Ronan v King

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1894
• Date: 01 January 1894
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Ronan

and

King.

Appeal. bulk of the holding and the bulk of the subletting. That also is 1894. _ an element in the case ; though, as I have said, it is no more than WAKD, an element. Besides, there is the quality and value of the land Tenant; COEBALLIS, sublet, and the distance which separates it from the rest of the Landlord. holding. Each of these circumstances is to be weighed and con Barry, L.J. sidered. The fact that a' subletting is 2 acres in extent affords no absolute test whether that subletting is trivial. In one case a sub letting of that size might be trivial; in another case it might be one of the most important parts of the farm. Taking all the facts of this case into consideration, I am of opinion that this subletting must be treated as of a trivial character. Solicitor for the tenant: Kilbride. Solicitors for the landlord : Wm. Fry 8f Son. G. Y. D. Appeal. RONAN v. KING (1). 1894. April 23. Sale by sheriff under writ of ft; fa.Tenancy from year to yeaiSale of judgment debtor's "chattel interest (if any) "Sale of a speculationEffect of existence of outstanding legal mortgageNoticeDeposit paid"Failure of consideration." A sheriff, under a writ of jt.fa., seized and set up for sale "the chattel interest (if any)" of an execution-debtor in a tenancy from year to year, giving full notice to intending purchasers of the fact that it was alleged that there was a legal mortgage thereon outstanding, but without inquiring further into the existence or validity of such alleged mortgage. It subsequently was proved that the mortgage was a valid and legal one. The purchaser rescinded before conveyance, and brought an action to recover the amount of his deposit, as paid upon a consideration that had wholly failed: Held (affirming the Queen's Bench Division), that the sheriff sold a speculation merely, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Griffin v. Caddell (Ir. R. 9 C. L. 488) and Kearney v. Ryan (2 L. R. Ir. 61) discussed. (1) Before WALKEE, C, PALLES, C.B., and FITZ GIBBON and BAEEY, L.JJ. APPEAL by the plaintiff from the order made by the Queen's Appeal. Bench Division, refusing a new trial of the action.' ~ a94 ROMAN The facts of the case have been already reported, ante, p. 61. KING. Houston, Q.C., and Molony, for the appellant." Ronan, Q.O., and H. G. Richards, for the respondent. The arguments were the same as already reported in the Court below. WALKER, C.: We are all of opinion that the result at which the Queen's Bench...