Revell v Revell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1856
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)
• Date: 26 January 1856

Chancery.

REVELL

and

REVELL.

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

Beavan v. Oxford 1 Jur., N. S., 1121.

Simson v. Morley Ib. 1158.

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

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

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

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

O'Brien v. Scott Ubi sup.

Odes v. WoodwardENR 2 Ld. Raym. 849.

Re Perrin 2 Dr. & War. 147.

284 CHANCERY REPORTS. diture put upon it by the contractors, and they have had the valuÂation made, including every element which could be taken into the account. I shall certainly not reverse my former decree, in order to do what under such circumstances I think would be injustice. It must be affirmed, with costs. Reg. Lib. 19, f. 1. REVELL v. REVELL. Jan. 25, 26. A judgment was obtained on the 3rd of December 1845. The conusor died on the 19th of January 1847. another judgÂment was enÂtered against the same coÂnusor on the 3rd of FebruÂary 1847, and was registered wider the 8 and 0 Vic., c. 90, on the same day. The judgment of 1847 was not registered unÂtil the 22nd of November 1847.-Held, that in the adÂministration of the real and personal assets of the conusor, the judgment of 1847 had priority over the judgment of 1845. THIS case came before the Court upon a motion by way of appeal from an order of his Honour the Master of the Rolls. The case in the Court below is reported supra, vol. 4, p. 436, where the facts of the case, so far as material in the view taken by the LORD CHANÂCELLOR, sufficiently appear. Mr. Brewster and Mr. Jenkins, for the appeal. The Master of the Rolls decided in this case against that which he considered the true view of the Act, but he deferred to the decision in Burke v. Killikelly (a). There are, however, peculiar circumstances in this case. The appellant's judgment was obtained in the lifetime of the conusor-the respondent's not until after his decease, and the earlier judgment was a specific charge on the lancla when he died. Since the judgment at the Rolls, two English cases have been reported on the corresponding Act, but the words of that are not the same : Beavan v. Oxford (b); Simson v. Morley (c). Here the Act is different. • The provisions in the Act are intended merely for the protection of purchasers, and heirs, executors and administrators, not to assist judgment creditors. Even if the second In the administration of assets, judgments take priority inter se, according to the dates of the registration. (a) 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1. (b) 1 Jur., N. S., 1121. (c) Ib. 1158. CHANCERY REPORTS...