Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/954

decree for payment of the money, with interest and costs at a certain day, which was the fullest notice that could be given to the vendor, to make his election, whether he would re-purchase or not, or redeem, if the premises were redeemable; and as that decree was enforced, so far as in its nature it could be, by service of a writ of execution thereof, and never having been complained of by Sir John Eustace, but being still in full force, the same ought to be binding upon his representatives, and could not be impeached by an original bill, to which the representative of Charles Tasburgh, who was a plaintiff in the former cause, was no party. But even though the respondents should be entitled to relief against the appellant Tasburgh, yet there was no foundation for granting them any against the appellant. M'Nemara, who was a purchaser of his lease for a valuable consideration, without any notice of the respondents claim; and who had also laid out very great sums in building upon and improving the premises. Besides, there was no charge in any of the bills, that this appellant had any notice of the claims set up by the respondents; and therefore the issue ought not to have been directed, but the bill ought to have been dismissed as against him, with costs.

To all this it was said (D. Ryder, J. Browne) on behalf of the respondents, that the nature of the transaction, and the very deeds themselves, evidently shewed, that they were originally intended as a mortgage or security for the £200 lent, and not as a purchase; and it was plain, that John Tasburgh understood them so to be, by bringing his bill of foreclosure in 1687. That Courts of Equity have, on all occasions, relieved against restraints imposed upon the equity of redemption, and admitted the mortgagor to redeem, notwithstanding the expiration of the time limited by the parties for that purpose; and have always considered clauses of this nature, as terms extorted from the necessities of the borrower, and tonding to usury and oppression; nor could any case be more proper for relief, than the present, where the redeemable interest did not commence in possession till 1724, and where the mortgagee was attempting to gain an estate of £900 per ann. for so small a consideration as £200. That as to the decree of December 1688, it was conceived not to be binding or conclusive; for Sir John Eustace was in England during the time of the whole transaction, the decree was obtained without any defence, and in a time of war and general confusion; it was never completed by a proper jurisdiction and authority, the account thereby directed was never taken, nor the order for foreclosure ever made absolute. And as to the length of time, it was observable, that the lease of 116 years did not expire till the year 1724, which was after the first bill for [272] a redemption was brought; consequently, the appellant Tasburgh could not be considered as a mortgagee in possession, till after the expiration of that term; for during the term, he was in possession as a tenant, and not as a mortgagee. Besides, Sir John Eustace being in England, from the time of making the mortgage, till near his death, and in extreme poverty; and his heirs at law having been under coverture or infancy from that time, to the time of filing their bill in 1723, which was before the reversionary estate came into possession, no laches or delay could reasonably be imputed to the respondents. That the manner in which the decree appealed from had allowed interest, by turning it at the end of five years, and also upon every reduction of interest, into principal money, would make the appellant Tasburgh ample amends for the non-payment of interest in the mean time; and this was probably foreseen at the time of lending the money, because no profits could be received out of the mortgaged premises, until the expiration of the 116 years term. As to the appellant M'Nemara, it was said to be proved by the respondents, that the premises were, in 1728, and for several years before, and still were of the yearly value of £900, and that the only consideration for his lease, was a fine of £300 and an annual rent of £250. And it likewise appeared in the cause, that the appellant M'Nemara had notice of the respondents title, previous to his taking the lease, and that covenants were inserted therein for bearing the loss, in case of an eviction. It was therefore hoped, that the appeal would be dismissed with costs.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the proceedings, orders, and decree therein complained of, should be reversed; and that the respondents bill should be dismissed. (Jour. vol. 24. p. 370.)