Lee v Mathews

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date02 July 1880
Date02 July 1880
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal.

Before MAY, C.J., DEASY and FITZ GIBBON, I, .JJ.

LEE
and
MATHEWS

Hopkins v. Murray 12 Ir.L.R.359.

Price v. Jenkins 5 Ch.Div.619.

Colvile v. ParkerENR Cro.jac.158.

Gardiner v. Gardiner 12 Ir. C.L.R.565.

Thomas v. Thomas 2 Q B. 851.

Rorke's Estate 15 Ir. Ch.R.327.

Townend v. TokerELR L.R. 1 Ch.App.452.

Burnett v. Lynch 5 B.& c.589.

In Ex parte Hillman,in re Pumfrey 10 Ch.Div.625

Price v. Jenkins 5 Ch.Div.621.

Assignment of leaseholds Voluntary deed Subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration Fraudulent conveyance 10 Car.1,sess.2,c.3(Ir.).

LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. 1. which relies on the non-compliance of the Defendants with what is a condition precedent on their part in providing the lands perÂÂmanently required for the execution and completion of said works, such non-compliance having, as is alleged in this replication, renÂÂdered the execution of said works impossible. We are of opinion this is a good replication, and that the demurrer thereto should be overruled. We have already expressed our reasons for thinking this provision of the contract a condition precedent on the part of the Defendants ; and we are of opinion that the Defendants, havÂÂing made default in the performance of this condition, which, in substance, prevented Plaintiffs performing their portion of the conÂÂtract, the Plaintiffs are entitled to treat the contract as rescinded, and to sue as upon a quantum meruit for the value of the works they had executed. Such a right has been recognised in many cases cited in the argument (see also the cases collected in the notes to Cutter v. Powell), and, upon the principle established by such cases, we rule the demurrer in favour of the Plaintiffs. .Demurrers to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th paragraphs of the reply overruled. Demurrer to the 5th paragraph allowed. Solicitors for the Plaintiffs : Messrs. Chomley 8f St. George. Solicitors for the Defendants :Messrs. Tyrrell Stanuell. There is no abstract and inflexible rule that every assignment of leasehold premises subject to a rent must necessarily be an assurance for good consideÂÂration within the 14th section of the 10 Car. 1, sess. 2, c. 3 (Ir.), so as to preÂÂvail against a subsequent purchase for value. Per MAY, C. J. :-The question in each such case is, was the dealing a (1) Before MAY, C. J Dun and Frrz GI:snow, L.JJ. Vor.. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 531 bargain or a gift? The existence of onerous liabilities, from which the assignee Appeal. covenants to indemnify the assignor, may give the transaction the character of .1S80. a bargain ; while, on the other hand, the gift of a valuable interest in lands is LEE not less a gift because the property so given carries with it certain obligations. v. M %IBMS. Per Fur GIBBON, L. J. :-The question in each case arises, was the transÂÂaction a bargain involving mutual considerations, or a gift involving merely bounty from one party to the other ? Price v. Jenkins (5 Ch. Div. 619) dissented from ; Gardiner v. Gardiner (12 Ir. C. L. R. 565) followed. Premises held under a lease for an unexpired residue of twenty-five years, subject to a yearly rent of 1 108., were assigned by the lessee to his son-in-law the Plaintiff, in consideration of natural love and affection, as recited in the deed of assignment. The lessee subsequently assigned the premises to the Defendants, in consideration of 50. In an action by the Plaintiff to recover possession, no evidence was given of any valuable consideration passing from the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff require any question to be left to the jury ; and the Judge at the trial directed a verdict for the Defendants : Held (reversing the decision of the Common Pleas Division), that the direcÂÂtion was right. APPEAL from an order of the Common Pleas Division making absolute a conditional order obtained by the Plaintiff to enter the verdict and judgment for him. See the case reported supra, p. 167. F. L. Dames, Q. C., S. Walker, Q. C., and Gerrard, for the DeÂÂfendants, the Appellants. J. A. Byrne, Q. C., and Houston, for the Plaintiff, the ReÂÂspondent. In addition to the oases cited below, Hopkins v. Murray (1) was referred to (2). Cur. adv. volt. MAY, C. J. :- July 2. The facts of this ease are few and simple. It appears that one George Bell, since deceased, previous to the year 1877 was posÂÂsessed of certain premises in Oldcastle, for a term of years, under a lease, and subject to the payment of a small rent of 1 108. (1) 12 Ir. L. R. 359. (2) See Hamilton v. Molloy (5 L. R. I.339), since reported. 532 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Appeal. On the 11th of February, George Bell assigned these premises to 1880...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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