case henry Pippard appellant the mayor OF Drogheda and other respondent that  may in Hilary term a information in the nature of a quo warranto be bring in  the court of exchequer in Ireland against the corporation of Drogheda and in  easter term follow judgement be give against they and their liberty c seize  into the king hand hold that this information will not lie in that court and  that therefore the judgement be void In consequence of that judgement king  James two create a new corporation by charter who make a reversionary lease to  I S of some land belong to the old corporation the charter be declare void by  a act William and mary sess c the lease be void also the town of Drogheda be a  ancient town incorporate by the name of the mayor sheriff burgess and Commons  of the town and county of the town of Drogheda and as such use and enjoy  several liberty franchise privilege and immunity and have land belong to they  as a corporate body which be original grant to the corporation by letter  patent from the crown John stoker and several other member of the corporation  be seize in fee of the land aftermentioned in trust and have full power to  demise the same for the use of the corporation do by indenture of lease date  the that of December demise to Christopher Pippard FitzGeorge his executor  administrator and assign all that the house or hospital of saint James without  saint James gate of Drogheda with all the message house windmill land tenement  hereditament and appurtenance thereunto belong to hold from easter day then  next for the term of sixtyone year at the yearly rend of pound S Payable to  the trustee to such use as they then stand seize of the premise with a  covenant from Pippard to repair maintain and keep the mansionhouse windmill  and all other edifice upon the premise staunch and tenantable and to leave the  same so at the end of the term and by virtue of this demise the lessee enter  and be possess of the premise among other undue prosecution against  corporation in Ireland in the reign of king James two for deprive they of  their ancient liberty and franchise a information in the nature of a quo  warranto be in Hilary term bring in the court of brown exchequer there by the  then attorneygeneral against the mayor sheriff burgess and Commons of the say  town of Drogheda to show brown er p by what warrant they claim to have use and  enjoy the liberty privilege and franchise of a corporate body and a writ of to  know facias issue to appear in fifteen day of easter to show cause against  this information which writ be serve on they they do not appear but make  default and rule have be give for they to appear and plead or that judgement  shall be for his majesty a writ be in easter term grant by the court to seize  the say liberty privilege and franchise into the hand of his majesty the  corporation be thus strip of their franchise which be do with a view to put  the power and property thereof into the hand of papist king James two on the  that of November in the three year of his reign grant a new charter to the say  corporation whereby after recite the say judgement he will ordain and confirm  that the town of Drogheda and land within the same and the liberty thereof  shall be one entire town and borough of itself and that the limit thereof  shall extend as far as its bind of ancient time do and be a distinct county  and he also will grant confirm and ordain that within the say town there shall  be one body corporate and politic by the name of mayor sheriff burgess and  Commons of the town of Drogheda and that they and their successor for ever  shall be by virtue of the say charter one new body corporate and politic One  novum corpus corporat by the say name to go in succession with power to take  acquire and possess land and to grant demise and assign the same to sue and be  sue to have a common seal a common council and to make bylaw and he likewise  grant confirm constitute and ordain that within the say town there shall be  for the future one mayor two sheriff twentyfour alderman and thirtytwo burgess  to be elect out of the best and most discreet alderman burgess and Commons of  the say town and by this charter he assign nominate constitute and make  certain person therein several mention by name to be the immediate mayor and  sheriff of the say town till the feast of Michaelmas then next ensue and  certain other person by name to be alderman and burgess of the say town during  their respective life and good behaviour and grant several other power and  privilege usual in original charter of incorporation the person name in this  charter as constituent member of the new corporation be most papist who act  under the charter exclude all the protestant member from vote in their  assembly and they assume to themselves a power of lease for term of year  several house land and tenement which belong to the old corporation to person  who be all or most of they papist and among these lease they grant to the say  Christopher Pippard FitzGeorge a reversionary lease date the d of September of  the premise comprise in his former lease to hold for the term of sixtyone year  from and brown immediate after the expiration of the say former term of which  there be then fiftytwo year unexpired at the same yearly rend of pound S the  confuse and miserable state of Ireland occasion by these unjust seizure become  soon after the revolution a object of legislative attention and accord by a  act pass in England William and mary sess c for the better security and relief  of their majesty protestant subject of Ireland all city borough town and body  corporate within the kingdom of Ireland be declare and enact to be restore to  the same state and condition to all intent and purpose whatsoever which they  be in upon the that of June any proceed against they by quo warranto to know  facias or information in the nature of a quo warranto judgement seizure or  execution thereon or any new charter or any surrender or other act or act  since that time to the contrary notwithstanding all which be thereby declare  to be null and void to all intent construction and purpose whatsoever by this  act the say judgement of seizure the new charter and the say reversionary  lease as a act do under the new charter and by the new officer thereby appoint  become absolute void Pippard the lessee enjoy the premise under the first  lease till his death which happen in November when George Pippard as his old  son and personal representative become entitle and accord hold the same till  his death in September and then the present appellant as the second son and  personal representative of Christopher the original lessee enjoy for the  residue of the term and pay the reserve rend to the corporation brown er p the  term expire in possession be demand for the use of the corporation but the  appellant refuse to deliver up the premise insist that the reversionary lease  be a good title for sixtyone year long whereupon the corporation together with  the other respondent who be the coheir of law of the survive trustee and  lessor in the original lease in Hilary term exhibit their bill in the court of  chancery in Ireland against the appellant pray that he may be compel to  deliver up the premise to the corporation and rebuild the windmill which he  have pull down put the mansionhouse in repair and account for the full value  of the premise since the expiration of the lease to this bill the appellant  put in a answer insist that upon the expiration of the first lease the last  lease become a good and subsist term in the premise the appellant also file a  cross bill against the corporation set forth the reversionary lease and that  under the faith of its be good and valid he have make several improvement on  the premise by erect a house and out building thereon and wall in a garden he  also charge that the corporation have the counterpart of this lease in their  custody but to deprive the brown appellant of the benefit of it they have not  so admit in their original bill that the lease be duly execute by the  corporation under their common seal and enter in their book that there be also  several entry in those book relate to the consideration of that lease and to  service do for the corporation by the appellant grandfather and father that  the corporation have not set forth when they be first incorporate nor what  right or title they have to the premise at the time of fill their bill that  they be about to disfranchise some of their member to make they good witness  in the cause but under a secret agreement to restore they when the cause shall  be end and therefore the bill pray a discovery of these matter that the  appellant may have the benefit of the corporation answer at the hear of the  original cause and that both cause may come on together the corporation by  their answer to this bill admit the reversionary lease of the d of September  to the appellant father but say they do not believe that either he or the  appellant brother look upon such reversionary lease to be good but be on the  contrary full apprise of its invalidity not only on account of the act of  parliament before state but from a judicial determination in a cause where a  similar reversionary lease be dispute and in which the appellant father give  evidence they insist that the lease be void as be make by person claim under a  illegal charter force upon the corporation without their consent to put their  property in the hand of papist who by virtue of and under such new charter  assume the power and possession of the old corporation they also insist that  if there be any corporate body legal subsist at the time of make this  reversionary lease it be the body erect by former charter but that the mayor  and other officer who then act as a corporate body be create by and act under  the new charter and not by or under any former charter that the new charter  manifest appear upon the face of it to be a charter constitute a new  corporation and not a charter of confirmation nor be the legal corporate body  which subsist before or at the time of this new charter confirm or establish  thereby with the addition of any new privilege they say that the incorporation  of the town be very ancient but they can not tell when it first take place  that they have several charter particular one in the second year of Henry V  another of the that December James I which be a confirmatory charter of their  ancient privilege and another confirmatory charter of the d of march that  William III both cause be at issue several witness be examine on both side in  the original cause the appellant prove many service render to the protestant  interest in Ireland by his grandfather George Pippard during the rebellion of  and also several improvement on the premise by his father and brother upon the  faith of the new lease to the amount of pound and brown upward and the  respondent prove the several charter and other proceed before state on the  that of July both cause be hear by the Lord chancellor when his lordship order  that a state of a case shall be draw up and agree to by both party upon the  several plead proof and evidence in the cause and if they can not agree upon  the case that the same shall be state by one of the master of the court and  that the case so state shall