Connor v Burke

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1866
• Date: 14 November 1866
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

CONNOR

and

BURKE.

Toosey v. BurchellENR Jac. 159.

Taylor v. D'EgvilleENR 7 Sim. 445.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 207 1866. . Rolls. CONNOR v. BURKE. And other matters. Nov. 14. THE petitions in these matters were for an account against a land Leave refused to one not a agent. The case will be found reported ante, vol. 16, p. 398. party to a suit After the decree in the supplemental suit, the petitioner Daniel tthoeintemrmeerins Connor died, having made his will, by which he directed that a office t a ne t akc sum of 5000 should be retained by his executors out of his count, though he was the only personal estate ; and, if his personal estate should be found in_ person benefi cially entitled sufficient, the deficiency should be raised by sale or mortgage of in the result of it ; his interest his real estate ; such sum of 5000 to be held by his executors being repre sented by the in trust for his niece; and subject to the deficiency of the 5000 petitioner. he devised his real estate to Samuel Connor and his heirs. The Statement. suit was revived by the executors. They collected the personal estate, which amounted to about 1100; and the deficiency of the 5000 was raised by a sale of a part of the testator's real estate in the Landed Estates Court. Samuel Connor, who was not a party to any of the suits, preÂÂsented a petition in the Vacation, stating the foregoing facts, that the sums recovered from the executors of General Burke, the reÂÂspondent in these suits, would form part of the personal estate of Daniel Connor, and was as such liable to recoup him the deficiency raised out of the real estate, and that he was therefore the perÂÂson beneficially interested in the result of the account ; and praying that he might be at liberty to enter an appearance in the matter, and, at his own expense, to intervene as a party therein ; and that notice of all proceedings in these matters might be served on him or his solicitor ; and that he might be at liberty to file a discharge to the charge ordered to be filed by the respondent. Mr. Finch White, in support of the application, cited Toosey v. Argument. Burchell (a); Taylor v. D'Egville (6). (a) Jac. 10. (b) 7 Sim. 44.5. 208 CHANCERY REPORTS. Mr. Exham, and Mr. Jellett, for different parties, opposed it. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that he would speak to the Master to whom the matter was referred. He felt difficulty in making an order which might be cited as a precedent. On a subsequent day his Honor said he...