Weir v Chamley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1851
• Date: 18 November 1851
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

WEIR

and

CHAMLEY.

Johnson v. ReardonUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200.

Hawood v. Bland Fl. & K. 540.

Reynolds v. BlakeENR 2 Sim. & St. 117.

The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of NewarkENR 8 Sim. 71.

566 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1852. I am of opinion therefore that the receiver was privileged until Rolls. the motion was disposed of on the 7th of December. If,so, am I to BRABAZON hold that he was bound to leave town that night ? I think it would v. TEYNHAM. not be a liberal construction of the rule of the Court to require him Judgment. to travel all night. I shall therefore discharge Mr. Kelly from arrest. WEIR v. CHAMLEY. THE objections to the title of the lands sold in this cause having been allowed (see ante, vol. 1, p. 295,), the purchaser moved that he might be discharged from his purchase, and that he might be deÂÂclared entitled to his costs as purchaser of said lands, in investigating the title or otherwise in relation thereto, and that it might be reÂÂferred to the Taxing-master to tax the same. Mr. Serjeant Christian and Mr. Franks, for the motion. The Solicitor-General (Mr. Hughes) and Mr. Greene, for the plaintiff, asked for a special direction to the Taxing-master to disÂÂallow certain costs of investigating the title which had been incurred between August 1848, when, in consequence of an opinion given by his Counsel in favour of the title, he furnished a requisition for searches, and June 1849, during which period a considerable porÂÂtion of the costs claimed had been incurred, which would not have been incurred had the objection been made at once. Dobbs on Judicial Sales, p. 60 ; Johnson v. Reardon (a), Ha-wood v. Bland (b), were cited. (a) 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200. (b) Fl. & E. 540. CHANCERY REPORTS. 567 The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. 1851. Before I finally decide in this case, I shall have inquiry made as Rolls. to the usual form of order adopted in this Court in the time of Sir WEIR Michael O'Loghlen and Mr. Blackburne. As at present advised, I CHAMLEY. think this motion is an attempt to call on me to decide, before the Judgment. taxation of the costs, what costs should be allowed. There is no allegation that the costs in question were incurred mala .fide. The ground on which it is sought to deprive the purchaser of these costs is, that in 1848 he took the opinion of Counsel, who advised that the title was good ; and in August 1848 he furnished a requisition for searches. In June 1849 the opinion of the then Attorney-General was taken, in...