Doran v Carroll

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 December 1860
• Date: 03 December 1860
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

DORAN

and

CARROLL.

Tipping v. Ackersley 2 & J. 264.

Johnson v. Hall Ibid, 414.

Lambert v. LambertUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 210.

Tipping v. AckersleyENR 2 K. & J. 264.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 379 1860. Chancery. DORAN v. CARROLL. (In Chancery.) Dec. 3. THE petition-in this case was filed by Mrs. Sarah Letitia Doran, by Where a les see, bound by her next friend ; and stated that, by an indenture of the 20th of covenant not to commit 'February 1856, Edmond Doran demised, for three lives or thirty- waste, has committed acts one years, to the respondent, Thomas Carroll, the lands of Ninch, of waste, for which dama with the mansion-house and other lands, reserving timber, timber ges merely no- minal trees, woods and under-woods; with a covenant by the said respond- be given,would the ent to maintain all timber and timber trees, and that none of the Court of Ch an eery will not same should be cut down, lopped or injured, without the consent entertain a suit against him, of the said Edmond Doran, or his heirs; and a covenant by the founded on those acts of lessee to repair, preserve and keep all edifices, buildings, wall- waste, where it appears that fences, gates, gateways and improvements in good repair. It he does not contemplate further stated that the said Edmond Doran died in 1857, without, committino. any further issue, whereupon the petitioner became entitled, for her separate waste, nor as- sert a right to use, to the reversion in the said premises expectant on the deter- commit it. No mination of the said demise, for her life, with remainder to her- change in this respect has eldest son in tail. The petition further alleged that, in the month been intro duced by the of January or February 1860, the respondent had broken down Chancery Amendment and removed a wall in the garden in said demised premises, which Act 1858. A tenant, by wall was sixty yards long, or thereabouts, nine feet in height, and replying to a letter chargino. two feet in thickness, and had fruit trees growing on each side him with the commission of of it. That the respondent had dug up fruit trees in the garden, waste, and re- quir and had cut down and lopped a large quantity of timber trees ake to m ing him compen growing on the lands, without any consent, and cut down, injured ration for it, " that he is and removed a tterbanum* tree, of considerable value, in the lawn, in prepared to defend any ac the said demised premises, and several ornamental and fruit trees, tion which may be brought against him, and to show that, so far from having committed injury, he has materially improved the premises demised to him," does not assert a right to commit the waste comÂÂplained of. 380 CHANCERY REPORTS...