Picton v Cullen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1900
• Date: 01 January 1900
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

Picton

and

Cullen.

612 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1900. Appeal. PICTON v. CULLEN (1). 1900. _ May 16, 17, PracticeReceiverEquitable executionNational schoolmasterInstalment of salary actually duePublic policy. The Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over an instalment of a National schoolmaster's salary which has actually become due. It is not against public policy that an instalment of such a salaiy, when actually due, should be liable to execution. The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants in an action tried at Belfast for £46 ] 0s., and his costs of suit. Judgment was entered and a writ oifi.fa. issued agaiust the defendant, to which there was a return of nulla bona. The defendant was a school teacher at Belfast, under the Board of National Education, in receipt of a salary of £35 a-year, and a further allowance of £7 a-year, called 20 per cent, in addition to salary. The salary was payable in quarterly instalments, and at the date of the application a quarterly instalment was due to the defendant, and would be payable on the 15th April. The defendant resided with his father, who was also a school teacher and the principal in the school where the defendant taught. The defendant was unmarried aud had no person depending on him for support. On the 6th April, 1900, the plaintiff applied to be appointed receiver by way of equitable execution, over a sum of £10 3s. 6d., a quarter's salary, due on the 1st April, which would be payable on the 15th April, and Kenny, J., made the order. On appeal to the Divisional Court, consisting of two Judges, there was a difference of opinion between them, Palles, C.B., being of opinion that it was against public policy that a receiver should be appointed over the defendant's salary. Johnson, J., dissented from this, aud held that a receiver should be appointed. Johnson, J., withdrew his judgment, and the order of Kenny, J., was accordingly reversed. (1) Before Lord Ashbourne, C, and Eitz Gibbon and Holmes, L.JJ. Vol. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 613 From this order the plaintiff appealed. Appeal. _ 19o0._ M'Auley, for the appellant: 1'I^0N Once the instalment became due the Court has jurisdiction to Cullen. appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution. In Murphy v. Green (1) a receiver was appointed over the pension of a Constabulary officer. Molony v. Cruise (2) is the case of the pension of a civil servant. Manning v. Mullins (3) is to the same effect, and there the form of order is given by which the matter was worked out. There is no other way of getting payment of the debt: Lucas v. Harris (4) ; Flarty v. Odium (5). It is not against public policy : Grenfell v. Dean of Windsor (6); Re Mirams (7). Whitaher, for the respondent: The order of Kenny, J., cannot be sustained. In Apthorpe v. Apthorpe (8) it was held to be against public policy to attach the pay of a navy surgeon. A receiver will not be appointed in cases where a Court of Equity would not before the Judicature Act have appointed a receiver: Holmes v. Millage (9). It is against public policy: Grenfell v. Dean of Windsor (10); Wells v. Foster (11); M'Carthy v. Goold (12); Cooper v. Reilly (13). Loud Ashbourne, C.: xriy !9. This is an interesting point which has...