James Rorke-Appellant in Error; Michael Errington, - Respondent in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 August 1859 |
| Date | 06 August 1859 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 246
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. iv. 1004; xiii. 1930, 1931. S.C. 5 Jur. 1227; and see also 9 Ir. C.L.R. 357. On point as to effect of conveyance by Landed Estates Court, discussed and adopted in In re Tottenham's Estate, 1869, I.R. 3 Eq. 528; and see Land Act, 1870, s. 35.
"Incumbered Estates Act" - Conveyance under - Mistake.
[617] JAMES 'RO'RKE-Appellant in Error; MICHAEL ERRINGTON,-Respondent in Error [August 5, 6, 1859]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 1004; xiii. 1930, 1931. S.C. 5 Jur. 1227; and see also 9 Ir. C.L.R. 357. On point as to effect of conveyance by Landed Estates Court, discussed and adopted in In re Tottenham's Estate, 1869, I.R. 3 Eq. 528; and see Land Act, 1870, s. 35.] " Incumbered Estates Act "-Conveyance under-Mistake. A conveyance made by the Commissioners of the Court for the Sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland is, under the 27th section of the 12 and 13 Viet. c. 77, " effectual to pass the fee simple discharged of all former estates," subject only to " such tenancies, leases, etc. as shall be expressed therein." Where such a conveyance is duly executed by the Commissioners, it becomes under the 49th section conclusive evidence that everything required by the Act to be done has been rightly done. An application was made to the Commissioners for the Sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland to direct the sale of an estate, the property of H. R. held a lease of part of this estate. A paper called " A Rental," etc. was, under the 23d section of the Statute, prepared and issued by the Commissioners for the purpose of informing everybody what was to be sold, in which the existence and validity of the lease were distinctly recognised, and the proper notices were given in conformity with that rental. E. became the purchaser of part of the estate, and in the conveyance made under the 27th section, and duly executed by the Commissioners, there was, by mistake, introduced a description, accompanied by a. map, also erroneously drawn, of the land conveyed, which was the land actually held under the lease to R., but that lease itself was not mentioned. In ejectment by E. against R. for this land: Held that evidence to impeach the conveyance was not properly admitted; that the question, founded on that evidence, whether E. had purchased subject to the lease to R. was improperly submitted to the jury; that under the 27th section, the land must be taken to have passed by the conveyance, subject only to such leases as were " expressed therein "; and that the 49th section rendered the conveyance conclusive as to all acts, consents, etc. required, having been duly performed and given. This was a proceeding in Error on a judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland. In 1822, F. Hamilton being seised in fee of the town-lands of Muckland, in the county of Kildare, demised the same for three lives to John Lucasi Wilton, his heirs and assigns. Wilton, by deed, dated 8 July 1828, assigned this [618] lease to John Rorke, the father of the Plaintiff in Error. Before May 1851, proceedings were entered in the Incumbered Estates Court by the creditors of Hamilton for the sale of Hamilton's estates, and among them that of Muckland. An order was made, and a notice, under the provisions of the 12 and 13 Viet. c. 77, s. 23, was issued by the 246 RORKB V. ERRINGTON [1859] VII H.L.C., 819 Commissioners to be served upon John Rorke, in which the lease of March 1822 was recited as valid and binding. The estate of Hamilton was to be sold in five lots. The lots were described, " No. 1, part of Dunf urth and Dessies;" " No. 2, part of Mylerstown;" " No. 3, Clunagh and part of Muckland Bog;" " No. 4, part of the Great Bog of Allen," and " No. 5, Ballinamallagh." The lands demised by the lease of 1822 were situated in lot 3, and that lot was advertised to' be sold subject to the lease. Errington was declared the purchaser of lot 4, and a Mr. Bolton of lot 5. Before the lots were conveyed, counsel, on behalf of Bolton, obtained an order from Mr. Commissioner Longfield, dated 6 May 1853, " that a portion of the bog theretofore sold as part of lot No. 4, should be conveyed to Mr. Bolton as the purchaser of lot No. 5, and that in lieu thereof the purchaser of lot No. 4, should have an equal quantity of the Bog of Clunagh, then unsold, next, adjoining said lot No. 4, the said Bolton paying therefor the sum of 10 to the credit of the estate." Errington gave up the portion mentioned of lot No. 4, and then went over the land, and, as Eorke alleged, mapped into No*. 4, not Clunagh, but Muckland Bog. The Commissioners, on 29 July 1853, executed a conveyance of lot No. 4, with a map attached thereto, sketched in conformity with the alteration made by Errington j but this conveyance* did not contain the word " Muckland " in the granting part of the deed. On 9 June 1854, Errington brought ejectment to obtain possession of the lands demised 619] by the lease of 1852, describing them a " that part of the Bog of Alien, and Clunagh running in a stripe or belt along and adjoining the lands of Muckland, and which stripe or belt is parcel of the bog conveyed to the said Michael Errington toy the Commissioners, by deed dated 29 July 1853." Rorke defended " for that part of the Bog of Allen and Clunagh running in a stripe or belt along and adjoining the lands of Muckland." This defence was afterwards amended under an order of Mr. Justice Torrens, for " all that part of the Bog of Muckland, containing, by estimation, 20a. 3r. 6p., as formerly in the possession of J. L. Wilton, and now in the possession of John Rorke, and which is by said summons and plaint sought to be recovered as part of the Bog of Allen and Clunagh." The cause came on for trial at Athy, in the county of Kildare, before Lord Chief Justice Lefroy, when Errington produced the deed of 29 July 1853, in which the land was described as " that part of the Bog of Allen and Clunagh, situate in the barony of Carbery and county of Kildare, containing 777a. 3r. 24p., as described by a map annexed thereto, with the appurtenances, to hold to Errington his heirs and assigns for ever, subject to the right of turbary of the lessees thereinafter named of the lands of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Moore) v O'Hanrahan
...3 B. & S. 206; and Hudson v. M'Rae, 33 L. J. (M.C.) 65, applied. In re Tottenham's Estate, I. R. 3 Eq. 528; Rorke v. Errington, 7 H. L. Cas. 617; Gorev. M'DermottUNK, I. R. 1 C. L. 348; In re Acheson's Estate, I. R. 3 Eq. 105, considered. The jurisdiction of a Justice of the District Court ......
-
Ingham v MacKey
...15 Q. B. D. 629. (2) 16 Ch. D. 440; 19 Ch. D. 22. (1) 1 H. & N. 916. (2) 4 Mac Q. 117. (3) Ir. R. 6 C. L. 129. (1) I. R. 3 Eq. 528. (2) 7 H. L. C. 617. (1) I. R. 6 C. L. ...
-
R v The Members of the Licensing Authority for the Eastern Area and Barbara Chin, ex parte Jamaica Suntours Ltd
... ... C. Leiba for respondent Barbara Chin ... Administrative Law - ... in Roke v. Errington (1895) 7 H.L.C. 617, 628 said in that case: ... hardship on the part of the plaintiff in error, but the High Court and all other courts must ... ...
-
Billing v Welch
...Bench. Before WHITESIDE, C. J., and O'BRIEN and GEORGE, JJ. BILLING and WELCH. Rorke v. ErringtonENRUNK 7 H. L. C. 617; 9 I. C. L. R. 357. In re Tottenham's Estate I. R. 3 Eq. 528. In re Cassan's Estate 9 Ir. Jur. N. S. 72. In re Comyn's Esate 11 Ir. Ch. R. 330. Coles v. HulmeENR 8 B. & C. ......