Giddings v Giddings
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1827 |
| Date | 01 February 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 567
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Bradford v. Brownjohn. 1868, 37 L. J. Ch. 201; L. R. 3 Ch. 713.
[241] giddings v. giddings, Rolls, Dec. 1, 2, 1826 ; Feb. 1, 1827. [See Bradford v. Brown'john, 18G8, 37 L. J. Gh. 201 ; L. R. 3 Oh. 713.] If a tenant for life of an underlease for eighteen years, granted by a person who himself holds the premises so underlet, along with other property, under a lease for twenty-one years, purchases the interest of his immediate lessor, and obtains from the superior lessor a renewal of the lease thus purchased, the renewed lease is subject, so far as regards the premises which were comprised in the underlease, to the same trusts, as would have affected the underlease, if it had not been merged or had not expired by the effluxion of time. The same rule holds, though the lease at the time of the purchase was vested in a trustee upon trusts, under which he could not have granted a renewal of the underlease, and though the tenant for life outlived, by twenty-five years, the time at which the underlease would have expired by effluxion of time. A., being tenant for life of a leasehold for years, with remainder to B., after devising one estate to B. in tail, bequeathed to him the leasehold during his life, with remainders over, and gave) him also the residue of his real and personal property. B. took possession of the residuary estate ; suffered a recovery of the lands devised to him in tail; acted as the absolute owner of the leasehold estate, and outlived the term for which the lease was granted, having previously acquired a new interest in the demised premises : Held, that B. elected to take under the will, and was bound to give effect to the devise of the leasehold in favour of the remainder-man. In and before the year 1763, one Sutton held the manor, prebend, and parsonage of Potterne, under a lease for years granted by the Bishop of Salisbury : a [242] Pai't of the premises comprised in this lease, called the Byde leasehold, was demised by him to James Harris for a term of twenty-one years : and Harris, by indenture dated the '25th of March 1763, demised part of the premises comprised in the Byde leasehold, and distinguished by the appellation of the Byde Mill, to John Giddings, for a term of eighteen years, at a yearly rent of 3, 10s. In 1770, and afterwards in 1777, John Giddings obtained from Harris renewals of his lease for terms of eighteen years. None of the leases of the Byde Mill contained any covenant binding the lessor to grant, or the lessee to accept, a renewed lease; but they appeared, as well as Harris's lease of the Byde leasehold, and Sutton's immediate lease under the bishop, to have been from time to time renewed on payment of a fine at the end of every seven years. In the meantime, John Giddings, on the 4th of April 1767, had executed a settlement, by which he assigned his leasehold interest in the Byde Mill, to trustees upon trust for himself during his life, and, after his death, for his son John Giddings absolutely; and he covenanted, that, in case any further term should be obtained in the premises, such further estate should be held upon the same trusts. In July 1780, John Giddings the elder made his will, by which he devised " all that leasehold estate, commonly known by the name of the Byde Mill, together with ita rights, privileges, and appurtenances," to his son John Giddings during his life ; with remainder over, first to his son Thomas Giddings, and then to his grandson Thomas Giddings, during their respective lives ; and after the deceases of these persons, he gave the same to his grandson John Giddings for the residue of his, the testator's, term, estate, and interest therein. The testator [243] likewise devised an estate at Allington to his son John Giddings and the heirs of his body : and he further bequeathed the residue of his real and personal estate to him, his heirs, executors, and administrators, and appointed him his executor. The testator died in the same month. John Giddings, the son, entered into possession of the Byde Mill; and, in 1784, a deed was executed, purporting to be a renewal of the lease for eighteen years from that time. This renewal, however, turned out to be of no avail; for Harris, by 568 GinmNfJS I'. OTDDINGS 3 BUSS. 244. indentures of