Brady v Fitzgerald

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 February 1847
• Date: 24 February 1847
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

BRADY

and

FITZGERALD.

Stevelly v. MurphyUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 448.

Manly v. Hawkins 1 Dr. & W. 363.

Duke of Bridgewater v. Edwards 4 Br. P. C. 139.

Holden v. ChamburyENR 3 P. Wms. 257.

Cremen v. HawkesUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 156.

Manly v. Hawkins 1 Dr. & W. 363.

Roberts v. Hughes Beatty, 417.

Fay v. Fay 2 Jo. 350.

Milnes v. BranchENR 5 M. & S. 411.

Executors of Kennedy v. Stewart 4 Law Rec. N. S. 160; S. C. 7 Ir. Law Rep. 421, note.

Randall v. RigbyENR 4 M. & W. 130.

Webb v. RussellUNK 3 Term Rep. 393.

Kelly v. Clubbe 6 B. Moo. 335.

Beatty's Repts., Roberts v. Hughes Beat. 417.

Cupit v. Jackson 13 Pri. 721.

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

Stevelly v. MurphyUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 448, p. 456.

Lit. sec. 216.

Co. Lit.ENR Co. Lit. 143, b, n. 235.

Cremen v. HawkesUNKUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 153, a.; S. C. on appeal, 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 503.

ENR Baker v. Gosking, 1 Bing. N. C. 19.

CASES IN EQUITY. 55 BRADY v. FITZGERALD. (In the Rolls.) THE bin stated that Sir William Ingoldsby being seised in fee of the lands of Castlekeale and other lands in the county of Clare, by indenture, bearing date the 24th of July 1824, conveyed them to Samuel Monsell and his heirs for ever at a rent of £369. 17s. 6d., late currency; that Samuel Monsell entered into the lands and paid the said reserved rent to Sir W. Ingoldsby during his life, and that since the death of the said Samuel Monsell the rent had been always paid by the several persons deriving title to the premises under him to the several persons deriving title to the fee-farm rent under Sir W. Ingoldsby. The bill then stated that the estate in the fee-farm rent had come to and was vested in the plaintiff, and that the estate of Samuel Monsell in the lands had come to and was legally vested in the defendants Charles Fitzgerald, Sir William Fitzgerald and John Westropp, and as to a small part of said lands in John Singleton ; that some of the said persons paid to the plaintiff as assignee of the interest of Sir W. Ingoldsby the said reserved rent in certain proportions agreed among themselves for several years ; that the lands held by John Westropp, in respect of which he had paid a proportion, were called by the name of Ballymockhen, and that the same, although not mentioned in the deed of the 24th of July 1725, were part of the lands included therein, but that the plaintiff being ignorant of the boundaries of the said lands could not with certainty state how the fact was ; but that for the two last years the proportion of the rent which theretofore had been paid by John Westropp had been allowed to run in arrear and had not been paid. The bill then stated that a sum of £203. 2s. 3d. was due on foot of the fee-farm rent, and various applications to the several defend 56 C A-SES IN EQUITY. ants and their agents, and that the defendant Sir W. Fitzgerald claimed to hold his part of the lands free from the rent-charge, and alleged that Charles Fitzgerald should pay the proportion theretofore paid by him, and relied on some deed between one James Fitzgerald, grandfather of the defendants Charles and Edward Fitzgerald, and father of Sir William, with the contents whereof the plaintiff was unacquainted. The bill further stated that by reason of the antiquity of the said grant, and the difficulty of tracing down the title to the same and to the premises out of which the same issued, the plaintiff was advised that he could not proceed safely by distress or at law, or in any...