Gibbons v Snape
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1863 |
| Date | 28 July 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 246
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 N. R. 563; 33 L. J. Ch. 103; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 1096; 9 L. T. 132; 11 W. R. 1087. Followed, Green v. Paterson, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 95.
[621] gibbons v. snape. Before the Lords Justices. June 30, July 28, 1863. [S. C. 2 N. R. 563 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 1096 ; 9 L. T. 132; 11 W. R. 1087. Followed, Green v. Paterson, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 95.] A deed for barring an equitable estate tail in copyholds is void as against the issue in tail if it is not entered on the rolls of the manor within six calendar months after its execution. Account of rents directed at the suit of the issue in tail for six years previous to the filing of the bill. This was an appeal from a decree of the Master of the Rolls, the principal question raised being whether an assurance by an equitable tenant in tail of copyholds was void as against the issue in tail, in consequence of its not having been inrolled within six months. In 1826, Anne Eliza the wife of John Gibbons, Elizabeth the wife of James Adams, and Thomas George Coningham, became entitled in possession as equitable [622] tenants in common in tail under the will of Thomas Coningham to certain freehold and copyhold lands. In 1831 T. G. Coningham became bankrupt, and South Morse was appointed creditors' assignee. By a deed dated the 12th of February 1834 John Gibbons and Anne Eliza his wife, and James Adams and Elizabeth his wife, for valuable consideration granted their two-thirds of the property to South Morse and his heirs. This deed was inrolled in Chancery under the Fines and Recoveries Act on the 19th of August 1834, but was not entered on the court rolls of the manor till the 10th of February 1860. 1DB&.J.*S.6H. GIBBONS V. SNAPS 247 In 1849 the Defendant Snape purchased the entirety of the copyholds from South Morse, and the representative of the trustee of Thos. Coningham's will surrendered the legal estate to Snape, who waa admitted and had ever since been in possession. Anne Eliza Gibbons died in May 1854, leaving two sons, of whom the Plaintiff was the younger, and her share in the copyholds devolved upon them in equal shares. The elder son died without issue on the 9th of May 1861, upon which the Plaintiff became entitled in possession to the other moiety of his mother's share. The share of Mrs. Adams, who had died in 1852, had devolved upon her three son*, who were Defendants. The Master of the Rolls held that the deed of 1834 was ineffectual to bar the estate tail, and made a decree directing an account of two-thirds of the rents received by Snape, as to the share of Mrs. Adams, and as to half the Plaintiff's share from the 16th of June 1856, being [623] six years before the filing of the bill, and as to the other half of the Plaintiff's share from the 9th of May 1861. An inquiry was directed with what occupation rent the Defendant Snape ought to be charged in respect of the premises in his possession from the above times, and it was ordered that he should be charged with such occupation rent in the account of rents and profits. It was ordered that an account should be taken of all sums of money expended by Sriape in permanent improvements upon and necessary repairs of the premises. And it was ordered that six-ninths of what should appear to have been so expended, if such six-ninth parts should be less than what should be coming on the account of rents and profits, should be deducted from what was so coming, but if such six-ninth parts should exceed what was so coming on the account of rents and profits, then the excess was to be charged on the shares of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, other than Snape, rateably. Directions for a partition were given, and no costs were given up to the hearing. The Defendant Snape appealed. Mr. Southgate and Mr. Swanston, in support of the decree. The Master of the Rolls in this case followed his own decision in Hmuywood v. Foster (30 Beav. 1), previously to which there had not been any decision on the point; but we contend that the decision was correct. In Dart's Vendors and Purchasers (page 359 (2d edit.)), it is assumed that a deed to bar an equitable estate tail in copyholds must be inrolled within six months, which shews the understanding of the profession on the point. The clauses 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, sects. 41, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, shew plainly that the object of the Act was to place equitable estates tail in copyholds [624] on exactly the same footing as equitable estates tail in freeholds, except that entry on the court rolls was to be a substitute for inrolment in Chancery. Lord St. Leonards (Sug. V. & P. p. 470 (14th edit.)) accepts the decision in Honeywood v. Foster as sound. It is urged that there are manors in which courts are not held every six months, so that inrolment within the time would not always be possible. In cases where it is impossible, the Act might not apply; but in fact it...
To continue reading
Request your trial