BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Merediths v. Saunders [1814] UKHL 2_Dow_514 (27 July 1814) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1814/2_Dow_514.html Cite as: [1814] UKHL 2_Dow_514 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 514↓
(1814) 2 Dow 514
REPORTS OF APPEAL CASES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
During the Session, 1813–14.
53 Geo. III.
IRELAND.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
No. 37
Subject_contract. — usury. — inadequacy of price.
Meredith, being in embarrassed circumstances, in consideration of a loan of 900 l. makes a lease to-Dennahy, with covenant for perpetual renewal, of lands of the yearly value of from 400 l. to 500 l. at a rent of 150 l. subject to a private
Page: 515↓
parole agreement, that Meredith might redeem within two years, on payment of 1300 l. Saunders, knowing the circumstances, with the consent of Meredith, purchases the interest of Dennahy, to whom Saunders pays the 1300 l. Saunders afterwards purchases the whole interest of Meredith, in these and other lands, for the additional sum of 3706 l.—the clear profit rent at which the lands were let in the year following being 600 l. a-year besides other advantages. Meredith having consented to the purchase from Dennahy—having had opportunities of being perfectly acquainted with the value of the lands—having acted deliberately—and no fraud appearing—held by the House of Lords, affirming a decree of the Irish Exchequer, that there was no ground for setting aside the transaction. Dicente Lord Eldon, that though the decision in Mortlock v. Buller ( 10 Ves. 292) had been questioned, if he were to decide the case again, he should decide exactly in the same way as before.
Facts and circumstances.
The Merediths, who held the lands of Armaghmore and Dysart, county of Kerry, under a lease for lives renewable for ever, granted in 1738 by Richard Meredith, the then proprietor, to his second son, William Meredith, being in 1796 much distressed for money, obtained a loan of 600 l. from one Dennahy, upon covenant to grant to Dennahy a lease for three lives, or 41 years, of the lands of Armaghmore, at the yearly rent of 150 l. to commence from March 25, 1798; or on that day to pay Dennahy 750 l. with interest from the date of the agreement. The annual value of the lands was much more than 150 l. and it was contended that the transaction was usurious. At a subsequent period in the same year, Dennahy advanced to the Merediths a farther sum of 300 l.; and in consideration of the whole sum of 900 l. he obtained a
Page: 516↓
Lease, which was stated in argument to be founded on an usurious consideration.
Sale of lands by Appellant to Respondent questioned for inadequacy of price.
The Respondent, Saunders,—who was uncle to William Meredith, the Appellant chiefly interested in the lands, and who appeared to have been apprized of the situation of the Meredith family, and the nature of the transaction with Dennahy, at which it was in evidence that he expressed great indignation,—with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Merediths, purchased the interest of Dennahy, and paid the 1300 l. He afterwards purchased the whole of the interest in the lands of Armaghmore and Dysart, under the lease of 1738, for an additional sum of 3706 l.; though, in the following year, the lands were let (as was stated on oath) so as to yield a clear profit to the Respondent of 600 l. a-year, with other advantages. William Meredith had however consulted Mr. Justice Day (then a practising Barrister) and the Rt. Hon. Maurice Fitzgerald on the subject of this sale; but from their evidence, it appeared that they knew nothing about the value of the lands, and hardly remembered any thing about the transaction.
The Appellant, W. Meredith, alleged that he had been induced to act as he did from the opinion entertained by himself and others, that the Respondent—being supposed to be a man not likely to marry—would make him his heir: and there was evidence that the Respondent himself had made
Page: 517↓
Bill for specific performance, filed Feb. 28, 1804.
Decree for performance, Nov. 1808.
The Appellants afterwards refused to renew; and the Respondent filed his bill in the Exchequer, in the nature of a bill for specific performance. The Appellants answered, stating the above circumstances; and witnesses being examined, and the cause being heard, the Court decreed performance pursuant to the prayer of the bill; and from this decree the Appellants lodged their Appeal.
King v. Drew 3 Wils. C. P. 390.
Several grounds were mentioned for impeaching the transaction; but the only grounds on which any great stress was laid in the House of Lords were,—1st, That the whole transaction was founded on the usurious contract with Dennahy, and was therefore void, whether the Respondent had, or had not, notice of that contract; and, 2d, (which was chiefly relied on,) The consideration was grossly inadequate. To the first point it was answered, that there was no pretence for saying that the transaction, in any view of it, was usurious at law; and as to the equity of the question, Saunders did not substitute himself in the place of Dennahy, paying only the 900 l. and interest; but purchased for 1300 l. with the knowledge and consent of the Appellants. To the second objection it was replied, that the Appellants were perfectly acquainted with the value of the lands; that there was no confidential relation
Page: 518↓
Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. 292.
In the course of the argument, the case of Mortlock v. Buller having been mentioned, Lord Eldon (Chancellor) said,—“I perceive the judgment in the case of Mortlock v. Buller has been questioned in a decision of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I have since looked back into all the circumstances of that case; and, with all due respect for that opinion, if I were to decide the case again, I should decide it exactly in the same way as before.”
Romilly and Leach for Appellants; Hart and Bell for Respondent.
July 27, 1814.
Judgment.
Decree affirmed.
Solicitors: Agent for Appellants, Blandford.
Agents for Respondent, Neeld and Fladgate.
