Steele v Mitchell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1840
• Date: 25 June 1840
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

STEELE

and

MITCHELL.

Potter v. ArcherENR 1 Bos & Pul. 531.

Cockerell v. CholomondeleyENR 1 russ. & M. 418.

Murray v. Palmer 2 Sch. & Lef. 474.

Dunbar v. TredennickUNK 2 B. & B. 317.

Birmingham v. Kirwan 2 Sc. & Lef. 450.

Taylor v. Stibbert 2 Ves. jun. 445.

Taylor v. Stibbert Supra.

Hurd v. FletcherENR 1 Doug. 43.

Evans v. VaughanENRHRC 4 B. & C. 261; and 6 D. & R. 349.

Butler v. SwinnertonENR Palmer, 339.

Lewis v. Swift 1 Jones, 422.

Crofton v. Ormsby 2 Sch. & Lef. 431.

Taylor v. Stibbert Ante.

Daniel v. Davison 16 Ves. 249.

Allen v. AnthonyENR 1 Mer. 282.

Popham v. Baldwin 2 Jones, 331.

Cockerell v. Cholomondeley Ante.

Merrick v. FranceENR 4 Taun. 329.

Line v. Stephenson Ibid. 459.

Duches of Chandos v. Brownlow 2 Ridg. P. C. 415.

Harnett v. Yielding 2 Sch. & Lef. 548.

In esse Co. Litt. 47. (a)

Burke v. O'Malley Beat. 96.

Powell v. DillonUNK 2 B. & B. 421.

Boylan v. Warner Hayes & Jones, 83.

Hurd v. Fletcher Ante,

Evans v. Vaughan Ante.

Luffkin v. Nunn 11 Ves. 170.

CASES IN TUE COURTS OF CHANCERY, ROLLS AND EQUITY EXCHEQUER. •n•n•• STEELE v. MITCHELL.. (In Chancery.) RICHARD STEELE, the grandfather of plaintiff, being in the year 1770 seized of an undivided moiety of the lands of Ballynard and Ballyconoge, in the King's County, under a lease for lives with covenant for pepetual renewal, executed in the year 1710, demising the entire of the said lands (the other moiety of the lands being then vested in William Brereton for a like estate), by indenture of marriage settlement, executed on the 26th of October 1775, on his marriage with Anne Philips, in consideration of the marriage, and of the lady's fortune, conveyed his undivided moiety to two trustees, Price and Lawrenson, to the use, after the marriage, of the settler for life, remainder to the use of the trustees during his life, to preserve contingent remainders; remainder after his decease (subject to an annuity by way of jointure to his intended wife), to the first and other sons of the marriage, quasi in tail male. That settlement contained a power enabling Richard Steele to,lease all or any part of the lands for any term not exceeding three lives or thirty-one years, in possession, at the best rent, without taking fine. The setÂtlement was registered shortly after its execution, and George Steele, the father of the plaintiff, was the eldest son of the marriage. On the 28th October 1777, William Brereton, the owner of the other undivided moiety, by deed of that date, mortgaged that moiety for £500 to Richard Steele, and afterwards for a further sum of £300, on the 2d November 1782, by deed of that date, conveyed the equity of A.'s son could not impeach the lease as to one undivided moiety, as being contrary to the leasing power. • This case has been reported out of its order, because it was argued before the present Reporter had undertaken the duty of reporting in the Court of Chancery, and he was unable to procure a note of the argument earlier. IRISH EQUITY WORTEL-VOL. III. 2 CASES IN EQUITY. redemption to Richard Steele. Both these latter deeds were registered shortly after their execution. By deed of the 4th April 1785, Richard Steele leased the entire of lands comprised in the original lease of 1710, to Thomas Mitchell, for three lives, at a rent of £121, with a covenant for perpetual renewal. That lease contained a covenant for quiet enjoyment by the lessee, his heirs and assigns, without disturbance " by any person claiming by, from, or under Richard Steele," and also a covenant for further assurance; but that lease contained no clause of distress or re-entry, nor was a counterpart executed by the lessee. Upon the marriage of George Steele, the eldest son, in 1797, by a settlement executed on the 4th of November in that year, previous to and in consideration of the marriage, Richard Steele conveyed the entire of the lands comprised in the lease of 1710, and all his estate and interest therein to two trustees, in trust, after the solemnization of the marriage, for Richard for life, and after his decease, subject, as to one undivided moiety, to a jointure for the wife of Richard, in the event of her surviving him, to the use of George Steele for life, and after his decease (subject to a jointure for his intended wife), to the use of such of the sons of the marriage, for such estates as George Steele should appoint. That settlement contained a power enabling Richard Steele to lease all or any part of the lands for any term not exceeding twenty-one years, or for two lives, or for any number of years determinable upon one or two lives, in possession, at the best improved rent, without fine; and R. Steele covenanted against incumbrances, except tenants' leases. A renewal of the original lease was executed to Richard Steele in 1803, one of the lives in which was in being at the time of the filing of the bill. Previously to 1812, the interest of Thomas Mitchell, the lessee in the lease of 1785, had become vested in his son Andrew Mitchell, and on his decease in his son Thomas Mitchell, then a minor; and the exeÂcutors of Andrew, on the 29th October 1812, obtained from Richard Steele a renewal of the lease of 1785, in trust, for Thomas Mitchell. That renewal contained a further covenant for perpetual renewal, but did not contain any clause of distress or of re-entry in case of non-payment of the rent reserved, nor was any counterpart executed by the lessees. On the 3d of February 1820 another renewal was executed by Richard Steele to the executors of Andrew Mitchell, in trust for Thomas MitÂchell, his son, who was still a minor, and that in like manner did not contain any clause of distress or re-entry, nor was any counterÂpart executed by the lessees. The lands were held under that lease until the death of Richard Steele in August 1835; George Steele, the father of the plaintiff, died in the lifetime of Richard, having by his will, dated the 7th of August 1809, duly appointed the entire of the lands in quasi tail, to the plain CASES IN EQUITY. 3 tiff, who obtained renewals of the original lease, and barred the quasi estate tail, and on the 1st May 1837 served notice to quit, and having been unable to proceed with an ejectment which he brought, in consequence of one of the lives in the renewal of 1803 being in existence, filed the present bill upon the 3d November 1838, for the purpose of setting aside the lease of 1785, as to one moiety of the premises, as being contrary to the leasing power given by the settlement of 1775, and the subsequent renewals, as contrary to the leasing power given by the settlement of 1797. The defendant by his answer insisted, that the rent reserved by the lease of 1785 was at that time the full value of the demised premises, and no evidence was given in the cause upon that subject. But it was admitted that in 1812 and 1820, the value of the land was then greater than the rent. The defendant by his answer also...