Page images
PDF
EPUB

1803.

BUSHELL

BUSHELL

mortgaged the estate, it was sold under a decree of the court of Exchequer, and purchased in trust for Elizabeth Bushell, the mother of the plaintiffs, who continued in possession (the plaintiffs residing with her) till the year 1796, when a receiver was appointed in a cause instituted in this court by Alicia, the widow of Edward Bushell, against Elizabeth and her children.

Under these circumstances, the six younger children of Edward and Elizabeth Bushell filed their bill, in April 1798, (about which time they had all attained the age of twentyone) against Elizabeth Bushell, Jeremiah and Alicia Lilly and her infant son by Edward Bushell, and against the elder brothers and sisters, insisting that they had never acquiesced in or abided by said will of July 1778, and praying to be decreed to each one twelfth part of the lands of Ballyvaughan, and for an account of the issues and profits of such their respective shares since the death of Edward their father. The elder brothers and sisters by their answers elected to accept the portions appointed for them by the will.

This case was argued by Mr. Burston, Mr. O'Grady and Mr. Sankey for the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Saurin, Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Plunket for the defendants. On the part of the plaintiffs it was insisted that the registry of the articles of 1755, prior to that of the settlement under which the defendants claimed, made them purchasers with full notice of those articles, the registry of a deed being notice to all the world of existence of such deed, and of its contents, so far as they are contained in the memorial; and it was stated that such had been the prevailing opinion in Ireland on the effect of the Registry Act (a).

(a) 6.4ns, c. 2.

1803.

BUSHELL

BUSHELL.

For the principal defendant, Mrs. Lilly and her son, it was insisted that the will of the 30th July 1778, was executed by Edward Bushell with full purpose and intention of executing the powers given him by the articles of 1755, and with the concurrence and advice of his wife Elizabeth, and that her subsequent ratification was in execution and performance of the power vested in her: that therefore the will and indorsement were to be taken as a good and valid execution of the power by Edward and Elizabeth, and that the registering said will and indorsement in the proper office for the registry of deeds (instead of proving the will as such) was the result of a conviction on the minds of the persons interested for the plaintiffs, that they did amount to a good execution of the power: that all the family had acquiesced under this appointment for twenty years, and that she and her bon were purchasers for valuable consideration and without notice of the articles of 1755; the mere fact of registry not amounting to notice, according to some MSS. cases in this court, which were mentioned. (a)

This latter point having become the principal question in the case, was a good deal discussed at the bar, and in order to consider it fully, the Lord CHANCELLOR ordered the cause to stand over until this day.

Lord CHANCELLOR.

Feb. 7.

This bill was filed by six of the children of Edward Bushell by Elizabeth Duckett: the question arises on the settlement made on the marriage of Elizabeth and Edward, and the subsequent transactions in the family. (His Lordship stated the settlement). By this deed the parties attempted to convey to trustees for these uses, but the legal in

(a) The reporters have endeavoured in vain to procure notes of these cases.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

terest did not pass; a question arises (which was not dis 1803. cussed) upon the limitation to the use of the issue “ from

BUSHILL “ and after the death of John and his wife, Edward and

BUSHELL. Elizabeth;" but I do not think the limitation was to await

Limitation in the death of these in order to take effect ; but the true con- an article on struction is, that it is a limitation to Edward for life, and marriage, to 4.

for life, subject then to the issue, to take subject to the charges for John to annuities for and his wife and for Elizabeth, but not to wait for their and C. and a death.

charge for a jointure for D.

if she should The whole of this instrument is incorrect; it seems to after the death

survive A. and have been considered only as notes for a future settlement: of said B.und C.

