Royal Bank of Ireland Ltd v Sproule
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1940 |
| Date | 01 January 1940 |
| Court | High Court |
Order for sale - No advertisement for incumbrancers - Application by mortgagee to discontinue - Whether Court has power to grant - R.S.C. 1905, Or. XXVI, r. 1.
Under Order XXVI, r. 1, Rules of the Supreme Court (Ireland) 1905, the Court has jurisdiction to discontinue a mortgagee's suit in which there has been an order for sale, on the application of the plaintiff mortgagee, and there has been a search for incumbrancers but no advertisement. The principle enunciated in Harpur v. BuchananIR ([1919] 1 I.R. 1) that a mortgagee's suit "enures for the benefit of all incumbrancers" means no more than that all incumbrancers who have proved in the action must be ascertained and paid out of the proceeds of sale so far as they go, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AIB Plc (plaintiff) v Dormer
...1957 S32(2)(A) ARCHDALL v ANDERSON 1890 25 LRI 433 STERNDALE v HANKINSON 1827 1 SIM 393 57 ER 625 ROYAL BANK OF IRELAND LTD v SPROULE 1940 IR JUR REP 33 ALPHA CO LTD, IN RE 1903 1 CH 203 NIXONS ESTATE, IN RE 1874 9 IR EQ 7 COLCLOUGH, IN RE 1858 8 I CH R 330 COLOES ESTATE, IN RE 1890 25 LRI......
-
Bagots, Hutton Kinahan Ltd v Talbot and Another. Nora Talbot, Applicant
... ... Royal Bank of Ireland, Limited v. SprouleDIJR [1940] Ir. Jur. Rep. 33 followed ... ...