Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/627

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
WHALEY v. BAGNEL [1765]
I BROWN.

£110 a-year was not one fifth of the real annual value of the lands demised. Lastly, that the appellant being a Papist, was incapable of taking from the respondent, or any attorney or agent employed by him, a lease of any of his Lordship's estates in Ireland: and for these reasons it was hoped, that the orders complained of would be affirmed, with costs.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the several orders therein complained of, so far as the same related to the lands of Tyrehane, in the occupation of the appellant, should be reversed: and it was further ordered, that the Court of Chancery in Ireland should give proper directions for restoring the appellant to the possession of the premises. (Jour. vol. 30. p. 193.)


[345] Case 44.—Richard Chapel Whaley,—Appellant; Beauchamp Bagnel,—Respondent [13th March 1765].

[Mew's Dig. xiii. 1768, 1774: See Maddison v. Alderson, 1883, 8 A.C. 480.]

[A. agrees by parol with B. for the purchase of lands. B. delivers a rent roll, which was dated and altered in his own hand-writing, and shewed by the title of it, that an agreement had been made between them for the sale of the estate, at twenty-one years purchase. An abstract of the title was also delivered to A. together with the deeds, in order to be compared with the rent roll. B. likewise wrote letters to several of his creditors, informing them, that he had contracted with A. for the sale of his estate, at twenty-one years purchase, and sent the tenants to treat with A. for a renewal of their leases. Notwithstanding all these circumstances, upon A's filing a bill for a specific execution of this agreement, B. pleaded the statute of frauds in bar to both the discovery and relief; and the plea was allowed.]

The appellant, on the 18th of February 1763, filed his bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the respondent; charging, that the respondent being, before the year 1762, seised in fee of the lands mentioned in the schedule annexed to the bill, and having contracted several debts, in order to raise money for discharging the same, proposed to sell part of his estate in the county of Carlow; and accordingly, in the beginning of the year 1761, he caused an advertisement to be published in the Dublin Journal, and other public papers, declaring, that the several lands of Knockbower, Murney, and other lands then set at £1357 2s. 6½d. yearly rent, and free from quit-rent or incumbrances, save what were intended to be paid off by the sale, and then let to improving tenants for three lives, or thirty-one years, except the lease of Knockbower, which was to expire in 1764, were to be sold; and that proposals would be received by the respondent, or by Francis Harvey, esq. who was for that purpose referred to by the advertisement. That in some short time after this publication, the respondent treated with the appellant concerning the sale of the said lands; which treaty having broke off, the advertisement was continued for a considerable time; and no person bidding so much as the appellant had bid for the same, the advertisement was discontinued for many months, and was republished, by order of the respondent, some time in February or March 1762: and continuing in the papers, without any proposal or treaty which the respondent approved, or thought worth his while to close with, he therefore applied to, and treated with the appellant concerning the sale of the said lands; upon which some meetings were had between them and their respective law agents, and an agreement was very near concluded, when the respondent, and those concerned for him, finding the sum to arise from the sale of the lands advertised, would not be near sufficient to satisfy the debts affecting them, and discharge all his creditors, he thereupon proposed to the appellant to sell more lands, to the value of £40,000 or upwards, in case the appellant would purchase so much; which the appellant agreeing to do, a meeting was ap-[346]-pointed, and had between them, at the house of the appellant's agent, in the presence of the respondent's agent and the said Mr. Harvey, who was a near relation, and had lately been agent to the respondent; where the respondent and

611

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.