Archbishop of Dublin v Coote and Lord Trimleston

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 May 1849
• Date: 30 May 1849
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN

and

COOTE and LORD TRIMLESTON.

Brady v. Fitzgerald Reported post.

Duke of Bridgewater v. EdwardsENR6 Bro. P. C. 368.

Duke of Leeds v. New RadnorENR2 Bro. C. C. 518.

Benson v. BaldwinENR1 Atk. 598.

Manly v. HawkinsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 363.

Holder v. ChamburyENR3 P. Wms. 255.

Duke of Leeds v. ParnellENR1 Ves. sen. 171.

Cocks v. FoleyENR1 Vern. 359.

Thorndike v. AllingtonENR 1 Ch. Cas. 79.

Richardson v. HastingsENR7 Beav. 301, 323.

Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR5 Sim. 419.

Wilkinson v. Henderson 1 My. & Kee. 582.

Sandford v. MorrisENR 11 Cl. & Fin 667-8.

Cossens v. O' Bryen Reported in 2 How. Rev. Exch. 157.

Annesley v. DixonENR Rep. temp. Holt, 372; S. C. 2 How. Rev. Exch. 167.

Bouverie v. PrenticeENR1 Bro. C. C. 200.

Brady v. Fitzgerald Ubi sup.

Annesley v. Dixon Ubi sup.

Colyear v. Countess of Mulgrave 2 Kee. 81.

Ex parte Williams Buck. 13.

Attorney-General v. TrimlestonUNK5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 511.

Newton v. Earl of EgmontENR4 Sim. 574.

M'Kiernan v. KernanUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 269.

The Earl of ShrewsburyENR3 Hare, 627.

Sandford v. MorrisENR 11 Cl. & Fin. 657.

Benson v. BaldwynENR1 Atk. 598.

The Duke of Leeds v. PowelENR 1 Ves. sen. 172.

Roberts v. Hughes Beatty, 422.

Brady v. Fitzgerald Reported post.

Rolleston v. O'Bryen 2 How. App. 154.

Annesley v. Dixon Holt Rep. 277, & 2 How. App. 167.

Read v. Darley 10 Ea. 144.

Morris v. RobinsonENR3 B. & C. 196.

Richards v. BassetENR10 B. & C. 657.

Benson v. BaldwynENR1 Atk. 598.

Calvert on Parties p. 286.

Attorney-General v. Jackson 11 Ves. 367.

