1802.

BOND

V.

HOPKINS.

:

"order 12th May, 1767, in the cause of Malone and "others v. Bond and others; and by virtue of the order "made in July, 1770, on the hearing of the same cause on equity reserved, to the possession of the town and lands "of Bondville, and to be quieted in the possession thereof, "and of the rest of the estates of the said Henry Bond, by "perpetual injunction against the defendant Rose Hopkins, "and all persons claiming under her, by virtue of the alledged will in the pleadings mentioned, either in her "own right, or as claiming under the said Henry Hop"kins, otherwise Bond: and also against defendant, Jos. "M'Geough as heir of E. M'G. and to have all the title "deeds and writings concerning the said estates delivered "to him and that an injunction should forthwith issue ac"cordingly. And that defendant Rose Hopkins, and all per"sons claiming under her should be restrained by perpetual "injunction from hereafter setting up or insisting on the "will and codicil in the pleadings mentioned; and that "defendant J. M'Geough should be restrained by the like injunction from setting up any title to the said estates as "heir of the said Henry Bond, to the prejudice of complainants and those claiming under said John Bond as "heir of said Henry. And it appearing that defendant "Rose had been in possession of the town and lands of "Bondville from the death of Henry Hopkins, otherwise

:

Bond, it was referred to the master to take an account of "what she made or without wilful default might have made "from the death of said H. H. until possession should be "delivered to complainant, and that she should pay the "amount to complainant together with his costs. This de"cree to be without prejudice to any claim which may be "made on Bondville by any person claiming under the will "of F. B.; or to any claim which may be made by virtue of "the order of the - day of 1767 in said cause of "Malone v. Bond, whereby security was ordered to be given

by recognizance for the future rents of said lands, or by "virtue of any recognizance entered into in pursuance of "that order. And said Rose Hopkins was directed forth"with to hand over to plaintiffs all deeds and papers re"lating to the estates of Henry Hopkins or in her custody or power, or in the custody or power of any person or 66 persons by her order or for her use. The register to CL vary the conditional decree pursuant to the foregoing de66 cree, and when so varied, the same to be made absolute 66 against the defendants therein.”

66

Reg. Lib. xlviii. 440.

1802.

BOND

v.

HOPKINS.

JACKSON v. SAUNDERS.

1802. Νου. 30. Dec. 20, 22.

1804.

JOHN WEAVER, being seized in fee, in 1699 demised Nov. 20.

Lamb, for Under the te-
Richard & 20 Geo. 3, c.

the lands of Cumer to Richard Lamb and John
three lives with a covenant for perpetual renewal.
and John Lamb some time after made partition, by which
each became entitled to a seperate portion of the lands.
Weaver's estate afterwards vested in Robert Saunders, (under

nantry act, 19

30, what shall

be deemed rea

sonable time af

ter demand, for paying renewal fines, must in all cases depend on the circumstances; and circumstances previous, as well as subsequent to the demand, are to be taken into consideration. Therefore when the demand was on the 6th of Oct. a tender on the 20th March following was not within reasonable time; the tenant having had intimation for two years before that payment of the fine was expected, and havingneglected to pay it.

The demand required by the statute need not be in writing, nor is any precise form prescibed for it.

1804.

JACKSON

υ.

SAUNDERS.

whom the defendant claimed) who in 1724, upon the application of Richard Lamb for a renewal of his part, demised by indenture the North-west part of the said lands to the said Richard Lamb, for the lives of Edward and Richard Lamb and Thomas Mitchell, with a covenant, "that (6 as often as it should please God to take away by death any of the before named E L. R. L. and T. M. the "lives in said indenture mentioned, the said Robert Saun"ders, his heirs and assigns should put in another life of แ such person as should be named by the said Richard "Lamb, his heirs and assigns, still to keep up the three "lives in the then present demise :" and the said Richard Lamb covenanted," that within four mon ths after the death "of any of the before-named E. L. R. L. and T. M., "he would nominate one other person whose life should be "added to said indenture, and pay to said R. S. and his "heirs one full half-year's rent of said lands; and if said "R. L. his heirs or assigns should neglect or refuse so to "do, then the said R. S. should be allowed interest for said "fine from the death of the person or persons so dying." In 1755, E. and R. Lamb being dead, Morley Pendred Saunders, in whom the reversion was then vested, granted a new lease for the lives of Thomas Mitchell, Henry Palmer, and Robert Palmer, with a covenant for perpetual renewal, to Jackson, in whom the tenant's interest in both the Northwest and the South-east parts of said lands had vested, and under whom the plaintiff claimed. Henry Palmer died in 1787, Thomas Mitchell in 1793, and Robert Palmer in 1800.

