James Butler, Esq. (commonly called Lord Dunboyne), - Appellant; Daniel Mulvihill, and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1819 |
| Date | 24 March 1819 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 4 E.R. 49
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. iv. 80; vii. 179; viii. 826, 832, 862; xiv. 1357. See Nagle v. Baylor, 1842, 3 Dr. and War. 60; Gore v. Gibson, 1845, 13 M. and W. 623; Molton v. Camroux, 1848, 2 Ex. 487. 1849; 4 Ex. 17; Matthews v. Baxter, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 132; Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone [1892], 1 Q. B. 599.
[137] IRELAND. appeal from the court of chancery. JAMES BUTLER, Esq. (commonly called Lord Dunboyne),-Appellant; DANIEL MULVIHILL, and others,-Respondents [24th March 1819]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 80; vii. 179; viii. 826, 832, 862; xiv. 1357. See Nagle v. Baylor, 1842, 3 Dr. and War. 60; Gore v. Gibson, 1845, 13 M. and W. 623 ; Molton v. Camroux, 1848, 2 Ex. 487. 1849; 4 Ex. 17; Matthews v. Baxter, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 132 ; Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone [1892], 1 Q. B. 599.] A lease obtained by fraud and circumvention, from a person in a state of intoxication, is void in equity. A lease for lives of lands in Ireland, renewable for ever, is not absolutely forfeited by extinction of all the lives and neglect to' pay the fines for renewal, even after notice from the lessor. Under particular circumstances, (as in the following case,) the right of renewal may still exist and be enforced. In a case where A. the heir of the lessee, having such right, had entered into an. agreement with B. respecting an independent lease of the lands held under the renewable lease by the ancestor of A., which independent lease B. had obtained from the landlord when in a state of intoxication, and by circumvention : -It was held, that the heir of A. and purchasers for valuable consideration, claiming under him, were entitled in equity to the benefit of the agreement between B. and A., and that the heir of the landlord (lessor) was entitled to the benefit of the same agreement, so far as B. took an interest. The Respondent, Daniel Mulvihill, filed his bill of complaint in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the Appellant, praying that the Appellant might be decreed to grant to the Respondent D. M. a renewal of a certain lease in the bill, stated to bear date the 5th of July 1718, by inserting the life of Walter Molony in the place of Anthony Brady. The bill stated the following case : [138] Garret Go ugh, being in and before the year 1718, seised of the town and lands of Ballyvannon and Tullahara, with their sub-denominations, by indenture, bearing date the 5th day of July 1718, demised the said premises unto Joseph Ring-rose, subject to the yearly rent of thirty pounds; to hold unto the said Joseph Ringrose, his heirs and assigns, for and during the life and lives of the said Joseph Ringrose, Richard Ringrose, and Elias Ringrose, and the survivor of them, and the lease contained a covenant for perpetual reneiwal, on payment of five pounds, as a renewal fine on the fall of each life, and the nomination of another life. Joseph Ringrose, by virtue of the lease, entered into, and continued seised and possessed of the premises until the time of his death, which happened in the year 49 IBLIGH. BUTLER V. MTJLVIHILL [1819] 1758. He left two sons, Jacob Ringrose and Philip Ringrose. Jacob, as eldest son and heir at law, entered into and became seised of the said lands, and continued so seised to the month of July, 1778, when he died without issue, leaving Philip Kingrose his brother and heir at law, who' thereupon became entitled to the said lands and premises. John Brady, nephew of Jacob Eingrose, having alleged that Jacob Ringrose had deivised the said lands and premises to him, and all tihe persons named in the said original lease, as cestui que vies, being dead, obtained a renewal thereof in his own name from James Butler, the Appellant's father, in whom the fee of the said lands and premises were then vested, for the lives of him [139] the said John Brady, Mary his wife, and Anthony Brady his son, by a deed, bearing date the llth day of July, 1783. By indenture, bearing date on the 4th of July 1793, John Brady declared that he had taken the said renewal in trust for Philip Ringrose; and by the same indenture, Philip Ringrose demised the said premises to John Brady, for the life and lives of him the said John Brady, Anthony Brady his son, and Mary Brady his wife, at the yearly rent of one hundred and forty-two pounds; by virtue of which demise, John Brady became, and continued seised and possessed of the premises. By a deed bearing date the 26th day of July, 1793, Philip Ringrose, for the considerations therein mentioned, conveyed and assigned all his estate, right, title, and interest, in and to the premises to Walter Weldon Molony, his heirs and assigns. By indenture, bearing date the 27th day of December, 1794, Philip Ringrose and Walter Weldon Molony, in consideration of a marriage then intended to be solemnized between Walter Weldon Molony and Mary Spellisy, granted etc. to the respondent Daniel Mulvihill and Walter Weldon since deceased, the towns and lands of Ballyvannon aforesaid, with its sub-denominations, subject as therein mentioned, to' hold, etc. for three lives, renewable for ever, in trust for the several uses, intents, and purposes in the deed mentioned. James Butler died in the year 1784, and one of [140] the lives named in the renewed lease granted in July, 1783, having dropped, Daniel Mulvihill made several applications to the Appellant, who upon the death of James Butler, his father, became seised of the reversion of the said lands, for a renewal of the said original lease of 5th day of July, 1718, by inserting the life of Walter Molony, in the place of Anthony Brady, named in the renewed lease; and offered to the Appellant the sum of five pounds, with interest from the death of Anthony Brady, and also the pro -portion of a renewal-fine for the time which had elapsed since the death of the said Anthony Brady. The Appellant having refused to renew the lease of 5th July, 1718, according to the request, and upon the terms proposed, the bill was filed against him, containing such allegations and prayer as before stated. The Appellant, by his answer, after admitting many of the principal facts alleged in the bill, proceeded to state, that although, upon the death of Joseph Ringrose in 1758, Jacob Ringrose, his son, became seised under the lease of 1718, and so continued until 1778; yet the said Jacob omitted to renew the said lease, by nominating any other life in place and stead of Joseph Ringrose, and omitted to pay the rent and renewal fine; and although, in the life-time of the said Jacob, namely, between the said years 1758 and 1778, Richard Ringrose, another of the cestui que vies, died, Jacob Ringrose also omitted to renew the said lease, by nominating a life in [141] the place and stead of the said Richard Ringrose, or by paying the rent and renewal-fines; and although, immediately after the death of the said Jacob in 1778, the said Elias Ringrose, the last life in the said lease, died, yet Philip Ringrose omitted to renew or pay the renewal fines, rents, or arrears, pursuant to the covenant of renewal contained in the said lease of 1718, and withheld the yearly rent of the said lands reserved thereunder to a large amount, which arrears of rent and renewal-fines remain still unpaid, whereby the said lease of 1718 became forfeited in the life-time of Jacob Ringrose, and all benefit of renewal thereof for ever lost to the Ringrose family, or any other person claiming under the said lease of 1718. The answer denied that John Brady, at any time, obtained a renewal of the lease of 1718 in his own name; and stated, that James Butler, who*, upon the death of his 50 BUTLER V*MULVIHILL [1819] I BLIGH. uncle in or about the year 1778, succeeded as heir at law to the inheritance of the said lands, was a man of weak understanding, and addicted to excess in the use O'f spirituous liquors, and being educated in a foreign country, and bred up am officer in the German service, was unacquainted with his family affairs; that John Brady, being well aware of the laches and nonpayment of rent and renewal-fines under the lease of 1718, and of the forfeiture of the lease of 1718 thereby incurred, by the most fraudulent means, at a time when James Butler was in a state of intoxication, prevailed upon him to execute an instrument, purporting to be a new lease of the lands comprised [142] in the lease of 1718, bearing date on or about the llth July, 1783, at the yearly rent of thirty pounds sterling, for the lives...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molton and Wife, Administratrix of Thomas Lee, Deceased v Camroux
... ... Lord Digby (2 Cl. & Fin. 661), Brougham, U C., ... without notice of the incapacity, and he called oui attention to tint,, that all the cases cited ... ...
-
Glen v Lewis
... ... -engine In Duh^on v tiutkeby (Moo & M 90), Lord Tenterdan speaks of hie being introduced, in ... ...
-
Smith v Shannon
...Elton 11 Ves. 29. Troughton v. Binkes 6 Ves. 573. Jackson v. Saunders 1 Sc. & Lef. 443. 19 & 20 Geo. 3, Ir. c. 30. Mulvihil v. ButlerENR 1 Bligh, 137. Collett v. WoollastonUNK 3 B. C. C. 228. Lloyd v. LanderUNK 5 Mad. 282. Kerrick v. SafferyENR 7 Sim. 318. Collins v. ShirleyENR 1 Russ. & My......
-
John Ryle and Others v Brown and Wife
...what he was doing at the time from actual intoxication, as is proved by the clerk. (Joo/ce v. Claywvrth (18 Ves. 12). Butler v. Mulnhill (1 Bligh, 137). With respect to the consideration, it is not pretended that any proper valuation of the property wag made by a person competent to it. The......