Hackett v Donnelly, Administrator of Marlay

CourtRolls Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date19 February 1839
Date19 February 1839
Donnelly, Administrator of Marlay.







On the 19th of June last, Mr. W. Brooke, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Latouche, on behalf of Isabella Digges Latouche and George Digges Latouche, surviving executors of James Digges Latouche, deceased, moved that the Accountant-General might, out of the sum of £2,967 7s. 1d., old 31/2 per cent, stock, then in bank to the credit of this cause, transfer to the said executors so much of the said stock as would be equivalent to the sum of £590. 3s. 1d., being for five years, eleven months, and three days’ interest from the 11th of May, 1818, to the 14th of April, 1824, on the principal sum of £1800, late currency, due by the late Major-General Thomas Marlay to the said James Digges Latouche; or, otherwise, that the said executors might be at liberty to file a charge for same, as creditors of the said Thomas Marlay, &c. &c. Upon debate of that motion, the court ordered that the said surviving executors be at liberty to file a charge under the decree in this cause, in the Master's office, claiming the said sum of £590. 3s. 1d., as arrears of interest on the said sum of £1800, and proceed to procure and file a separate report thereon, on or before the 20th day of November then next ensuing; or, in default thereof, that the said order should stand discharged.

In pursuance of the foregoing order, the said executors having duly filed their charge, and the plaintiff having filed a discharge thereto, and the matters thereof having been discussed before the Master, he reported as follows:— “I find that, by indented deed of assignment, bearing date the 11th of May, 1818, between Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Marlay, then of, &c., since deceased, of the first part; George Latouche & Co., of, &c., bankers, of the second part; and James Digges Latouche, of Sans Souci, county of Dublin, also since deceased, of the third part, whereby, after reciting that the said Thomas Marlay was entitled to a sum of £3,600, late currency, being the residue of a certain charge affecting certain lands therein mentioned, (and which charge, I find, was only to bear interest from the day of the decease of Dame Elizabeth Piers Marlay, who afterwards departed this life on the 14th of April, 1824); and further reciting, that the said Thomas Marlay then stood indebted to the said George Latouche and Co. in the sum of £1800, he, the said Thomas Marlay granted and assigned unto the said James Digges Latouche, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the said principal sum of £3,600, and all interest to grow due thereon, upon trust, in the first place, to pay over to the said George Latouche and Co. the said sum of £1800, together with interest thereon, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, from the date of said deed, until the same should be paid, with all costs, charges, and expenses, as therein mentioned; and after payment of said sum of £ 1800, together with the interest thereon, and all such costs as should be incurred for the recovery thereof, then upon trust, to pay over the remainder of the said principal sum of £3,600 to the said Thomas Marlay, his executors, administrators, or assigns. I further find, that in order to secure the re-payment of said sum of £18,00, the said Thomas Marlay executed his bond to the said James Digges Latouche, for the sum of £3,600, conditioned for the payment of the said sum of £1800, with warrant of attorney for confessing judgment thereon, and that judgment was entered on said bond in the Court of Exchequer, &c., as of Easter Term, 1818; and that the said bond is stated in the said deed of assignment to be a collateral security with said charge. I further find that, in or about the year 1825, a bill was filed in this court, in a cause wherein Frederick Piers was plaintiff, and the said James Digges Latouche and others were defendants, praying, amongst other things, an account of the sums due to the plaintiff, and to the defendants therein named, for principal and interest, on foot of certain deeds of appointment, in the pleadings mentioned, including the said charge of £3,600, so assigned to said James Digges Latouche, to whom the same were due and owing respectively; and I find that the said James Digges Latouche having departed this life in or about the month of December, 1826, said cause was revived, and the said executors of the said James Digges Latouche, deceased, were made parties thereto, as such executors; and that, after several proceedings in the said cause, a decree to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Cooper v Cooper. Ellard v Cooper
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • November 6, 1854
    ...COOPER and COOPER. ELLARD and COOPER. Cann v. CannENR 3 Sim. 447. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. Dawson v. Bell 3 Ir. Law Rep. 140. Thomas v. PowellENR 2 Cox, 394. Cator v. BolingbrokeENR 1 Bro. C. C. 300. Bessonett v. RobinsENR Sau. & Sc. 142. Taylor v. GormanUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep.......
  • MacNamara v Darcy
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • May 5, 1891
    ...(1880. No. 1807.) MACNAMARA and DARCY. Trench's Estate 23 L.R. Ir. 283. Butler v. Gilbert 25 L.R. Ir. 230. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. French's Estate 23 L.R. Ir. 283. Registration of deed 6 Anne (Ir.), c 2 Transfer of mortgage Omission from memorial of increased rate of inte......
  • GURNEY v ORANMORE. [Chancery.]
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • July 5, 1856
    ...GURNEY and ORANMORE. Drought v. Redford 1 Moll. 572. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. Mayo Infirmary case Supra. p. 436. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. CHANCERY REPORTS. 447 where all that has occurred may be corrected if it be wrong ; 1856. Chan. but I think it a much......
  • Knox v Waters
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • May 12, 1856
    ...KNOX and WATERS. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. Berrington v. EvansENR 1 Y. & C., Ex., 484. Murtagh v. Tisdall Fl. & K. 20. Monck v. Paget 3 Cl. & F. 430. Ogilvie v. Herne 13 Ves. 563. Cattell v. SimonsENR 8 Beav. 243. Monck v. Paget 3 Cl. & F. 430. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT