Sir Robert Lynch Blosse, bart. and Francis Lynch Blosse, his eldest Son, an Infant, by the said Sir Robert Lynch Blosse, his Father, next Friend, and Guardian, - Appellants; The Right Hon. John Lord Clanmorris and George Richards, Esq., - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1821 |
| Date | 26 February 1821 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 4 E.R. 527
FROM THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Mews' Dig. iv. 1135: vii. 45: xiii. 1870: xiv. 1457. Cited (arg.) on point as to doubtful title in Howarth, and Others v. Smith, 1833, 6 Sim. 161 at p. 166: and see Eliott v. Pott 1821, 3 Bli. at pp. 144, 145.
[62] IRELAND. from the court op exchequer. Sir ROBERT LYNCH BLOSSE, bart. and FRANCIS LYNCH BLOSSE, his eldest Son, an Infant, by the said Sir ROBERT LYNCH BLOSSE, his Father, next Friend, and Guardian,-Appellants; The Right Hon. JOHN LORD CLANMORRIS and GEORGE RICHARDS, E&q.,-Respondents [26th Feb. 1821]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 1135: vii. 45: xiii. 1870: xiv. 1457. Cited (arg.) on point as to doubtful title in Howarth, and Others v. Smith, 1833, 6 Sim. 161 at p. 166 : and see Eliott v. Pott 1821, 3 Bli. at pp. 144, 145.] lands being settled by H. upon the sons of R. successively in tail male, with divers 527 Ill BLIGH. BLOSSE V. CLANMORRIS [1821] remainders over, and the ultimate reversion to H. and his heirs. H. is attainted of high treason, and afterwards B. the issue in tail, being in possession under the limitations of the settlement, suffers a recovery. Whether it is effectual to bar the reversion vested in the Crown by the attainder.-Quaere. A title, depending upon a. recovery suffered by a Tenant in tail of lands, the reversion of which had vested in the Crown by attainder of the reversioner, is not such, a Title as a purchaser is bound to accept. A purchaser brought into Court upon a doubtful title ought to be discharged with costs. Sir Henry Lynch, baronet, being seised in his demesne as of fee, of divers lands in the barony of Carra, in the county of Mayo, in Ireland, in the year 1684, granted and released the said lands to the [63] use of the first and other sons of Robert Lynch, severally and successively in tail male, with divers remainders over, with the ultimate limitation to the right heirs of Sir Henry Lynch. After the date of this deed Sir Henry Lynch was attainted of high treason. In the year 1779 Sir Henry Lynch Blosse became seised of the lands under the limitations of the deed, as tenant in tail male; and in Michaelmas Term 1779 suffered a common recovery of the lands to the use of himself in fee. By his will, bearing date the 18th day of February 1788, Sir Henry Lynch Blosse gave certain legacies and annuities, to be raised by sale or mortgage of his lands in Ireland; and, subject thereto, he gave all his real estates in Ireland to the use of his nephew, the Appellant Sir Robert Lynch Blosse, for life, with divers remainders over. Sir Henry Lynch Blosse died in February 1788, leaving the Appellant, Sir Robert Lynch Blosse, a minor. During the minority of Sir Robert Lynch Blosse several of the incumbrances affecting the lands were paid off by his guardian, out of the savings of the estates ; and Sir Robert Lynch Blosse himself, after he came of age, paid off more of the incumbrances with his own money. The securities were assigned to the Respondent George Richards, in trust for the Appellant Sir Robert Lynch Blosse. In 1811 the Appellant, Sir Robert Lynch Blosse filed a bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in the name of George Richards, against himself, and the Appellant, Francis Lynch Blosse, [64] his eldest son and others, praying an account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pyrke v Waddingham
...rule appears to be founded; for it may be collected from what fell both from Lord Eldon and Lord Eedesdale in Blosse v. Lord Clanmorris (3 Bligh, 62, 71), and afterwards from Lord Eldon in Lord Braybrolce v. fnskip (8 Ves. 417), that the rule rests upon this, that every purchaser is entitle......
-
Prestwidge v Groombridge
...81). But there are cases even of this first class iu which a purchaser has not been compelled to take the title ; as Blosse v. Clanmorris (3 Bli. 62); and Playford v. [167] Hoare (3 You. & Jerv. 175). Decisions which it is difficult to account for otherwise than by a supposition that the ca......
-
Jones v Winwood
...v. Strange (Madd. & Geld. 159), Willcox v. Bellows (Turn. & Russ. 491), Sharps v. Adcock (4 Russ. 374), and Blouse v. Lord Clanmarris (3 Bligh, 62). [161] Mr. Wigram, in reply. The conveyance to the provisional assignee, being an innocent conveyance, did not destroy the power in gross. The ......
-
Re Biron's Contract
...TrinderELR L. R. 10 Eq. 449. In re Howard's Trusts 7 Ir. Ch. R. 344. In re Denis' Trusts I. R. 10 Eq. 81, 90. Blosse v. Lord ClanmorrisENR 3 Bligh, 62. Pyrke v. WaddinghamENR 10 Hare, 1. Murray v. Moyers 16 Ir. Ch. R. 520. Hampton v. Holman 46 L. J. (Ch.) 248. In re Dixon's Trusts Ir. R. 4 ......