Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

son H., for life, remainder to the trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder from the death of H., to other trustees, for a term of 500 years, to raise portions for the younger children of H., and subject thereto; remainder to the first and other sons of H. in tail male; remainder to M. for life; remainder to the first and other sons of H., in tail male; remainder to the testator's daughters

A testator having several children, bequeathed to his daughter, M. G., £1000, to be paid by instal-in fee. The will contained a jointuring and leasments of £100 per annum, out of the farms and lands of B. and F., held by lease for three lives; which lands of B. and F., testator willed and bequeathed unto his son E. F., subject to the payment of the above £1000, as before recited, to his daughter M. G. After devising and bequeathing the residue of his real and personal estate to and among his other children, the testator concluded his will with the following clause: "I will, that in case of any of my children not having lawful issue at the time of his or her death, that anything I will to them, should go, share and share alike, among my sons and daughters." Held, that E. G. took an absolute estate quasi in fee, with an executory devise over to his brothers and sisters, in the event of his dying without issue, living at the time of his death. Geary v. Synan, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 509, Ex.

E. G. died without issue. Held, that the limitation over to the testator's sons and daughters extended to all of them, giving them, in the contingency provided for, the absolute interest in the lands of B. and F., and was not restricted to such of them only as were living at the death of E. G. Ib.

Devise, In case my wife should be now, or at the time of my death, pregnant, I leave and bequeath my said estate to the said daughter, and my daughters M. and A., share and share alike, subject, &c.; and my will is, that if any of my said

ing power to each devisee, when in the enjoyment of the lands; and a power was given to each, except H., to charge £2000 for younger children. The testator, subsequently to the execution of this will, married a second wife, and upon that marriage vested the lands of K. and P. in trustees, to secure her jointure; and by a codicil executed after this marriage, he revoked any former bequest or devise he had made to H., and then devised the lands of K. and P. to H. for life, subject to the jointure settled on testator's wife; remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders to the first and other sons of H., in tail; remainder to M. in fee; and he directed that this and every other codicil, should be taken and annexed to, and form part of his will. Held, that the term of five hundred years, created by the will of 1802, was not a subsisting term. Daly v. Daly, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 303, Q. B. [Perrin, J., dissentiente.]

A. seized of the reversion in fee, devised it to B., his nephew, "in as full a manner as he could convey it" to be enjoyed by his heir and his heirs male for ever. Held that B. took an estate in tail male. Roche v. O'Brien, 1 Ir. Jur. 156, Ex. Ch.

WITNESS.

Commission to examine.]-See EVIDENCE.

daughters, or all of them, should die without issue WORK AND LABOUR-See SERVANT AND

male, then, and in that case I bequeath all my said
estate to my brother A. N. for life." The will
concluded thus-" And in case all or any of my
daughters should leave male issue, my will is, that
such issue should inherit my said estate according
to priority of birth-the eldest son of
my eldest
daughter to succeed first; the issue male of my
eldest daughter to be preferred to the issue of the
younger and failing male issue from any of my
daughters, then to my brother A. aforesaid." No
child having been afterwards boru-Held, that the
daughter M. and A. took an estate in tail male, as
tenants in common, with cross-remainders by im-
plication; and that, by the last clause of the will,
there was not an intention sufficiently indicated
that the issue male should take as purchasers.
Nixon v. Blake, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 325, Q. B.

Semble, if the issue of the daughters took by purchase, an ultimate remainder in tail would vest in each daughter expectant on the determination of the estates tail to the first and other sons. Ib.

A., by will of September, 1802, devised the lands of K., C. and P. to trustees, to the use of his

MASTER. ASSUMPSIT.

WRIT.

Assistance.]-To induce the court to grant a writ of assistance to effect service of a summons in ejectment, it must be shown to the court that there is actual danger in attempting the service. Maher v. Ejector, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 78, Ex.

Of Capias.]-See EXECUTION. ARREST.
Of Ca. Sa.]-See EXECUTION.
Of Elegit.]-See EXECUTION.

