Carroll v Scully

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1857
• Date: 01 June 1857
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

CARROLL

and

SCULLY.

Stewart v. CottinghamUNK 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 248.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 239 1857. Chancery. CARROLL v. SCULLY. June 1. On the 10th day of March 1856, the petitioner obtained a judgment of the Court of Exchequer, against Wilson Kennedy, as public officer of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank, for the sum of 1321. Is. 4d. debt, besides costs, for moneys due by the said Bank to the petitioner. The Tipperary Joint-stock Bank was a partnership of more than six, carrying on business under the provisions of the 6 G. 4, c. 42, and the respondent Mr. James Scully was a shareÂÂholder and member of that partnership. On the 25th of June 1856, the petitioner sued out of the Court of Exchequer a writ of scire facias, commanding Mr. Scully to appear and show cause why execution of the said judgment should not be had against him ; and on the 19th of November 1856, he obtained judgment upon the said writ of scire facias against the said James Scully ; and it was adjudged by the said Court of ExÂÂchequer, that the petitioner should have execution against the said James Scully, of the said judgment for the sum of 1321. Is. 4d. On the 3rd of December 1856, the petitioner, under the proÂÂvisions of the 13 & 14 Vic., c. 29, made and filed in the Court of Exchequer an affidavit, stating that he had recovered the said original judgment and the said judgment in scire facias, as well as the other particulars required by the 6th section of that Act ; and, amongst them, that the said James Scully was, at the time of the affidavit being made, seised of certain lands in the county of KilÂÂkenny. On the same day, the petitioner registered an office copy of that affidavit, according to the provisions of the 13 & 14 Vic., c. 29. The affidavit was entitled in the suit of Carroll v. Kennedy, and also in the suit of Carroll v. Scully. The petition submitted that, by the registration of the affidavit, the petitioner had become entitled to a mortgage upon Mr. Scully's lands, and prayed the usual account for foreclosure and sale. 1857. Chancery. CARROLL v. SCULLY. Argument. 240 CHANCERY REPORTS. The respondent filed an affidavit, submitting that the registration of the petitioner's affidavit did not affect the respondent's lands. Mr. Brewster (with whom was Mr. D. C. Heron), for the petiÂÂtioner, having stated the facts of the case, was stopped by the LORD CHANCELLOR, who called upon the Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Lawson and Mr. Sullivan, for the respondent...