be send to the court of king bench brown er p in  Ireland in order to have the opinion of that court whether the lease of the d  of September from the corporation of Drogheda to Christopher Pippard decease  be a valid lease or not a case be accord prepare state the several material  fact already state and be several time argue by counsel and on the that of may  the court give their opinion as follow we have hear the counsel for the party  in this cause and be of opinion that the lease bear date the d day of  September in the within case mention and make by the corporation of Drogheda  to Christopher Pippard be valid and good sir George Caulfield Michael ware  Arthur Blenerhasset upon this certificate the cause come on again to be hear  before the chancellor on the d of November who not be satisfy with the opinion  of the court of king bench direct the case to be argue before himself and  after several day argument and time take to consider his lordship on the rd of  February be please to declare that the respondent be entitle to and shall be  put into the possession of the land and premise in the plead mention and refer  it to the master to take a account in the original cause of what the appellant  make or without wilful default may have make of the say land and premise since  the determination of the first lease and also a account of the valuable and  last improvement by he make upon the premise reserve further direction until  after the master report and order the cross bill to be dismiss with cost the  appellant conceive this decree to be erroneous appeal from it insist c Pratt c  York that the reversionary lease be in its creation agreeable to the strict  rule of law the judgement obtain upon the quo warranto against the ancient  corporation be a judgement of seizure and ouster of their liberty and  franchise and the corporation be by such judgement divest of all their power  and liberty can exist no long that the new corporation be legal create by the  new charter and consequent all act do by they be valid for the person appoint  under the new charter be a corporate body and domini pro tempore and have a  right to make lease that the lease in question be make without fraud or  imposition and for a valuable consideration the covenant and annual reserve  rend be alone sufficient even if no fine have be pay and at the old accustom  rend and it be make by a corporation which be then a good brown corporation in  law as well as in fact and absolute owner of the reversion at the time when it  be grant the revenue of the corporation be not hurt by it the fine at the time  it be pay with the subsequent interest accrue during a space of fifty year and  upward be equivalent to the fine pay upon the original lease that the statute  of William and mary have nothing in contemplation but to repair and remedy the  arbitrary act of the late king James two to avoid the innovation introduce by  he and to restore the political constitution of that and other corporation in  Ireland to their former state but can not have any design to affect private  property by retrospective law ex post facto much less to rescind all the  private contract make by the corporation whether for their own benefit or the  benefit of those who have contract with they though make fair and for good  consideration and to the benefit of which the party be well entitle at the  time when the act of parliament be make that this construction be agreeable to  the title of the act which be express make for the relief of the king  protestant subject because the office of power in corporation be get into the  hand of papist and then the act restore they to the same state and condition  to all intent construction and purpose all proceed judgement etcetera  notwithstanding so that the act evident relate to their political state only  without indicate the least intention to affect private right derive under  intermediate conveyance that the validity of the lease in question have be  solemnly determine by the opinion of a court of law which be of the great  weight in a mere legal question and therefore the bill of the corporation  ought to have be dismiss and as to the cross bill it be mere a bill for  discovery of evidence and not for relief as appear from the whole scope of it  whatever irregularity there may be in bring it on to a hear the court of  chancery can not raise or assume a jurisdiction from a bill thus circumstance  in a matter which be confess of legal cognizance beside the behaviour of the  corporation in suppress the lease of and then question its very brown er p  existence though at the same time regular enter in their own book and the  practice of the court below in not receive any deed though of ever so ancient  a date without proof create the necessity for the cross bill in point of  discovery that the account of improvement ought not to have be restrain to  those make by the appellant only but shall have be extend to all improvement  general and particular to those make by his father and brother who both die  but a short time before the expiration of the first lease agreeable to the  proof in the cause and the rather as no improvement can be allow under the  decree but such as fall within the description of last and valuable  improvement of which the corporation will have the benefit and therefore it be  hope that the decree will be reverse and the original bill dismiss with cost  on the part of the respondent it be contend e starke a forester that the case  make by the consent of all party for the opinion of the court brown of king  bench reduce the question to this single point videlicet whether the  revervisionary lease