The Estate of William Ruttledge, Owner and Petitioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Monroe, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 December 1894
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 December 1894

In the Matter of the Estate of William Ruttledge Owner and Petitioner.

Monroe, J.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY AND PROBATE DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1895.

Redemption of Rent Act — Fair rent — Tithe rentcharge.

The liability of a grantee under a fee-farm grant to pay tithe rentcharge is not altered by an order fixing a fair rent under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891.

Motion on behalf of the owner and petitioner to have it declared that his interest in part of the lands of Tallaght was not to be sold subject to any liability to the payment of tithe rentcharge. The question arose on the settlement of the rental. It appeared that Sir William Palmer, in the year 1862, made two leases to William Stubbs of the lands for sale, to hold for terms of years, with a covenant by the lessor to renew the leases so often as he should himself obtain a renewal from the Archbishop of Dublin. While these leases were in existence Sir William Palmer purchased the fee-simple from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and required William Stubbs to take sub-grants from him. Accordingly, on the 24th February, 1868, Sir William Palmer made to Stubbs two fee-farm grants of the lands comprised in the leases, subject to the payment of certain rents over and above all taxes, charges, and impositions (quit-rent and crown-rent alone excepted). Stubbs held under these grants till, pursuant to the provisions of the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, he applied to have a fair rent fixed as against the present owner, the assignee of Sir William Palmer, and by orders of the 24th January, 1893, fair rents were duly fixed by the Land Commission. From the date of the execution of the fee-farm grants down to the year 1891, no tithe-rent charge had been paid by the grantor; it had always, during that period, been paid by the grantee. None had been paid since.

Bartley, for the owner and petitioner:—

The liability of Stubbs, as grantee, to pay tithe rentcharge is not affected by the order fixing a fair rent, but continues unaltered. [Counsel referred to 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 37, sects. 128,149,150,152, 163: 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 99, sect. 1; 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 119, sects. 13, 14; 1 & 2 Vict., c. 109, sects. 7–10; O'Leary on Tithe Composition, pp. 10, 27, 28, 33]. Tithe composition was a personal demand merely, and did not constitute a lien on the lands. As to the reddendum clause in the fee-farm grant: Palmer v. Power (1); Barcroft v. Welland (2); Gloster v. Murphy. As to the effect of fixing a judicial rent on the antecedent contract of tenancy: Bruce v. Steen (4); Hally v. Lane-Fox (5); Lurgan v. Johnston (6); O'Connor v. Smith (7); Mollan v. Kieran (8). Under the 21st sect. of the Land Law Act of 1881, the leaseholders to whom the provisions of its sections applied, though on the expiration of their leases they were to be deemed present tenants, yet they were to be subject to the conditions of the expired leases, so far as applicable to tenancies from year to year. So, in the Land Law Act of 1887, upon the setting aside of a lease or grant in perpetuity, the tenant was to be subject to such conditions of the lease or grant as the Court should deem just. The provisions of the 21st sect. of the Act of 1881 are made applicable to the cases in which a fair rent is fixed in lieu of redemption of a fee-farm rent: see Redemption of Rent Act, 1891, sect. 1. Even if the fee-farm grant ceased to exist after the judicial rent was fixed, there would be nothing repugnant to the nature of the...