Dease, Executor of Matthew O'Reilly, v William O'Reilly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 January 1845
• Date: 28 January 1845
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

DEASE, Executor of MATTHEW O'REILLY,

and

WILLIAM O'REILLY.

Lord Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27.

Ex parte SmythENR 1 Swans. 338, note.

Ex parte SmythENR 3 Hare, 173.

Brown v. AmyotENR 2 Taunt. 148.

Hegan v. JohnsonENR 3 Bing. 361.

Knight v. BenettENR 5 Bing. 185.

Cox v. Bent 5 Ir. Law Rep. 305.

Hare v. Cely Cro. Eliz. 143.

Wilson v. MackrethENR 3 Burr. 1824.

Crosby v. WadsworthENR 6 East, 602.

Hanley v. WoodENR 2 B. & Al. 724.

Greenslade v. TapscottENR 1 C. M. & R. 59.

Close v. Brady 1 Jon. & C. 186.

Paget v. Gee 2 Ambl. 807.

Vernon v. Vernon 2 Br. C. C. 659.

Hawkins v. Kelly 8 Ves. 308.

In re Markby 4 M. & Cr. 484.

Moses v. M'FarlandENR 2 Burr. 1005.

Clarke v. Shee and Johnson Cowp. 197.

Cooth v Jackson 6 Ves. jun. 39.

Johnson v. JohnsonENR 3 Bos. & P. 169.

Weston v. DownesENR 1 Doug. 24.

Stephens v. BadcockENR 3 B. & Ad. 354.

Sims v. BrittainENR 4 B. & Ad. 375.

Clarance v. MarshallENR 2 Cr. & M. 495.

Doe v. Dodd 2 Nev. & Man. 846.

Regina v. WinterENR 2 Salk. 588.

Slack v. Sharp 3 Nev. & P. 390.

Moneypenny v. Bristow 2 Rus. & Myl 124.

Smith v. JonesUNK 6 Jur. 283.

Maguire v. Goddard 2 J. & Sy. 462.

Watson v. Slevin Ir. Cir. Cas. 759.

Hawkins v. Kelly, Annesley v. Wordsworth 2 V. & Bea. 331.

Bishop of Meath v. Marquis of Winchester 3 scott, 577.

Williams v. EverettENR 14 East, 582.

Yates v. BellENR 3 B. & Al.643.

Darnton v. Pigman Peak. Ad. Cas. 111.

Close v. Brady Jones & C. 186.

H. T. 1845. Queen'sBench. HEMPHILL V. M4K.ENNA. 52 CASES AT LAW. exceptions, and one of these exceptions is, that, in cases involving a general right or custom, cases in which the public are all equally concerned, a verdict or a judgment upon a matter in which a party claiming an exclusive right, and a person asserting a public right adverse to the private right claimed, shall be evidence in another action or suit involving the same question, though against a different party. The cases of Read v. Jackson (a); ,Pint v. Curell ; FreeÂman v. Phillips (b), are in point: we have no difficulty, therefore, in overruling the exceptions and giving judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff. (a) 1 East, 355. (b) 4 M. & Sel., 491. 1844. Nov. 8, 12. 1845. Jan. 28. Where land was tilled and prepared by A, a tenant for life, and allotted by him, at a cerÂtain rate per acre, in small portions to his labourers for the purpose of planting potaÂtoes; all the labour being done at his exÂpense ; the poÂtatoes were planted by the labourers and above ground when A died, eight guineas per acre, for the purpose of planting potatoes; all the and the re mainderman prevented the labourers carrying off the crop until they had paid him the rate so agreed upon ; Held, that the contract created by such a holding was not a demise of the land, but a sale of the profit derivable therefrom. Held also, that the money so paid was not apportionable (under. the statutes) between the executor of the tenant for life and the remainderman. • Comm CRAMPTON, J, and PERRIN, J. CASES AT LAW. 5$ labour up to the setting of the potatoes was done at his expense ; 1;1. T. 11845. the ground was allotted to the tenants in the usual way, and by them (44"" planted with potatoes, which were grown and over ground before DE.A. the death of Matthew O'Reilly ; and on his death, the defendant prevented the occupiers carrying off the crop, until they paid the sum mentioned. It also appeared that the land was manured by Matthew O'Reilly's men in his lifetime, and that his own labourers alone were allowed to plant therein ; that these potatoes belonged to him who planted them, and that each labourer dug and carried off his own when ripe ; that Matthew O'Reilly had himself one la in the field, and that his potatoes were sold after his death by his executor, and that the labourers had separate ridges, alternately, without fences between them. It further appeared that Matthew O'Reilly had grazing ground, and that the rate for grazing wth3 £3. 10s. per acre. The defendant admitted the receipt of the con, acre money from the tenants for the several holdings, amounting to £90, and grazing money amounting to £23, and admitted that the con-acre „money from May 1841 to the death of ly amounted to £27. It ted on behalf of the defendant that, as to the grazing of the lands, the contract between Matthew O'Reilly, and the persons whose cattle he grazed, was not a contract that could be considered a demise of the lands, making the money paid for the same subject to apportionment between the personal representatives of Matthew O'Reilly and the defendant. And that as to the lands prepared for the planting of potatoes by Matthew O'Reilly, the contract between him and the labourers was not such a one as could be...