Hales v Marshall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1847
• Date: 08 May 1847
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

HALES

and

MARSHALL.

Vincent v. GoingUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 463.

Kirwan v. Lord PortarlingtonUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 593.

Smith v. Hurst 1 Col. 705.

Geraghty v. Abbott 8 Ir. Law Rep. 60.

CASES IN EQUITY. 445 interest on a recognizance as well as on a judgment in an adverse suit, but in my opinion the Act does not authorise the demand of interest on this recognizance. I do not, therefore, see any grounds for dissenting from the decision of his Honor the Master of the Rolls, but on the contrary, I think it a much safer construction of the statute to hold as he has done ; and I shall, therefore, affirm his order. 1847. Chancery. FEELY V. KILKENNY. Judgment. HAYES v. MARSHALL. May 8. Tins was an appeal from the decision of his Honor the Master of Hayes v. Mar shall, ante, the Rolls, refusing the plaintiff's application for a receiver on bill p. 429, affirm- and answer. ed on appeal, the Court con The bill was filed by a judgment creditor of Trinity Term 1845, sidering that to charge the life estate of the defendant, the conuzor, in the lands of the receiverbe re- Ballya,ckmoyler, which were originally the fee-simple estate of the fused also on the ground defendant's wife and on her marriage in 1835 were settled to the that the suit use of trustees for a term of five hundred years, and subject thereto for was defetctifve to the use of the husband for life or until he should (amongst other parties. specified acts) make any assignment of his effects for the benefit of his creditors ; and upon the happening of any of those events, to the use of the wife for her separate use for life. The defendant on the 3rd of May 1847 assigned all his real and personal estate in trust for the payment of his debts. There was a mortgage affecting the lands prior to 1840. Neither the wife nor Hovenden, one of the trustees of the settlement, nor the trustee of the deed of May 1847 was a party to the suit. The facts of the case and the terms of the settlement are fully stated ante p. 429. Mr. S. B. Miller, for the plaintiff, contended that the insolvency was merely colorable and for the purpose of working a forfeiture, which a Court of Equity would not permit, and that the defendant did not swear that his wife was in possession of the property, or that he was not himself in receipt of the rents. 446 CASES IN EQUITY. Mr. Brewster, for the defendant, submitted that the Court would not grant an application to change the possession when neither the person having the legal or...