comply; or if a treaty has been depending between the parties respecting the amount(x) and mode of payment of the rent and fines.

Equitable aid, however, will not be extended to a tenant who has fraudulently (y) suppressed the deaths of the cestuique vies in his lease, or who has committed any other description(z) of fraud on his landlord in respect of renewing, or where the tenant obstinately refuses(a) to renew after demand, or has unnecessarily, and without reasonable excuse(b), been guilty of delay after demand; or if a landlord assent to the tenant's request for a renewal on his paying the fines; or if the landlord, on such application, make a well-founded objection that another fine was payable, the tenant's application will be deemed(c) equivalent to a demand by the landlord, and the tenant will be accountable for any subsequent negligence or delay in payment of the renewal fines: and though no actual demand be made, there may(d) be such a course of dealing between the parties as will amount to fraud, so as to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the Statute.

Rep. 452; Trant v. Dwyer, 1 Dow. &
Cl. 125; 2 Bli. Parl. Ca. 11, N. S.

(1) Ld. Ross v. Worsop, 1 Bro. Parl. Ca. 281; O'Neil v. Jones, 1 Ridg. P. Ca. 170.

(y) Pendred v. Griffith, 1 Bro. Parl. Ca. 314.

(z) Jackson v. Saunders, 1 Sch. & Lef. 455.

(a) Hunt v. Sayers, Hayes, 590.

(b) Jackson v. Saunders, 1 Sch. & Lef. 443; 2 Dow's Parl. Ca. 437; Lord Mountnorris v. White, 2 Dow's P. Ca. 459; Barrett v. Burke, 5 Dow's Parl. Ca. 1; Fitzsimon v. Burton, Finlay on Renewals, 284.

(c) Shenton v.Corbally, 1 Hogan, 403; 2 Moll. 546.

(d) Butler v. Lord Portarlington, 1 Dru. & Warr. 50.

26. WHERE a lessee for lives renewable for ever grants an underlease of the whole, or of some part of the demised premises, the undertenant is allowed, for the purpose of preserving his own interest, to maintain a suit for renewal against the chief landlord(a), and his own immediate lessor; and if no forfeiture has been incurred by reason of fraud or dereliction on the part of the middleman, a decree will be made for renewal of the head-lease, upon the usual terms, to the original lessee, and for a renewal by him to the undertenant; or in some cases, with a view of rendering more effectual justice, the chief-landlord is compelled to renew the original lease directly to the undertenant, in trust for the several persons beneficially interested, according to their respective rights; but if the intermediate tenant had forfeited his right of renewal prior to the institution of the suit, by means of fraud or dereliction, no relief can be granted(b) against the chief-landlord to the underlessee, the only remedy of the latter party being against his immediate lessor.

If a lessor for lives renewable for ever sell the reversion out of which the renewal is to be served, and take back from the purchaser an intermediate estate which does not qualify him to renew the underlease, the laches of the undertenant in neglecting to comply with demands of fines made on him by the middleman alone, will be excused. One Tarrant being seised in fee, demised for lives renewable for ever, and then sold his reversion in the premises, and obtained from the pur

(a) Barrett v. Burke, 5 Dow's P. C. 1; Revell v. Hussey, 2 Ball & B. 280.

(b) Barrett v. Burke, 5 Dow's P. C. 23.

chaser an intermediate interest for lives, renewable for ever: the renewal fines(c) were on several occasions demanded from the undertenant by Tarrant, after he had parted with the reversion, and though the undertenant had been guilty of great default, a decree(d) was pronounced by the Exchequer that a renewal should be executed by Tarrant and by the chief-landlord, on payment of the rent and fines to the middleman Tarrant, who had the immediate reversion.

If a person holding for lives renewable for ever demise for the same lives, with an absolute covenant of renewal for ever, though the secondary tenant be assignee(e) of the whole legal estate in the demised premises, yet he can only enforce a renewal by means of the intervention of the middleman, because such mesne landlord only covenants to renew on stipulated terms with his lessee, and does not transfer his own right of renewal.

27. Where lessee for lives renewable for ever grants an underlease for different lives, with a like covenant of renewal on payment of certain fines, the undertenant is bound to pay renewal fines, according to the septennial calculation, to his immediate lessor, even though all the cestuique vies in the principal lease had dropped, and the middleman had not renewed, because the regular payment of fines by the intermediate(f) tenant, who is to renew with his immediate lessor, often depends on the regular payment of fines by the undertenant on the last underletting, which, if withheld, may place the intermediate tenures in great hazard. The Earl of Meath, being seised in fee, granted certain premises to Samuel Card, for three lives renewable for ever, on payment of a stipulated fine on the fall of every life; and by indenture dated the 18th of March, 1702, Samuel Card demised a dwellinghouse, parcel of the premises(g) comprised in the original lease, to Wingfield Atkinson, at the yearly rent of sixteen pounds, with covenant of renewal for ever, on payment of a renewal fine equal to one year's rent; and the lessor thereby covenanted to perfect unto the lessee, his heirs and assigns, a good and true estate, pursuant to the indenture, as far as the estate of the lessor, Samuel Card, would warrant; but the cestuique vies in any renewal were to be nominated by the lessor; and it was thereby also covenanted that the lessee, his heirs or assigns,

(c) Jephson v. Tarrant, 4 Law Rec. 138; Lyne on Leases, App. No. 17, 65, S. Č.

fol.

