Clanricarde v Ryder

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: V.-C.
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1897
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: (1896. No. 89.)
• Date: 13 January 1897

Clanricarde

and

Ryder.

V.-C.

Appeal.

(1896. No. 89.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1898.

Jurisdiction — Divisional Court — Chancery or Queen's Bench Division — Action for recovery of land — Equitable claim — Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, sects. 36, 37, 38.

The plaintiff brought in the Chancery Division an action, claiming an account of what was due by the defendants to him for use and occupation of a certain agricultural holding, or, in the alternative, that the mesne rates payable by the defendants for wrongfully withholding the premises from the plaintiff might be ascertained and ordered to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff; and to have it declared that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the said holding, free from any claim or tenancy of the defendants, or alternatively, that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the rents of the holding from the defendants as “future tenants” within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts. By his defence one defendant repudiated any tenancy or interest in the holding, and denied that he had ever claimed any such tenancy or interest. The other defendant, by his defence, claimed to be in possession of the holding, under an agreement with the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff let to him the grazing of the lands for a fixed sum down to the 1st of May, 1887, and whereby the plaintiff agreed to let the said lands to him as tenant from year to year, from the 1st of May, 1887, at a yearly rent to be fixed by agreement between the plaintiff and the said defendant, and that the said defendant was always ready and willing to carry out this agreement, on the faith of which he entered into and remained in possession of the lands, but that the plaintiff had failed to carry out his part of the said agreement and had refused to recognize any right of tenancy in the said defendant. Neither party made any application to have the action transferred to a Common Law Division. On the action coming on for trial, both parties being in attendance with their witnesses, the Vice-Chancellor dismissed the action without prejudice to any proceedings the plaintiff might be advised to take for recovery of the possession by ejectment, or for rents or mesne rates, or for use or occupation of the lands:—

Held, by the Court of Appeal, that there was no jurisdiction to dismiss the action, and that the case should be remitted to the Vice-Chancellor to proceed therein as to justice might appertain, either by hearing the case himself or by transferring it to a Common Law Division, with power to take the latter step either on the application of one of the parties or on his own motion.

Trial. The writ of summons was indorsed thus:—

“The plaintiff's claim is to have an account taken of what sum is due by the defendants to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the house and lands of Gortnakella, situate in the barony of Longford and county of Galway, containing 88 acres or thereabouts, from the 1st of December, 1886, to the present time, or in the alternative, that the mesne rates payable by the defendants for wrongfully withholding possession of said lands during said period may be ascertained and the sum found due ordered to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff; and to have it declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of said lands, free from any claim or tenancy of the defendants, or, alternatively, is entitled to receive the rents and profits of said land from the defendants as future tenants thereof within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and for such further or other relief as the Court shall deem meet.”

The statement of claim was as follows:—

1. “The plaintiff is seized in fee of the lands of Gortnakella, in the barony of Longford and county Galway.

2. “In and prior to the month of October, 1886, part of the lands of Gortnakella, containing 88 acres statute measure or thereabouts, were held by John Abbott, as tenant to plaintiff, at the yearly rent of £142.

3. “In the year 1886 the plaintiff took proceedings for the recovery of said 88 acres (hereafter called the holding) for non-payment of rent, and obtained a judgment for possession thereof, and in said month of October, 1886, possession of the holding was taken under said judgment on the plaintiff's behalf by the defendant John Ryder.

4. “In or about the month of January, 1887, the plaintiff's then agent, Mr. Francis J. Joyce, gave defendants, or one of them, permission, in consideration of £15, to graze the holding until the time within which the said John Abbott could redeem should expire, which would be about the 1st of May, 1887, but it was well known that the said John Abbott did not intend to redeem, as he had peaceably given up possession of the holding, and was not willing to continue tenant. The defendant John Ryder was at the time in the plaintiff's agent's employment as stock-buyer, and the defendant Patrick J. Ryder was a clerk in the office of the plaintiff's agent.

5. “The said Francis J. Joyce ceased to be the plaintiff's agent in or about the month of February, 1887, and is since dead.

6. “The defendants entered into possession of the holding and put their cattle on it, but did not take off their cattle on the 1st of May, 1887, and are still in possession of the holding, which is of the annual value of about £142.

7. “The plaintiff has caused frequent applications to be made to defendants to give up the possession of the holding, but defendants refuse to give up possession, and assert that they are entitled to a present tenancy in the holding, and claim to fix a fair rent, but plaintiff has declined to recognise any such right, and asserts defendants are wrongfully in possession from the 1st of May, 1887, and defendants have neither paid any rent or given up possession of said lands. Both defendants have called on plaintiff's agent on several occasions and negotiated for arrangement of a rent of the holding to be fixed, but no agreement has been come to, as plaintiff's agent refused to treat defendants as tenants, and defendants retain possession against plaintiff's will.

“The plaintiff claims:—

(1.) “To have it declared that the defendants are not, nor is either of them entitled to any tenancy in the holding, and that the defendants be ordered to deliver up possession thereof to the plaintiff.

(2.) “To have it declared in the alternative that the defendants are not entitled to a present tenancy in the holding within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts.

(3.) “To have an inquiry what sum is due to the plaintiff by the defendants for mesne rates of the holding while defendants have been wrongfully in possession thereof.

(4.) “To have an account of what is due by the defendants to the plaintiff for the use and occupation of the holding from the 1st of May, 1887, to the commencement of this action, and that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum found due.

(5.) “Alternatively, if the Court be of opinion that the defendants are entitled to a tenancy in the holding, payment of the arrears of rent due by the defendants at the rate of £142 per annum from the 1st of May, 1887.”

The defendants pleaded separately. By his defence John Ryder denied that he ever claimed any interest or tenancy in the said lands, and repudiated any such interest or tenancy. Patrick J. Ryder by his defence admitted the statement in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs of the...