Re Hugh Morrow's Estate. Charles Joseph M'Dermott, Appellant; John Harward Jessop, Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 November 1862
• Date: 17 November 1862
• Court: Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)

Ch. Appeal.

In re HUGH MORROW'S Estate.

CHARLES JOSEPH M'DERMOTT,

Appellant;

JOHN HARWARD JESSOP,

Respondent.

Gardiner v. Blesinton 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 79.

Smith v. Ross 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 397.

The Earl of Limerick v. Turner 7 Ir. Jur., N. S., 65.

44 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1862. Ch. Appeal. Court of SppritI in gbanttrr• In re HUGH MORROW'S Estate. CHARLES JOSEPH M'DERMOTT, Appellant; JOHN HARWARD JESSOP, Respondent. Nov. 17. In =affidavit, THIS was an appeal,* on behalf of Charles Joseph WDertuott, filed under the provisions of against an order made by Judge Hargreave in the Landed Estates the 6th sec- tion of the 13 Court, on the 8th July 1862, whereby he refused to place the appel- and 14 Vic., c. 29, for the claim foot of lant's cam on oot o a judgment mortgage on the final schedule of purpose of con- incumbrances on the lands sold in this matter. veiling a judg ment into a The appellant had, in Hilary Term 1861, obtained a judgment mortgage, the lands intended against Hugh Morrow (the owner) for 71. 15s. 9d., and, on the to be com prised in the 8th February 1862, had that judgment registered as a mortgage mortgage were described as against the lands of Carraboola, Cartronfin, and Killendowd, in the " the lands of A, B, and C, situate in the baronies of D and E, and county of L."-Held, that the affidavit was insufficient, the baronies not having been " distinctly " stated, within the meaning of the statute. * There were three objections taken, on the appeal, to the validity of the affidavit:- First, that, at the time when the affidavit was filed, the roll of the judgment was imperfect as to the amount of the costs, which, although ascertained, had not been inserted in it. The affidavit stated the amount of the costs; the roll of the judgment was subsequently perfected, and corresponded with the affidavit in that respect. Secondly, that the description of the residence of the defendant, in the judgÂÂment, was vaguely and...