Armstrong v Armstrong

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 November 1866
• Date: 02 November 1866
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

ARMSTRONG

and

ARMSTRONG.

Montgomery v. Mayne 7 Ir. Jur. 284.

Cassan v. CarrUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 577.

Carey v. BrowneUNK 4 Ir. Ch. Rep. 210.

132 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1866. Rolls. ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG. Nov. 2. (In the Rolls.) THE cause petition in this matter was filed on the 9th of March 1866. The respondent filed his affidavit in answer on the 12th of , April 1866. On the 10th of May 1866 an order was made giving the petitioner time to file affidavits in reply until the 1st of July. On the 30th of June affidavits were filed by the petitioner, and he set down the cause on the 2nd of July. On the 5th of July the respondent served notice cautioning the petitioner against proceedÂing to hear the cause, as it had been set down irregularly. Mr. Finch White moved that the petitioner might be at liberty to set down the cause for hearing, although two Terms had elapsed since the answer was filed ; and that if necessary the cause might be reinstated : he cited Montgomery v. Mayne (a). Mr. Lawson and Mr. Samuel Walker, for the respondent, relied on Cassan v. Carr (b) and Carey v. Browne (c) as establishing that a special ground must be shown to support an application to reinstate a cause petition. No affidavit had been filed in support of the motion, and the application was grounded on the order of the 10th of May alone. That order afforded no reason for reinstating, for the petition was not dismissed until the 12th of June. The petitioner, therefore, had more than a month to file his affidavits in reply ; and if that was not sufficient, there•was nothing in the present practice of the Court of Chancery to prevent him from setting down the cause on the 12th of June, and filing the affidavits afterwards. Judgment. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS (the Right Hon. T. E. Walsh) said that it was not quite clear that the cause petition was dis (a) 7 Ir. Jur. 284. (b) 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 577. (c) 4 Ir. Ch, Rep. 210. CHANCERY REPORTS. 133 missed; but if it was, he had no doubt that it should be reinstated. 1866. Rolls. In Carey v. Browne there was no order giving time to file affidavits. His Honor thought that the proper order to make on ARMSTRONG v. the motion was an order similar to that made in Montgomery v. ARMSTRONG. Mayne. Judgment. It is ordered by the Right Honorable the MASTER OF THE Order. ROLLS, that the cause petition in this matter be reinstated, and that the time for setting down the same be and is hereby extended to the first day of next Hilary...