Of Restitution.]-See EJECTMENT. RESTI.

TUTION.

40

Documents for See PRACTICE, read PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

p. 118, Daly v. Kelly, for 2 Ir. L. Rep. 299, read 4 İr. L. Rep. 16, C. P.

124, Anonymous, Bl. D. & O., for 205, read 207. 109, Bolton v. Cooke, Bl. D. & O. for 43 read 4. 94, After Burke v. Cooney, 6 Ir. L. Rep. read 204, C. P.

41, 106, for Brien v. Lord Ponsonby,read Bruce v. Lord Ponsonby, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 422, Q. B.

1, Bryan v. Campbell, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 408, Q. B., read Byrne v. Campbell. Ib.

93, Burriss v. Coffey, 6 Ir. L. Rep., for 398

read 298.

[blocks in formation]

A will in which no executor was named, and by the Court of Prerogative administration to the deceased, as in case of actual intestacy, was granted to one, and by the same court that administration was afterwards revoked, and administration cum testamento annexo granted to another. Held, that the first administration was voidable only, and not void. Secondly, that the mesne acts of the first administrator, if done in due course of administration, were valid. And, thirdly, that it lies upon the party impeaching those acts to show that they were not so done. Bevan v. Lloyd, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 228, C. P. Quære, as to the distinction between revocation upon citation and revocation upon appeal. Ib. Letters of administration to a deceased person were, as in case of actual intestacy, granted to A. The defendant made a bona fide payment to A., the administrator, on account of a debt due to the deceased, subsequently, a will made by the deceased, and in which no executor was named, having been produced, the letters of administration to A. were upon citation revoked, and letters of administration cum testamento annexo were granted to B. Held, in an action by B. against the defendant, that the payment on account to A., the first administrator, was valid, and that B., the second administrator, could recover the balance only. Maguire v. Denham, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 240, Q. B.

[ocr errors]

ARREST.

Privileged Persons.]—The privilege of an officer of the Queen's Bench from arrest is co-extensive with that of an attorney, and where the admittance to his house was obtained, and his arrest effected under the pretence of his being wanted by A., his assistant in the office, the court will not presume the defendant supposed he was wanted on office business. Magrath v. Cooper, Bl.D.& O. 141, Q.B. Where a defendant in execution paid the debt and costs, and the plaintiff refused to discharge him except on the condition of his paying the sheriff's fees. Held, in an action for maliciously detaining the creditor in prison, that the condition was regular, the defendant being liable to the payment of the poundage of the sheriff. Dunne v. Thorpe, Bl. D. & O. 128, N. P. [Per Pigot, C. B.] [See Cowper v. Goold, 2 Jon. 475, Ex.]

ATTORNEY-See SOLICITOR.

COSTS.

Laches-43 Geo. 3, c. 46, s. 3.]—A defendant had been arrested, and lodged in court a sum of money, in lieu of special bail, and judgment had been marked on a verdict found for an amount less than the sum claimed by the plaintiff, and the costs had been taxed and certified. Held that an application by the defendant, under the 43 G. 3, c. 46, s. 3, that he should be allowed the costs of the trial, was too late. Solomon v. Pitt, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 172, Q. B.

Taxation.]-Upon a motion in which two counsel were engaged and costs given generally, the taxingofficer allowed fees and briefs for one only, the court refused to review the taxation. Bacon v. Greer, Bl. D. & O. 188, Q. B.

The court has no jurisdiction to review a taxation by the Master under the 52nd section of the Lands Consolidation Acts, (8 Vic. c. 18.) Tennant v. Borough of Belfast, Bl. D. & O. 191, Q.B.

The court will not upon taxation allow as against the unsuccessful party more than the usual jury allowance, though such allowance was consented to by the parties. Molloy v. Brown, Bl. D. & O.231, Q.B.

In a qui tam action the court will restrain the officer from taxing the costs of the defendant upon judgment as in case of non-suit. Semple v. Gray, Bl. D. & O.232.

