Re Doherty

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court (Irish Free State)
Judgment Date22 Apr 1925

Supreme Court.

In re Doherty.
In the MATTER of J. E. DOHERTY, A Bankrupt (1)

Mortgage - Mortgaged property destroyed by fire - Insurance by mortgagor - No covenant to insure - Application of insurance moneys - Rights of mortgagee - Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), sect. 23,sub-sect. 3 and 4.

Appeal from an order made by O'Shaughnessy J. on February 6th, 1925, confirming the report of the Chief Registrar in Bankruptcy in the matter.

The bankrupt was possessed of certain premises in Kilcormac, King's County, consisting of licensed premises, certain other adjoining premises, and a weigh-bridge. He carried on business as a publican, grocer, draper, hardware and provision merchant.

The premises and the stock and furniture therein were destroyed by fire on January 11th 1924. The premises and stock had been insured by the bankrupt, and the Official Assignee had received in respect of such insurance on the buildings the sum of £1,700, and in respect of the insurance on the fittings the sum of £300.

The premises were subject to two mortgages effected by the bankrupt. The first mortgage was dated February 27th, 1919, and under it £500 principal and £90 interest were due to Mrs. Bessie Kirley, the mortgagee. That mortgage contained a covenant by the mortgagor to insure the premises. On foot of the second mortgage dated January 5th, 1921, there was due to William M'Fadden, the mortgagee, £1,000 principal and £153 6s. 8d. interest. The second mortgage did not contain any covenant as to insurance.

Pursuant to an order made on October 7th, 1924, by Meredith J., the matter was referred to the Chief Registrar to investigate and report as to:— (a) who were the mortgagees or chargeants in the matter; (b) the amount due to each; (c) the nature and the amount of security held by each; (d) the priorities of such mortgagees or chargeants.

Having found that the mortgagees were as already mentioned, the Registrar in his report stated:—

"I find that the said Bessie Kirley under and by virtue of a covenant to insure the said premises in the said mortgage deed of February 27th, 1919, and of the provisions of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, sect. 23, is entitled to require the said sum of £1,700, and so much of the said sum of £300 as represents fixtures attached to the freehold, to be applied in reinstating the premises or in payment of her said mortgage debt.

I find that the said William M'Fadden under and by virtue of the provisions of the said Act is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Meares v Collis and Hayes
    • Ireland
    • High Court (Irish Free State)
    • 1 January 1927
    ...p. ix.—Rep.] (2) [1925] 1 I. R. 23. (3) [1915] 2 I. R. 85. (4) [1920] 2 I. R. 233. (1) [1909] 2 I. R. 125. (2) L. R. 2 Eq. 143. (3) [1925] 2 I. R. 246. (4) [1922] 2 Ch (5) [1911] 2 Ch. 17. (6) [1909] 2 I. R. 674. (7) 5 Russ. 29. (8) 3 Ch. D. 36. (9) [1919] 1 I. R. 23. (1) 3 Ch. D. 36. (2) [......
  • Myler v Pussy's Nite Club
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 December 1979
    ...deed or under the; Act us is the position under subsection (3) and this distinction was recognised in the cases of J. E. Doherty (1925) 2 I.R. 246 and Halifax Building Society v. Keighly (1931) 2 K.B. 252. In Doherty's case it was held that a mortgagee was entitled to require .insurance mon......

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