Cremen, Petitioner, Johnson, Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 April 1846
• Date: 21 April 1846
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

CREMEN,

Petitioner,

JOHNSON,

Respondent.

Walsh v. WalshUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 428.

M'Alister v. MartinUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 428.

Frere v. The Hibernian Mining Company 2 Hog. 30.

Clarke v. Coghlan3 Ir. Law Rep. 427.

Baker v. GostlingENR1 Bing. N. C. 19.

Poultney v. Holmes Str. 405.

Newcome v. HardyENRCarth. 161.

Lloyd v. LangfordENR 2 Mod. 175.

Doe v. BatemanENR 2 B. & Al. 168.

CASES IN EQUITY. 143 of a terminable and short lease. There may, therefore, be quite sufficient surplus assets to secure the annuity after fully providing for the indemnity of the executor on the covenants. I must therefore Overrule the exception to the Master's report with costs. 1846. Rolls. heALTLEY V. WAIILET. Judgment. CREMEN, Petitioner, JOHNSON, Respondent. April 20, 21. Ma. JOHN R. ATKINS, on the part of John Hawkes, showed cause A lessee for against a conditional order obtained in this matter for an attachment years having leased for his against John Hawkes, for non-payment to the receiver of the sum of own term, re- serving a profit 251. 17s. 3d., three years' rent to the 29th September 1845. The rent, with a petitioner had obtained a receiver under the Mortgage Act against clause of re- clause non the respondent, over certain lands, a part of which had been demised payment of it, by Arthur Johnson the mortgagor to the father of John Hawkes, for subsequently mortgaged the the entire term which the respondent now had in them, reserving a lands. Held, that the rent rent. The order to pay- his rent having been served by. the receiver reserved was on John Hawkes, and the latter not having paid, an ejectment was not a rent- charge, but in brought, to which he took defence, and succeeded, on the ground that the nature of there was no reversion in the lessor of the plaintiff: The petitioner rent upon a demise ; and then filed a bill against John Hawkes for a receiver over the rent, that the perso n- al r- treating it as a rent-charge, on the authority of the case of Stevelly v. tire ep ofresen theta Murphy; but failed in that suit. mortgagor The facts of the case will be found at length in the report of the the recover coueld lands by motion for the receiver in Cremen v. Hawkes, vol. 8, p. 153, and ejectment at common law, in the judgment of his Honor the Master of the Rolls. and would be a trustee for the mortgagee, Mr. John R. Atkins. and, therefore, that a receiver The provisions of the Mortgage Act do not apply to this rent, appointed over which though not a rent-charge is in the same predicament and of a tthh eelandsr tunder a similar nature, the respondent having no reversion in the lands Act was jgust- fied enforo- which can be attached under the statute : Walsh v. Walsh (a)...