The Bank of Ireland v The Brookfield Linen Company and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1884
• Date: 20 November 1884
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

CHANCERY DIVISION.

THE BANK OF IRELAND

and

THE BROOKFIELD LINEN CO. AND OTHERS

Balmanno v. LumleyENR 1 V. & B. 225.

Paton v. BrebnerENR 1 Bli. 66.

Barmwell v. HarrissENR 1 Taunt. 430.

Fildes v. HookerUNK 3 Mad. 193.

Leathem v. AllenUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 683.

Mulholland v. Corporation of BelfastUNK 9 Ir. Ch. Rep. 292, 303.

Cowley v. WattsUNK 17 Jur. 172.

Cox v. MiddletonENR 2 Drew. 209, and the judgment, p. 216.

Ogilvie v. FoljambeENR 3 Mer. 53.

Bower v. CooperENR 2 Hare, 394, 408.

Mountford v. ScottUNK 3 Mad. 40.

Fuller v. BenettENR 2 Hare, 394, 404.

Hyde v. Warden 3 Ex. Div. 72.

cast of Cosser V. Collinge 3 M. & K. 283.

Smith v. CapronENR 7 Hare, 191.

vendor and purchaser — Subfee-farm grant — Constructive notice of provisions of superior grant in fee-farm.

VOL. XV.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 37 of the £2000 as part of the residuary estate of the testator John Appeal. M'Manus. 1885. FEE Solicitor for Appellants : J. C. O'Meagher. APilvisrs. Solicitor for Attorney-General: Mr. French. THE BANK OF IRELAND v. THE BROOKFIELD V. C. LINEN CO. AND OTHERS. 1884. Vendor Find purchaser-Subfee-farm grant-Constructive notice-of provisions Nov. 19, 20. of superior grant in fee farm. The principle of Caner v. Collinge (3 M. & K. 283) applies to the purchase of a subfee-farm grant ; and the purchaser of such an estate, if he knows that he is not purchasing the fee, is bound to inquire as to the provisions of the superior grant, and if he has had a fair opportunity of ascertaining them, will be affected with constructive notice. Hyde v. Warden (3 Ex. D. 72) distinguished. ADJOURNED SUMMONS, for the purpose of taking the opinion of the Court upon certain objections raised by the purchasers upon the title. The Bank of Ireland were owners in fee-farm of certain mill preÂmises near Belfast, called the Rosebank Mills. On the 9th NovemÂber, 1882, Sir John Preston of Belfast called at the Plaintiffs' office in Dublin, and offered, on behalf of a friend, as he stated, the sum of £17,000 for the purchase of the said fee-farm interest, the Plaintiffs to pay him a commission of 5 per cent. on the purchase-money. The Plaintiffs declined this proposal. Sir John Preston wrote to Mr. Barlow, one of the officers of the Bank, on the same day, offering to purchase, on behalf of his friend, for £17,000, but reducing his commission to 21- per cent., and again, on the 10th November, acknowledging the receipt of a note from Barlow saying that he had been unable to bring the offer contained in. the letter of the 9th before the Directors. On the 11th November, 1882, Barlow wrote to Preston, stating : " The Bank agrees to the LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. 1. acceptance of your offer of £17,000 cash, say 117,000 less 24- per cent. commission, say £16,573 net cash for Rosebank premises, and I have asked our solicitor to prepare the necessary agreement." On the 14th of November, Preston wrote :-" I have seen my friend and shown him your letter. He confirms the purchase of Rosebank property, paying you 117,000, the Bank paying my commission 1425. You may now instruct your solicitor to apply to Messrs. Johns, Hewitt & Johns, to have the lease made out in the name of James Carlisle." In this transaction Preston acted as agent for James Carlisle, who was the chairman of the Brookfield Linen Company. Difficulties having arisen subsequently between the parties, and James Carlisle having died in the course of the negotiation, the Bank of Ireland brought an action against the Brookfield Linen Co., and against William Ewart and Alexander.Johns, the execuÂtors and trustees of the will of James Carlisle, to obtain specific performance of the agreement for sale of the premises. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR made a decree dismissing the action against the Brookfield Linen Co., but declaring that the agreement between the Plaintiffs and the executors of James Carlisle should be specifically performed ; and a reference having, been made to Chambers as to the title, and an abstract having been furnished, various objections were taken to the title by the representatives of James Carlisle, and the present summons was taken out for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Court on the objecÂtions. In the winding up of the affairs of Mitchells, Brothers, in the Court of Bankruptcy, Sir John Preston was one of the committee of inspection appointed to assist the trustee in Bankruptcy, and was cognisant of the title of Mitchells, Brothers, to the premises. The Rosebank property, the subj ect-matter of sale and of the action, consisted of premises held under two different heads of...