Stack v Baxter

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 December 1846
• Date: 01 December 1846
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

STACK

and

BAXTER.

Foster v. Foster 1 Hog. 224.

Leland v. GriffthUNK 2 Mol. 151.

Alexander v. CrosbieUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 141.

Burton v. Lord DownesUNK 4 Ir. Eq. REp. 607.

102 CASES IN EQUITY. STACK v. BAXTER. Tins was an application on behalf of David White, the purchaser of the lands sold under the decree in this cause, that the plaintiff or his solicitor should furnish him with a copy of the opinion of Counsel given upon the title. Mr. White was declared the purchaser on the 8th of December 1845 for a sum of 7500. The sale was confirmed in May following, and a statement of title was furnished to the purchaser, but it was not accompanied with the opinion of Counsel. The purchaser's solicitor applied to the solicitor for the plaintiff for a copy of CounÂÂsel's opinion, to which the latter replied that he did not consider the purchaser was entitled to the opinion. He subsequently informed the purchaser's solicitor that Master Henn had directed the copy to be furnished, and that he would do so ; but on the 26th of September he finally refused to furnish the copy, alleging that the question was not judicially before Master Henn on the occasion when he gave the direction. Argument. Mr. Andrew Vance, for the motion. The question arises upon the construction of the 138th General Order. The object of that Order is to provide that no lands shall be set up till either a good title has been made out, or the means of doing so furnished. The statement must be full, and the solicitor may be made liable for default, neglect, or misrepresentation. The Rule does not require the statement or opinion to be deposited with the Master, though in practice they always are. It is hard to see why the purchaser should be entitled to the statement, and not to the opinion of Counsel, which is always coupled with it. The pracÂÂtice is to hand over a copy of the opinion to the purchaser. The case of Foster v. Foster (a) will be relied on against the application; but there the application was for the opinion itself, and not a copy of it, and the title was accepted, which is not the case here. Up to 1839 the practice was to take two opinions, one from the plaintiff's and one from the purchaser's Counsel. This is recognised in Leland v. Griffith (b). That practice was reconsidered and altered in Alexander v. Crosbie (c) by Sir Michael O'Loghlen ; but he did (a) 1 Hog. 224. (b) 2 Mol. 151. (c) 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 141. CASES IN EQUITY. 103 not contemplate that the purchaser...