Le Grand v O'Neill. Clanrickarde, Petitioner, O'Neill, Respondent. v Blake, Petitioner, O'Neill, Respondent. v

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1851
• Date: 12 November 1851
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

LE GRAND

and

O'NEILL.

CLANRICKARDE,

Petitioner,

O'NEILL,

Respondent.

and

BLAKE,

Petitioner,

O'NEILL,

Respondent.

and

Walsh v. WalshUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 607.

Goldsmidt v. GlengallUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 608.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 469 " John Weir and Wife a. Christopher Chamley and others," as at the price of the day will be equivalent to the sum of £8600, the amount of the purchase-money ; and refer it to William Brooke, Esquire, the Master in this cause, to ascertain the interest, and the costs of this motion, and the reference and report thereunder, and of payment out of said fund ; and let the said Master report the fund properly applicable to pay the same, and refer it to one of the TaxÂing-masters of this Court to tax the said costs. Rolls Motion Book, 316, fol. 356. 1851, Rolls. WEIR v. CHAMLEY. Judgment. LE GRAND v. O'NEILL. 'CLANRICKARDE, Petitioner, O'NEILL, Respondent. BLAKE, Petitioner, O'NEILL, Respondent. Nov. 12. Mu. WALL, for the plaintiff -in the cause of Le Grand v. O'Neill, A creditor moved that has ob- at the receiver appointed in the matters might be extended tamed a re- to the said cause, for the purpose of paying the plaintiff, as executor ceiver under the Judgment of William Le Grand, deceased, the several and respective sums of Acts is a necessary an .£6000, and interest, secured by the respective deeds of mortgage, swering party in a cause bearing date respectively the 15th of August and 17th of December seeking a sale of the lands, 1821, in the pleadings mentioned. and therefore the receiver cannot be ex• tended from Mr. P. Blake, for the petitioner in the second matter, insisted the matter to etu u that he should have been an answering party to the cause the and have hsee, cre ditor has filed his answer, and has had notice of the motion to extend. But where it is sought to extend a receiver from one matter to another, or from a matter to a cause, in which a receiver only is prayed for, the debtor only, and not the creditor who has obtained the receiver, should be served with notice of the motion. Walsh v. Walsh, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 609, observed on. 73 vol.. 2. 570 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1851. had notice of the motion, and submitted that the motion Should be Rolls. refused. LE GRAND v. O'NEILL. Mr. Wall relied on Walsh v. Walsh (a); Goldsmidt v, Glen Argument. galkb). The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. A question arose in this case as to the practice in serving notice of an application to extend a receiver from a matter to a...