Reports of Cases heard in the House of Lords, upon Appeals or Writs of Error, and decided during the Session 1826–1827. By Richard Bligh, Barrister-at-Law. Vol. I. New Series.
ENGLAND.
(Court of Chancery.)
HENRY JOHN LORD SELSEY and others,—Appellants; THOMAS RHOADES,—Respondent.
[Mews' Dig. vii. 262, 428; viii. 861; xiv. 1773. S. C. 2 Sim. and S. 41. Considered in Molony v. Kernan, 1842 2 Dr. and War. 31 at p. 38; and Dunne v. English, 1874, L.R., 18 Eq. 524 at p. 534; and see note to Ward v. Hartpole, 1776, 3 Bli. 470.]
In 1804, A, tenant for life under a settlement with a power to grant leases for twenty-one years, concurred with B, the next tenant for life in an agreement to grant to the steward and solicitor of A, a lease of part of the lands, etc. in settlement for twenty-one years absolute at a rent fixed upon a valuation, which omitted to estimate certain rights of common annexed to the lands, on the alleged ground that those rights were disputed by the copyholders of the manor. In 1809, B, having become tenant for life, on the death of A, executed a lease, according to the agreement.
In 1810, under an Act for inclosure of waste lands, a very large allotment of the waste was made, in respect of the lands leased, the rights of common having been admitted. B died in 1816, when the reversion of the lands, subject to the lease, vested in C, who accepted the rent reserved till 1821, when he filed a bill to set aside the lease.
Held in the Court below, that the transaction was unimpeachable on the ground of fraud. On appeal, held that the [2] relief was barred by acts of confirmation and acquiescence; but whether considering the facts and the relation of the parties the lease might not have been avoided, on the ground of fraud (or mistake,) if the persons interested had questioned the lease recently after the transaction—Quaere: semb. affirm.
This was an appeal[1] against a decree of the Vice Chancellor, dismissing a bill filed by the Appellants, as personal representatives of James Lord Selsey, and by H. J. Lord Selsey, in his own right, as remainder-man under a settlement to set aside a lease granted by James Lord Selsey and Mr. Peachy his son, to the Respondent, be being at the time steward and solicitor of James Lord Selsey.
The bill stated that the Respondent was employed by John Lord Selsey, and afterwards by John Lord Selsey, his son, as steward and receiver of their lands, and also as solicitor or law agent; that, in the course of such employment, he became intimately acquainted with their farms and the rights attached to them; and being so,
- ↑ See the Report in the Court below, 2 Sim. and Stu. p. 41.