Attorney General (Fahy) v Bruen
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11/55/36.) |
| Date | 20 October 1936 |
[S. C., I.F.S.]
[H. C., I.F.S.]
Attorney-General (Fahy)
and
Bruen
Munster and Leinster Bank, Ltd.
and
O'Shea, Mayer and Another
Procedure continued in force by Courts of Justice Act, 1924 - Appeal from decision of High Court thereon - Appeal given by Art. 66 of the Constitution - Case stated under s. 83 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 -No appeal from decision of High Court thereon -Consultative case stated before determination by District Justice - Summary Jurisdiction Act,1857 (20 21 Vict., c. 43), s. 6 - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát ireann) Act,1922, Sch. I, Art. 66 - Courts of Justice Act,1924, s. 83.
Government stock - Subsequent order to pay made ex parte -Common Law Procedure Act, 1853, ss. 132, 133 -R.S.C. 1905, Or. XLVI, r. 1.
The Supreme Court held as follows: —The former type of case stated, provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, has been continued in force by the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
15 cases
-
State (Browne) v Feran
...there was no relevant restriction. Warner v. Minister for Industry and CommerceIR [1929] I.R. 582 and Attorney-General (Fahy) v. BruenIR [1936] I.R. 750 approved. The State (Burke) v. LennonIR [1940] I.R. 136 not applied. 2. That the appeal should be dismissed as the conviction and order of......
-
A.B. v Minister for Justice
...Appeals Authority, Ireland and the Attorney General Respondents Cases mentioned in this report:- Attorney General (Fahy) v. Bruen [1936] I.R. 750; (1936) 70 I.L.T.R. 247. Attorney-General v. Murray (No. 2) [1926] I.R. 300; (1925) 59 I.L.T.R. 112. Brady v. Donegal County Council [1989] I.L.R......
-
Minister for Justice v Wang Zhu Jie
...Garda Brendan Clarke) Complainant and Wang Zhu Jie Defendant Cases mentioned in this report:— The Attorney General (Fahy) v. Bruen [1936] I.R. 750; (1936) 70 I.L.T.R. 247. B. v. B. [1975] I.R. 54. Beecham Group Ltd. v. Bristol Myers Co. [1983] I.R. 325; [1983] I.L.R.M. 500. Campus Oil Ltd. ......
-
People v O'Shea
...Court of Saorstat Eireann followed its decision in the Warner case in In re Domville's Estate 1930 I.R. 640 and in A.G.(Fahy) v. Breen 1936 I.R. 750 while this Court affirmed its conclusion in the Feran case in the subsequent cases of In bonis Morelli; Vella v. Morelli 1968 I.R. 11 and T......
Get Started for Free