The Estate of Kate Rosalind Day and Others, Owners; Joseph William Hardman and Others, Petitioners

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 January 1876
• Date: 17 January 1876
• Court: Incumbered Estates Court (Ireland)

L. E. Court.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KATE ROSALIND DAY AND OTHERS,

OWNERS;

JOSEPH WILLIAM HARDMAN AND OTHERS,

PETITIONERS.

Leslie v. Leslie Ll. & G. temp. Sugd. 1.

Gibbons v. BerryENR S. & Sc. 158.

Hyde v. PriceENR 8 Sim. 578.

Purcell v. Purcell 4 Ir. Eq. R. 558; 2 Dr. & War. 217.

Simpson v. O'Sullivan 3 Dr. & War. 446.

Smith v. CoplestoneENR 11 Beav 482.

Knapp v. Bunbury 30 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 844.

Ashwell v. StauntonENR 30 Beav. 52.

Judgment affecting lands — Money payable with interest — Rate not specified — Sale in Landed Estates Court — Rate of interest — Distinction between a legal and an equitable demand as to rate of interest — Practice.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KATE ROSALIND DAY AND OTHERS, OWNERS ; JOSEPH WILLIAM HARDMAN AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS. Judgment affecting lands-Money payable with interest-Rate not specified-Sale in Landed Estates Court-Rate of interest-Distinction between a legal and an equitable demand as to rate of interest-Practice. In August, 1870, a judgment was recovered against the owner of lands, on foot of a bond dated August, 1831, for £1000, conditioned for payment of £500 with interest sin months after the death of M. B., the rate of interest not being specified. M. B. died in August, 1865. In 1876, on a petition to the Landed Estates Court for sale of the lands against the owners of which the judgment had been recovered : Held, that the rate of interest to be allowed ought to be, not the then " Court rate" of the Court of Chancery, viz. £4 per cent. per annum, but such a rate as, in the opinion of the Judge, a jury would have given if an action had been brought in the year 1865 when the interest first became payable ; and interest allowed at the rate of £5 per cent. per annum. As to the rate of interest to be allowed where there is a contract for payment of a sum of money with interest, but the rate of interest is not specified, there is a distinction between a legal and an equitable demand ; and, where the deÂÂÂÂmand is legal, the Landed Estates Court is at liberty to allow interest at such a rate as it may in its discretion think right ; but, where the demand is equitable, it is the practice of the Landed Estates Court to allow interest at the rate allowed for the time being by the Court of Chancery. OBJECTION to the final. schedule of incumbrances. The mateÂÂÂÂrial facts are stated in the judgment. Hr. H. Fitzgibbon, Q. C. (with him Mr. Frazer), for the objectÂÂÂÂing Incumbrancers. Mr. Campion, Q. C., for the Petitioners. The eases cited and referred to on both sides were :-Leslie v. Leslie (1) ; Gibbons v. Berry (2) ; ,Hyde v. Price (3) ; Purcell v. (1) Ll. & G. temp. Sugd. 1. (3) 8 Sim. 578. (2) S. & Sc. 158. 202 THE IRISH REPORTS. I. E. B. Court. Purcell (1) ; Simpson v. ('Sullivan (2) ; Smith v. Coplestone (3); 1876. Knapp T. Bunbury (4) ; Ashwell v. Staunton (5). FLANAGAN, J. :- The question in this case is in reference to No. 9 on the scheÂÂÂÂdule of incumbrances, a judgment recovered by Jane Smith against John...