Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/228

told Handcock he might pay himself out of the rent reserved on the 29 years lease; and Handcock accordingly, during the infancy of John, then Earl of Kildare, and without his privity, received the reserved rent from Lord Dillon and Hatfield, and retained and applied it towards his own debt, but never since 1685, otherwise paid Sir James Shaen or Sir Arthur Shaen any rent for those premisses; because Earl John, on coming of age in 1683, exhibited his bill against appellants and Sir James Shaen, for discovery of their titles, praying that appellants might account with him for the said rents; and appellants retained said rent to recompense themselves for the damages suffered by such prior incumbrances of Lord Ranelagh and Dillon; and, in 1687, Sir James Shaen exhibited his bill for an account of the rent and possession of the premisses; and in the same year appellant Hatfield exhibited a cross bill against Sir James Shaen, Earl John, and others, to discover their titles, and to be quieted in his possession, and to have satisfaction for the time he was ousted by Lord Ranelagh and Dillon's titles, and for his improvements; which bill Sir James refusing to answer, appellant Hatfield obtained an injunction to quiet possession, and also to stay Sir James's proceeding till answer and further order: And in Michaelmas, 1692, Sir James put in an insufficient answer, and on exceptions submitted to answer over, but neglected so to do, and Hatfield had process of contempt against him to a serjeant at arms; and, 1695, Sir James died in contempt, and never filed a further answer; but after his death respondent, Sir Arthur, in 1696, as his heir and administrator, exhibited an original bill in Chancery against the appellants Handcock and Hatfield, without making Earl John a party, alleging leases and conveyances of the lands in question, made 30th December, 1656, by Earl Wentworth for 1250l. to Sir James Shaen for 41 years, at 110l. per annum, rent; and that Earl Wentworth, 24th December, 1659, for 450l. by another lease demised the same lands to John Hum-[124]-phrys for 99 years, at 100l. per annum rent; and afterwards, 25th and 26th May, 1660, together with John, Earl of Clare, and Robert Boyle, Esq. conveyed the fee and inheritance of the same lands to Arthur, late Earl of Anglesey, and others, in consideration of 1000l. and pretended that the said 99 years lease to Humphrys, and conveyance to Lord Anglesey, were in trust for Sir James Shaen, though they were no parties to this bill, nor did that matter otherwise appear in the cause; and though appellants in their answer to Sir Arthur's bill, insisted on Earl John's title, and proved articles of the 17th of March, 1657, on the marriage of Earl Wentworth, with Elizabeth, daughter of John, Earl of Clare, in consideration of 6000l. her portion, and also proved a settlement made 3d and 4th May, 1658, in pursuance of those articles, whereby Earl Wentworth was made tenant for life, and Earl John tenant in tail; and therefore insisted that Earl John ought to be made a party to contest Sir Arthur's pretended title, so that appellants might pay their rents safely, and be indemnified; notwithstanding which the Court of Chancery in Ireland, 5th February, 1699, proceeded to a hearing, and decreed Sir Arthur Shaen the possession of the premisses in question, and that appellants should account for and pay him the rents thereof ever since the 25th March, 1686, which decree appellants conceived to be erroneous; because it did not appear that Sir James Shaen paid the 1250l. or the 110l. per annum rent, reserved on the 41 years lease, or ever had any possession under it, or paid the 450l. consideration, or the 100l. per annum rent reserved in the 99 years lease, or had any possession under it; nor that the conveyances in 1660 were made to the Earl of Anglesey and others in trust for Sir James Shaen and his heirs; and because it appeared that Earl Wentworth was bare tenant for life, and had no power to make such 99 years lease, or conveyance in fee, and that it was contrary to law and the rules of equity, to decree possessions, and determine titles of freehold and inheritance in equity, without having before the court the parties interested in point of title, and more especially to determine landlords freeholds upon tenants defences, the landlords not being themselves parties; and that the Earl of Kildare not being made a party, appellants could not be indemnified as against him, but that he, notwithstanding the said decree, might proceed against appellants upon the covenants in [126] their leases, or upon his bill exhibited in 1683, or any new bill, or by an ejectment of the premisses, and no injunction could be granted against him, he being no party to that decree, nor claiming under any person party to it; and prayed that the decree might be reversed. (John Hawles.)