McHugh v McGoldrick
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | (1920. No. 6945.) |
| Date | 01 January 1921 |
Appeal.
Practice, Appeal - From remitting order after security for costs had been
fixed on plaintiff's application.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the King's Bench Division, dated October 13th, 1920, remitting the trial of the action to the Recorder of Belfast unless within ten days the plaintiff gave full security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of a Master. On October 21st one of the Taxing Masters, on the application of the plaintiff, fixed the amount of the security for costs at £100, and on November 3rd notice of appeal was served by the plaintiff against the remitting order.
A remitting order was made by the King's Bench Division unless the plaintiff, within ten days, gave security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of a Master. On the application of the plaintiff, the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Kovacs v Governor of Mountjoy Women's Prison
...cannot later bring proceedings, appellate or otherwise, to have that order condemned as invalid: see, for example, McHugh v. McGoldrick 1921 2 I.R. 163. Having freely elected to approbate the order by taking a benefit under it, he cannot later be allowed to reprobate it.’ 28 Hardiman J. giv......
-
People v Aylmer
...2 FREWEN 200 DPP, PEOPLE V O'SHEA 1983 ILRM 549 1982 IR 384 DPP, PEOPLE V O'TOOLE 2 FREWEN 200 LARCENY ACT 1916 S23 MCHUGH V MCGOLDRICK 1921 2 IR 163 O'CONNOR, STATE V O CAOMHANAIGH 1963 IR 112 PEOPLE V CONMEY 1975 IR 341 PEOPLE V CRONIN 1972 IR 159 WOODS, STATE V AG 1969 IR 385 Syno......