A. and D.then te the children were intended to take, not by appointment the issue, &c. merely, but also in default of appointment, though no such The limitation provision is inserted. I imagine the thing looked to was, not to await that a further deed was to be executed, and if a bill had the deaths of

A, B. C. and D. been filed in this court for the purpose of executing that but they are settlement, I should conceive it ought to be, to Edward fort he death of 4. life, and subject to the limitations to Edward and Elizabeth, subject to the

. then to the children in such shares as husband and wife C. and D. should appoint, and in default of appointment, to the children as tenants in common. This is the construction which the parties have put upon the settlement in argument at the bar, and I think it is the true construction. The consequence would be that subject to the power of appointment in the husband and wife, the children would be tenants in com. mon.

Six of these children are the plaintiffs; the others are not in a condition to claim, having elected to take under their father's will against the settlement. John the father and his wife are long since dead; Edward the son enjoyed the estate till August 1778, when he died; but he made a will which it is contended operated as an appointment under

any deed in

1803. this power, because Elizabeth his wife after his death, made BUSHELL

an endorsement on it, expressive of her approbation of the

disposition thereby made, and her confirmation of it. This BUSHELL.

will does not import any intention to execute the power, Power of apo pointment in but disposes of the property as if it had been his own, such shares and proportions as

though at the same time he adverts to his wife's having a husband and

charge of 30l. per ann. under the instrument which has wife should by

been mentioned. However, this being a will, revocable by writing direct, him at any time, even if the wife had at the moment subecuted by ap- scribed a ratification of it, I cannot conceive it to be a deed pointment by the will of the of appointment under the power, because it would be as a husband with

deed reserving a power of revocation to one of the two para written endorsement ties; it would be in the power of the husband, but not in the thereou made by the wife

of the wife to revoke it, and therefore it cannot be

power after his death considered as a joint-appointment under the power, but expressing her approbation.

simply as the will of the husband until after his death, and Nor would it

then to take effect: the confirmation was by a distinct inhave been better if the wife strument after the death of Edward. I think therefore that at the time of this cannot operate as a joint-appointment under the the execution, power(a), and the rights of the parties therefore are wholly ble by the hus independent of this will, except so far as any of them have hand during abided by it. his life.

Edward, the father of the plaintiffs, dying in 1778, near twenty years before the bill in this cause was filed; after his death Edward Bushell his eldest son entered, and in 1781, married Alicia Keating, who is now the wife of Jeremiah Lilly and a defendant in the cause : on that marriage a set-' tlement was made, dated 25th February, 1781, of this very estate, considering Edward as taking an absolute interest under the will of his father. One would conceive that the parties were very ill advised on that occasion, or that there was a great deal of inattention—whether they searched the

(a) M. Adams v. Logan, 3 Bro. C. C.310. was referred to by the Lord CHANCELLOR during the argument.

1

1803.

BUSHELL

BUSHELL.

registry, or if they did, whether they acted on good advice with respect to the construction of the instrument of 1755, may well be questioned; however, so far as that settlement goes, Mrs. Lilly and her children are purchasers for valuable consideration, and they insist that no notice was had by her or her friends at the time of the execution of the settlement upon her, of the charges introduced into the settlement of 1765. It is not alleged that she had not notice of the will of Edward ; on the contrary, that is admitted, and it might be contended that that alone conveyed notice of the settlement, for the will does mention the settlement. But it is contended that the registry itself is notice; and on that ground principally I wished the case to stand over, that I might consider the subject fully, and make more particular inquiry into what has been represented as the prevailing opinion here on this subject.

I think there was a mistake, in point of language at least, when this has been considered as notice. The effect is nearly the same, but in many instances it is not : If it were to be considered as notice, the consequence that would follow, would be mischievous : it must then be taken as notice to all intents and purposes ; and this would be contrary, not only to the decisions in England on the registry which exists there, but to decisions on the West-India registry, and to those respecting judgments, bargains and sales enrolled, and other instruments, which although on record are yet not held to be actual notice; though the party must endure the consequences of them.

I have looked into all the cases that I have been able to find, both English and Irish ; of Irish cases I have found only one; and it goes not on the question of notice pro

Vol. I

« PreviousContinue »