The court will refer it to their officer to review his taxation of fees allowed to a sheriff, on process to compel appearance by a corporation, but refused to refer it to him to review, on the ground that he only allowed three shillings to a surveyor and engineer employed by plaintiff to make a plan, and for which he was paid £6 6s. and £3 3s. for his attendance as a witness. Power v. Great Southern and W. R. C., Bl. D. & O. 236, Ex.

The expenses of a witness to prove a deed will not be allowed when the proof can be made by a person whose duty it is to be present at the time. Cockburne v. Molloy, Bl. D. & O. 287, Ex.

CRIMINAL LAW. Felony-23 & 24 Geo. 3 c. 20, s. 2.]—Unlawfully

and feloniously to carry away with intent to prevent the flour from being taken to the place of shipment is a felony within the 23 & 24 Geo. 3 c. 20 s. 2, notwithstanding the parties who committed the offence may have had another object also in view in committing the offence. Moloney v. Power, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 538, Q. B.

Setting aside process.]-Service of a writ will not be set aside for want of a date. Lecky v. Dunning, 5 Ir, L. Rep. 593, Q. B.

Where three separate writs had issued against three defendants, and three appearances had been entered, it is no ground of irregularity to join the defendants in one declaration. Walker v. Clarke and others, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 201, Q. B.

Rule for non-pros.]-If proceedings instituted in a superior court, be removed to an inferior juris

defendant's implied consent, the defendant cannot afterwards enter a rule for non-pros, in the court above. Taylor v. Cruise, 1 Ir. Jur. 263, C. P.

Notice of trial.]-Where there has been four clear days notice of countermand of trial, the defendant will not be entitled to any costs incurred. Irwin v. Meenaghan, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 285, C. P.

New trial.]-An application to set aside a verdict, and for a new trial, on the grounds of sur prise, and the discovery of new evidence, must be founded on affidavit. Hall v. Thorpe, 1 Ir. Jur. 238, Q. B.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. Composition bills.]-In 1844 M. being indebted to the plaintiff in £46 13s. 5d., gave him in pay-diction, at the instance of the plaintiff, and with the ment a bill for the amount drawn by one S. on the defendant, and accepted by him for the accommodation of M. When this became due, M. paid £10 on account, and gave a fresh bill for £30; and in April, 1845, being then indebted to the plaintiff in this latter bill then overdue, and in £6 13s. 5d., the balance of the former, he entered into an agreement, whereby the plaintiff, and others of his creditors, agreed to accept a compromise of 10s. in the pound, payable by instalments, and secured by the joint notes of M. and the defendant; but afterwards, to induce the plaintiff to sign the agreement, M. gave him as security for his entire demand, two acceptances of the defendant's, for £18 and £19 17s. 1d., respectively, whereupon he signed the agreement. When the first of these bills became due, M. paid £10 on account of it, and subsequently the balance of that bill being unpaid, and the second bill over-due, gave, in payment of the entire balance and interest thereon, two fresh acceptances of the defendant (who was an accommodation acceptor throughout), one for £13 13s., the other for £14 14s. Assumpsit against the acceptor upon this latter bill. Held, that the action could not be maintained, the bill being only a fresh security given to the plaintiff on foot of a transac tion which was originally contrary to public policy. Rooney v. Armstrong, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 291, Ex.

MAGISTRATE.

The court will not grant an order upon magistrates to take informations against a party charged with an offence, unless it appear that the informations of the parties applying were tendered to the magistrates in writing, and the informations so tendered, must be brought before the Court where the application is made. Ex parte Hughes, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 292, Q, B.

PRACTICE.

Appearance.]-Where an appearance is entered, but no notice of it served under the 103rd General

Rule, the plaintiff cannot enter a parliamentary appearance, but may proceed upon that already entered. Price v. Flattery, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 499, Q. B.

Setting aside proceedings.]-The affidavit of a defendant seeking to set aside proceedings, on the ground of non-service of the process, must contain a positive denial of his having had notice of the writ, and must also state circumstances from which the court may be satisfied that the process server has been either guilty of perjury, or been mistaken. Lewis v. Henry, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 218, Ex.

