Vaughan v Magill

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 February 1849
• Date: 19 February 1849
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

VAUGHAN

and

MAGILL.

Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & Col. 394.

Spunner v. WalshUNKUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386; S. C. 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 597, on appeal.

Jones v. EdneyENR 3 Camp. 284.

Flight v. BoothENR 1 Bing. N. C. 370; S. C. 1 Scott, 190.

Flight v. Barton 3 M. & K. 282.

Waring v. Hoggart Ry. & Moo. 39.

Barton v. Lord Downes Fl.& K. 505.

Dykes v. BlakeENR 4 Bing. N. C. 463; S. C. 6 Scott, 320.

Martin v. CotterUNKENR 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 351; 8 ibid, 147; S. C. 3 Jo. & Lat. 496.

Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426.

Walter v. MaundeENR 1 Jac. & W. 181.

Jones v. SmithENRENR 1 Hare, 43; S. C. 1 Phil. 247, on appeal.

cosser v. Collinge 3 M. & K. 283.

Taylor v. Stibbert 2 Ves. jun. 437.

White v. BaylorUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 43.

Bessonet v. RobinsENR Sau. & Sc. 142.

Hargreaves v. Rothwell 1 Kee. 154.

Lenehan v. M'CabeUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 342.

Nixon v. HamiltonUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 46.

Tanner or Davis v. FlorenceENR 1 Ch Cas. 259.

Taylor v. BakerENR 5 Price, 306.

Townshend v. Strangroom 6 Ves. 328.

Taylor v. Martindale 1 Y. Col. C. C. 658.

Seaton v. Mapp 2 Col. 556.

Smith v. Smith 2 Law Rec. N. S. 157.

Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426.

Jones v. SmithENR 1 Hare, 43, 55.

CASES IN EQUITY. 207 1849. Chancery. VAUGHAN v. MAGILL. (Chancery.) An annuity The following authorities were cited : Pope v. Garland (a) ; being mention ed in the rental Spunner v. Walsh (b) ; Jones v. Edney (c); Flight v. Booth (d); to be charged on the premises Flight v. Barton (e); Waring v. Hog g art (f); Barton v. Lord sold is suffici- ent notice of Downes (g); Dykes v. Blake (h); Martin v. Cotter (i); 2 Vendors the legal estate being out- and Purchasers, 1043 ; 1 Ibid, 11, 10th ed. ; Hall v. Smith (k) ; standing to secure it, in Walter v. Maunde (1) •; Jones v. Smith (m); Cosser v. Col ling e (n); the usual way, and the princi ple equally applies where the interest sold is a renewable leasehold, and the annuity deed contains a tales gusties covenant ; though the effect is that the purÂÂchaser cannot acquire the reversion of the tenancies on the lands. A statement in the rental that the tenants had taken renewals from the receiver and the landlord would have a power of distress for renewal fines, Held, not to amount to a misrepresentation importing that the legal estate in reversion would be assigned to the purchaser. (a) 4 Y. & Col. 394. (b) 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386; S. C. 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 597, on appeal. (c) 3 Camp. 284. (d) 1 Bing. N. C. 370; S C. 1 Scott, 190. (e) 3 M. & K. 282. (f) Ry. & Moo. 39. (g) Fl. & K. 505. (h) 4 Bing. N. C. 463; S. C. 6 Scott, 320. (i) 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 351 ; 8 ibid, 147 ; S. C. 3 Jo. & Lat. 496. (k) 14 Ves. 426. (1) 1 Jac. & W. 181. (m) 1 Hare, 43 ; S. C. 1 Phil. 247, on appeal. (a) 3 M. & K. 283. 208 CASES IN EQUITY. Taylor v. Stibbert (a); White v. Baylor (b); Bessonet v. Robins (e); Hargreaves v. Rothwell (d) ; Lenehan v. .211' Cabe (e); Nixon v. Hamilton ( f); Tanner or Davis v. Florence (g) ; Taylor v. Baker (h); Townshend v. Strangroom (i); Taylor v. MartinÂÂdale (k); Seaton v. Mapp (1) ; Smith v. Smith (m). The LORD CHANCELLOR. This is an appeal from the decision of the Master of the Rolls on objections to the report of good title. The property sold is a chattel interest held under the Primate, and it was sold under a rental which refers to the lease as being for a term of twenty-one years from November 1845, subject to a certain rent and fees, which are stated in a prior part of the rental. The objections made to the title are two. The first is, that the lease contains a clause against alienation. The second is, that the lands are the subject of a deed of rentcharge and, though they were sold subject to the rentcharge and it is therefore itself no objection, yet there is a term of years for securing it which is, and for which the vendor is bound toties quoties to re-demise the lands for the security of the annuitant, and that this term is so created as to vest in the termor the immediate present reversion of the leases made to the occupying tenants, which consequently will not pass to the purchaser under his conveyance. As to both these objections, the plaintiff relies on the purchaser having had notice of their existence. As to the first objection, arising on the clause against alienation, the plaintiff contends that the purchaser...