Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/607

and a fine of £56 upon the renewal of every life: he afterwards, by lease and release, dated the 1st and 2d of July 1709, mortgaged his lease for £100 to Morley Saunders, esq. Doctor of Laws, then Prime Serjeant, and father of the appellant Cordelia Pendred; and in the [315] same year, he conveyed his equity of redemption to Dr. Saunders, for £332, reserving to himself 20 acres, which he was to hold of Dr. Saunders at the rent of a pepper-corn; and which also was afterwards purchased from him by Dr. Saunders, who likewise bought in the several interests of Joseph Parrott's lessees, except that of Richard Clarke.

The right of James Carroll to the estate, subject to Parrott's lease, being settled by the decree of the Court of Chancery and the judgment of the House of Lords; and Parrott's interest being vested in Dr. Saunder's, by the several assignments above mentioned; and Peter Parrott, a cestui que vie in the lease, being dead; James Carroll, by indenture, dated the 1st of November 1710, reciting the former lease, in consideration of £165 being the fine payable by the former lease, and the interest thereof since the death of the cestui que vie, demised the said lands of Ballynure to Elias Crips, in trust for Dr. Saunders, for the lives of Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield, the two surviving lives in the former lease, and of Richard Clarke; reserving the same rents and accates, and with the same covenants as were contained in the former lease. And Dr. Saunders, by indenture, dated the 14th of December 1711, renewed the lease to the said Richard Clarke for the same lives, and described in the same manner, at the rent of £100 and a fine of £56.

James Carroll, in April 1711, made a mortgage of his estate to Dr. Duncan Cuming in fee, for £700. And by his will, dated the 28th of November 1711, he devised all his estate in the said lands, to the said Dr. Duncan Cuming and Caleb Thomas, in trust for the issue male or female of his own body, if he should leave any; and for want of such issue, then to the use of his grandson the respondent James Carroll Griffith, and the heirs of his body: and in 1712 the testator died without issue, and without altering or revoking his will; whereby the estate, subject to the said mortgage, vested in the respondent Griffith, who was then an infant of about five years old, and did not attain his full age till the year 1728.

During all this time, Dr. Saunders never applied for the renewal of his lease; pretending he was not informed, nor ever enquired whether Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield, the cestui que vies in the original lease, were living or dead; and yet in this interval he renewed the leases of his under-tenants, and took fines upon inserting new lives, which he alledged was done rather to oblige the tenants, than because it was any way necessary. Accordingly, on the 30th of September 1727, he renewed the lease to Richard Clarke, for the following lives; viz. the life of Joshua Parrott, (describing him by the name of Joshua Parrott son of Joshua Parrott, late of Ballynure,) the life of John Winnett, (whose name was inserted in the place of Thomas Litchfield, and for which a fine of £56 was paid,) and the life of the said Richard Clarke.

There was one Joshua Parrott, then living in the neighbourhood of the estate, who was the son of Joshua Parrott, the real [316] cestui que vie in the original lease, and grandson of Joseph Parrott the first lessee: but no reason could be assigned why the description of the cestui que vie in the original lease, who was therein called Joshua the grandson of Joseph, should be varied in the renewed lease, and he should be therein stiled Joshua the son of Joshua Parrott; unless it was done with a view, that from the identity of the name of both these persons, and of their fathers and family, and place of abode, (in which description both of them exactly agreed,) and by leaving out of this and all future renewals, the distinction of his being the grandson of Joseph, (which was the circumstance in which they differed,) a reputation and belief might be gained amongst the under-tenants and neighbourhood, that Joshua Parrott, mentioned in the renewed leases, was the real and original cestui que vie; and that the respondent Griffith, who was then an infant, and his trustees, who were entire strangers to all the transactions relating to the original or renewed leases, might afterwards be imposed upon, and induced to believe the same thing: and accordingly, in all the leases afterwards made of that part of the estate, either by Dr. Saunders, or by Richard Clarke, Joshua Parrott was always described as the son of Joshua Parrott, and not as the grandson of Joseph Parrott.

The respondent Griffith attained his age in 1728; and soon after paid off Dr.