Woodroffe v Greene

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 November 1861
• Date: 11 November 1861
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

WOODROFFE

and

GREENE.

Hickson v. Collis 1 J. & L. 110.

Beavan v. Lord Oxford 1 Jur., N. S., 1121.

In re Huthwaite 2 Ir. Chan. Rep. 54.

M'Dowell v. Wheatly 7 Ir. Chan. Rep. 562.

Crosbie v. Murphy 8 Ir. Chan. Rep. 301.

Taylor v. Taylor 5 Eq. Rep. 262.

In re Taylor's Estate 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 288.

In re Fitzgerald's Estate 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 356.

In re Smith & Ross 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 597.

In re Edwards's Estate 6 Ir. Jur., N. S., 10.

In re Power's Estate Not reported.

Walsh v. PribbleHRC 1 D. & R. 215.

Holdgate v. Slight 21 Law Jour., Q. B., 74.

Evans v. ThomasENR 2 Str. 833.

O'Brien v. ScottUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 63.

M' Dowell v. Wheatly; Crosbie v. Murphy; Murtagh v. Tisdall Fl. & K. 20.

Blackwell v. EnglandENR 8 El. & Bl. 54.

In re Lowe 4 Ir. Chan. Rep. 97.

In re Huthwaite; Rickard v. Bretts 5 Exch., N. S., 9.

Braithwaite v. WattsENR 2 Cr. & J. 318.

Hatton v. English 26 Law Jour., Q. B., 161.

Welch v. PribbleHRC 1 D. & R. 215.

Hewer v. Cox 30 Law Jour., N. S., Q. B. 73.

M'Donnell v. Murphy 2 F. & Sm. 304.

Wyatt v. Barwell 19 Ves. 438.

Blackwell v. England 8 Ell. & Bl. 45.

Hewer v. Cox 30 Law Jour., N. S., Q. B., 73.

Holdgate v. Slight 21 Law Jour., Q. B., 74.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 473 1861. Rolls. WOODROFFE v. GREENE. And other Matters. (In the Rolls.) June 28. July 6. Nov. 11. Tam was a motion on objections to vary the Master's report., filed In the attor ney's affidavit, the 22nd of May 1861, and made under an order of reference, of the and the re- hdoocokketintge at_ 1st of March 1858, by which it was referred to the Master to inquire tootirnngey rae- jdnodcgk_. and report who was entitled to the funds standing to the credit of G. under the these matters, and to allocate the funds. 9 G. 4, c. 35, The result of the findings in the Master's report, which are stated was described as " J. N. of at length in the judgment, was as follows :-The funds to be alio- N., the city o W.," instead Bated were, a sum of £2454. 9s. I0d., new £3 per cent. stock, and of his regis tered residence £136. Is. 11d. cash. The parties who appeared before the Master in Dublin. There was no to claim the fund were, first, Henry Nixon and Arthur Browne, the other attorney of the same petitioners in the tenth matter, who claimed on foot of a judgment name practis- ing astltdh, e titmhaet. of Hilary Term 1826, which was not re-docketed pursuant to the re - ad wso ck neott- 9 G. 4, c. 35, and on which a sum of £2227. 14s. Id. was found by ing vitiated there the report to be due. byc,t had by the Secondly.-Henry Clinton Martin and John Greene, the peti- Net hat mitiobtis tioners in the eighth matter, who claimed on foot of a judgment of i licence when re-dock- k Michaelmas Term 1827, which had been re-docketed on the 28th theas judgment w of October 1844 by John Newport, who, in his affidavit, and in the eted. eighth column of the book purporting to contain the "name and Statement registered residence of the attorney re-docketing," was described as " John Newport, of the city of Waterford." The registered resiÂdence of John Newport, in 1844, was 63 Lower Gardiner-street, Dublin ; and it appeared, though not so proved before the Master, that he had not taken out his licence in the year 1814. Thirdly.-The petitioners in the sixth matter, the Rev. Thomas Jemison Cuffe and R. A. Ryland, on foot of a judgment of Hilary VOL. 12. 60 474 CHANCERY REPORTS. Term 1828, which was duly re-docketed, and on which £880. 4s. 7d. was found to be due. Fourthly.-The official manager of the Tipperary Bank, who appeared before the Master, but did not file any charge, or claim anything to be due on foot of a mortgage to James Sadleir, of the 15th of April 1848, but on which a sum of £1000 was found to be due, by an allocation report of the Master, dated the 23rd of June 1853. Fifthly.-The said petitioners in the eighth matter, who claimed £732. 4s. 8d. on foot of a judgment of Trinity Term 1835, which was duly re-docketed. Sixthly.-John Nugent, the petitioner in the third matter, who claimed under a re-docketed judgment subsequent to 1835, but the date of which did not appear by the report. The Master allocated the funds in payment, first, of the re-dockÂeted judgment of Hilary Term 1828, vested in the petitioners in the sixth matter ; secondly, in payment of the re-docketed judgment, of Trinity Term 1835, vested in the petitioners in the eighth matter; thirdly, in part payment of the subsequent judgment vested in the petitioner in the third matter: all which judgments were subsequent in date to the xin-redocketed judgment of Hilary Term 1826, and the judgment of Michaelmas Term 1827, in the re-docketing of which the registered residence of the attorney had been misdeÂscribed. Argument. Mr. Brewster and Mr. Exham, for the petitioners in the eighth matter, argued that the un-redocketed judgment of 1826, after twenty years having expired from the date of its entry, was void against the mortgage of 1848. But it was not necessary to re-docket the judgment of 1828, to give it priority over the mortgage, as twenty years had not expired from the entry of that judgment (which was prior to the 9 G. 4, c. 35), at the date of the execution of the mortgage : Hickson v. Collis (a); Beavan v. Lord Oxford (b). Consequently, the judgment of 1828 having priority over the mortÂgage, whether it was re-docketed or not, and the mortgage having (a) 1 J. & L. 110. (b) 1 Jur., N. S., 1121. CHANCERY REPORTS. 475 priority over the judgment of 1826, the judgment of 1828 had 1861. olls. priority over the judgment of 1826: In re Huthwaite (a). But, R OFFER WOOD in order to give the judgment of 1827 priority over the judgment v. of 1828, it was necessary that the judgment of 1828 should be GREENE. re-docketed ; and the Master had decided that it was not, on the Argument. authority of MWowell v. Wheatly (b), and Crosbie v. Murphy (c). Those cases had been decided on the Judgment Mortgage Act, and had been qualified by the later decisions : Taylor v. Taylor (d); In re Taylor's Estate (e); In re Fitzgerald's Estate (f); In re Smith 5- Ross (g) ; In re Edwards' Estate (h). In re Power's Estate (1). The mis-description of the registered residence of the attorney re-docketing the judgment did not vitiate the re-docketing of the judgment. The form of the affidavit given in the schedule to the Act was not imperative. It might be in the form or " to the effect " given by the Act. The description of the attorney was the act of the officer and the attorney, and could in no manner affect the object of the statute, which was to give notice to purchasers of outstanding judgments. No purchaser could be misled by it. The fact of the attorney not having taken out his licence was altogether immaterial, for it did not vitiate any act done by him: Walsh v. Pribbie (k); Holdgate v. Slight (0 ; Evans v. Thomas (m). Nothing was...