Gyles v Gyles

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 June 1858
• Date: 15 June 1858
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

GYLES

and

GYLES.

Green v. Gyles Supra, vol. 6, p. 25.

Dillon v. CruiseUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 70.

Snow v. BoothENR 2 K. & J. 132.

Cox v. Doleman 2 D., M. & G. 592.

Hunter v. NockoldsUNK 1 M. & G. 640.

Young v. WaterparkENR 13 Sim. 204.

Hunt v. BatemanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 360.

In re WyseUNK 4 Ir. Ch. Rep. 297.

Knox v. KellyUNK 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 279.

Garrard v. TuckENR 8 C. B. 231.

St. Mary Magdalen v. Attorney-General 6 H. L. Cas. 189.

Hovenden v. Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 633.

Fergus v. Gore 1 Sch. & Lef. 107.

Phillipo v. Munnings 2 M. & C. 309.

Roch v. CallenENR 6 Hare, 531.

Knight v. BowyerENR 23 Beav. 609.

Garrard v. TuckENR 8 C. B. 231.

St. Mary Magdalen v. The Attorney-General 6 H. L. Cas. 207.

Hovender v. Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 633.

Fergus v. Gore 1 Sch. & L. 110.

Dillon v. CruiseUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep.. 82.

Young v. WaterparkENR 13 Sim. 204.

Roch v. CallenENR 6 Hare, 531.

Phillipo v. Munnings 2 M. & Cr. 309.

Gough v. BultENR 16 Sim. 323.

Hunt v. BatemanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 384.

Knight v. BowyerENR 23 Beav. 609.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 135 reason, which may be stated in the words of Lord Hardwicke, in 1859. Benson v. Baldwyn (a) :-" Where a man is entitled to a rent out of Chancery. lands, and through process of time the remedy at Law is lost, or MONTGOMERY become very difficult, this Court has interfered, and given relief, SWAN. upon the foundation only of payment of the rent for a long time, Judgment. which bills are called bills founded on the solet. Nay, the Court has gone so far as to give relief where the nature of the rent (as there are many kinds at Law) has not been known, so as to be set forth." Here the title, though admitted ht the Bar, was not so admitted by the answer, but depends on the long course of payment and dealing, which in its result establishes everything necessary to give the plaintiffs a title to relief; and therefore I have no hesitation in granting the relief which is prayed. Reg. Lib. 24, f. 239. (a) 1 Atk. 578. GYLES GYLES. 1858. June 11, 12, 14, 15. Tars case came before the Court upon exceptions to the report of the Master, made under a decree of the 9th of July 1856, by which it was referred to the Master to take an account of the charges and encumbrances affecting the lands and premises in the cause, and parÂÂticularly the Clonee estate. This suit related to the same property which was in question in the case of Green v. Gyles (a), and the questions in it arose upon the deed of 12th of February 1810, which is there shortly stated. By that deed, the lands of Clonee and others were conveyed to John Butler Furlong and William Croker Furlong, their heirs and assigns, upon trust, to raise a sufficient sum to pay, in the first place, the debts and funeral expenses of Arthur M'Guire the elder ; in the next place, to pay his legacies ; and from and after payment (a) Supra, vol. 6, p. 25. 136 CHANCERY REPORTS. of such debts, expenses and legacies, upon trust, to pay to Arthur M'Guire, junior, and William M`Guire, Joseph M`Guire, Thomas M'Guire, Edward M`Guire and Francis M'Gruire, the younger sons of the said Arthur M'Guire the elder, the sum of 4000 each, with interest for the same respectively at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, until paid, and, after payment thereof, to convey and assign to Walter M'Guire, his heirs and assigns. The deed then contained a provision empowering the trustees, until some suit should be instiÂÂtuted to recover payment of some of the charges, to suspend all proceedings for a sale of the trust estates. By his report, the Master found that the Clonee estate and other lands were, by the said deed of the 12th of September 1810, conveyed to trustees, upon trust, among other things, to raise certain sums of 4000 each, and set forth, in the second schedule, the amounts due on foot of these sums, and the persons to whom they were payable. One of these sums was vested in Walter Gyles ; and upon that the Master found the whole principal to be due, and also the sum of 1757. 5s. 4d. for interest to the 29th of September 1846, and the sum of 874. 8s. 6d. for interest from that time to the 25th of December 1857. Another of these sums was vested in Arthur M'Guire Gyles, on which the Master found the whole principal to be due, and 1832. 7s. 5d. for interest up to the 25th of December 1857. To this report, exceptions were taken by Mrs. Beckwithe and Mrs. Spence, on the ground that the Master ought only to have reported due interest for six years prior to the institution of the suit. Argument.. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Pilkington, for the petitioner. Mr. Lawson and...