Bank of Ireland v Connell and Others

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date25 February 1942
Date25 February 1942
(S.C.),
Bank of Ireland
and
Connell and Others

Summary summons -Special indorsement - Guarantee - Necessity for pleading demand for payment - Whether demand a part of cause of action or condition precedent -Whether must be for specific sum - Wrong demand pleaded - Amendment of pleading when Statutes of Limitations involved - Conditions precedent implied in pleading - Rules of Supreme Court (Ir.), 1905, Or. III, r. 6; Or. XIX, r. 4; Or. XIX, r. 15; Or. XXVIII, r. 1 - Rules of High Court and Supreme Court, 1926, Or. IV, r. 2.

By a contract of guarantee made between the plaintiff bank and the three defendants, the defendants guaranteed the payment of all the debts of J. C. up to a sum of £3,500, with costs, charges and interest from the date of demand; the defendants undertook to make due payment two days after demand (in writing) was made on them. On 21st November, 1934, the bank's agent wrote to the defendants as follows: "As instructed by head-office, I herewith demand payment from you of your liability on foot of your joint and several letter of guarantee for £3,500 for J. C.'s account." By previous correspondence the defendants had been informed that their liability on foot of the guarantee was £3,500. By letter of 4th April, 1940, the bank demanded "payment of the sum of £3,500, being the amount of your letter of guarantee to the bank for the liabilities of J. C.together with interest on the said sum from this date at 5 per cent. per annum." The money not having been paid, the bank issued a summary summons claiming the sum of £3,571 17s. 2d., the indorsement stating that the sum guaranteed was duly demanded by letter of demand, dated 4th April, 1940. Two of the defendants allowed judgment to go by default but the third defended the action. Gavan Duffy J. dismissed the action, holding that an effective demand had been made on 21st November, 1934, and that the demand made in 1940 was not a good demand, and he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Duffy v Clare County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 November 2016
    ...inWeldon v. Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394, echoed in the prominent 20th century decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland v. Connell [1942] I.R. 1, and of continuing vitality in the 21st. V. Conclusion 12 For the reasons identified above, the court concludes that (1) the within application ......
  • Croke v Waterford Crystal Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 7 July 2005
    ...... plaintiff and appellant has inserted the following "Walter Croke & Others, Plaintiffs/Appellants". As this case is one of a large batch of similar ......
  • Royal Bank of Ireland Ltd v O'Rourke
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1963
    ...... The cheques, together with others drawn on the National Bank, was handed over to the representative of that Bank at approximately 10.30 a.m. The Dun Laoghaire branch of the plaintiff ......
  • Allied Irish Banks Plc v Doran
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 January 2018
    ......Writing in this regard, Breslin, J. in Banking Law in Ireland, 3rd ed., observes, inter alia , as follows, at 580-1: 'It need ...Parr [1892] 2 Q.B. 14 , Caulfield v. Bolger [1927] I.R. 117 , Bank of Ireland v. Connell [1942] 1 I.R. 1 , Stacey and Harding Ltd v. O'Callaghan [1958] I.R. 320 , Bond v. Holton ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT