Grattan v Wall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 June 1868
• Date: 13 June 1868
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

GRATTAN

and

WALL.

Congham v. KingENRCro. Car. 221.

Stephenson v. LambardENR2 East, 575.

Curtis v. SpittyENR1 Bing. N. C. 756.

Merceron v. Dowson5 B. & Cr. 479.

Heap v. LivingstonHeap v. Livingston

Grogan v. MaganGrogan v. Magan

Egremont v. KeenEgremnt v. Keen

Hare v. CatorHare v. Cator

Merceron v. DowsonMerceron v. Dowson

Woolaston v. ThirlwallWoolaston v. Thirlwall

Gamon v. VernerGamon v. Verner

Earl of Lucan v. GildeaEarl of Lucan v. Gildea

Merceron v. DowsonMerceron v. Dowson

Heap v. LivingstonHeap v. Livingston

Twynam v. PickardENR2 B. & Ald. 105, 108.

Murray v. HullENR7 C. B. 455.

Halford v. HatchENR1 Dougl. 183, 445.

Merceron v. DowsonENR5 B. & C. 479.

Curtis v. Spitty1 Bing. N. S. 736.

Action for Rent against Assignees of Lessee Pleading Joint Tenancy.

484 THE IRISH REPORTS. Exchequer. It avers no tender of the certificates to the•Plaintiff, nor any ac-1868. ceptance by the Plaintiff of the shares. MUNRO I do not think it necessary to say more of this plea than that v. it seems clear a Court of Equity could not give relief on the agree- ATIIENRY N NIs jcs & ur; ment stated. It seems to me wholly without consideration. E RAILWAY Co. The 7th and 8th pleas are pleaded to so much only of the counts in the declaration as demand interest. It seems to me unnecessary to consider the matter of these pleas. No case has been cited to show that the 85th section of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1856 can be applied to a case in which a Court of Equity would give partial relief against a judgÂÂment. It seems to me the only relief a Court of Equity -would give would be a direction to have the judgment satisfied on the terms of payment of what was admittedly due. DEASY, B., concurred. Demurrer allowed. Attorney for the Plaintiff : W. H. 311Grath. Attorneys for the Defendants: Guilin, Ceey, awl Co. Exchequer. 1818. May 7, 8. June 13. GRATTAN v. "NATAL Action for Rent against Assignees of Lessee-Pleading Joint Tenancy. To an action by reversioner of a lease for a term of years, for rent against three Defendants as assignees of the term, the Defendants pleaded that all the interest of the lessee in the said lease did not vest in the Defendants. At the trial it appeared that the Defendants were joint tenants of three-fifths of the premises. The Judge directed a verdict for the Plaintiff, reserving leave to the Defendants to move this Court. Held, that the verdict must be entered for the Defendants. THE Summons and Plaint in the first count claimed 32 48. 6d., for that one James Shaughnessy being seised and possessed of a sufficient estate in the premises known as 91, Great Britain-street, in the city of Dublin, let the same to one Daniel Reilly, to hold Exchequer. for the term of 150 years, from the 25th April, 1797, at the yearly 1868. rent of 32 4s. 6d., payable quarterly ; and said Daniel Reilly a EAT1AN thereby covenanted for himself, his executors, administrators, and v• assigns, with the said James Shaughnessy, his executors, admi- WALL. assigns and assigns, to pay to the said James Shaughnessy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the said reserved yearly rent on the said days and times during the said term ; and afterÂÂwards, during the said term all the estate and interest of the said Daniel Reilly vested in the Defendants ; and afterwards during the said. term, and after the estate and interest in the said reversion, and in said lease, respectively, became, respectively, vested. in the Plaintiff and in the Defendants, said rent became in arrear, and the Defendants did not pay the same, but same was still due and unpaid. There was a second. count for use and occupation of the:same premises with...