case Cordelia PENDRED and others Appellants james carol Griffith and  another Respondents saint may Mews dig seven viii where a lessee wilful  conceal the death of any of the beneficiary and vie and act under such  concealment for his own advantage the lessor be not oblige to renew but may  take advantage of the forfeiture and enter upon and hold the estate sir  Maurice Eustace be mortgagee in possession of the lord of Baltinglass in the  county of Wicklow take upon he to make lease of the estate and by indenture  date the that of April he demise the land of Ballynure part of the say  lordship contain by estimation acre to Joseph Parrott and his heir for the  life of Peter Parrott his son and Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield two of  his grandson at the yearly rend of pound with a clause of renewal for ever  upon the determination of any and every life then and thereafter to be insert  at the nomination of the lessee upon payment of pound as a fine for each life  so to be insert and it be thereby provide that if such nomination and payment  be not make from time to time within the space of six month after the death of  any and every of the say person then it shall and may be lawful to and for the  say sir Maurice Eustace his heir and assign into the say demise premise to  reenter and the same to have again repossess and enjoy as in his and their  former estate James carol esquire the respondent James grandfather have a  right to the equity of redemption of the premise in Trinity term prefer his  bill in the court of chancery in Ireland against sir Maurice Eustace for a  redemption which be accord decree but the lease to Parrott be confirm and this  decree be on the saint of march affirm upon a appeal to the house of lord jour  vol p Joseph Parrott the original lessee let out several parcel of the land to  undertenants for the same life but at a advance rend particular he demise one  parcel contain about acre to Richard clarke at a rend of pound per and brown  er p and a fine of pound upon the renewal of every life he afterward by lease  and release date the saint and d of July mortgage his lease for pound to  Morley sander esquire doctor of law then prime sergeant and father of the  appellant Cordelia Pendred and in the brown same year he convey his equity of  redemption to dr sander for pound reserve to himself acre which he be to hold  of dr sander at the rend of a pepper corn and which also be afterward purchase  from he by dr sander who likewise buy in the several interest of Joseph parrot  lessee except that of Richard clarke the right of James carol to the estate  subject to parrot lease be settle by the decree of the court of chancery and  the judgement of the house of lord and parrot interest be vest in dr sander by  the several assignment above mention and Peter Parrott a beneficiary and vie  in the lease be dead James carol by indenture date the saint of November  recite the former lease in consideration of pound be the fine Payable by the  former lease and the interest thereof since the death of the beneficiary and  vie demise the say land of Ballynure to Elias crips in trust for dr sander for  the life of Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield the two survive life in the  former lease and of Richard clarke reserve the same rend and accates and with  the same covenant as be contain in the former lease and dr sander by indenture  date the that of December renew the lease to the say Richard clarke for the  same life and describe in the same manner at the rend of pound and a fine of  pound James carol in April make a mortgage of his estate to dr Duncan come in  fee for pound and by his will date the that of November he devise all his  estate in the say land to the say dr Duncan come and Caleb Thomas in trust for  the issue male or female of his own body if he shall leave any and for want of  such issue then to the use of his grandson the respondent James carol Griffith  and the heir of his body and in the testator die without issue and without  alter or revoke his will whereby the estate subject to the say mortgage vest  in the respondent Griffith who be then a infant of about five year old and do  not attain his full age till the year during all this time dr sander never  apply for the renewal of his lease pretend he be not inform nor ever inquire  whether Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield the beneficiary and vie in the  original lease be live or dead and yet in this interval he renew the lease of  his under tenant and take fine upon insert new life which he allege be do  rather to oblige the tenant than because it be any way necessary accord on the  that of September he renew the lease to Richard clarke for the follow life  videlicet the life of Joshua Parrott describe he by the name of Joshua Parrott  son of Joshua Parrott late of Ballynure the life of John Winnett who name be  insert in the place of Thomas Litchfield and for which a fine of pound be pay  and the life of the say Richard clarke there be one Joshua Parrott then live  in the neighbourhood of the estate who be the son of Joshua Parrott the real  brown beneficiary and vie in the original lease and grandson of Joseph Parrott  the first lessee but no reason can be assign why the description of the  beneficiary and vie in the original lease who be therein call Joshua the  grandson of Joseph shall be vary in the renew lease and he shall be therein  style Joshua the son of Joshua Parrott unless it be do with a view that from  the identity of the name of both these person and of their father and family  and place of abode in which description both of they exact agree and by leave  out of this and all future renewal the distinction of his be the grandson of  Joseph which be the circumstance in which they differ a reputation and belief  may be gain among the under tenant and neighbourhood that Joshua Parrott  mention in the renew lease be the real and original beneficiary and vie and  that the respondent Griffith who be then a infant and his trustee who be  entire stranger to