Estate of Talbot Crosbie Catherine Duggan v Mary Walsh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Judge: Meredith, J
• Judgment Date: 23 January 1905
• Date: 23 January 1905

Estate Of Talbot Crosbie.

Catherine Duggan and Mary Walsh

Tenants

Meredith, J,

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1905.

Landlord and tenant — Land Purchase Acts — Meaning of term “judicial rent” in section 1 of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

Upon the same day A, the agent for the vendor, accepted service of an originating notice by a non-judicial tenant to fix a judicial rent, a consent was entered into fixing such rent, and an agreement for purchase was signed:

Held, that the case did not come within section 1, sub-section (1), of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

An agreement and declaration, fixing a second term judicial rent, was signed on March 7, 1904, lodged on March 30, 1904, and filed on June 30, 1904. meantime an agreement for purchase was signed on April 30:—

Held, that the case did not come Within Sect. 1, Sub-sect. (1) (a), of the Act.

The “judicial rent” mentioned in sect. 1, sub-sect. (1) (a) and (b), must be an existing judicial rent at the date of the purchase agreement.

[The following cases were cited: Givan v. Moffitt (1); Woodside v. Massey (2); Jackson & Verner v. Irvine (3); Dunne v. Knowles (4); Church v. M'Poyle (5); Fulton v. Templeton (6).]

Questions of law referred to a Judicial Commissioner by the Estates Commissioners under section 23 (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

The facts were:—The vendor made agreements with two tenants, Catherine Duggan and Mary Walsh, for the purchase of their holdings by them. Catherine Duggan was a non-judicial tenant. On the 30th of April, 1904, the agent for the landlord, the vendor, accepted service of an originating notice by her to fix a judicial rent. On the same day a consent was signed by her and the agent, agreeing on the rent to be fixed. On the same day the tenant signed a purchase agreement. On the 26th of July, an order, grounded upon the consent, was made by the Land Commission, fixing the fair rent of the holding.

Mary Walsh was a first term judicial tenant. On the 7th of March, 1904, an originating agreement and declaration was entered into between her and the vendor, pursuant to section 8 (6) of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, agreeing to a second term rent. The rent gale-day was the 25th of March, 1904. This agreement and declaration was lodged in the Land Commission on the 30th of March, and was filed on the 30th of June. Meantime, on the 30th of April, 1904, she and the vendor signed a purchase agreement, which was lodged in the Irish Land Commission on the 26th of July.

The Estates Commissioners referred the following question to a Judicial Commissioner as to each tenant:—“Is this holding, having regard to the date of the purchase agreement, a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to since the passing of the Act of 1896, on which the Commissioners, pursuant to section 1 of the Act of 1903, are bound to sanction the advance applied for.

Jellett, K.C., for the vendor:—

These holdings were subject to judicial rents at the dates of the purchase agreements, and so the Estates Commissioners are bound to sanction the advances under section 1 (1a) of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The words in that section are “fixed or agreed to.” If the words “agreed to” have not the same meaning as “fixed,” they must mean something previous to, and preliminary to, the fixing. The rents were existing operative rents upon which the tenant could have been sued.

Jellett, K.C., for the vendor:—

Meredith, J.:—

Two questions of law arising in reference to the application made by two tenants upon this estate, namely Catherine Duggan and Mary Walsh, have been referred to me by the Estates Commissioners for decision, pursuant to section 23, sub-section 1, of the Act of 1903. The question involved in each of the cases is one of great importance, not merely to the parties concerned,

but to vendors and purchasers, and intending vendors and purchasers, under the Act of 1903. I take the case of Catherine Duggan first. Catherine Duggan was a non-judicial tenant, holding at the rent of £56. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. George Trench, the agent of the landlord, that, acting under instructions received from the landlord, he carried out negotiations with the tenants on this estate for the sale to the tenants of their respective holdings under the Land Purchase Acts. Dealing with the case of Catherine Duggan, he says:—“On the 30th April, 1904, I accepted service, on behalf of said landlord, of an originating notice, whereby the said Catherine Duggan applied to the Court for an order fixing the fair rent of her holding, and, subsequently to my accepting service, a consent, also dated 30th April, 1904, was signed by the said tenant and by myself, for the said landlord, whereby the fair rent of the tenant's holding was agreed to; and on this consent being signed and perfected, the said tenant, Catherine Duggan, signed a purchase agreement, also dated April 30th, 1904.” Now, by the Rules of Court made under the Land Law Acts, the procedure as regards the service of originating notices is definitely and clearly settled. Rule 23 of the rules of 2nd January, 1897, provides:—“The first notice of application to the Court seeking its decision upon any question which the Court has jurisdiction to decide under the Land Law Acts shall be termed an originating notice.” And Rule 24:—“Every originating notice shall...