Cootehill UDC and Martin v Brady

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 October 1926
• Date: 29 October 1926
• Docket Number: (1925. No. 11364.)
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

(1925. No. 11364.)

Martin and Cootehill U.D.C. v. Brady

PATRICK MARTIN and COOTEHILL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

Plaintiffs

and

TERENCE BRADY

Defendant.

Practice - Writ - Special endorsement - Claim for rates - "Debt or liquidation demand . . . arising . . . on a statute" - Motion for final judgment - Questions of law - Construction of statutes - Or. III, r. 6 -Or. XIV, r. 1 - Whether statutory remedy exclusive - Action maintainable in High Court - Towns Improvement (Ir.) Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 103), sect. 63.

Motion for final judgment.

The plaintiffs issued a specially endorsed writ, the special endorsement being as follows:—

"Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs' claim is for £71 15s. 6d. due by the defendant to plaintiffs, same being for rates under and by virtue of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and assessed upon the defendant in respect of certain premises in his possession and occupation, viz.:—Bridge Street, Cootehill, Co. Cavan, for period ending 31st March, 1925.

Particulars.

1925.

March 31. To rates and arrears due to this date, £71 15 6"

The plaintiffs moved for final judgment. The plaintiff, Patrick Martin, in an affidavit in support of the motion for final judgment, stated that he was Rate Collector to the Urban District Council of Cootehill (who were joined with him as plaintiffs). The proceedings were brought to recover the sum of £71 15s. 6d.—being the total rate to be collected by him for the year ending 31st March, 1925, made up of the total current rate for the financial year ending the said 31st March and arrears. The writ was issued on the 18th August, 1925, and was served personally on the defendant on the 19th August, 1925, and the defendant entered an appearance on 31st August, 1925. The defendant was the owner of a house and premises situate in Bridge Street, Cootehill, where he resided. The valuation of the premises was £27. On the 8th January, 1925, the said plaintiff served the defendant personally with the demand note for the rates. Plaintiff had seen the defendant on more than one occasion both prior to serving the said demand note and since that date, and on each occasion the defendant always promised to pay the amount due. Owing to the plaintiff being pressed by the said Urban District Council to close his collection, plaintiff early in July, 1925, called on the defendant, and informed him of the position, and that if the amount due for the rates was not paid at once the Council would immediately take proceedings to recover the same. The defendant thereupon informed the plaintiff that he would put up the premises for sale at once and pay the amount due for the rates.

The motion for final...