Grantee of the Reversion against Assignee of the Lease for Recovery of Land, with Claims for Damages for Non-repair and Breach of Covenant to yield up Possession. 1. By an indenture of lease dated the 25th of March, 1866, W. H. E. demised a certain farm and dwelling-house known as Park Farm," in the parish of, in the county of Nottingham, to E. S., for a term of twelve years from the said date; E. S. by the said indenture covenanted to repair the premises as therein mentioned, and at the end of the lease to yield up possession of the demised premises. 2. On the 1st of February, 1870, W. H. E., by deed, conveyed all his estate in the premises to the plaintiff. 3. By an indenture dated the 23rd of December, 1870, E. S. assigned all his interest in the said term to the defendant. 4. The defendant since the said 23rd of December, 1870, and up to the 25th of March, 1878, has neglected to perform the said covenant to repair. Particulars of dilapidations were delivered to the defendant before action. 5. The said term expired on the said 25th of March, 1878, but the defendant keeps possession of the said farm and dwelling-house. The plaintiff claims: (1) £200 damages for breach of the covenant to repair; (2) £500 damages for breach of the covenant to yield up possession or mesne profits from March 25th, 1878; (3) Possession of the said farm and dwelling-house. 1. He has not neglected to perform the covenant to repair as alleged, or at all. 2. As to the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim, the defendant says that he was ready and willing and offered the plaintiff to yield up possession of the said farm and dwellinghouse on the said 25th of March, 1878, but the plaintiff requested him to continue the possession thereof pending certain negotiations which were then being carried on between the plaintiff and the defendant for a renewal of the defendant's tenancy. At the commencement of this action these negotiations were still pending. Action by Mortgagee of Premises to recover Possession thereof from Trustee under Mortgagor's Liquidation. 1. By an indenture of mortgage dated the 29th day of May, 1877, R. B. H. demised to the plaintiffs the messuage and premises, called No. 100, High Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, to hold for all the then unexpired residue wanting the last day thereof of a term of twenty-one years from the 25th of March, 1871, in the said messuage and premises, subject to the proviso for redemption therein contained. 2. On or about the 23rd day of December, 1877, the said R. B. H.'s affairs were liquidated by arrangement in the London Bankruptcy Court. The defendant is the trustee in the liquidation. 3. Before and at the time of the institution of the said proceedings, moneys were and are due on the security of the mortgage deed. 4. The defendant, on or about the 8th January, 1878, entered into and is still in possession of the said messuage and premises. The plaintiffs claim: (1) Possession of the said messuage and premises; (2) Mesne profits of the said messuage and premises from the time of his entering into possession. Claim by Trustees of a Settlement for Recovery of Lands held by them on the Trusts, on account of Breaches of Covenant by the Lessee. 1. By indenture dated the 30th September, 1869, made between one Jane H., since deceased, and the defendant J. E., the said Jane H. demised a certain messuage and premises situate at, and certain land at the back and side thereof, to the defendant J. E., as from the 29th day of September, 1869, for twenty-one years, at the yearly rental of £65. 2. The defendant J. E., by the said deed, covenanted during the term to repair the said messuage and premises, and in every three years of the said term to paint all the external wood and ironwork, and in every seventh year to paint all the internal wood, iron, and stucco work of the messuage or tenement and premises twice over with good oil-colours, and also to repair within three months after notice in manner therein mentioned. 3. By the said deed a right of re-entry was reserved in case of the non-performance of the said covenants. 4. During the said term the said Jane H. died, and by her will devised to G. W. H., F. S. H., and H. M. H. her reversion of and in the said premises, upon the trusts therein contained, and also declared that the power of appointing new trustees should be exercised in the manner therein mentioned. 5. Afterwards the plaintiffs were duly appointed trustees of the said will in the places and stead of the said G. W. H., F. S. H., and H. M. H., and the said reversion became and was vested in the plaintiffs. 6. The following breaches of covenant have been committed. The defendant J. E. did not repair or paint the said messuage and premises according to the covenant; and though the plaintiffs, on the 1st of November, 1876, gave due notice to the defendant J. E. to repair within three calendar months from the date thereof, the defendant J. E. did not repair within the said time, and by reason of the premises, the said messuage and premises have become dilapidated. Full particulars of the dilapidations were given to the defendant J. E. before action. 7. The other defendants have been let into possession of parts of the demised premises by the said J. E. The plaintiff's claim : (1) Possession of the premises; (2) £500 damages for the said breaches of covenant; (3) Mesne profits from the 2nd of February, 1877. Claim by Descent. 1. In the year 1774, Benjamin Brown bought the estate of Glengarry, in the county of York, and died seised in fee in 1794. 2. By A. B., his first wife, he left issue, William and Susannah. William married S. W., and had issue Isaac and Lucy. William died seised in 1824, and a widower. Isaac died unmarried and without issue and seised in 1854, and Lucy died in infancy in 1824. After the death of S. W. William married M. W., and had issue George, who died unmarried, without issue and seised in 1855. The said Susannah died unmarried and without issue in 1840. 3. Benjamin Brown, by his second wife J. S., had issue John and Catherine. John died seised in 1856, a widower, and leaving issue Edmund, his eldest son, Penelope, Henry, and Felicia. Penelope, Henry, and Felicia are long since dead, without issue. Edmund died seised in 1861, leaving no widow and one child only, namely, James Brown, who died seised in November, 1883, without issue and unmarried. 4. Catherine, the daughter of Benjamin Brown, died in 1840, having married her husband C. S., and leaving one son, who died in or about the year 1865, unmarried and without issue. 5. Benjamin Brown was the son of Mary and Joseph Brown. After the death of Mary Brown Joseph Brown married E. A., by whom he had a son Timothy. The defendant claims to be the great-grandson of the said Timothy, and on the death of the said James Brown, in 1883, entered into possession of the said estate. 6. Joseph and Mary Brown had issue one other child only, namely, Bridget. 7. Bridget married A. B. in 1780, and died a widow in 1785, leaving O. B., her eldest son, her surviving. O. B. married E. E. in 1810, and died a widower in 1835, leaving P. B., his eldest son, him surviving. P. B. married I. I. in 1850, and died in 1873, a widower, leaving the plaintiff, his eldest son and heir-at-law. 8. All the persons above mentioned and deceased died intestate. The plaintiff claims : (1) Possession of the said estate ; (2) Mesne profits from the 30th of November, 1883. Claim by Nephew of the Purchaser on ground of Advancement. 1. In 1854 A. B. was, and continued to his death, seised of the copyhold farm of X., in the parish of Y., in the county of Z., for his own life only. 2. In 1855 A. B. procured a grant of the said farm from the lord of the manor to the plaintiff, his (A. B.'s) nephew, in remainder expectant on the death of A. B. to hold to the plaintiff for his absolute use and not in trust. 3. The said A. B. procured the said grant, intending thereby and in order to advance the plaintiff. 4. In 1880 A. B. died, and the plaintiff was admitted tenant on the Court rolls, but the defendant has wrongfully taken possession of the said farm. The plaintiff claims: (1) Possession of the farm ; (2) Mesne profits from the 20th of December, 1880. Rectification and Cancellation of Deeds and other Claims for Delivery and Cancellation of a Bill of Exchange 1. On October 3, 1883, the plaintiff was induced by the fraudulent and false representations of the defendant to accept (a) The Court of Chancery very early assumed jurisdiction to order Jurisdicthe delivery up and cancellation of instruments which were void or tion of voidable, and the rectification of settlements and other documents which Court of by mistake or otherwise did not express the true intentions of the Chancery parties to them. But the exercise of this jurisdiction was discretionary. to order Notwithstanding some early doubts, the Court would order instru- rectificaments which were absolutely void, to be delivered up, unless the nullity tion of of the instrument was patent upon the face of it, in which case it could deeds, &c. neither throw a doubt on any title nor be used in anyone's hands to vex the plaintiff at law or otherwise, Kemp v. Prior, 7 Ves. 248. But see Everitt v. Everitt, L. R. 10 Eq. 405. The Court never interfered to cancel a voluntary deed, however imprudent it might be, unless there was some other objection, as fraud, oppression, or mistake, than its folly attributable to it, and absence of a power of revocation in a voluntary deed is no reason for ordering it to be cancelled, Hall v. Hall, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 430. In regard to voidable instruments the Court refused to interfere at the suit of a plaintiff who had himself been guilty of fraudulent or illegal conduct. "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands." The cases in which the Court would set aside voidable instruments are classified in Mr. Snell's Principles of Equity, pp. 612, 613, as follows: Where there was some actual fraud in the party defendant in which the party plaintiff had not participated. Where there was some constructive fraud against public policy and the party plaintiff had not participated therein. Where there was some constructive fraud against public policy and When Court will interfere. |