Scott v Scott

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1859
• Date: 14 January 1859
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

SCOTT

and

SCOTT.

Le Neve v. Le Neve Ambl. 436; S. C., 2 W. & T Leading Cases, 23.

Jones v. SmithENR 1 Hare, 55.

Baldwin v. Jones 1 Jones, 320.

Mannix v. CoatesUNK 5 Ir. Ch. Rep. 142.

Salkeld v. Abbott Hayes, 576.

Hodgson v. Shaw 3 M. & K. 183.

Copis v. MiddletonUNK 1 T. & R. 224.

Purdon v. Purdon 1 Hud. & Br. 229.

Salkeld v. Abbott Hayes Rep. 576.

M'Auley v. Clarendon 8 Ir. Chan. Rep. 125.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 319 SCOTT v. SCOTT. • (In the Rolls) 1858. Boils. Nov. 4. 1859. Jan. 14. 320 CHANCERY REPORTS. Scott to the said Mary Scott, Jane Scott, Anne Scott and Eliza Scott, inasmuch as a portion of the produce of the sum produced by the sale of their share of the said lands of Clanvaraghan has been applied to meet the deficiency of Thomas Scott's share thereof." On the 22nd of May 1856, the judgment against Thomas Scott was assigned by Samuel L. Frazer to James Scott, in trust to secure the said sum of £1198. 9s. 7d., so due to Mary, Jane, Anue and Eliza Scott. It had been registered under the 7 & 8 Vic., c. 90, on the 9th of October 1846, and re-registered on the 7th of August 1852. Thomas Scott/ was also seised of the lands of Tullyquilly, and in 1856 he borrowed a sum of money from the Rev. James Anderson, which was secured by a judgment for £3200, entered up on the 1st of August 1856, and registered as a mortgage against the said lands of Tullyquilly, on the 2nd of August 1856. The title-deeds were at the same time delivered to the Rev. James Anderson. The petition4iin this matter was filed on foot of the judgment against Thomas Scott, to raise the amount due to Mary, Jane, Anne and Eliza Scott, and the matter was referred to the Master, under the 15th section of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act 1850. The Rev. J. Anderson filed a charge on foot of the judgment of 1856. He and Thomas Scott were examined viva voce, and their evidence was conflicting as to the question of direct notice of the petitioners' claim. The Master decided, and so declared by his order of the 4th of June 1858, that the claim of the petitioners, on foot of the judgment of 1846, had priority over that of the Rev. J. Anderson, under the judgment mortgage of 1856. The proceedings in the Incumbered Estates Court are stated at length in his Honor's judgment. The case now came on as a motion by way of appeal from the Master's order. Argument. Mr. Lawson and Mr. D. C. Heron, for the appellant, contended that the Rev. J. Anderson was a purchaser for valuable conÂsideration, and that no notice, either actual or constructive, had been brought home to him. The amount due on the judgment had been paid, and the proceedings in the Incumbered Estates Court CHANCERY REPORTS. 321 were evidence that it had been paid off, and could not be held to 1858. olls. amount to constructive notice to a purchaser of the equity of the R petitioners to claim an assignment of the judgment against Thomas SCOTT v. Scott, and that they had obtained such assignment. They cited SCOTT. Le Neve v. Le Neve (a); Jones v. Smith (b); Baldwin v. Jones (e). Argument. Mr. Pilhington and Mr. Law, in support of the order, argued that the judgment was unsatisfied both at Law and in Equity : Mannix v. Coates (d) ; and that the petitioners had an equity to have it assigned, to secure the balance overpaid by them : Salheld v. Abbott (e); Hodgson v. Shaw (f); Copis v. Middleton (g). The MASTER or THE ROLLS. A motion has been made in this case on behalf of the Rev. James Anderson, by way of appeal from the order of J. J. Murphy, Esq., the Master in this matter, to whom the case was referred tinder the 15th section of the statute. The order bears date the 18th of March, and was signed on the 4th of June 1858. The Master has decided that the petitioners have priority as against the lands of Tullyquilly, the estate of Thomas Scott, on foot of a judgment for £20,000, obtained by one Samuel L...