Sainthill v Evanson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1858
• Date: 08 May 1858
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench

SAINTHILL

and

EVANSON.

Dearle v. HallENR 3 Russ. 1; and see 2 White & tudor, L. C., 2nd ed., p. 665.

In re CarewUNK 4 Ir. Ch. Rep. 112, 117.

Boyle v. Ferrall 12 Cl. & F. 740, 763.

540 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1858. Queen's Bench SAINTHILL v. EVANSON. WRIT of revivor of a judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, dated the 4th of April 1844. Defence, upon equitable grounds, that, after the rendition of the said judgment, and before the interest for the same, or any part thereof, became due, and before the commencement of this suit, the plaintiff, by deed, assigned the said judgment, and the said interest, when the same should become due, and all right, title and interest thereto respectively, to Albert Callanan and William Bowles Eames, of which assignment the defendant afterwards received due notice, and thereupon became and was liable to pay the said judgment and the interest thereon, to the said Albert Callanan and William Bowles Eames ; wherefore the defendant saith, that the plaintiff ought not to have execution, as in the said writ prayed. • W. A. Exham, for the plaintiff, moved that the defence be set aside, upon the ground that the matters contained in it could not be pleaded as an equitable defence ; or for liberty to file a repliÂÂcation, that the money secured by the judgment was trust money, and that the plaintiff was suing as trustee for the cestuis que trustent who were entitled to the said money. There is no averment in the defence that a memorial of the assignment of the judgment has been enrolled ; and it is therefore necessary that the judgment should be revived by the plaintiff, whose name appears upon the judgment roll as conusee. The defence is bad at Law, by reason of the absence of this averment ; and it is, for the same reason, bad as an equitable defence. Jellett, contra. It is conceded that if a memorial of the assignment of the judgÂÂment had been enrolled, the assignment would be valid, and the COMMON LAW REPORTS. 541 assignees upon the roll would be the proper parties to sue upon the E. T. 1858. judgment : statute 9 G. 2, e. 5 (Ir.) : 25 G. 2, c. 14 (Ir.). But Queen's Bench as the assignment has not been duly enrolled, this case falls within SAINTHILL V. the rules which govern the assignment of a chose in action, where EVANSON. the title of the assignee is perfected in Equity, by notice to the debtor : Dearle v. Hall (a).-[Immov, C. J. Are you not assumÂÂing that the assignment is complete...