all the transaction relate to the original or renew lease  may afterward be impose upon and induce to believe the same thing and accord  in all the lease afterward make of that part of the estate either by dr sander  or by Richard clarke Joshua Parrott be always describe as the son of Joshua  Parrott and not as the grandson of Joseph Parrott the respondent Griffith  attain his age in and soon after pay off dr brown er p Cumings mortgage and  have it assign to the respondent Edward in trust for he Richard clarke one of  the beneficiary and vie in dr sander lease and a lessee of part of the premise  under dr sander die on the that of January have make his will whereby he  devise his interest in the premise to his nephew George Alcock who be thereby  entitle to Mr clarke lease apply to dr sander for a renewal and accord on the  that of April dr sander receive a fine of pound and grant a new lease for the  life of Joshua Parrott the son of Joshua Parrott John Winnett and the say  George Alcock who life be insert in the place of the decease Richard clarke  although dr sander renew the lease and receive the fine of his undertenant  Alcock in about two month after the death of clarke the beneficiary and vie  yet it be near three year before he apply to the respondent Griffith for a  renewal or give he any notice of clarke death but on the that of February he  write a letter inform he that Mr clarke be dead and desire a meeting to be  appoint for renew the lease and pay the fine and in his letter name George  Alcock as the life to be substitute in the place of Mr Clayke upon the receipt  of this letter the respondent go with Mr Anderson his attorney to dr sander  house in Dublin when he propose to renew the lease and pay the fine for insert  the name of George Alcock in the place of Richard clarke and offer a banker  note as a tender of the money and the respondent inquire how long clarke have  be brown dead dr sander answer that clarke have be dead about twelve or  thirteen month but that he be Willing to pay interest for the fine from the  time the lease ought to have be renew and upon further discourse the  respondent or his agent mention that they have some information that Joshua  Parrott the beneficiary and vie in the original lease be dead and have inquire  whether Thomas Litchfield the other beneficiary and vie be live or not dr  sander declare that the say Parrott be still live and say he be a poor old man  and that about three week or a month before he have see he and give he a piece  of money he also affirm that Thomas Litchfield be alive and be at that time in  the country and the doctor then insist upon the tender which he have make or  that the respondent shall go to the banker who will pay down the money the  respondent and his agent trust to the doctor be affirmation that clarke have  be dead no more than twelve or thirteen month and that Thomas Litchfield and  Joshua Parrott be both live declare they will admit the bank note as a  sufficient tender and will not take advantage of the lapse of time since the  decease of clarke provide dr sander make it appear that Parrott and Litchfield  the other beneficiary and vie be still live but dr sander pretend he be soon  to go out of town and that his attorney be at that time in the country it be  agree to put off the far consideration of the affair to the next easter term  during this interval the respondent find that Richard clarke have be dead  about three year and that dr sander have renew the lease to clarke executor  near three year before their last meeting this manifest attempt to impose upon  the respondent put he upon a more strict enquiry after the other life and at  last he discover that Joshua Parrott who pass in the neighbourhood for the  beneficiary and vie in the lease and to who dr sander pretend he have give a  piece of money be great grandson and not the grandson of Joseph Parrott name  in the lease of and and be at the time of this enquiry about thirty year old  he also find that Joshua Parrott the grandson of Joseph and Thomas Litchfield  the two real beneficiary and vie have be soldier in the service of queen  whether and that it be the general reputation that the say Joshua Parrott be  kill at the siege of Mercia in the year or and be never hear of afterward and  that Thomas Litchfield have die on shipboard in his voyage from the siege of  Barcelona in or about the same year and that his widow have be marry above  twenty year to a second husband upon these discovery it appear that dr sander  have be guilty of great misrepresentation and concealment of the truth with a  design to impose upon the respondent he decline all further meeting and give  he to understand that he shall not renew the lease which he insist be absolute  determine upon the death of Richard clarke dr sander therefore in Trinity term  file a bill in the court of exchequer in Ireland against the respondent and  Francis brown Anderson his brown er p attorney who attend at the meeting above  mention and against the representative of dr Duncan come the mortgagee who die  sometime before and set forth that he have be inform in the year of the death  of Richard clarke and have on the that of February inform the respondent  thereof and tender a fine to he for insert the name of George Alcock in the  room of Richard clarke that the respondent have promise to renew the lease  upon receive the fine with interest from six month after the death of Richard  clarke which he state by his bill to have happen about January and he also  suggest that Joshua Parrott and Thomas Litchfield the two life mention in the  lease of and be still live but as they have be a great number of year out of  the kingdom and not hear of he be Willing to admit they to be dead and to  submit to pay fine for these life and to pay a fine for every seven year for  each life respective from the time that these person be respective repute dead  with interest for each respective fine from the time that it ought to have be  pay and therefore pray that the respondent may be compel to renew the lease  for the life