settlement dated the Oth and 7th of October 1777, had assigned the Byde leasehold, along with other property, to Sir George (lornwall upon certain trusts : and, though, under the clauses of the settlement, the trustee had a power of sale, there was no power to enable any person to grant a renewed lease of any part of the premises comprised in the Byde leasehold. In 1784, Sir George Cornwall obtained from Button a renewal of the lease of the Byde leasehold for a term of twenty-one years ; and, some time afterwards, the lease was offered for sale. John Giddings became the purchaser : and, in exercise of the power of sale created by the settlement of 1777, Cornwall and Harris, by indenture dated the Oth of September 1788, assigned the Byde leasehold for the residue of the term of twenty-one years to John Giddings the son. After this purchase, John Giddings, the son, from time to time renewed the term in the Byde leasehold. The last of the renewals was by an indenture dated the 1st of April 1819, by which the immediate lessee of the manor, prebend, and parsonage of Potterne, under the Bishop of Salisbury, in consideration of the surrender of a former lease, and the payment of a fine [244] of 272, 14s. G^d., demised the Byde leasehold to John Giddings for a term of twenty-one years, commencing from the preceding 26th of March, at the yearly rent of 5. Shortly afterwards, John Giddings, the son, died, having by his will devised all the term and estate, which he should have in the Byde leasehold at the time of his death, to his son John Giddings the Defendant, who also took under the will other property, which his father John Giddings had become entitled to under the residuary devise and bequest of John Giddings the grandfather. John Giddings the son had, in hia lifetime, suffered a recovery of the Allington estate ; and he devised it to James Giddings, a brother of the Defendant, and not a party to the suit. Thomas Giddings the son, and Thomas Giddings the grandson, died in the lifetime of John Giddings the son ; and the present Plaintiff, Joh.n Giddings the grandson, upon the death of John Giddings, the son, claimed, under the ultimate bequest of the leasehold, contained in the will of John Giddings the grandfather, to be entitled to the Byde Mill for the residue of the existing term of twenty-one yeans in the Byde leasehold, subject to the payment of a proportion of the rent and fine. He, by his bill, insisted that John Giddings the son having, possessed and enjoyed the Allington estate, and the other property devised to him by the will of John Giddings the grandfather, had elected to take under that will, and therefore was bound to make good the disposition, which it contained, of the Byde Mill and that the Defendant also, by possessing and enjoying property derived under the same will, became bound to give effect to the devise of the Byde Mill. The prayer was, that it might be declared, that the lease [245] of the 1st of April 1819, so far as it included the Byde Mill was and ought to be held upon the trusts of the will of John Giddings the grandfather-that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murad and Another v Al-Saraj and Another
...was made as part of the same transaction the fiduciary must account for it. I can give an example of that. In Giddings v Giddings (1826) 3 Russ 241, 38ER 547, a tenant for life renewed a lease belonging to the trust. The renewed lease, however, included land which had not been within the or......
-
Worthington v Wiginton
...of Granby, 1 Eden, 498); Duke of Northumberland v. Egremont (Ambl. 657); Stratford v. Powell (1 Ball & B. 24); GicMings v. Giddings (3 Russ. 241). On the whole, it is submitted that the Master is wrong upon this point. Mr. Roupell and Mr. Archibald Smith, for the Defendant Wiginton, contend......
-
M'Auley v Clarendon
...Eq. Rep. 560. Sumpter v. CooperENR 2 B. & Ad. 223. Gaskin v. Durdin 2 Ball & Be. 169. James v. Dean 11 Ves. 389. Giddings v. GiddingsENR 3 Russ. 241. Thorp v, OwenENR 2 Hare, 610. Huskisson v. BridgeENR 4 De G. & Sm. 245. Webb v. WoolsENR 2 Sim., N. S., 267. Lechmere v. Lavie 2 M. & K. 197.......
-
Spread v Morgan and Others
...open for 50 years, but that that must depend on the circumstances of each case. That principle was acted on in Giddings v. Giddings (3 Russ. 241). In Worthington v. Wiginton (20 Beav. 67), it was declared that to constitute a settled and concluded election there must be clear proof that the......