Gunter v Gunter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1857 |
| Date | 20 April 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 225
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.), 1013; 5 W. R. 485.
S3 BEAV. 371. GUNTER V. GUNTBR 225 [571] gunter v. gunter. April 20, 1857. [S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1013 ; 5 W. R. 485.] The owner in fee bought up an existing building lease of the property, and had it assigned to a trustee, in trust for him, "his executors, administrators and assigns." Held, that the presumption was that the lease had not, in equity, merged in the inheritance, but that it passed as part of his personal estate. Held, also, that the burden of proof was on those who asserted the contrary. This case came before the Court on general demurrer upon the following facts :- By indenture of the 10th of October 1810, James Gunter (the owner in fee) demised a public-house called " The Hope and Anchor," to Symons, for a term of seventy-seven years, at a rent of 10. In 1812 this leasehold waa mortgaged by Symons to James Gunter, by an indenture dated the 24th of February 1812, whereby Symons (by the direction of James Gunter) assigned the premises for the residue of the term to Richard Sarel, in trust nevertheless for James Gunter, subject to a proviso for redemption on payment of 1000 and interest. In 1813 James Gunter agreed to purchase the equity of redemption; and by an indenture, dated the 16th of July 1813, Symons, in consideration of 500 paid by James Gunter, did, by his direction, " assign and release " the premises to Richard Sarel, for the residue of the term of seventy-seven years, "in trust nevertheless far James Gunter, his executors, administrators and assigns," and to be assigned and disposed of as he or they should direct, freed from the payment of the sum of 1000 and interest, but subject to the payment of the rent, and the observance and performance of the covenants reserved and contained in and by the indenture of lease. [572] James Gunter, by his will, dated in 1816, bequeathed the surplus of his personal estate to Robert Gunter, his son, absolutely, and he devised his freehold hereditaments to Richard Sarel and another, to the use of Robert Gunter for life, with remainder to his first son in tail male. James Gunter died in 1819, and after his death Robert Gunter entered into possession, and upon the expiration, in 1831, of a sub-lease, which had been granted by Symons, Richard Sarel, by the direction of Robert Gunter, demised the premises to a tenant for twenty-one years, reserving the rent to Richard Sarel, his executors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keogh v Keogh
...C. C. 688. Forbes v. Moffatt 18 Ves. 384. Davis v. BarrettENR14 Beav. 542. Purcell v. PurcellUNK 5 Ir. Ch. Rep. 502. Gunter v. GunterENR 23 Beav. 571. Swinfen v. SwinfenENR 29 Beav. 304. Grenn v. PledgerENR 3 Hare, 638. Hardwick v. HardwickELR L. R. 16 Eq. 168. Roe v. LidwellUNKUNK 9 Ir. C.......
-
The Estate of David Vandeleur Roche, Owner; John Vanderkiste, Petitioner
...G. 474. Lord Compton v. Oxenden 2 Ves. Jun. 263. Belaney v. BelaneyELRELR L. R. 2 Eq. 210. 210; L. R. 2 Ch. App. 138. Gunter v. GunterENR 23 Beav. 571. Johnson v. WebsterENR 4 De G. M. & G. 474. Metcalf, v. Archbishop of YorkENR 1 My. & Cr. 547. Stack v. Royse 12 Ir. Ch. R. 246; on appeal13......
-
The Estate of David Vandeleur Roche, Owner; John Vanderkiste, Petitioner Same; ex parte Sheehy
...634. Swinfen v. SwinfenENR 29 Beav. 199. Richards v. RichardsENR Johns. 754. Tyrwhitt v. TyrwhittENR 32 Beav. 244. Gunter v. GunterENR 23 Beav. 571. Roberts v. CroftENR 2 De G. & J. 1. Ex parte Bisdee 1 M. D. & De G. 333. Ford v. WhiteENR 16 Beav. 120. Phillips v. PhillipsENR 4 De G. F. & J......
-
Attorney-General v Darell
...Ex. ATTORNEY-GENERAL and DARELL. Hood v. PhilipsENR 3 Beav. 513. Gunter v. GunterENR 23 Beav. 571. Purcell v. Purcell 5 Ir. Ch. R. 502. Grice v. ShawENR 10 Hare, 76. Byam v. SuttonENR 19 Beav. 556. Earl of Clarendon v. BarhamENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 688. Forbes v. Moffatt 18 Vesey, 384. Swabey v......