of George Alcock James Carthy and John Winnet with the  reservation and provision contain in the original lease the respondent in the  same term bring a ejectment for the land on a double demise videlicet of  himself and the respondent Edward as the assignee of dr Cumings mortgage on  the that of may the respondent put in his answer to dr sander bill and admit  the application make to he in February for a renewal and the tender of a fine  and set forth the conversation have with dr sander on that occasion in the  manner above mention and admit the promise not to take advantage of the lapse  of time since clarke decease under the proviso and restriction before state  but he rely on the legal determination of the lease and insist on dr  Saunderess misrepresentation of the time of clarke death his conceal the death  of Litchfield and Parrott and his vary the description of Joshua Parrott in  the lease to his under tenant so as to make it tally with a person then in be  and thereby induce a belief of his be the original beneficiary and vie as so  many fraudulent act and for which reason he ought not to have any assistance  or relief in a court of equity dr sander afterward amend his bill set forth  the proceed on the ejectment and make the respondent Edward a party and pray a  injunction which the court grant till the hear of the cause on his pay the  rend and arrear then due and on his enter into a recognizance to be  Accountable for the mesne profit of the land from the death of Richard clarke  subject to the further order of the court the respondent carol put in his  answer to the amend bill and in easter term file a cross bill against dr  sander and his under lessee the tenant of the land wherein he set brown forth  the death of all the beneficiary and vie in dr sander lease and charge the  several fraudulent practice above mention to conceal or misrepresent the time  of their death and pray that the defendant sander may account for the rend and  arrear to the death of Richard clarke and for the mesne profit from that time  or for what he may have make thereof without his wilful default dr sander put  in a answer to this bill and admit that he have renew the lease to Richard  clarke in and have receive a fine for insert the name of John Winnett in the  place of Thomas Litchfield and yet pretend he have no reason to believe that  Thomas Litchfield be dead he also admit that he may have say at the meeting  with the respondent carol and his agent in February that Thomas Litchfield be  alive and in the country but say he know nothing of he or where to inquire  about he he admit that Joshua Parrott the son of Joshua Parrott be name as a  beneficiary and vie in the lease which he make to Richard clarke and George  Alcock but pretend it be by the mistake of the clerk who ingross the deed and  not with any fraudulent view he also admit that he tell the respondent at the  meeting in February that Joshua Parrott the original beneficiary and vie be  alive and live in the neighbourhood of the estate that he have late see he and  give he a piece of money and that he be a poor old man but say that he  afterward find himself mistake and that the brown er p person he mean be not  the beneficiary and vie and that he seem to he to be a middle age man or  somewhat advance in year issue be join in both cause and several witness  examine in the original cause and publication pass both cause come on to be  hear together on the that that and that of November when it be order and  decree that the original bill of dr Morley sander shall be dismiss with cost  and that the injunction shall be dissolve and that the cross bill shall be  retain until after a trial at law shall he have on the ejectment bring by the  respondent for the recovery of the premise and the respondent be thereby at  liberty to enrol the say decree with cost which be accord do on the that of  April and before a trial can he have on the ejectment dr sander die leave the  appellant Cordelia then the wife of George Pendred esquire his only issue and  heir at law but before his death he make his will date the that of April and  thereby devise the residue of all his real and personal estate except some  particular estate not comprise in the say lease which be by the will devise to  Frances his wife for her jointure to the appellant John hawkshaw Isaac dobson  esquire and Thomas Medlicott gentle and their heir in trust for the payment of  his debt and then in trust to permit the appellant Cordelia to receive the  profit to heir separate use during her life and after her death in trust for  the appellant Morley Pendred old son of the appellant Cordelia and the heir of  his brown body with several remainder over and appoint the say John hawkshaw  Frances sander and Thomas Medlicott executor of his will who prove the same  and take upon they the execution of the trust the ejectment bring by the  respondent in have abate by the death of dr sander the respondent as of easter  term bring a new ejectment in the name of Samuel cook lessee of both the  respondent to which the say Medlicott and the appellant hawkshaw make their  defence and the same have be try at Wicklow at the summer assize and the say  Medlicott and the appellant hawkshaw not offer any evidence whatsoever to show  that any of the life be in be the respondent Griffith obtain a verdict but by  mistake in the declaration as to the time of lie the demise he get a verdict  only for three four of the say land the demise be lie before one of the coheir  of dr come have assign to the respondent Edward and the respondent have obtain  judgement on this verdict Medlicott and the appellant hawkshaw bring a writ of  error in the exchequer Chamber to stay execution the respondent therefore in  easter term bring a new ejectment on his own demise for the whole land to  which Medlicott and the appellant hawkshaw make defence and the respondent  obtain a verdict at the then next assize and in Michaelmas term follow enter  up judgement thereon whereupon Medlicott and the appellant hawkshaw bring  another writ of error which