Re O'Rourke Estate

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date08 March 1889
Date08 March 1889
CourtUnspecified Court

Chancery Division.

Monroe, J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL O'ROURKE AND BRIDGET O'ROURKE,
OWNERS;
ANTHONY LEFROY,
PETITIONER.

Wyse v. MyersUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 101.

Underhay v. ReadELR 20 Q. B. Div. 209.

Evans v. Elliott 9 A. & E. 342.

Corbett v. Plowden 25 Ch. Div. 678.

Butler's Estate 13 Ir. Ch. R. 453.

Lessee Hobson v. Donelan 4 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 19.

Mortgage Subsequent creation of tenancy by mortgagor Tacit acquiescence by mortgagee Approval of rental, including such tenancy, by solicitor having carriage Receiver taking rent and paying interest to mortgagee.

Yu. XXIII.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 497 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL O'ROURKE Monroe,18 8 9 AND BRIDGET O'ROURKE, OWNERS ; ANTHONY • LEFROY, PETITIONER. Feb. 25. March 4, 8. Mortgage-Subsequent creation of tenancy by mortgagor-Acts inszillicient to imply new tenancy binding on mortgagee-Tacit acquiescence by mortgagee -Approval of rental, including such tenancy, by solicitor having carriage -Receiver taking rent and paying interest to mortgagee. Where, subsequently to a mortgage, the mortgagor creates new tenancies, and submits rental to mortgagee, who raises no objection, such tacit acquiÂÂescence does not suffice to create a new tenancy as against the mortgagee. The act of the solicitor having carriage, in approving the rental which sets out such tenancies will not create a new tenancy. The act 61 the receiver, in accepting rent from such tenants, and paying interest thereout to the mortgagee, will not create a new tenancy. The solicitor ha carriage and the receiver are officers of the Court, but not agents for the part s. OBJECTIONS to the final notice to tenants. The judgment sets out the facts in full. Mr. J. H. M. Campbell, or the petitioner. Mr. William Kenny, Q.C., too M'Breen. Mr. Gerrard, Q.C., and Mr. Philip White, for he,owner., MONROE, J.:- A large number of objections to the consolidated final notice March 8. to tenants was filed in this matter, but all have been disposed of except two - one filed by Eugene M'Breen, and the other by Thomas Kiernan on behalf of Michael O'Rourke. It appears that the lands for sale were purchased by his Honor Judge Lefroy in the Landed Estates Court, and a conveyance thereof obtained on the 7th December, 1870. On the same day he executed a mortÂÂgage for 3300 to Eleanor Turbitt ; and, on the 8th December, VOL. XXIII. 2 T LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. I. 1870, he executed a mortgage to Anthony Lefroy and John Fetherstone, the trustees of his marriage settlement, for a sum of 10,000. In that fund he had and has himself a life interest. In the year 1875 the same lands were sold by Judge Lefroy to James O'Rourke and Michael O'Rourke, and a conveyance was executed to them on the 27th April, 1875, subject to the two mortgages already mentioned. Mr. Thomas Keogh acted as agent for Judge Lefroy up to the date of the sale to the O'Rourkes, and for them up to the time when he was appointed receiver in this Court-a position which he still occupies. In the month of March, 1878, the then owners, James and Michael O'Rourke, proposed to let portion of the land on lease. This was done by public auction, and Eugene M'Breen, one of the present objectors, proposed and agreed to take a portion of the lands now for sale for a term of forty years, at a rent of 77 7s., and to pay a fine of 680. He paid the fine and a sum of 34 auction fees. Before any lease was executed James O'Rourke died, having by his will devised his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Parker v Braithwaite
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • Matterhorn (Pte) Ltd and Others; Singapore Finance Ltd and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1989
  • Taylor v Ellis
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ......The plaintiff, accordingly, was entitled to possession against the tenant. In re O'Rourke's Estate (1889) 23 L.R.Ir. 497 applied. Hepworth v. Pickles [1900] 1 Ch. 108 distinguished. ORIGINATING SUMMONS. By a mortgage dated October 27, 1924, William ......
  • Singapore Finance Ltd and Another v Matterhorn (Pte) Ltd and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 Julio 1989
    ......In this case, there were none. In the Irish case, Re O`Rourke`s Estate (1889) 23 LR Ir 497 at p 501, Monroe J said: . . .. I certainly cannot infer the creation of a new tenancy between the tenant and the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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