Geoghegan v Connolly

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date13 January 1859
Date13 January 1859
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls

Geoghegan
and
Connolly

Shepherd v. Keatley 1 CR. Mee. & Ros. 117.

Hume v. Bentley.ENR 5 De G. & Sm. 520.

Spratt v. Jeffrey 10 B. & Cr. 280.

Duke v. CollyerENR 2 Coll. 337.

Blake v. PhinnENR 3 C. B. 976.

Seaton v. MappENR 2 Coll. 556.

Graves v. Wilson 4 Jur., N. S., 271.

Brumfit v. Morton 3 Jur., N. S., 1201.

Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426.

Vaughan v. MagillUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200, 207.

Flight V. Booth 1 Bing., BT. C, 370.

Law v. UrlwinENR 16 Sim, 377.

Madeley v. BoothENR 2 De G. & Sm.718.

Darlington v. HamiltonENR 1 Kay, 558.

Fildes v. HookerENR 3 Madd. 194, 195.

Taylor V MartindaleENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 662, 663.

Leathem v. Allen 1 IR. Chan. Rep. 683.

Darlington v. HamiltonENR 1 Kay, 550.

Tomkins v. White 3 Sm. Rep. 439.

Shepherd v. Keatley 4 Tyr. 571.

Darlington v. HamiltonENR 1 Kay, 550.

Hume V. BentleyENR 5 De G. & S. 520.

Warren v. RichardsonENR 1 Younge, 1.

Leathem v. Allen 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 693.

Leathem v. Allen 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 69.

Flight v. BoothENR 1 Bing., N. C., 370.

Vaughan v MagillUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 205.

Drysdale v. Mara 5 D., M. & G. 103

598 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1859. Rolls. In re GORE, a Minor. Judgment. for same on passing his account ; and let the said receiver have also credit for his own costs of the order of the 1st day of June 1858, and of the petition and proceedÂÂings thereunder, and of this order ; and the Court doth reserve the question of the costs (if any) to be incurred before the Master, in case the parties shall differ about the form of the fee-farm grants, or the amount of renewal fines, or the rent to be reserved by such grants respectÂÂively. Rolls Petition Hearing Book 59, f. 29. 1858. Nov. 21. 1859. Jan. 13. GEOGHEGAN t. CONNOLLY. The particuÂÂlars of a sale by auction described the subject as a plot of ground held for a term of 111 years, from the 23rd of April 1853, subject to the annual rent of f.5. One of the conditions of sale was, that the vendor should deliver to the purchaser, or his agent, an abstract of title, and deduce a good title to the premises sold, down from the 23rd of April 1853 to the time of the sale ; nor should the title of the lessor be questioned, nor the vendor be bound to go behind same ; that compared copies of Registry searches against the vendor's lessor should be handed to the purchaser, as also of judgments from June 1845 to June 1853, and also a compared copy of his abstract of title, as also common searches by vendor, from the date of his lease to the time of sale, in the Registry and Judgment offices, and not further or otherwise. The plot of ground was part of two properties, held under two distinct leases, made in 1845 to the vendor's lessor, by which leases, rents of 31 and 9 were respectively reserved. The interest sold was under a lease made to the vendor, of portions of both proÂÂperties, on the 25th of July 1853, subject to a rent of 5. Held, first ; that the title was bad. Secondly ; that the condition of sale was so ambiguous and uncertain as not to preclude the purchaser from objecting to the title. Thirdly ; that there had been a suppression of facts in the particulars of sale, which amounted to misrepresentation, and disentitled the vendor to a decree for specific performance. CHANCERY REPORTS. 599 By lease of the 25th of July 1853, Frederick Tanfield Stokes 1858. os. demised to the petitioner Richard Geoghegan a portion of the R ll GE premises demised by each of the leases; at a rent of 5. Geoghe- OGHE GA N v. gan's interest in the lease was sold by auction to the respondent CONNOLLY. Connolly, on the 15th of April 1858. The particulars and con Statement. ditions of sale are stated in the judgment, infra, pp. 601, 602. The purchaser refused to complete the sale, on the ground that the title was bad. The purchaser also relied on some other objections, viz., that the vendor did not deliver the abstract of title according to one of the conditions of sale, and the exÂÂistence of incumbrances ; but the objection to the title was principally relied on, and was that on which the Court decided. The petition was for a specific performance of the contract of sale. Mr. Serjeant Deasy and Mr. John 0' Hagan, for the petitioner. It is admitted that, irrespectively of the conditions, the title is bad ; but the objection is to the lessor's title, and the fourth condition of sale precludes it. This is not like the case of ShepÂÂherd v. Keatley (a), where it was held that the purchaser was at liberty to go into evidence that the lessor's title was bad ; for by this condition the purchaser is bound not to inquire into the lessor's title. The terms of this condition are :-" Nor shall the title of the vendor's lessor be questioned, nor the vendor bound to go behind same." The authority applicable to this case is Hume v. Bentley (b). Effect cannot be given to the condition of sale, if any inquiry is made into the lessor's title. The subÂÂstantial objection to the title is, that the premises are subject to the rents of 31 and 9 reserved by the leases of the 2nd of June and 30th of December 1845, a portion of them being comÂÂprised in each lease ; but that is a defect in the lessor's title which is not to be inquired into. Suppose the lands were subject to a rentcharge created by the lessor, even then the objection would not be good. It is the quality or character of the objection which must be governed by the condition. There is nothing unusual or unfair in a condition that no inquiry shall be made into the lessor's Argument. (a) 1 Cr. Mee. & Ros. 117. (b) 5 De G. & Sm. 520. 600 CHANCERY REPORTS. title ; and, at Law, the purchaser with such a condition will be compelled to pay the price although the lessor's title be bad : Spratt v. Jeffrey (a); Duke v. Collyer (b). Mr. Warren and Mr. gift, for the respondent. The purchaser is liable to distress, action or ejectment for nonÂÂpayment of rent, of eight times the amount of that which he contracted to pay. He is liable to be evicted without a breach of covenant on his part : Blake v. Phinn (c). He is entitled to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Borrowes v Borrowes
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 20 March 1872
    ...Eyre v. BurmesterENR 10 H. L. C. 90. Lindo v. LindoENR 1 Beav. 496. Hammersley v. De BielENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 45. Geoghegan v. Cannolly 8 Ir. Ch. R. 598. Morley v. AttenboroughENR 3 Exch. 500. Lay v. NuthumENR 19 C. B. 479. Browning v. WrightUNK 2 B. & P. 25. Holles v. CarrENRENR 3 Swans. 638;......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT