Barrett and Wife v Birmingham and Others Barrett and Wife v Mahon and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1839
• Date: 08 July 1839
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Barrett and wife

and

Birmingham and others.

Barrett and wife

and

Mahon and others.

CASES

IN THE

COURTS OF CHANCERY, ROLLS, AND

EQUITY EXCHEQUER.

CHANCERY.

COSTS OF BRINGING PUISNE JUDGMENT CREDITORS BEFORE THE COURT — SUPPLEMENTAL BILL — DECREE ON BILL TAKEN PRO CONFESSO.

This was a supplemental suit, instituted to bring certain puisne judgment creditors before the court, for the purpose of clearing the title to the lands sold under the decree in the original cause. It now came on to be heard upon bill and answer as to the defendant Mahon, and an order to take the bill pro confesso as to the others.

The supplemental bill stated, that the original bill was filed to raise the amount of certain sums charged in, and prior to, the year 1784, upon the lands in the pleadings mentioned; and that the cause was heard upon report and merits, in June 1832, when there was the usual final decree for a sale. That several supplemental proceedings having become necessary, in consequence of the insolvency of the inheritor, and the death of parties, the sale under the decree did not take place until the 1st of August, 1837; when the lands were sold to several purchasers for the aggregate sum of £4346, which was considerably less than the amount of the sums decreed. That the title to the lands having been approved, subject to the usual searches, it was found that several judgments against the inheritor, long puisne to the demands decreed, were unsatisfied upon record—and, among others, a judgment obtained in trinity 1816, for the sum of £499, and subsequently assigned to the defendants R. Boyd and Charles O'Malley; a judgment obtained by the defendant C. O'Malley, in Michaelmas 1826, for the sum of £109; a judgment obtained by the defendant J. Bermingham, in Trinity 1818, for the sum of £1000; a judgment obtained by the defendant Ulick Waldron, in Trinity 1826, for £132; a judgment obtained in Michaelmas 1812, for £564. 4s. 10d., by one J. Barry, and subsequently assigned to the defendant N. Mahon. That the purchasers having assigned the existence of these judgments as objections to the title, the plaintiffs, in order to save expense, caused to be served on the several puisne judgment creditors, except U. Waldron, whose residence could not be discovered, notices in writing, requiring them respectively to state to the plaintiffs, or their solicitor, by notice in writing, whether they were willing to satisfy the said judgments, so vested in them respectively as aforesaid, at the cost and expense of the party or parties requiring same; or at the like costs to release, &c.; or to join in the conveyance to the purchaser, upon having reasonable and proper evidence adduced to them respectively of the existence of the prior incumbrances, and the insufficiency of the funds to meet the same; or whether it would be necessary to file a supplemental bill, &c. &c.; and giving them notice, that in the event of their refusing either to satisfy the judgment or release the lands, or to join in conveyance to the purchasers, the notice would be used to oppose the allowance of their costs in the supplemental suit, and to charge them with the costs to be incurred by the plaintiffs.* That several of the judgment creditors, on whom the said notice was served, had, in compliance therewith, signified their willingness to release the said lands from all demands in respect of the judgments vested in them; but that the said N. Mahon, assignee, &c., the said Charles O'Malley and Robert Boyd, assignees, &c., the said Charles O'Malley...