "children of the marriage to take place after the death of "the father and mother:" I have no doubt Lord TALBOT had that money settled as usual among the children of the marriage as tenants in common and not as joint-tenants. In this case therefore I am of opinion that this chattel interest should be divided amongst the children of William and Rebecca as tenants in common, and consequently should go by right of representation as to the share of the child who has died, among the children of William's second marriage, together with the plaintiff. Reg. Lib. xlviii. 463. "DECREE-That the agreement "contained in the marriage articles of the 28th November, "1771, in the pleadings mentioned, for settling one moiety "of the farm in said articles mentioned and 40%. upon the "issue of the marriage of the plaintiff's late father and "mother, be carried into execution, and declare that in the "execution of such articles, such moiety of the said farms "and also the said sum of 20%. ought to have been so set"tled as to vest the same in the children of the marriage as "tenants in common with provision for limiting the same "over in case any such children had died under twenty-one "and without issue. And there being issue of the marriage only the plaintiff and Joseph Taggart her late brother, "and the plaintiff having attained twenty-one, and Joseph 66 Taggart having also attained twenty-one in his life time, "decree plaintiff entitled to one moiety of the premises, "and declare, that the remaining moiety was part of the personal estate of the said Joseph Taggart, the clear surplus whereof was divisible between the plaintiff and the "defendants her brother and sisters, the issue of her fa"ther by his second marriage, in equal shares: And it "being admitted that said moiety of a moiety of said farm " and the moiety of said sum of 401. is the principal of "the clear surplus of the personal estate of the said Joseph "Taggart, declare that the same ought to be divided into "six shares between said plaintiff and said defendants the children, and let the same be divided accordingly; and "let one moiety of a moiety of said farm, and also one sixth "part of the other moiety of said farm be assigned by de"fendant Taggart to the plaintiff, and let possession thereof "be forthwith delivered to her, subject to one moiety of a "moiety and one sixth of a moiety of the rents reserved, &c. "Let the master accordingly take an account of the rents "issues and profits of the several premises in the pleadings "mentioned, from the time of the death of William แ Taggart deceased in the pleadings mentioned, the father "of said several parties; and let the master also take an 1803. TAGGART V. TAGGART. 1803. TAGGART V. TAGGART. "account of the personal estate of the said William Taggart, into whose hands same came and how applied, and "let an injunction issue to put plaintiff into possession of "said proportion of said premises." BUSHELL v. BUSHELL. Λου. 9, 11, The registry of deeds, &c. under the registry act, 6 Ann. c. 2. is not notice. But the 4th clause of that act gives to all deeds registered, as thereby directed, effi JOHN OHN BUSHELL, (grandfather of the plaintiffs) being seized of the lands of Ballyvaughan by virtue of a lease for three lives with a covenant for perpetual renewal, in which Edward Bushell the elder claimed some interest, the said John and Edward previous to the intermarriage of Edward Bushell the younger (father of the plaintiffs) with Elizabeth Duckett, entered into "indented articles of agreement." bearing date the 16th of Jan. 1755, and "covenanted con"cluded and agreed upon by and between the said John and "Edward Bushell the elder of the first part, James Duckett time of registry. " of the second part, Edward Bushell the younger of the "third part, and Francis Penefather and Richard Shaw of "the fourth part, whereby in consideration of the intended cacy in law and in equity according to the priority of the marriage, and of the sum of 300%. the marriage portion of "Eliz. Duckett, and for the natural love and affection of the "said John and Edward unto the said Edward the younger, "and in consideration of 5s. to each of them in hand paid, "the said John and Edward the elder, did grant, convey and << assign unto the said F. P. and R. S. and the survivor of 66 them, his heirs and assigns for ever, all their right title and "interest of, in and to the lease and lands of Ballyvaughan, "and all benefit thereof, under and subject to the following "uses intents and purposes: as to one moiety then held by "Edward the elder, to his use till the 25th day of March "then next, and from thence to the use and benefit of Ed"ward the younger for and during his natural life, and as แ to the other moiety, to the use and benefit of Edward the younger from and immediately after the perfection of said "articles for and during his natural life, subject to the pay"ment of two several sums of 51. yearly to the said John "Bushell and his wife during their respective lives, and "from and after the decease of said Edward, charged and chargeable with a jointure of 30%. a year for said Elizabeth "in case she should survive the said Edward, and the said premises from and after the death of the said John and "his wife, the said Edward, and Elizabeth his intended wife, "to the use of the issue to be begotten by said Edward on “said Elizabeth in such shares and proportions as the said "Edward and Elizabeth by any deed in writing should direct and appoint; with power to said Edward to charge "the said premises with 50%. for his own debts. There was also a covenant for further assurance. These articles were duly registered. The marriage took effect, and Edward entered into possession of said lands, and continued in possession until Aug. 1778, when he died leaving Elizabeth his widow, Edward his eldest son, and five other sons, and six daughters: but shortly before his death, on the 31st July, 1778, he duly made and published his last will, whereby he devised the said lands to his eldest son and his heirs, subject to his debts and legacies, and if he should die without issue male, then to his second son, and his lawful issue male, and so to continue in the male line according to seniority: and he thereby bequeathed to his wife during her viduity the sum of 101. a 1803. BUSHELL υ. RUSHELL. 1803. BUSHELL V. BUSHELL. year over and above the 30% which she was entitled to by her marriage settlement; and to his second son James 200l. to be paid him at his age of twenty-five, with 10%. a year du ring his life, together with his interest in the farm of Killotlea: to his third son John, (one of the plaintiffs) the testator bequeathed his interest in the lands of Johnstown, and to his fourth son Thomas, (also a plaintiff) his interest in the farm of Lahoppal. To his eldest daughter Mary Cooke (who had married and been portioned in his life time) he left 51. and to each of his other children, viz. Elizabeth (since married to John Butler,) Anne (since married to Charles Jackson,) Robert, William, Judith, Ruth, and Catharine, 2001. each. No deed of appointment in pursuance of the articles of 1755 was ever executed, but Elizabeth, the wife of the testator, at the time of execution of said will, knew and approved thereof, and by a writing endorsed on the back of the said will, after the death of her husband, and bearing date the 14th of Sept. 1778, "did ratify and confirm the said will "and the appointments thereby made;" and this will and endorsement were registered on the 12th day of June, 1784, subsequent to the registry of the articles of 1755. Edward Bushell the son entered into possession of the lands of Ballyvaughan by virtue of the devise in the will of his father, and in 1781, intermarried with Alicia Keating; previous to which marriage, by deed bearing date 25th Feb. 1781, Edward limited said lands of Ballyvaughan to trustees to secure to his wife Alicia, in case there should be issue of said marriage, the yearly sum of 100%. in case she should survive her husband, and subject thereto to the use of the first son of said marriage, with subsequent limitations. There was issue of this marriage, one son and two daughters: Edward died in 1789, intestate and insolvent, and his widow married Jeremiah Lilly. Edward Bushell having in Feb. 1780 |