Judgment.-The court will not order satisfac tion to be entered on record of a judgment, on a warrant of attorney of one of the trustees, the other disclaiming having ever accepted the trust, and be. ing out of the jurisdiction and refusing to act. Irwin v. Irwin, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 273, C. P.

Error, assignment of]-Where, on a writ of error, brought on a judgment in ejectment, which had been commenced in the county of D., the error assigned was, that before and at the time of the teste of the venire, and thence until and at the time of the trial, the lands in question were situated in the county of L., and not in the county of D., without stating that at the time of the ejectment brought the premises were in the county of D. Held, that this assignment of error was insufficient. Heywood v Reynolds, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 409, Q. B.

[blocks in formation]

The court will not substitute service of a condiof 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105, ss. 23, 24, on the executors tional order to impound stock, under the provisions of a will, in whose name the stock was standing, in the dividends of which the judgment debtor (who was out of the jurisdiction) had a life interest, where it did not appear that the said executors had ever paid any of the said dividends to the debtor since his interest therein had accrued. Guinness v. Armit, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 165, C. P.

Quære, is service on the attorney, who transacts the law business of the judgment debtor, who is out of the jurisdiction, good service. Ib..

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

76

105

44

116

18, 133

Alcock v. Holland, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 366, C. P.
Aldworth v. Riordan, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 559, Ex.
Alford v. Begg, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 104, Ex.
Alker v. Dunne, 9 Ir. L. Rep, 105, Q. B.
Allen v. Linehan, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 291, Ex.
Allingham v. Walker, 1 Ir. Jur. 119, C. P.
American North Colonial Association v. Archer, 6 Ir.
L. Rep. 509, Ex.

...

...

...

Annette v. Osborne, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 317, Q. B.
Anonymous, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 167, Q. B.

[ocr errors]

3 Ir. L. Rep. 216, Q. B.
6 Ir. L. Rep. 202, Q. B.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 66, Q. B.
10 Ir. L. Rep. 111, Ex.
I Ir. L. Rep. 229, Ex.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 169, Q. B.
1 Ir. L. Rep. 291, Q. B.
4 Ir. L. Rep. 103, Q. B.
1 Ir. L. Rep. 294, Q. B.
Bl. D. & O. 99, Ex.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 66, Q. B.
1 Ir. L. Rep. 241, Q. B.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 160, Q. B.
3 Ir. L. Rep. 414, Q. B.
3 Ir. L. Rep 39, Ex.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 161, Q. B.
3 Ir. L. Rep. 40, Ex.
1 Ir. L. Rep. 99, Q. B.
4 Ir. L. Rep. 275, Q. B.
3 Ir. L. Rep. 204, Q. B.
Bl. D. & O. 50, C. P.
Bl. D. & O. 183, C. P.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 169, Q. B.

4 Ir. L. Rep. 434, Ex.

6 Ir. L. Rep. 237, Ex.

4 Ir. L. Rep. 434, Ex.

...

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

3

4

17

17

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

20 Atkinson v Carty, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 170.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors]

35 Atteridge v. Lord Audley, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 90, C. P.
36 Attorney General v. Cathew, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 149, Ex.
v. Malone, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 245, Ex. 20

38, 101

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

...

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Ex.
v. Dunne, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 357, Ex. 127,136
v. Upton, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 505, Ex. 132
98
v. Cathew, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 149, Ex. 136
98 Aungier v. English, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 226, C. P.
99 Aylmer v. Conlan, 1 Ir. Jur. 21, Q. B.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

104 Bacon v. Greer, Bl. D. & O. 92. Q. B.
106 Bagot v. Graham, Bl. D. & O. 239, Ex.
106 Bagot In re, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 295,
106 Bagot In re, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 295, Ex.
108 Bagot v. Malone, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 460, Q. B.
110 Bagot v. Malone, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 454, Q. B.
111 Bagwell v. Boland, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 293, Q. B....
111 Bailey v. Bailey, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 137, Ex.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

...

[ocr errors]

116
45

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

10

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

112 Baker v. Harte, 1 Ir. Jur. 247, Ex.
112 Baker v. Carroll, Bl. D. & Ọ. 60, N. P.
113 Baker v. Swayne, 1 Jon. & Car. 231,
115 Baldwin v. Irvine, Ir. Jur. 215, Ex.
115 Ball v. Bruen, Bl. D. & O. 283, Ex....
116 Ball v. Gordon, 9 M. & W. 345,
116 Ball v. Helsham, Bl. D. & O. 263, Ex...
124
and others v. Cox, Bl. D. & O. 28, Q. B.
128 Ball v. Mathews, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 316, Q. B.
134 Ballina Union v. Walshe, 1 Ir. Jur. 70, Ex.
144 Bank, Agricultural v. Nugent, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 357, Q. B. 131
25 Barclay v.- "" 1 Ir. L. Rep. 160, Q. B.
90 Barden, v. Magennis, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 345, C. P.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

1 Ir. L. Rep. 345, Q. B.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 167, Q. B.

2 Ir. L. Rep. 263, Q. B.
5 Ir. L. Rep. 242, C. P.
6 Ir. L. Rep. 44, Ex.

10 Ir. L. Rep. 467, Ex.
9 Ir. L. Rep. 394, Q. B.
2 Ir. L. Rep. 286, Q. B.
5 Ir. L. Rep. 508, Ex.
9 Ir. L. Rep. 394, Q. B.
Bl D. & O. 207, Ex.

4. Ir. L. Rep. 104, Q. B.

6 Ir. L. Rep. 152, C. P.
8 Ir. L. Rep. 12 Q. B.

v. Hearne, Bl. D. & O. 64, N. P.

Ansell v. Stewart, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 11, Q. B.

...

...

...

[ocr errors]

...

...

...

[blocks in formation]

94, 102
1, 39, 108

Barker v. Figgis, 1 Ir. Jur. 22, Ex.
Barrett v. Daly, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 518, Q. B.
Barrett v. Hyndman, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 109,
Barrington v. Wolfe, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 428, C. P.
Barrett v. Bermingham, Flan. & Kel. 566,
Barry v. Cambie, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 49, Ex. Ch.
Barry v. Cambie, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 68, Ex.
Barry v. Cambie, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 34, Ex. Ch.
Barry v. Hoare, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 97, Q. B.
Barry v. M'Dowell, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 348, Q. B....
Bastable v. Reardon, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 167,
Beamish v. Fitzmaurice, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 497, Q. B.
Belfast (Corporation of) v. Tisdall, 1 Ir. Jur. 206,
Bell v. Bell, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 79, Q. B.
Bell v. Ejector, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 195, Q. B.
Bell v. Fyan, Bl. D. & O. 31, Ex.

[blocks in formation]

...73, 119, 130

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

...

53

...

32

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Bruce v. Lord Ponsonby, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 414, Q. B. 41, 106
Brush v. Hayes, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 327, Q. B.
Bryant v. Clutton, I M. & W. 410,
Buckmaster v. Cox, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 101, Ex.
Burchall v. Ballamy, 5 Burr. 2693,
Budd v. Coyne, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 214, Ex.
Bull v. Collier, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 107, C. P.
Burke v. Cooney, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 204, C. P.
Burke v. Darcy, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 287, C. P.
Burke v. Dignam, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 368, C. P.
Burke v. Quinlan, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 310, Q. B.
Burke v. Ormsby, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 64, C. P.
Burke v. Ormsby, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 288, C. P.
Burriss v. Coffey, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 298, C. P.; S. C. 7 Ir.
L. Rep. 509, Ex. Ch.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

...

28

18, 40, 91

Bell v. Nangle, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 296, Q. B.
Bennett v. Anderson, 1 Ir. Jur. 245, Q. B.
Bennett v. Sandheim, 1 Ir. Jur. 215, Ex.
Bentley v. Hastings, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 170; S. C. 8 Ir. L.
Rep. 166, Ex. Ch.

