The Estate of Michael Nunan, Owner; John George M'Carthy, Petitioner

JudgeRoss J.
Judgment Date16 February 1900
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Date16 February 1900



Chancery Division

Board of Public Works — Loan for improvements — Two portions of land charged — Liability of one portion for the whole on the other portion being evicted — Lis pendens.

Attorney-General v. IrelandUNK 15 L. R. Ir. 145

Bellamy v. SabineENR 1 De G. & J. 566.

In re Welch's EstateDLTR 5 I. L. T. R. 140.

328 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1900. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL NUNAN, OWNER; JOHN GEORGE M`CARTHY, PETITIONER. Board of Public Works—Loan for improvements —Two portions of land charged—Liability of one portion for the whole on the other portion being evicted—Lis pendens. In 1876 proceedings for the sale of certain lands—A, B, and C—in the Landed Estates Court were registered as a lis pendens. Nothing was done under those proceedings after 1879. In 1880 the owner applied to the Board of Works for a loan on those lands under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1847, which was duly made. In 1887 the landlord of B and C recovered possession of B and C in an ejectment for non-payment of rent. Another petition, for the sale of A, was subsequently filed :— Ileld (1), that the whole of the Board of Works loan was charged on A, with its statutory priority ; and (2) that the previous registration of the lis pendens did not affect the loan, as it derived its validity, not from the owner, but from the statute under which it was charged. APPLICATION on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings in this matter be consolidated with the proceedings in the matter of the estate of Michael Nunan, owner and petitioner ; and that the receiver pay the interest on incumbrances in the priority set out in the schedule to the notice of motion, i.e. in the following order :—(1) The petitioner, (2) Mrs. Harris, and (3) the ComÂmissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment. H. D. Conner, Q.C., for the petitioner : It is wrong to charge different estates, held under different tenures, in one charging order: 10 Viet. c. 32, sects. 6, 11, 22, 23, 37, 38, 49. No information was given in the advertisement in the .Dublin Gazette as to how much money was to be spent on each denomination of land. Further, as at the date of the order for the Board of Works loan the absolute order for sale had been registered as a lis pendens, the Commissioners must be held to have dealt with "VOL. I.]...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT