Johnson v Reardon

Judgment Date24 April 1840
Date24 April 1840
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)



Kirwan v. Blake 1 Hog. 158.

Hill v. Kirwan 1 Hog. 175.

M'Cann v. O'Farrell 1 Hog. 137.

200 CASES IN EQUITY,. JOHNSON v. REARDON. (In the Rolls.) IN November 1827, certain lands in the county of Cork were sold under the decree in this cause, to Thomas Wise, for the sum of 9000, which he lodged in Court on the 4th of December following, and the sale was duly confirmed ; but the money was not invested. After a protracted investigation of the title, the Master reported against it, and by order of the 28th February 1835, Wise was discharged from his purchase, and the Accountant General was directed to draw in his favour for the amount of the purchase-money, and it was referred to the Master to ascertain the sum due to him for interest, and to tax his costs as such discharged purchaser, and to report the funds properly applicable to pay the same. On the 13th June 1836, the Master reported that the sum due for interest and taxed costs amounted altogether to 3689. 10s., and that the funds properly applicable to pay the said sum were, in the first instance, and so far as the same would extend, so much of the stock in bank to the credit of the cause as was equivalent to the sum of 2484. 10s. (being the amount of rents received out of the lands), and that after such application, the sum of 1204. 19s. 11d. together with the amount of of his post costs when taxed and ascertained would remain due in respect of the interest and costs of the said discharged purchaser, the proper fund for payment whereof would be the future rents, or in case the lands should be resold under the decree before the last mentioned sum, together with the said post costs should be fully paid out of the rents, then the proper fund for payment of the same, or so much thereof as should remain unpaid, would be the sum which should be produced by such a re-sale. By order of the 21st June 1836, pursuant to the foregoing report, the Accountant General was directed to transfer to Mr. Wise so much of the stock as would be equivalent to the sum of 2484. 10s., in part discharge of the said sum of 3689. 10s.; and there being no funds in Court applicable to pay the residue, liberty was reserved to move for such residue, being the said sum of 1204. 19s. 11d., as soon as there should be funds arising out of the said lands. Under this order, Wise received only the sum of 2434. 10s., the sum of 50 having been deducted and retained in the Accountant General's office on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cooper v Cooper. Ellard v Cooper
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 6 November 1854
    ...Cann v. CannENR 3 Sim. 447. Taylor v. GormanUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 550. Hackett v. DonnellyUNK 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 231. Johnson v. ReardonUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200. M'Cann v. O'Ferrall 1 Hog. 137. Smith v. NelsonENR 2 Sim. & Stu. 557. CHANCERY REPORTS. 75 1854. Chancery. COOPER v. COOPER. ELLARD v. COO......
  • Weir v Chamley
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 18 November 1851
    ...WEIR and CHAMLEY. Johnson v. ReardonUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200. Hawood v. Bland Fl. & K. 540. Reynolds v. BlakeENR 2 Sim. & St. 117. The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of NewarkENR 8 Sim. 71. 566 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1852. I am of opinion therefore that the receiver was privileged until Rolls......

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