Thomas Pilkington and Christr. Plunkett, Petitioners; Edward Arthur Gore, a Minor. Respondent

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

Rolls.

THOMAS PILKINGTON and CHRISTR. PLUNKETT,

Petitioners;

EDWARD ARTHUR GORE, a Minor.

Respondent.

Iggleden v. May 9 Ves. 325.

Smith V. Nangle 1 Jebb & S. 212.

Baynham V. Guy's Hospital 3 Ves. 295; S.C., 2 Ves. jun. 448.

Moore v. FoleyUNK 6 Ves. 232; S.C., 2 New Rep. 452.

Biggs v. SadleirUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 522; S.C., on appeal, 4 H.L. Cas., 435.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 589 1858. Rolls. THOMAS PILKINGTON and CHRISTR. PLUNKETT, Petitioners ; EDWARD ARTHUR GORE, a Minor. . . . Respondent. In the Matter of the Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act. (In the Rolls.) Nov. 24. 1859. Jan. 18. THE petition in this matter was presented for fee-farm grants of In 1695, leases were granted certain lands demised by leases, two of which bore date the 5th for ninety-nine years, by a person seised for lives renewable for ever, with covenants that, as often as the lessor should, after the death of the lives then in being, obtain a renewal, the lessee, his executors, &c., should pay a whole year's rent ; in consideration whereof, the lessor, his heirs, &c., should from time to time renew to the lessee, his executors, &c., a new lease for ninety-nine years, determinable on the lives to be inserted in the lessor's renewal, and under the rents, covenants, articles and agreements in said lease expressed ; the true intent and meaning of the parties being, that the lessee, his executors, &c„ on payment of one whole year's rent, as above stated, should and might have the term of ninety-nine years of the premises, under the covenants, conditions and agreements in said deed expressed, for ever in being and undetermined. In 1721, the lessor obtained a fee-farm grant of the premises. Renewals were from time to time granted, until the year 1811, when the last renewals were made. Those renewals recited the obtaining the original leases, the fee-farm grant to the lessor, and that his grandson, in 1789, had executed renewals, in pursuance of :said cove- nant for renewal, for ninety-nine years. if A should so long live. They also recited a further renewal, in 1740, after the death of A, for ninety-nine years, if B and C should so long live, and the death of B and C, and that the renewal fines which thereupon accrued due having been paid, a further renewal was afterwards obtained, one of the lives of which had died, and that the person entitled to the lessee's inÂterest had paid the renewal fines which thereupon accrued, and the lands were thereby demised for ninety-nine years, determinable on three lives ; and it was covenanted that the lessor in the renewal, his heirs, &c., should, from time to time, renew to the lessee, his executors, &c., for ninety-nine years, determinable on the lives so to be inserted, at and under the rents, covenants, articles and agreements " in the present demise " expressed ; the true meaning being, that the lessee, &c., on payÂment of the sum of one shilling, should have the term of ninety-nine years of the premises, under the rents, covenants, conditions and agreements "in these presents expressed," for ever in being and undetermined ; and that the lessor, his heirs, &c., should give the lessee, his executors, &c., on payment or due tender of the aforeÂsaid sum of one shilling, a lease of the premises, with such clauses of renewal as were therein expressed, at and under the aforesaid rents and reservations. Held, first, that notwithstanding the fee-farm grant of 1721, the lessor's repreÂsentatives were bound to renew• the leases, and consequently to grant a fee-farm, under the Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act. Secondly.-That on the construction of the covenants in the renewal of 1811, a fine was payable on the fall of each life. Although covenants for renewal cannot be construed by the acts of the parties, the Court would be unwilling to act against the construction acted on by them for a long period, unless that construction be clearly erroneous. 590 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1858. of February 1695, and a third the 30th of September 1695. The Rolls. defences raised on behalf of the respondent were In re First-That in the events which had occurred, of the lessor GORE, a Minor. having obtained a fee-farm grant in 1721, he was not bound by Statement. the covenants (stated by his Honor infra, p. 591), to renew. Secondly.-That if he was bound to renew, fines were payable on the dropping of each life. Mr. J. E. Walsh and Mr. Griffin, for the petitioners. Mr. Gayer and Mr. Cathrew, contra. Argument. As to the construction of the covenant, Iggleden v. May (a), Smith v. Nangle (b), Baynham v. Guy's Hospital (e), Moore v. Foley (d), Biggs v. Sadleir (e), were cited. 1859. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Judgment. Jan. 18. The petition in this case has been presented to obtain fee-farm grants of the premises demised by the leases of the 5th of February 1695, and 5th of February 1695, and the 30th of September 1695, in the petition mentioned. Brigadier-General...