Alicia O'Connor and Others, - Appellants; John Haslam, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1855 |
| Date | 20 March 1855 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 10 E.R. 863
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. vi. 1462; ix. 279. Cf. Jacquet v. Jacquet, 1859, 27 Beav. 332; In re Hepburn, 1884, 14 Q.B.D. 394; In re Stephens, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 39; Martin v. Smyth, 1879, 3 L.R. Ir. 417; affirmed 5 ib. 266.
Will - Debts of other Persons - Statute of Limitations.
o'connor v. haslam [1854] v h.l.c., ito [170] ALICIA O'CONNOR and Others,-Appellants; JOHN HASLAM,-Respondent [March 19, 20, 1855]. TMews' Dig. vi. 1462; ix. 279. Cf. Jacquet v. Jacquet, 1859, 27 Beav. 332; In re Hepburn, 1884, 14 Q.B.D. 394; In re Stephens, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 39; Martin v. Smyth, 1879, 3 L.R. Ir. 417; affirmed 5 ib. 266.] Will-Debts of other Persons-Statute of Limitations. A., who had a life interest in certain estates, gave a bond to a creditor and a warrant of attorney to confess judgment for its amount. No judgment was entered up. A. died within three years of the date of the bond, leaving no assets, real or personal. B., his son, the first tenant in tail of the estates, entered into possession, and expressed in letters to the creditor a wish to pay his father's debts, but would not give any security for them. B. made a will, in which, reciting his own wish, and a promise in qonformity with it, made by him to his father and mother, he said, " And in case I should not be able to fulfil my intentions during my lifetime, and that I should not have a sufficient fund for that purpose arising from my personal estate, I hereby charge all my just debts, and also all the debts of my late father, A., which shall remain unpaid at the time of my decease, upon all my real estates wheresoever," etc. He then directed his trustees to stand seised of all his estates " subject in manner aforesaid to the payment of all my just debts and to the debts of my father." B. survived his father many years. The obligee of the bond filed a charge thereof against the trustee under the son's will: Held that the debts of the father, which were not barred by the Statute of Limitations at the death of the father, were charges on the real estates of the son. Henry Malone was tenant for life of certain estates in King's County, and had a son, Richard Malone, who was first tenant-in-tail in remainder of these estates, and who bound himself by a voluntary promise to his father and mother to provide for his father's debts. Henry Malone, in April 1811, executed a bond and warrant of attorney to secure to the Respondent payment of the sum of £100. By letter of the 30th January 1813, Henry Malone requested the Respondent not to enter up judgment on this warrant of attorney; but then, and on other occasions, the [171] last of which was on the 26th of June 1813, he acknowledged the debt, and promised to pay interest thereon, and to pay the principal when in his power. Henry Malone died in 1814, having no assets whatever, though he left a will and appointed his son executor. Richard Malone entered into possession of the estates. In September 1823, the Respondent wrote to Richard Malone on the subject of this bond debt, and on the 22d of that month received an answer, saying that Richard Malone had no doubt of the justice of the demand, and that it was his wish and determination to settle it, as well as any others of the same nature, as soon as he could. Upon another application on this subject, Richard Malone declined to give his bond for the amount, but repeated his acknowledgment of the debt, and his wish to pay this, as well as the rest of his father's debts, adding that in doing so he should be guided by the nature of them, and by his own convenience, but that it had always been his determination not to make himself personally responsible for them. Towards the end of 1825, the Respondent again wrote to' Richard Malone, intimating that he intended taking proceedings on Henry Malone's bond and warrant of attorney, to which Richard Malone, on 22d November 1825, answered that he was not liable for his father's debts, as his father left no property, and had only been tenant for life of the estates; but at the same time Richard Malone declared that it was his intention to pay his father's debts so soon as his own affairs would admit of his doing so, and that if he should not live to pay them, he would take measures to secure them on his property, in whatever manner might be most expedient, under the advice of counsel. A similar letter, and a like answer, passed between the parties in 1827. On the 30th April 1830, Richard Malone made and published his last will and testament, by which he devised all his estates, [172] real and personal, to trustees, " upon the trusts and for the purposes hereinafter expressed and declared of and concerning the same, which trusts I feel confident they will have performed, according to my true intent and meaning. And 863 v h.l.c., 173 o'connor v. haslam [1854] as it is my most anxious wish that not only all my own just debts of every description whatsoever should be paid, but also those of my father, from my respect to his memory, and in compliance with a promise I made him and my dearest mother; and in case I should not be able to fulfil my intentions during my lifetime, and that I should not have a sufficient fund for that purpose arising from my personal estate, I hereby charge all my just debts, and also all the debts of my late father, Henry Malone, esquire, which, shall remain unpaid at the time of my decease, upon all and every my real estates wheresoever situate, to be paid out of the rents, issues, and profits thereof, in the manner hereinafter mentioned, but not to be raised by sale or mortgage thereof, or of any part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v Cuthbert
...v. Dolman 2 D. M. & G. 592. Young v. Lord WaterparkENRUNK 13 Sim. 204; on App. 10 Jur. 1; 15 L. J. (N.S.) Ch. 63. O'Connor v. HaslamENR 5 H. L. C. 170. Ravenscroft v. Frisby 1 col. 16. Askew v. ThompsonENR 4 K. & J. 620. Grant v. GrantELR L. R. 5 C. P. 380. Bennett v. MarshallENR 2 k. & J. ......
-
Jacquet v Jacquet
... ... the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think that this will created a trust ... ...
-
Elliott v Montgomery
...and MONTGOMERY. Newman v. JohnsonENR 1 Vern. 45. Bowdler v. Smith Prec. In Ch. 264. Hughes v. Wynne 1 M. & K. 20. O'Connor v. HaslamENR 5 H. L. C. 170. Lane v. GlennyENR 7 Ad. & El. 83. Robinson v. Roland 6 Dow. P. C. 271. Harding v. Grady 1 Dr. & War. 430. Will — Trust for Payment of Deb......