CASES IN EQUITY. 251 1849. Chancery. ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN v. COOTE and LORD TRIMLESTON. Feb. 15, 16. May 30. Tam bill in this case was filed for the recovery of the arrears of A bill lies to recover an certain chief rents and proxies claimed by the Archbishop of Dublin. ancient rent, the origin of It stated that the plaintiff, since his appointment in 1831, was which is un known, and entitled to a certain yearly chief rent of 50. 2s. 3d., equivalent to the lands charged not 54. 5s. 9d., late currency, which had been from time immemorial accurately ascertainable, payable to his predecessors Archbishops of Dublin, who were lords especially where the of the manors of Swords and Lusk, and of certain lands in the parties liable to pay it have, parishes of Swords and Lusk, in the lordship of Swords and county by selling parts of the of Dublin, including, " amongst others," Windmill lands and Broad- lands charged and charging others by way of indemnity to the purchaser, and long acting on that arrangement, rendered the owner's rights more uncertain. Lands subject to an ancient rent were sold in 1766, and the purchaser indemnified against it by the vendor, who held other lands similarly charged, and whose repreÂÂsentatives continued to pay it, no payment being made by the owner of the sold lands since 1766; Held, that the receipt of the rent was not discontinued as to the sold lands, and the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run. The Down survey, though it is conclusive only as to the boundaries of the new and old interests defined by the statute of Car. 2, is, as a public document, admisÂÂsible evidence on questions between any persons of matters stated in it. The Books of Distributions, being only abstracts of the survey, are not admissible as evidence of matters stated in them. A decree of the Court of Claims under statute 11 & 12 W. 3, sess. 2, c. 2 (Eng.), adjudicating upon lands vested in an innocent person as charged with a rent, is not admissible in evidence, not being a matter within their jurisdiction ; and although the possession of the lands and rent has ever since gone in accordance with the decree, it does not render it admissible, at least without proving that it was known to the parties against whom it is produced, or those through whom they claim. Estates A and B were subject to an ancient rent. A being sold, the vendor (Lord T.'s ancestor) covenanted to indemnify the purchaser (C.'s ancestor), and paid the entire rent since 1766. In a suit against Lord T. it was decided that so much only of the rent as was payable out of B could be recovered, and a decree was made for so much, the amount of which was defined. In a subsequent suit against Lord T. and C. to recover the remainder of the rent payable out of A ; Held, that the former suit afforded no defence to Lord T., and that he was a proper party to the new suit, either as claiming a part of the lands charged, or in respect of the remedy over against him. In a suit to recover a rent stated by the bill to be payable out of lands named " with others," the evidence as to the precise lands charged with it being very indefinite, Held, that an objection for want of parties could not be sustained, on the suggestion, unproved, that there were other lands contributory, the owners of which were not before the Court. In a suit to recover an ancient rent, the evidence not clearly defining the lands liable, an issue was directed to ascertain the precise lands chargeable with it. 252 CASES IN EQUITY. meadow, Holybanks, Oatlands and Roganstown ; that the lands of Windmill and Broadmeadow were from before the year /831 in the possession of John Thomas Baron Trimleston until his death in October 1839, and thenceforth in the possession of the defendant the present Lord Trimleston, and formed part of what are known as the Kingsland and Turvey estates of the Lords Trimleston and their ancestors the Lords Barnewall ; that the other lands were since 1831 in the possession of the defendant Coote ; that all these denominations of land had originally belonged to the Lords BarneÂÂwall, and afterwards to Henry Lord Viscount Kingsland, who sold the four last denominations to Colonel Eyre Coote, and that the unsold portion, including the manor of Turvey, came by regular succession to the present Lord Trimleston ; and that the chief rent had from time immemorial been paid to the Archbishops of Dublin by the successive owners of the estates up to the decease of John Thomas Lord Trimleston in 1839. The bill stated, as evidence that the chief rent was so paid, a certificate or adjudication made by the trustees of forfeited estates in Ireland, by which, after reciting that on the 1st of August 1700, Narcissus, then Archbishop of Dublin, had duly made and tendered his claim to the said trustees, thereby setting forth that the claimÂÂant's predecessors Archbishops of Dublin had been time out of mind seised and possessed, and that the said claimant was then seised and possessed of the several services, chiefries and rents issuing out of the several lands and tenements thereinafter mentioned, as the ancient inheritance and right of the see, and amongst others, of a chiefry or rent of 54. 5s. 9d. of the then currency of Ireland, out of the several parcels of land in Swords and Lusk, then in the possession of Lord Barnewall, in the lordship of Swords ; and reciting that, forasmuch as the several estates or interests out of which the respective chiefries, rents and services thereinbefore mentioned were issuing or payable were or might have been forfeited by the then late rebellion, or possessed since the 13th of February 1688 by some person or persons attainted of the treason in the Act menÂÂtioned, they were vested by the Act in the trustees; and praying that his claim might be allowed, and that the several estates thereinbefore CASES IN EQUITY. 253 mentioned, out of which the same were issuable, might be chargeable 1849. Chancery. with the said rents and chiefries ; and after stating that the said 1/4„--) ARCH claim having come on to be heard before the trustees on the 24th BISHOP OF of March 1701, in the presence of Counsel, as well for the claimant DUBLIN as the trustees, upon the proofs and evidences, it appeared to the V. LORD TRIM Court that the claimant's predecessors, Archbishops of Dublin, had LESTON. been time out of mind, and the claimant, as the Archbishop of the c .tatement. see, was then, seised and possessed of the several chiefries, rents and services thereinafter mentioned, issuing and payable out of the several lands and tenements therein named, which lands and tenements appeared to the trustees to be vested in them by the attainder of several persons of treason in the said Act recited, and amongst others in the lordship of Swords, several parcels of land in Swords and Lusk, in possession of Lord Barnewall, 54. 5s. 9d. ; it was therefore adjudged and decreed by the said Court that the said claimant's said claim of and for the said several and respective chiefries, rents and services issuing and payable out of the said several lands and tenements and premises thereinbefore mentioned, and amongst others, the said chiefry of 54. 5s. 9d., should be, and the same was, allowed ; all which the said trustees thereinbefore mentioned, who allowed the said claim at the request of the said Narcissus, did certify under their respective hands and seals. The bill then stated indentures of lease and release of October 1766, made between Henry Lord Kingsland of the one part, and Colonel Eyre Coote of the other part. These recited that by indenÂÂture of equal date Lord Kingsland and his brother had conveyed certain lands therein mentioned, freed from all incumbrances except the yearly Crown rent of eighteen shillings and five pence and the dower of Honoria Lady Kingsland, and that the Archbishop of Dublin claimed an ancient yearly rent of 54. 5s. 9d., and two shillings yearly as receiver's fees, issuing and payable to him and his successors out of several lands in the lordship of Swords and Lusk formerly in the possession of Christopher Barnewall deceased, and that Lord Kingsland had agreed to indemnify Eyre Coote and his heirs and the premises so conveyed to him for ever thereafter from the said chief rent, and for that purpose to charge the same 254 CASES IN EQUITY. for ever thereafter on the manor, town and lands of...