Flower v Hartopp

[476] flower v. hartopp. June 8, 9, July 8, 1843. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 507; 7 Jur. 613; 8 Beav., 199.] King Charles the Second, by letters patent, granted some property in fee, subject to a fee-farm rent, and to a proviso of re-entry, in case a decree should be made at the gnit of the King for repairing the property, and the same should afterwards, remain, for a year out of repair. The Crown afterwards granted away the rent. Held, that the proviso for re-entry could not be exercised, and that it therefore formed no objection to the title to the property. By the conditions of sale, no further evidence of identity was to be required than what was afforded by the abstract and the documents therein abstracted. The-descriptions held in the documents differed amongst themselves, and from th& description in the particulars of sale. Held, that the purchaser was entitled to-have further proof of the identity. One general exception was taken to the Master's report of a good title, which did not point out the objections to the title. The Court disapproved of this inconvenient mode of proceeding. A water cora-mill and premises were sold under the decree of the Court, and a ò reference was made to the Master to inquire and state whether a good title could be made thereto. Upon that reference, it appeared, that by letters patent dated the 8th of April 1635, King Charles I. granted to Edward Ferrers and William Ferrers, their heirs and assigns, "all those water and corn-mills beneath the Castle of Leicester with alL sokfi and auit to the same belonging " &c. (which was alleged to be the property sold),. yielding a fee-farm rent of £17 to the King, subject to the following proviso :-ò " That if, at any time thereafter, any mill thereby granted should be in decay, or totally ruined, thrown down or prostrated, and any cause, suit or plea should be instituted or mooted in the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, on behalf of the King,, his heira or successors, against any tenant, farmer or occupier of the mills and other premises, for not repairing, sustaining and maintaining the same, or any of them, or on account of the same being totally ruined, prostrated or subverted ; and a decree or decrees should be made by the said Court, for repairing and sustaining of all or any of the aaid £477] mills and other premises, and for the preserving, keeping and maintaining them in good state and repair, or for newly building, erecting or constructing them, or any of them; and nevertheless, the tenant, farmer or occupier thereof, should not, within one year next after such decree or decrees so, from time to time, made, repair, maintain, sustain, erect, build or otherwise restore the same mill, according to the form or effect of such decree or decrees, that then and so often, it should be lawful for the King, his heirs and successors, into all or any of the said mill or mills, for the repairing, maintaining, newly building or erecting of which such decree or decrees shall have been made, to re-enter the same, and to have again and' repossess for ever, anything in the letters patent to the contrary notwithstanding." The letters patent also contained a covenant, on the part of the King, not to build any other water-mill upon any stream on which any mill thereby granted was erected, (1) See Brown v. Reina, 3 Younge & J. 389 ; Martin v. Mortlock, 1 Newland's Pr. 356; Qoddard v. Smith, Eolls, May 30, 1844; Stratford v. Leivis, V.-C. E., 22d May 1844. 6BB4V.B. FLOWER V. HAHTOPP 911 or any...