M'Murray v Burrowes

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 January 1859
• Date: 18 January 1859
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

M'MURRAY

and

BURROWES.

Alder v. WardUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 350.

Trant v. Dwyer 2 D. & Cl. 125.

Davis v. Hone 2 Sch. & Lef. 341.

Wrotesly v. Adams Plowd. 187.

Swift v. EyresENR Cro. Car. 546.

Browne v. Tighe Hayes, 158.

Ball v. The Marquis of Downshire Lyne's App., Cas. 15.

Nangle v. Smith Lyne's App., Cas. 1.

Townsend v. Stangroom 6 Ves. 328.

Croome v. Ledeard 2 Myl. & Keen, 251.

234 CHANCERY REPORTS. all fair expenditure in saving and cutting same ; and let said Master further inquire and report what would be a reasonable and proper sum to be paid by the said Thomas Carey for the said lands, from the execution of the injunction putting Francis Wakefield, the purchaser, into possession, to such period as the Master may consider reasonable ; and the Court doth make no rule on the rest of the motion ; and let the said Francis Wakefield the Purchaser, and said Thomas Carey, abide their own costs of this motion ; and the Court doth reserve the question of the costs to be incurred before the Master, in the event of the parties differing as to the sums to be paid. Rolls Motion Book, 405, f. 351. M'MURRAY v. BURROWES. One being Tins was a suit for renewal of a lease of certain premises called seised for lives renewable for " the Holme," which had been demised, with other premises, by a, ever, under a lease of 1793, lease of the 9th of December 1815, and by a renewal of the 30th of A, on which bleaching-mills bad been built, and being possessed of B and C under a Bishop's lease, with toties quoties covenant for renewal, made a lease in 1815, by which he demised A and B for twenty years, with a toties quoties covenant for renewal; and, by a lease of the same date, reciting that he had made mill-ponds and mill-races on C, for the convenience of his linen-mill, he demised C, together with the mill-race and watercourse, with all rights, &c„ as then or theretofore enjoyed by himself, to hold for all the term whereunto he was then entitled or should become entitled, with a toties quoties covenant for renewal ; and, after reciting that C, as containing ahead of water, sluices and watercourses, was most essential, useful and necessary to the operations of the bleaching-mills, which were demised by the contemporaneous lease, it was agreed that if the said in part recited mill lease and the buildings, lands and premises thereby demised, should at any time thereafter revert to the lessor, his executors, &c., by any due and legal means, the thereby demised premises (C) should also be liable to revert to the lessor, his executors, &c., the lease being made for the advantage of the operations of the mills, and not to endure longer than the lessee, his executors, &c., should hold the same in part recited mill lease, and the buildings, &c., thereby demised. In 1827, separate renewals were granted of A, B and C, in consequence of a new arrangement entered into by the parties entitled, on the suggestion of a difficulty being likely to arise from A and B, which were held under different tenures, being included in one lease, both parties being represented in the transaction by different solicitors. By the renewal of C, it was recited that the premises demised by the lease of C, of 1815, and thereinbefore mentioned as # CHANCERY REPORTS. '235 -of September 1827. The question was, whether the petitioner, who had declined to take out a renewal of one of the other denominations of land included in the lease of the 9th of December 1815, was entitled to a renewal of " the Holme ?" His right depended on the construction of the lease and renewals, which are fully stated in the judgment of the MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Mr. Brewster, Mr. Joy and Mr. W. Crozier, for the petitioner. 1858. Rolls. heMIIRRAY V. BIIHROWES. Statement. Argument. Mr. F. A. Fitzgerald, Mr. Lawson and Mr. Philip Keogh, for the respondent. Alder v. Ward (a); Trant v. .Dwyer (b); Davis v. Hone (e); Wrotesly v. Adams (d); Swift v. Eyres (e); Browne v. Tighe (f); Ball v. The Marquis of Downshire (g); Nangle v. Smith (h), were cited. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. 1859. Jan. 18. The petition in this case has been filed to obtain a renewal from Judgment. the respondents of certain premises called "the Holme," particularly described in the petition, and demised originally by a certain lease of the gth of December 1815, for twenty years. A renewal of said containing a head of water, sluices and watercourses, were most essential, useful and necessary for the operations of certain:bleaching-mills, which were demised by an indenture of lease bearing equal date with the lease of 1815, and made between the same parties, and which were also, by an indenture of equal date therewith, in like manner renewed; and if the said in part recited mill lease, and the buildings, lands and premises thereby demised and thereinbefore particularly mentioned and described should thereafter at any time revert to the lessor, his executors, administrators or assigns, by any due and legal means, it was thereby, as it was in said in part recited original lease, declared and agreed upon by and between the parties thereto, that the therein demised premises should also be liable to revert to the lessor, his executors, administrators and assigns, the said renewal being made, as was the original indenÂÂture of lease, for the advantage of the operations of the said mills, and not to endure longer than the lessee, his heirs, &c., should hold the same in part recited mill lease and the premises thereby demised. The petitioner, in whom the lessee's interest had become vested, took a fee-farm grant of A, the mill premises, but declined to take out a renewal of B, whereupon the respondent, in whom the lessor's interest had become vested, refused to give a renewal of C.-Held, that the petitioner's right to a renewal of C depended on the covenant in the renewal of 1827; and there being no fraud or mistake alleged, and no cross petition to set aside that deed, the Court decreed a renewal. (a) 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 350. (h) 2 D. & Cl. 125. (c) 2 Sch. & Lef. 341. (d) Plowd. 187. (e) Cro. Car. 546. (f) Hayes, 158. (g) Lyne's App., Cas. 15. (h) Lyne's App., Cas. 1. 10 CHANCERY REPORTS., lease was executed on the 30th of September 1827. The lease of 1815, and the further lease by way of renewal, of 1827, contained toties quoties covenants for renewal. The material facts of the case appear to be as follow :--One Moses Bodell was entitled, under a lease from the Bishop of D'ro' more, which bore date in 1793, to three acres of the lands of Quilly, for lives renewable for ever. These premises have been called in the argument sometimes the three-acre lot and sometimes the mill premises. The lease was made under the provisions of the 25 G. 3, e. 62, s. 15 (Ir.). Bleaching-mills and other works and machinery had been erected on the said three-acre lot, previous to the 9th of December 1816, at which period the sub-lease of said three acres, hereinafter mentioned, 'was made. Moses Bodell was also entitled, on and previous to the 9th of December 1815, under a Bishop's lease for twenty-one years, to twenty-eight acres, other portion of the lands of Quilly ; and Moses Bodell was also, on and previous to the said day, entitled for _ twenty-one years, with toties quoties covenant for renewal, to the said lands, called " the Holme," in the prayer of the petition mentioned. Moses Bodell being thus possessed arid entitled to those three different premises, an indenture was executed, bearing date the 9th of December 1815, between the said Moses Bodell, of the one part, and Thomas Stott of the other part, whereby the said Moses Bodell...