Warren v Thunder

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date05 June 1846
Date05 June 1846
CourtCourt of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

WARREN
and

THUNDER.

Church v. Brown 15 Ves. 258.

Henderson v. Hay 3 Br. C. C. 632.

Molloy v. EganUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 590.

CASES IN EQUITY. 371 1846. Chancery. WARREN v. THUNDER. THE bill prayed the specific performance of the agreement contained in the following letter: " Wexford, 18th July 1843. " will, as soon as possible, execute a lease to you of the farm of Mount George now in your possession, for the term of two lives, namely, Miss Frances Lee of Mount George, and my third son Andrew Thunder, now about eleven years old, at the yearly rent of £105. 14s. 2d., gale days, March and September, the period of seventeen years from March last to be concurrent with the said lives. I am Sir, yours, " MICHAEL THUNDER." The bill stated an acceptance by the plaintiff, continuance in posseftion and payment of rent to the defendant, and the tender of a draft lease containing the usual covenants between landlord and tenant. The defence set up by the defendant's answer was, that the bill was founded on a misrepresentation and suppression of the circumÂstances under which the letter relied on was obtained, which were stated and proved by the defendant to have been as follows : In 1836, the defendant became the purchaser of the estate of the Earl of Mountnorris, including the lands of Mount George then in possession of James Lee, under a lease of the 1st of January 1828, at a yearly rent of £206. 5s. 74d., which contained a covenant against alienation or subletting without the landlord's consent. There was a large quantity of valuable timber trees not registered which James Lee claimed to be entitled to, and proceeded to cut down. In 1838, the defendant filed a bill and obtained an injunction restraining Lee from cutting the timber. Pending the proceedings in that suit James Lee died, having devised the property to another person of the same name, who suffered the rent to fall in arrear, in consequence of which an ejectment for non-payment of rent was brought by the defendant in 1842. Lee finding himself unable to pay the arrear of rent then due, applied to the defendant for permisÂsion to dispose of his interest in the farm, and in the meantime to stay the proceedings in the ejectment, which the defendant acceded to, provided the person to whom he should sell his interest was solvent and of good character. On the 21st of October 1842, the 372 CASES IN EQUITY. plaintiff entered into a treaty with James Lee to purchase his interest for £500, and the defendant afterwards consented to the assignment of the lease 'to him, on the understanding that all the timber trees on the farm should be given up. A deed was shortly afterwards prepared and executed by James Lee, with the sanction and by the desire of the plaintiff, reciting the circumstances, and releasing to the defendant all claim or right to the timber, and giving him power to make saw-pits, and enter and cut it. Some difficulty having occurred in making out title to the plaintiff, it was arranged that the defendant should proceed with the ejectment and• evict the lease, and execute a new lease directly to the plaintiff, subject to the same rent, terms and conditions as the original lease. The habere was accordingly executed on the 3rd of January 1843, and a lease for six months subject to redemption was made to the plaintiff, containing a reservation of the timber to the defendant. After the expiration of the six months, on the 19th of July 1843, a a meeting took place between the plaintiff; the defendant and his solicitor, Mr. Ryan. Thunder, at the request of Warren, consented to have the life of his youngest son inserted in the new lease in place of that of James Lee, and the terms...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Vaughan v Magill
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 28 April 1848
    ...CotterUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 351. Bessonet v. RobinsENR Sau. & Sc. 152. Marquis of Townsend v. Stangroom 6 Ves. 328. Warren v. ThunderUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 371. Smith v. Smith 2 Law Rec. N. S. 157. Wigg v. WiggENR 1 Atk. 381. Pope v. GarlandENR 4 Y. & C. Exch. 394. Spunner v. WalshUNK 10 Ir. Eq. R......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT