Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1512

and interests in the plantation counties in Ireland; and therefore decreed, that the plaintiffs should hold the lands, for which the ejectment was brought, and be quieted in the possession thereof, and that an injunction should issue for that purpose; and that he should also be put in possession of the other lands, which the defendant Brockhill had detained from him; and that the said defendant should account with the plaintiff for the profits thereof, from the death of Thomas Newburgh, the son.

From this decree, both the defendants appealed; insisting (S. Dodd, S. Cowper), that all the fee-farms within the manor, were either bought in by, or forfeited to, the said Brockhill Taylor, in his life-time; or, that they were extinguished or destroyed, by the two acts of the 10th and 15th of Charles I. and the letters patent granted to Brockhill's daughters and co-heirs. That the respondent's father, in an answer to a bill exhibited against him in the court of Chancery in Ireland, by one Humphrys, several years after his purchasing the fee-farms in question; insisted, that the several fee-farms which had been granted by the said John Taylor and Brockhill Taylor, were surrendered, forfeited, or extinguished. And that, at the hearing of the cause, the court allowed several deeds and writings, together with rent-rolls and other papers, of the handwriting of Humphrey Perrott and Thomas Newburgh, the father, to be read as evidence for the respondent, without proof; and yet refused an inquisition post-mortem of Brockhill Taylor, to be read as evidence on the part of the appellants.

But to this it was answered (T. Powys, E. Northey), that the appellants had made no proof of the fee-farms in question being either purchased by, or forfeited to, Brockhill Taylor; and that such a construction of the acts of parliament and letters patent, as they contended for, would tend to manifest injustice, by defeating innocent purchasors of their estates, after having expended great sums in the improvement of them, which could never be the intent of the legislature in passing those acts, or of the king in granting the said letters patent: but, on the contrary, if any title to the fee-farms was, by virtue of the acts, vested in the [557] patentee, he ought to be deemed a trustee for the fee-farmers, so far as his letters patent concerned their estates; because those letters patent were granted pursuant to the acts, which were intended as well for the benefit of the tenants and fee-farmers, as for the lord of the manor, by quieting and confirming their respective estates; and the fee-farms in question had been accordingly enjoyed, by the grantees thereof, and those claiming under them. That as to the suit commenced by Humphrys, he was a fee-farmer within the manor, and having lost his purchase deeds, an ejectment was brought to evict him of the possession; that he thereupon filed his bill for relief in equity, against Thomas Newburgh the father, who, in order to maintain his pretensions to Humphrys's estate, was advised to make the same defence, as the appellants had done in the present case, and with no better success, as Humphrys, and those claiming under him, had ever since enjoyed the estate. But, whatever the said Thomas Newburgh might then insist upon, to serve a present turn, yet he always considered himself as the proprietor of the fee-farms in question, distinct from what he held in right of his wife; and accordingly disposed of them by their specific names, in the several wills which he, at different times, made. That the several deeds and writings, read for the respondent at the hearing of the cause, were either well proved, or very ancient, and a satisfactory account was given of them; and that the ancient rent-rolls, and other papers of Humphry Perrott and Thomas Newburgh the father, who were proprietors in moieties of the said manor, were proper and material to evidence the several fee-farm rents belonging thereto, and the rents reserved thereon, before Newburgh the father purchased the same; and more especially after so great a length of time, and an unity of possession for above 30 years, in his lifetime; and such rent-rolls being so ancient, it could not be imagined, that they were made with any view or design to the case now in question. But, as to the inquisition offered in evidence by the appellants, they were not able to shew, that any commission was ever issued to warrant it; although they desired, and had a reasonable time allowed them, by the court, for that purpose.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 19. p. 414.)