be good or not for the determination whereof the  judgement on the information in the nature of a quo warranto the new charter  of king James two and the act of king William and queen mary must be  considered As to the first the ancient writ of quo warranto be the king writ  of right for franchise and liberty wherein judgement be give either of ouster  or allowance of they and in some instance seizure but the information in  nature of a quo warranto be proper a criminal proceed for punish the usurper  by fine and the legality of give judgement of ouster therein be doubt till the  statute Ann cap the information against the corporation of Drogheda in the  reign of James two like many other of that time be a most unjust proceed  without any legal ground and calculate only for take the power and possession  of the corporation out of the hand of the then lawful protestant member of  that body and place they in the band of papist the judgement of seizure give  on that information be erroneous and short of the intend purpose because  notwithstanding that judgement the corporation be not dissolve but still leave  subsist and such be plain the opinion even of those time by their afterward  procure a surrender of the old charter which surrender however not be matter  of record in which way alone the crown can take be absolute null and void As  to the charter of James two it be not at all a confirmatory charter but grant  upon a supposition of the old corporation be go and extinguish by the  judgement of seizure therein recite it create a new corporate body by express  word One novum corpus corporat and constitute new and different person from  those of the old corporation to be mayor sheriff and burgess of the new  corporate body and as the old corporate body still subsist this new charter be  void but whether the old corporation subsist or not yet none of the land  belong to the old corporation be vest in the new one for if the old  corporation subsist their land remain in they or if by the judgement of  seizure they be forfeit to king James they remain in the crown at the time of  the new charter no grant be make thereof by that charter or otherwise to the  new corporation and consequent the new corporation have no power of dispose of  the old corporation estate by lease or otherwise the lease in question be  therefore void in its creation as be make by a body who have no sort of power  to grant it and be a reversionary lease make when there be a former one  subsist for above fifty year to come it be a unnecessary act at least but when  consider that it be make to their own Popish alderman act under the new  charter it appear to be no better than a job in favour of one of their own  party if however any doubt can remain as to the invalidity of this lease it be  effectual clear by the act of William and mary which restore the old body  corporate to the same state and condition to all intent and purpose brown  whatsoever as they be in on the that of June the proceed on the information in  the nature of a quo warranto the judgement of seizure thereon the surrender of  the old charter the grant of the new charter or other act or act since that  time notwithstanding all which proceed etcetera be declare to be null and void  to all intent and purpose whatsoever so that the new charter be void the lease  in question make by virtue of it and by new officer appoint under it must be  void also and the dispose of the old corporation land by the new body be no  less a injury than the divest they of their franchise the intent of the act be  clear to restore the old corpora brown er p cion to both that the reversionary  lease be declare void the account of rend and profit decree since the  expiration of the former lease be of course but the allowance order the  appellant for improvement be more than he seem entitle to upon all the  circumstance of the case and though that be acquiesce in with respect to his  own improvement there be no sort of reason for carry it back to those make by  his father and brother half a century ago and of which they have ever since  have the benefit while the corporation have receive only a very small rend the  father at least if not both the son be too well acquaint with the invalidity  of the reversionary lease to have make improvement on the faith of it that the  appellant objection to the respondent sue in a court of equity be waive by his  fill a cross bill and come too late after his acquiescence under the first  decree the corporation be well find in a equitable suit the legal estate not  be in they but in trustee and the appellant hold over his term in breach of  the trust between landlord and tenant well warrant the court of chancery in  entertain the suit the dismission also of the cross bill with cost be right as  it be bring without occasion or the least merit to support it it be therefore  hope that the decree will be affirm on the day appoint for hear this appeal  the counsel be call in and direct in the first place to speak to this point  videlicet whether a information in the nature of a quo warranto will lie in  the court of exchequer and have be hear thereon and the judgement give by the  court of exchequer in Ireland in the year upon a information in the nature of  a quo warranto bring against the corporation of Drogheda be read it be declare  that the say judgement be a void judgement the counsel be acquaint with this  determination be then hear as to the account direct to be take by the decree  and after due consideration of what be offer on either side it be order and  adjudge that the appeal shall be dismiss and the decree therein complain of  affirm jour vol p