Morris v Herbert

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1859
• Date: 13 January 1859
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

MORRIS

and

HERBERT.

Pardon v. Purdon 1 H. & Br. 229.

Salkeld v. Abbott Hay. 576.

Hodgson v. Shaw 3 M. & K. 183.

Copis v. MiddletonUNK 1 T. & R. 224.

Mannix v. Coates 5 Ir. Chan. Rep. 142.

Kirkwood v. LloydUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 561.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 327 to understand why he is to take discharged of the judgment of 1859. 1846. He says the judgment of 1846 was paid off. It lies uponRolls. him to show that it is. The only legal evidence of payment which SCOTT V. has been given is the proceeding in the Incumbered Estates Court. SCOTT. That, evidence establishes the payment of the mortgage, the three Judgment. separate judgments being collateral securities ; but the same proÂÂceedings establish that the judgments were to be kept on foot, to enforce the proper contribution between the different shares of the lands of Clanvaraghan, to which Thomas Scott, James Scott and their sisters were entitled. It is perfectly clear that, as between the petitioners and Thomas Scott, the judgment of 1846 is a charge on the lands of Tullyquilly. If so, I am unable to understand what right the appellant has to say that he supposed the judgment to have been paid off and satisfied, when he advanced his money in 1856. If he had acted with ordiÂÂnary prudence, -he would have examined the proceedings in the, Incumbered Estates Court, or required the judgment of 1846 to be satisfied, before advancing 1600 in 1856. Had he inspected the proceedings, or required the judgment to be satisfied, he would, have found that the judgment of 1846 was a subsisting security for, the benefit of the petitioners Mary, Jane, Anne and Eliza Scott. I shall therefore affirm the Master's order.. MORRIS v. HERBERT.. 1858. Nov. 5. 1859. Jan. IS. meufd1g7- 1797 Tins was an appeal from an order of Master Litton, whereby he Two j declared that two judgments of Trinity Term 1797; for 500 each, were obtained against one who was seised of the lands of B. and S. The lands of B. were sold in the Incumbered Estates Court, on the petition of a mortgagee of 1845 ; and the proceeds of the sale being insufficient to pay the mortgage, an issue was directed by that Court to try whether the judgments had been paid, and a verdict was found that they were not. The mortgagee was thereupon directed by the said Court to pay the sum due on the judgments, and they were assigned to a trustee for her.-Held, that the judgments were subsisting charges against the lands of S., and were not barred by the Statute of...