(d) See the observations of Joy, C. B. in Hunt v. Sayers, Hayes, 593.

(e) John v. Armstrong, 2 Ll. & G. 392; Smith v. Shannon, 3 Irish Eq.

Rep. 452; ante, No. 22.

(f) Jackson v. Saunders, 1 Sch. & Lef. 460.

(g) Morton v. Archbold, at the Rolls, 27th November, 1815, 4 Irish Eq. Rep. 460; Flanagan v. Kelly, 535, S. C.

should make their address and application to the lessor, his heirs or assigns, within three months after the death of whichever of the cestuique vies should happen to die, to have a life added in place of the person so dying, and should within such three months satisfy and pay a full year's rent for every new life in any such new grant so to be made, and it was provided, that in case the lessee, his heirs or assigns, should fail to pay such fine, or neglect to demand such new lease within three months after the death of such cestuique vies, or of any other life in any renewal thereafter to be made, that then the lessor, his heirs or assigns, should not be obliged to renew, and that the covenant of renewal should be absolutely void. In the year 1802, the Earl of Meath renewed the principal lease to James Maxwell Hamilton, for the life of Thomas Vickers, who was one of the lives named in a former renewal, and for the additional lives of George, Prince of Wales, and of Prince Edward; and by indenture dated the 9th of May, 1802, the underlease was renewed by J. M. Hamilton to Benjamin Wills, for the same lives. Thomas Vickers went to America and died there on the 6th of July, 1799, but neither the Earl of Meath's agent, nor any of the persons interested in the renewal, heard of his decease until the latter end of the year 1814. A renewal was obtained from Lord Meath by the receiver in a creditor's cause, in trust for all parties interested, on payment of septennial fines and interest from the 6th of July, 1799, when Thomas Vickers died; but the underlessee, Benjamin Wills, insisted that he was entitled to a renewal of his underlease, on payment of a single renewal fine, without septennial fines or interest, because the persons interested in the principal lease had not themselves, during the period for which they claimed septennial fines and interest, any higher title to the lands than an estate for the lives of the Prince of Wales and of Prince Edward. An order having been obtained(h), directing the Master in the cause to inquire and report whether any and what renewal fines were due by Benjamin Wills, out of that part of the premises in his possession, the Master reported that Thomas Vickers died on the 6th of July, 1799, and that a renewal fine accrued due in three months after his death, which, with septennial fines and interest since, amounted to a sum of £71 38., which was due by Benjamin Wills; but the Master of the Rolls, Sir William MacMahon, on the authority of the decided case of Wilson v. St. Leger, ordered(i) that the Master should review his

(h) Morton v. Archbold, Master's Report, 28th Aug. 1815.

() Morton v. Archbold, Rolls Order, 27th Nov. 1815.

report in respect of septennial fines and interest: however, upon an appeal to Lord Manners, the order made at the Rolls was varied(j) so far as regarded the septennial fines and interest, and the Master's report was confirmed without alteration. In giving judgement on the appeal, Lord Manners observed, "that if the middleman(k) has not lost his right of renewal, he has at least an equitable title, which he can transfer to his immediate tenant: whilst the under-lessee enjoys, he must pay the fruits of the tenure, and cannot refuse to discharge the rent; for when once the undertenant takes the lease, he cannot inquire into his lessor's title. If he covenants on the fall of a life to pay a renewal fine, he cannot excuse himself from payment by calling on the lessor to shew his title to grant a renewal; he can only shew his lessor's title determined by forfeiture, or by transfer to another: the undertenant knew what title the lessor had, and knowing that, he entered into this covenant absolutely to pay in three months, and not merely to pay provided his lessor had then renewed for himself, and if the undertenant were now at liberty to set up that his lessor had not previously renewed, it would be to make a new contract. The underlessee might as well say, 'I won't pay my rent until you have paid your's, because I may be distrained or ejected."" And after referring to Wilson v. St. Leger(), his Lordship added: "the case in question is different from the reservation of a nomine pœnæ : here the septennial fine is not a penalty, but the agreed value of a life not nominated. A septennial fine is compensation for omitting to nominate a life, which it may be presumed would have dropped at the end of seven years, and the interest is allowed because the tenant retains money which he ought to have paid to his landlord. A nomine pœnæ is a penalty given in addition to doing the thing agreed to be done."

In the preceding case of Martin v. Archbold, only one of the cestuique vies in the original lease, and in the underlease respectively had fallen, but the principle is the same, though all(m) the lives in the original lease had died, and no renewal had been procured, as the underlessee is equally bound to pay his renewal fines, according to the septennial calculation, within a reasonable time after demand.

Where a lessor holding for lives renewable for ever makes a similar lease for the same lives, and for such other lives as shall for ever there

Morton v. Archbold, Order on appeal, 11th March, 1806; same case by the name of Mortlock v. Wills, Hayes,

596.

(k) From a note made by Mr. Lefroy on his brief.

(1) Wilson v. St. Leger, see post, 4 Irish Eq. Rep. 457.

(m) Hunt v. Sayers, Hayes, 590. This case was ultimately compromised on a bill being filed by Lord Doneraile, an underlessee, for renewal of the lease.