they afterward withdraw so that the respondent be  by to have facias possession put into possession of the premise on the d of  April the cross cause have be duly revive come on to be hear upon the that of  June when it be decree that it shall be refer to the chief remembrancer or his  deputy to state a account between the respondent and the executor of dr sander  of the rend accates and duty of the premise accord to the rend reserve by the  lease make by James carol to the say dr sander until the death of the say  Richard clarke and it be also order that the say Thomas Medlicott Frances  sander and the appellant hawkshaw executor of dr sander shall account with the  respondent for what they or their testator make or may have make without his  or their wilful default out of the premise from the death of Richard clarke  till the respondent be put in possession from these decree the present appeal  be bring and on behalf of the appellant it be insist d rider t clarke that no  proof have be make of any fraud or design misrepresentation in dr sander or  that he have any notice of the death either of Parrott or Litchfield at the  time of his application for a renewal that it be impossible from the evidence  to fix when dr sander ought to have demand a renewal so as to save his lease  unless the exact point of time can be ascertain when the presumption of their  be alive cease and of their be dead begin and brown consequent there be no  proof of a breach of the brown er p covenant for renewal by any lapse of time  if it be to be suppose that Parrott and Litchfield be dead in the war before  the lease grant by the respondent ancestor to dr sander it be the fault of the  lessor to grant such a lease but if it be to be presume that they be then live  not the least evidence have be offer of their death but only of their long  absence and it will be of very fatal consequence to lessee of this kind who be  very numerous in Ireland to be oblige upon pain of forfeit their lease to make  application to renew before they have notice of the death of their beneficiary  and vie especial as it be in the power of the landlord by the Irish statute of  will c to call upon his lessee after seven year absence of a nominee or  beneficiary and vie and oblige he to prove he to be live but suppose dr sander  to have be guilty of any neglect or delay in this case it be the constant  practice of court of equity to relieve against a lapse of time in the  performance of covenant or condition where as in the present case a  compensation can be make for the delay and more especial where such lapse of  time have happen by mistake or accident and where the injury arise from a  refusal of relief will be irreparable by lose the estate itself and all the  improvement make upon it in confidence of a continuance of the lease on the  other side it be contend W Murray I brown that the lease be determine and the  time for renewal long since elapse and dr sander have decline all application  to add any new life till near three year after the decease of the survive  beneficiary and vie there be no foundation to relieve against the lapse of  time even suppose it to have happen from a innocent neglect because it be a  essential part of the agreement that the new life shall be name within the  limit time and be insert for this particular purpose that the lessor may from  thenceforth have his chance of a new fine by the death of the new beneficiary  and vie and therefore a court of equity can not dispense with the lessee  neglect of nomination without destroy a substantial part of the contract and  deprive the lessor of a beneficial chance for which the court can not give a  compensation that dr sander appear from a variety of circumstance to have act  a very unfair part not only by change the description of one of the  beneficiary and vie but also in attempt by concealment and misrepresentation  of the truth to ensnare the respondent into a renewal for it be in proof that  upon the treaty in February in Dublin and upon the respondent desire to know  how long clarke have be dead dr sander affirm that he have be dead only about  thirteen or fourteen month though he know that clarke have be dead near three  year and though he have actual on the that of April renew a lease with George  Alcock who be clarke devisee and when the respondent at the same time inquire  what be become of Thomas Litchfield one of the original beneficiary and vie dr  sander false affirm that he be in the country though in the year brown he have  renew a under lease for the life of John Winnett in the room of Litchfield and  take pound for it which be the full fine for add a new life and as to Joshua  Parrott the other original beneficiary and vie who description be vary in the  renew lease as before mention the respondent have some suspicion of his death  particular inquire of dr sander during the treaty if he be then live to which  the doctor affirm and repeat the affirmation that Joshua Parrott the  beneficiary and vie in the lease be alive and have be with he about three week  or a month before and be a poor old man to who he have give a piece of money  all which now appear to be a manifest untruth as to the pretence that the  description of this man be vary by the mistake of the engross clerk there be  not the least proof or even a probability of it for there be nothing that can  mislead the person who draw or ingross the new lease it be natural the  practice to follow the description of the old lease and not to form new and  different one it be therefore hope that after so long a acquiescence under the  decree of November for dismission of the original bill and after the trial of  two ejectment and verdict obtain in both the decree will be affirm and the  appeal dismiss with exemplary cost accord after hear counsel on this appeal it  be order and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the decree therein  complain of affirm and it be further order that the appellant shall pay to the  respondent pound for their cost in respect of the say appeal jour vol p brown  er p