Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/522

to do so; and that the appellant John ought more particularly to make his agreement effectual, so as to bind his issue, and those in remainder after him; because he might happen to die before Walter, and in that case, the respondent would be deprived of the benefit of his improvements: and though this could not be done, otherwise than by a common recovery, yet by the concurrence of Walter, who had no issue, such a recovery might be suffered without any prejudice thereby accruing to Walter. That the appellants had been guilty of a manifest fraud upon the respondent, by having concealed the settlement, and not entering the same in any office whereby it might be known; and that the respondent had not, in fact, any notice thereof, until after he had made all his improvements, which amounted to five times the value of the inheritance.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree should be reversed: and it was further ordered and adjudged, that the appellant Walter should forthwith execute a new lease of the premises in question, to the respondent, according to the power reserved to him by the settlement, for three lives, or twenty-one years, at the respondent's election, upon the terms of the articles; and should in like manner, from time to time, renew, or execute a new lease or leases to the respondent, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, for three lives, or twenty-one years, at the election and upon the request of the respondent, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, upon the terms of the articles; and that the appellant John, in case he should survive the appellant Walter, should, after the premises should come to him, from time to time, execute or renew a lease or leases thereof, according to the statute enabling tenants in tail to make leases for three lives or twenty-one years, to the respondent, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, at his and their election and request, upon the terms of the said articles. And that the Court of Chancery in Ireland should take care to see this judgment put in execution, and from time to time give all proper directions for that purpose, and to give the respondent his costs of suit in that court, and subsequent costs to either party, as that Court should see cause. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 701.)

The respondent being seised in fee of a messuage and lands at Holbeach, in Lincolnshire, let on lease at the yearly rent of £20 clear of all deductions, except the land tax, by articles of agreement between him and the appellant, dated the 20th of July 1720, did covenant and agree, that for the considerations therein after-mentioned, he would, on or before the 29th day of December then next, at the proper costs and charges of the appellant, make to the appellant, his heirs and assigns, for ever, a good estate in fee-simple of the premises, to the satisfaction of the appellant and his counsel. And by the same articles, the appellant, did promise and agree, that upon such assurance and conveyance being made and executed, he would pay to the respondent £800, being forty years purchase; upon condition that the premises did then pay the yearly rent of £20, otherwise to abate in proportion to forty years purchase; and that the appellant should have the rents from Lady-day then last, and all the wood and timber-trees, and other trees then growing and being upon the premises. And at the time of executing these articles, the appellant paid the respondent £120 in part of the purchase-money, who gave a receipt for the same accordingly.

At the time of making this purchase, the appellant intended to pay for the same, by the sale of South-Sea stock, which then bore the extravagant price of £1000 per