Richards v Richards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 1860 |
| Date | 17 April 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 623
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 836; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1145. See Villar v. Gilbey (1906), 1 Ch. 590.
Posthumous Heir. Intermediate Rents. Settled Estate. Stat. 10. 10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 16. Charge. Merger.
[754] richards v. eichards. March 10, 12, 27, April 17, 1860. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 836; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1145. See Fillar v. Gfilbey [1906], 1 Ch. 590.] Posthumous Heir. Intermediate Bents, Settled Estate. Stat. 10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 16. Charge. Merger. A posthumous heir is entitled to the rents of a descended estate only from the date of his birth, whether the prior rents have been actually received or not. [G-oodale v. Gawthorne not followed.] An estate which by virtue of a settlement devolves on a posthumous heir as tenant in tail by descent is not a settled estate within the operation of 10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 16. Where a tenant in fee becomes entitled to a charge upon the same land, the fact that a merger of the charge would give priority to other charges affords sufficient presumption to rebut merger; and it is not, in general, necessary to inquire into the relative value of the estate and the charges which would be so let in. But, semble, it is essential that the charges on which the presumption against merger is founded should be substantial charges. By the settlement on the marriage of John Mathews Richards and Arabella Colley, dated September 8th, 1825, certain real estates were settled to the use of J. M. Richards 624 RICHARDS V. RICHARDS JOHNS. 755. for life, remainder to trustees for a term of 1000 years, which had since been satisfied, remainder as to part of the estates situate in Gall-y-gau and Llanvabon to trustees for a term of 1000 years upon the trusts after declared, with remainder to J. M. Richards in part, and the residue of the estates which were in Eglwysilau and Whitchurch (subject to a power which was not exercised) were limited to the use of the first and other sons of the marriage in tail, with remainder to the use of J. M. Richards in fee; and the trusts of the 1000 years' term were declared to be that, if there should be any child or children of the marriage, " other than a son or sons, who under and by virtue of the limitations or in exercise and execution of the power thereinbefore contained should be entitled to the first estate of freehold and inheritance " in the lands not comprised in the 1000 years' term, then that the trustees "should, after the decease of the said J. M. Richards, or in his -lifetime if he should so direct, by sale, mortgage or other disposition of the said hereditaments and premises comprised in the said term of 1000 years, or out of the rents, issues or profits thereof raised for the portion or portions of the child or children of the said marriage, other than and except a son or sons, who under or by virtue of the limitations or in exercise of the power thereinbefore [755] contained should be entitled to the first estate of freehold or inheritance of and in the said messuages, lands and hereditaments thereby appointed and released, and not comprised in the said term of 1000 years, and the sum of 5000 to be divided among such children, other than such son or sons so entitled as aforesaid, in such shares and in such manner as the said J. M. Richards should appoint, and in default of appointment then among such children other than such son or sons so entitled as aforesaid, in equal shares; the share of such of them as should be a son to be an interest vested in him at the age of twenty-one years, and the shares of such of them as should be daughters to be vested in them at the several ages of twenty-one years or days of marriage, which should first happen, to be paid at such ages or times respectively as the same respectively should happen after the death of the said J. M. Richards, and if this should happen in the lifetime of the said J. M. Richards then immediately after his decease," with a clause of survivorship in the event of the death of a son under twenty-one or a daughter under twenty-one without having been married. There were issue of the marriage, besides two children who died infants and unmarried in the father's lifetime, J. R. Richards, the eldest son, Edward Priest Hichards, the second son, and two daughters. John Mathews Richards died in 1843. J. R. Richards, the eldest son, became tenant in tail in possession of the estates in Eglwysilau and Whitchurch, and died in 1845 without having been married and an infant. Edward Priest Richards thereupon became tenant in fee-simple in possession of the estates, subject to the 1000 years' term, and tenant in tail in possession of the other [756] settled estates, part of which consisted of an undivided moiety of lands in Eglwysilau, the other moiety of which belonged to Lord Dynevor, and the other part consisted of an undivided third part of lands in Whitchurch, the other two-thirds of which are vested in Lord Dynevor and a Mr. Lewis. E. Priest Richards was also entitled in fee-simple to an undivided moiety of certain lands in Merthyr Tydvil, the other moiety of which was vested in Lord Dynevor. The moiety of E. Priest Richards in the fee-simple lands in Merthyr Tydvil was, by his marriage settlement, dated February 4th, 1856, charged with a rent-charge of 800, secured by a term for his widow, and with a term for raising 500 for his children, and, subject thereto, was vested in the said Edward Priest Richards in fee. Mary, one of the daughters of J. Mathews Richards, attained twenty-one and died intestate in 1853, leaving E. Priest Richards and his sister, Mrs. Treherne, her next of kin; and administration was taken out by E. Priest Richards and, after his death...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Estate of Blanche Henrietta Toppin
-
Keogh v Keogh
...51. Doe v. ParkinENR 5 Taun. 321. Pedley v. DoddsELR L. R. 2 Eq. 819. Boyle v. MulhollandUNK 10 Ir. C. L. R. 150. Richards v. RichardENR Johns. 754. Earl of Clarendon v. Barham1 Y. & Col. C. C. 688. Forbes v. Moffatt 18 Ves. 384. Davis v. BarrettENR14 Beav. 542. Purcell v. PurcellUNK 5 Ir. ......
-
Mabel Walker v Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland
...HARRISON, O'BRIEN, and JOHNSON, JJ. (1890 E. No.201.) MABEL WALKER and GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF IRELAND Richards v. RichardsENR Johns. 754, at pp. 762, 763. The George and Richard L. R. 3 Ad. & Ecel. 466. Wallis v. HodsonENR 2 Atk. 116. Burdet v. Hopegood 1 P. W. 486. Blasson v. Bl......
-
Re, Alexander's Estate
...23 L. R. Ir. 286. (1) Before FitzGibbon, Murnaghan, Meredith and Geoghegan JJ. (2) 2 Ves. Jun. 261. (3) 18 Ves. 384. (4) 4 K. & J. 624. (5) John. 754. (6) 10 Ha. (1) [1898] 1 I. R. 388. (2) 2 Ath. 343. (1) 2 Ves. Jun. 261. (2) Amb. 706. (3) [1906] 1 Ch. 673. (1) 18 Ves. 384, at p. 393. (2) ......