Browne v Warnock

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 December 1880
• Date: 18 December 1880
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

V. C.

BROWNE

and

WARNOCK.

Fildes v. HookerENR 3 Madd. 194.

Brumfit v. Morton 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1198.

Darlington v. HamiltonENR Kay, 550.

Mulholland v. Mayor of Belfast 9 Ir. Ch. R. 204.

Hayford v. CriddleENR 22 Beav. 477.

Groves v. Groves 12 W. R. 45.

Leng v. HodgesENR Jacob, 585.

Brown v. PringleENRUNK 4 Hare, 124; 8 Jur. 1113.

Davis v. BushUNK 8 Jur. 1114, note.

Edwards v. TuckENR 23 Beav. 271.

Lyddon v. EllisonENR 19 Beav. 565.

FraserENR Jacob, 586, note (a).

In re Widdow's Trusts.ELR L. R. 11 Eq. 468.

Forty v. Reay Unreported; referred to in Dart's Vendors and Purchasers (5th ed.), p.

Re Millner's EstateELR L. R. 14 Eq. 245.

Esdaile v. StephensonENR 1 Sim. & St. 122.

Millner's EstateELR L. R. 14 Eq. 245.

Vendor and purchaser Woman past chile-bearing Title forced on purchaser Agreement for lease in perpetuity Premises subject with others to a bulk fee-farm rent less than the rent proposed to be reserved by the intended lease.

Nor,. VII.] CHANCERY DIVISION. Court." Are the circumstances of this case such as to justify the Prob. Court in departing from the general practice by not making the 1880. grant to the person generally entitled to it ? At present I think In re that I ought to exercise my discretion in favour of the application, JouNsoN. having regard to the proceedings in the Chancery Division. But I cannot decide the case until all persons entitled in distribution have been cited, or shall by appearance or consents have waived citations. In Carr's Case (1) the parties had appeared. In Williams on Executors (8th ed.), p. 484, it is said, " Though all the next-of-kin at the time of the death are dead, it should seem that no grant of administration de bonis non, however limited in its object, can be obtained after the termination of the creditor's admiÂÂnistration, -without citing those who are next-of-kin at the time the grant is required : " Skeffington v. White (2). There must be an affidavit as to the persons entitled in distribution ; and unless they shall appear, or consent, they must be regularly cited. Solicitor for Maryanne Greene : Mr. T. P. Reede. BROWNE v. W.ARNOCK. V. C. 1880. Vendor and purchaser-Woman past child-bearing-Title forced on purchaser riee. 7, -Agreement for lease in perpetuity-Premises subject with others to a bulk 18. fee-farm rent less than the rent proposed to be reserved by the intended lease. A title, the validity of which depends upon the presumption that a woman of sixty-three is past child-bearing, -will be forced upon a purchaser of real estate. In the ease of an agreement to take a lease for ever, it is not a valid objecÂÂtion to the title of the intended lessor that the premises agreed to be demised are, together with other premises, held under a fee-farm grant, containing no onerous covenants, at a rent less than the rent to be reserved in the proposed lease. (1) L. R. 1 P. & D. 291. (2) 1 Hagg. 699; 2 Hagg. 626. B2. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. ADJOURNED SUMMONS. Action for specific performance of an agreement by the Defendants to take a lease from the Plaintiffs. On the 24th of June, 1879, the Plaintiff William Browne, on behalf of a Miss Susan Hancock, agreed that the owners of the premises should grant to the Defendant Samuel Cooper a lease for ever of certain stores and shops on Merchants'-quay, in Newry, at a yearly rent of 38 ; and that the lease should conÂÂtain, among other covenants, a covenant by the lessee to expend the sum of 500 on buildings and repairs, and that said agreeÂÂment should be subject to the approval by the lessee's solicitor of the title of the lessor to grant the lease. On the 29th of June, Susan Hancock died, having by her will devised the premises out of which the lease was agreed to be granted to the Defendants James Hancock and William Calvert, upon trust for the Plaintiffs, in certain shares. The action was commenced on the 19th of November, 1879, and the defence put in by the principal Defendant, Cooper, was in substance that no title to make the lease had been shown. The case was tried on the 21st of April, 1880, and a decree was made for specific perÂÂformance of the agreement, subject to an inquiry directed by the decree as to the title. The following are the material parts of the abstract of...