Busby v Seymour

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1844
• Date: 29 June 1844
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

BUSBY

and

SEYMOUR.

May v. Selby 1 Y. & Col. 235.

Putnam v. BatesENR 3 Russ. 188.

Vickers v. Oliver 1 Y. & Col. 219.

Lyster v. BurroughsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 149.

Vickers v. Olivers Ubi supra.

Johnston v. ComptonENR 4 Sim. 37.

SimonENR Johnston v. Compton, 4 Sim. 37.

CASES IN EQUITY. 433 BUSBY v. SEYMOUR. PATRICK SANDFORD and Margaret his wife filed a bill in July 1823, for an account of the personal estate of James Lennon, the father of the plaintiff Margaret. A decree to account was pronounced in that cause in 1824, under which the Master made his report ; and a final decree was made in June 1835. Further inquiries were directed in 1836, and on the report made thereunder the cause came again before the Lord Chancellor in January 1841. The facts of the case and the Chancellor's decision are reported, ante, vol. 3, p. 212. Patrick Sandford became a bankrupt, and in 1843 Busby, his assignee, filed the bill in this cause against Thomas Seymour, junior (who was heirÂat-law as well as executor of his father), and others, on behalf of himself and the other creditors of Thomas Seymour, senior, praying for the benefit of the former suit, and that the decree of 1841 might be carried into execution, and that it might be declared that the plaintiff and the other simple contract creditors of Thomas Seymour were entitled to stand in the place of his judgment and specialty creditors who had been paid out of his personal estate, and have satisfaction out of the real estate of Thomas Seymour, senior, for so much of their debts as the personal estate should be insufficient to answer, by reason of the same having been applied in payment of judgment or specialty debts. Thomas Seymour, senior, died in 1805, and the defendant Thomas Seymour among other defences relied on the Statute of Limitations. Mr. Moore, Mr. Pigot and Mr. Maley, for the plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant Warren, Mr. W. Brooke and Mr. Battersby, for the defendant. The bill filed in 1823 was not filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the other creditors, and did not pray any account of the real estate. The decree, therefore, was against the personal estate only ; .May v. Selby (a). No claim was made against the real estate until 1843, but the claim was then barred by the Statute of Limitations. The proceedÂings against the personal estate will not save the right against the real estate ; Putnam v. Bates (b). The Court will not marshall the assets unless the bill was originally framed...