Thomas O'Brien, Petitioner; Edward Scott, Respondent. Thomas O'Brien, Petitioner; James Doyle and Daniel Scott, Respondents

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 July 1847
• Date: 19 July 1847
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

THOMAS O'BRIEN,

Petitioner;

EDWARD SCOTT,

Respondent.

THOMAS O'BRIEN,

Petitioner;

JAMES DOYLE and DANIEL SCOTT,

Respondents.

In re Bagot 8 Ir. Law Rep. 295.

M'Ilwaine v. Magill 1 H. & B. 396, n.

Underhill v. DevereuxENR 2 Saund. 68.

Robinson v. Harrington Powel on Mortgages, 515 a, 6th Ed.

Whitworth v. GaugainENRENR 3 Hare, 426, S. C. affirmed on appeal, 1 Phillips, 728.

Steele v. RookeUNK 1 B. & P. 310.

Doe v. Magill 1 Hud. & B. 396.

UNK See Abbott v. Stratton, 9 IR. Eq. Rep. 233.

CASES IN EQUITY. 63 1847. Rolle. THOMAS O'BRIEN, . Petitioner; EDWARD SCOTT, . Respondent. THOMAS O'BRIEN, . . Petitioner; JAMES DOYLE and DANIEL SCOTT, . Respondents. June 23 July 3, 19. IN this case a petition was presented under the Sheriffs' Act for a A obtained a judgment in receiver. The facts of the case were these T. T. 1845. B obtained a In Trinity Term 1845 the respondents in the second matter, judgment in T. T. 1846. A James Doyle and Daniel Scott, obtained a judgment against sued out an elegit, the - Edward Scott the respondent in the first matter. quisition on which was re In Trinity Term 1846 the petitioner obtained a judgment against turned and fi- - led on the 2th the said Edward Scott. James Doyle and Daniel Scott issued an of July 18046, elegit on their judgment. The inquisition was returned and filed on and went into possession of the 20th of July 1846 ; and shortly afterwards they entered into the lands ex tended. B's possession under the elegit and inquisition. judgment was registered in The petitioner Thomas O'Brien registered the judgment so September 1846 ; A's in obtained by him in Trinity Term 1846, on the 25th of Septem- February1847. Held, that A's ber 1846. judgment had . In October 1846 Thomas O'Brien presented a petition under the priority. Semble.- Sheriffs' Act, for a receiver over the lands and premises extended The registra. tion of a judg under the elegit, stating in such petition that the said Edward Scott, ment under the 7 & 8 Vie. c. the conuzor of the judgment, was in possession. 90, gives no priority as be. An order of reference to appoint a receiver was made in November tween judg ment creditors, 1846, upon notice to E. Scott only. A notice was served on the except for the protection of petitioner Thomas O'Brien in February 1847 by James Doyle heirs and per sonal repre and Daniel Scott, cautioning him against proceeding under the sentatives in the adminis- order for the appointment of the receiver, and stating that the tration of as- had entered into possession under the elegit and inquisition. sets. On the 12th of February 1847 the judgment obtained by James Doyle and Daniel Scott was registered under the 7 & 8 Vic. c. 90. A second petition under the Sheriffs' Act was presented by 64 CASES nil EQUITY. 1847. Thomas O'Brien against James Doyle and Daniel Scott, submit &Us. ting that as the judgment obtained by T. O'Brien in Trinity Term o'BRIEN 1846 was registered under the Act on the 25th of September 1846, v. SCOTT. and the judgment obtained by James Doyle and Daniel Scott in Trinity Term 1845 was not registered until February 1847, the Statement. petitioner was entitled to priority, and the petitioner prayed to to have the benefit of the order made for the appointment of a receiver in the first matter. Mr. Patrick Blake, for the petitioner. Argument. The 2nd* section of the 7 & 8 Vic. C. 90, enacts that no, judgment shall affect "lands, tenements or hereditaments as to purchasers, mortgagees or creditors, unless or until a memorandum * NOTE.- The 7 & 8 Vic. c. 90, s. 2, enacts that "no judgment of the said Superior Courts respectively, or rule for such judgment, already docketed under the said first recited Act (3 G. 2, c. 7, Ir.), and which has not already been, or shall not, on or before the said first day of November 1844 be, redocketed or enteredafter revival under the said Act of the ninth year of the reign of his late-Majesty King George the Fourth (9 G. 4, c. 35), shall after the first day of November 1845; nor shall any judgment of the said Superior Courts respectively, which on the said first day of November 1844 shall not be docketed under the said first recited Act, or which shall be obtained after that day, affect any lands, teneÂÂments or hereditaments as to purchasers, mortgagees or creditors, unless and until a memorandum or minute thereof containing the names and the usual or last known place of abode, and the title, trade or profession of the plaintiff and defendÂÂant, or person whose estate is intended to be affected thereby, and the Court in which such judgment or rule shall have been obtained, and the date of such judgment or rule, and the amount of the debt, damages, costs or moneys thereby recovered or ordered to be paid, shall be left with the officer to be appointed under this Act, who shall forthwith enter the same particulars in a book in alphabetical order by the name of the defendant or person whose estate is intended to be affected by the said judgment or rule ; or unless and until the same shall be duly revived according to the course and practice of the said Superior Courts respectively, and a like memorandum or minute as aforesaid, stating also the revival thereof, shall be left with the officer to be appointed under this Act, who shall forthwith enter the same particulars in a book of revivals, to be kept by him in alphabetical order, by the name of the defendant or person whose estate is intended to be affected by such judgment or rule ; and such officer shall be entitled for...