About 1799, several applications were made to plaintiff on the part of the defendant; and particularly, on the 1st of March, when plaintiff was renewing his lease of the South-east part of Cumer, he was requested by the defendant's agent to pay the fines and renew the lease of the part

in question; and at another time, the defendant having met
the plaintiff in the hall of the Four Courts, required him to
pay the renewal fines then due, which he promised shortly
to do. Some time in March 1799, Mr. T. Saunders, the
law agent of defendant, prepared a draft of a new lease, and
left it at the office of the plaintiff's agent, Mr. P. Jackson,
but it appeared that Mr. Jackson did not see it until 1st Nov.
1800. On the 9th of July, 1800, Mr. T. Saunders having
heard that the plaintiff was about to execute some instrument
for the purpose of raising a sum of money, wrote a letter in-
forming him that in consequence of several applications hav-
ing been made without effect, the defendant could not,
and would not renew the lease, unless the renewal fines
were immediately paid; in answer to which, plaintiff by a
letter dated 17th July, stated that he should be writing to
Mr. Peter Jackson, on other business, and would give di
rections to have it done. A few days after, Mr. T. Saun-
ders communicated to Mr. P. Jackson the contents of said
letter, at which Mr. P. J. seemed surprised, and said that
he had that morning received a letter from the plaintiff, in
which he did not mention the payment of said fines, but
'said he would not execute said deed, unless he should out of
the money to be raised, receive 300l. for the education of
his daughter. In August, 1800, Mr. T. Saunders applied
again, by letter, to Mr. P. Jackson, saying, " that as so
"much time had been lost, he could not avoid proceeding

as the act prescribed, to prevent the plaintiff's obtaining any renewal of the lease;" which letter not having had effect, Mr. T. Saunders on the 6th of October following, made a personal demand of the renewal fines from Mr. Jackson, under a power of attorney from Mr. Saunders, authorizing him to make such demand. Mr. Saunders then brought his ejectment as of Michaelmas Term 1800, which was served on the 15th of fan. 1801. On the 20th Feb. following, Mr. P. Jackson wrote to Mr. T. Saunders, desiring to see the opinion of counsel which he had taken; and stating that the

1804.

JACKSON

V.

SAUNDERS.

1804.

JACKSON

v.

SAUNDERS.

fines were then ready; and on the 14th of March, Mr. P. f. wrote again, to signify that the plaintiff was then ready to pay the fines; and that as the ejectment was irregularly brought, he would not attend at the assizes. However, the record was brought down and came to trial at the next assizes, when the plaintiff at law was nonsuited for want of an appearance by the defendant to confess lease entry and ouster. On the 29th of March, 1801, plaintiff tendered to defendant the amount of renewal and septennial fines and interest, together with the rent in arrear, and also tendered leases to be executed, which defendant refused. On the 20th of April, 1801, this bill was filed, praying a renewal for the lives therein named, on payment of all rent, arrears of rent and renewal fines, and an injunction.

This case was argued on the original hearing, by Mr. Burston, Mr. Blackburne and Mr. Parsons for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Saurin, Mr. Burne and Mr. F. W. Greene for the defendant; and on the re-hearing, by Mr. Burston, Mr. Ball, Mr. O'Driscoll and Mr. Parsons for the plaintiff: counsel for the defendant not being called upon to argue it. A preliminary question was made in the case; whether the covenant in the lease of 1724 ought not to be considered merely as a covenant for adding three lives in the place of the three lives therein named, and not as a covenant for perpetual renewal; but the Lord CHANCELLOR having expressed his opinion, that the lease of 1724 was to be considered only as an instrument of partition, and that it did not make any change in the tenure created by the lease of 1699; that point was not pressed. The other and principal question was, whether under the circumstances of the case, and the provisions of the statute(a) the plaintiff was barred of his right to a renewal.

(a) 19 & 20 Geo. 3, c. 30. It recites that great part of the lands in Ireland are held under the leases for lives with covenants for