Revell v Revell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 November 1855
• Date: 03 November 1855
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

REVELL

and

REVELL.

Borough v. WilliamsonUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 1.

Burke v. KillikellyUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1.

O'Brien v. ScottUNKUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 63; S. C. on appeal, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 459.

M'Minn v. M'ConnellUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 609.

Doe d. M'Ilwaine v. Magill 1 H. & Br. 396, n.

Robinson v. Harrington 1 Powell on Mortgages, 5th ed., 515.

Abbott v. StrattonENRUNK 3 Jones & Lat. 603; S. C. 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 233.

Smith v. ChichesterUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 519.

In re HuthwaiteUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 53.

Hyde v. AtkinsonUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 246.

O'Brien v. ScottUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 68.

Rolleston v. Morton 1 Dr. & War. 195.

Jones v. BaileyENR 17 Beav. 582.

Whitworth v. GaugainENR 1 Phil. 728.

O'Brien v. ScottUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 73.

Ex parte Boyle 3 De Gex, M'N. & G. 530.

Hickey v. HayterENR 6 T. R. 386.

Steele v. RorkeENR 1 Bos. & Pul. 307.

Hall v. TapperENR 3 B. & Ad. 656.

Landon v. FergusonENR 3 Russ. 349.

Burke v. KillikellyUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1.

436 CHANCERY REPORTS. The case of Grey v. Lord Limerick (a) has also, in my opinion, no application to this case. On the whole, I am of opinion that the portion vested in Jane M'Kay on her marriage, and was not devested, she having died in her father's lifetime. I shall therefore make an order that the Master's decretal order be varied, so far as it disallowed the appellant's claim ; and I shall declare that she is entitled to the portion of 1000 late currency, charged by the marriage settlement of the 4th of August 1801. The parties must abide their own costs, as the Master held otherÂÂwise, and the deposit is to be returned. (a) 2 De Gex & Sm. 370. REVELL v. REVELL. ON the 3rd of December 1845, a judgment was obtained in the Court of Common Pleas, by Henry Revell against John Revell, for the sum of 1800. This judgment became vested by assignÂÂment, bearing date the 4th of February 1848, which was duly enrolled under the statute, in Harriett Revell, Charlotte Revell and Mary Revell ; but it was not registered until the 22nd of November 1847. John Revel died on the 19th of January 1847. On the 3rd of February 1847, Simon Foot and Henry Revell, jun., obtained a judgment for 2000 against the said John Revell, on a warrant of attorney. This judgment was registered on the same day. The petition was filed on the 6th of September 1850, for the administration of the real and personal estate of John Revell ; and the matter having been referred by the Lord Chancellor to Master Litton, under the 15th section of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) of the conusor, that the judgment of 1847 had priority over the 5. 2, /94. CHANCERY REPORTS. 437 Regulation Act 1850, the Master made 'a decretal order on the 8th of June 1855, by which he gave priority to the judgment of the 3rd of December 1845 over the judgment of the 4th of February 1847. The fund being deficient., Simon Foot and Henry Revell appealed from the Master's decretal order. 1855. Rolls. REVELL V. REVELL. Statement. Mr. F. A. Fitzgerald and Mr. G. Foley, in support of the Argument. appeal, contended that this being a suit for administration of assets, the judgments should have priority according to the dates of their registration : 3 G. 3, c. 7, s. 2 (Ir) ; 9 G. 4, c. 25 (Redocketing Act) ; 7 & 8 Vic., c. 90 ; Borough v. Williamson (a); Burke v. Killikelly (b). Mr. Brewster and Mr. Jenkins, contra, argued that the object of docketing under the 3 G. 3, c. 7, s. 2 (Ir.), and registration under the 7 & 8 Vic., c. 90, was to protect purchasers and heirs, executors and administrators in the administration of assets, and not to interfere with the priorities of judgments inter se ; the more especially, as regards the latter statute, such interference was unneÂÂcessary, judgments having being made charges on land by the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105. They cited O'Brien v. Scott (c); v. 31' Connell (d); Doe d. MIlwaine v. Magill (e); Robinson v. Harrington (f) ; Abbott v. Stratton (g); Smith v. Chichester (h); In re Huthwaite (i) ; Hyde v. Atkinson (k). The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Nov. 3. A motion was made in this cause on behalf of Simon Foot and Judgment. Henry Revell, by way of appeal against the decretal order of Edward Litton, Esq., the Master in this cause, filed the 8th of June 1855. (a) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 1. (b) 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1. (c) 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 63; S. C. on appeal, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 459. (d) 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 609. (e) 1 H. & Br. 396, n. (f) 1 Powell on Mortgages, 5th ed., 515. (9) 3 Jones & Lat. 603 ; S. C. 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 233. (h) 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 519. (1) 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 53. (k) 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 246. 438 CHANCERY REPORTS. The ground of appeal stated in the notice of motion is, that the Master has found that a judgment in the penalty of 1800, which was entered in the Court of Common Pleas on the 3rd of December 1845, at the suit of Harriett Braddell against John :Revell deÂÂceased, the testator in the petition mentioned, and which judgment was assigned to Harriett Revell, Charlotte Revell and Mary Revell, has priority over, and is to be paid in preference to,• a judgment in the penalty of 2000, which was entered in the Court of ExÂÂchequer on the 3rd of February 1847, at the suit of the said Simon Foot and Henry Revell against the said testator John Revell ; whereas the Master should (as the said Simon Foot and Henry Revell contend) have found that the judgment obtained by them had priority over the judgment obtained by Harriett Braddell, inasÂÂmuch as the judgment obtained by the said Simon Foot and Henry Revell was registered on the 3rd of February 1847, and the judgÂÂment obtained by Harriett Braddell was not registered until the 22nd of November 1847. The petition in this cause was filed by John Revell, the younger, who was the executor and devisee of John Revell deceased, the conusor of the two judgments, for the administration of the real and personal estate of the said John Revell. On the 18th of November 1850, the usual order of reference to the Master was made by the Lord Chancellor, under the 15th section of the Court of Chancery Regulation Act. The facts of the case are as follow :- A judgment was obtained on the 3rd of December 1845, in the Court of Common Pleas, by Henry Revell, of Fleet-street, Dublin, against the said John Revell the testator; for the sum of 1800. That judgment was shortly afterwards assigned to Harriett Braddell, whetothe notice of motion erroneously states to have recovered the judgment, and Harriett Braddell afterwards assigned the judgment to Harriett Revell, Charlotte Revell and Mary Revell, on the 4th of February 1848, and which assignment was duly enrolled. The judgment thus obtained by the said Henry Revell, on the 3rd of December 1845 was not registered until the 22nd of November 1847. CHANCERY REPORTS. 439 The testator John Revell, who was the conusor of that judgment, and also conusor of the judgment hereinafter mentioned, died on the 19th of January 1847. On the 3rd of February 1847, judgment was entered up in the penal sum of 2000, against the said John Revell after his death, under a warrant of attorney, at suit of Simon Foot and Henry Revell the younger, on whose behalf the appeal is brought forward, and on the same day the judgment was registered. There is no doubt on the authorities, that if the obligor in a bond, who has executed a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment, dies in the Vacation, the obligee may, before the following Term, enter up judgment...