[merged small][ocr errors]

...

...

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

...

27, 31

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Burrough v. Ferrard, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 372, Ex....
Burrowes v. Hogan, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 369, Ex.
Butt v. Jackson, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 120, Q. B.
Butler v. Bridge, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 464, C. P.
Butler v. Loyd, 1 Ir. Jur. 37, Q. B.
Byrne In re, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 181, C. P...

[ocr errors]

113
41,50
34, 124

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

v. Walsh, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 217, Q. B.
Byrne v. Campbell, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 408, Q. B....
Byrne v. Callaghan, Bl. D. & Ó. 184, C. P.
Byrne v. O'Flaherty, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 90, Ex.
Byrne v. Jones, Bl. D. & O. 40, Ex...

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

19 Callanan v. Callaghan, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 85, Ex.
Callaghan v. Twiss, 9 Ir. L. Rep 422, C. P.
101 Cambie v. Barry, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 316, Q. B.
108 Cambie v. Barry, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 34, Q. B.; S. C. 6 Ir.
L. Rep. 49, Ex. Ch.
Carnagie v. Kirby, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 392, Q. B.
Campbell v. Hynes, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 12, Q. B.
Campbell v. Regan, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 191, Q. B...
98 Campbell v. Stuart, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 482, Q. B.
98 Campion v. Campion, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 13, Q. B.

105, 106

Betham v. Franklin, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 40, Q. B. ...
Beresford v. Beresford, 4 Ir. L. Rep 316, Ex...
Beresford v. Loughnan, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 364, Ex.
Berry, Assignee of, v. M'Neill, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 17, C.P.
Bentham v. Hardy, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 179, Q. B....
Bevan v. Lloyd, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 228, C. P.
Birch v. Blenhet basset, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 394, Q. B.
Birch v. Meredith, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 138, C. P.
Birch v. Shaw, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 107, Ex.
Blackwood v. Jones, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 328, C. P...
Blain v. Wilson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 134, C. P.
Blake v. Blake. 7 Ir. L. Rep. 211. C. P.
Blake v. Golding, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 446, C. P.
Blake v. Davis, Bl. D. & O. 114, C. P.
Blake v. Vaden, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 1, C. P.
Blakeney v. Ware, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 246, Q. B.
Boileau v. Homan, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 118, C. P...
5 Ir. L. Rep. 183, C. P.
Bolton v. Cooke, Bl. D. & O. 4. Q. B.
Bond v. Bond, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 163, Q. B.
Bonsall v. Macklin, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 312, C. P.
Booth v.
1 Ir. Jur. 68, C. P.
Boothe v. M'Gowan, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 188, Ex....
Borbidge v. Freeman, Bl. D. & Ò. 213, Ex..
Burke v. Cooney, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 204, C. P.
Bourke v. Crosthwaite, Bl. D. & O. 74, N. P.
Bourne v.- 3 Ir. L. Rep. 363, C. P.
Bowen v. Cleary, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 449, Ex.
Bowen v. Keatinge, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 61, Q. B.
Bowyer v. Blair, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 149 Q. B.
Boyce v. Jones, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 231, Q. B.
Boyle v. Ejector, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 220, C. P.
Boyle v. Kiernan, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 273, Q. B.
Boyse v. Smyth, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 366, Ex.
Bradley v. Beddy, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 363; S.
& O. 117, N. P., Q. B.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]

106

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

8 Canal Co., Grand, v. The Guardians of the South Dub-
lin Union, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 424, Q. B. ...
Cannon v. Willington, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 138; S. C., BL.

136

72

16

23

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

64 Cardale v. O'Connell, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 208, C. P.
65 Carey v. Williams, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 115, C. P...
56 Carmichael v. Waterford & Limerick R. C., 1 Ir. Jur.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

...

145

139

62

...

66, 109
17, 115

[blocks in formation]

D.

69, 118

186, Q. B.; S. C. Ib. 285,
Carroll v. Develin, 1 Ir. Jur. 22, Q. B.
Carroll v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 117, C. P.
Carroll v. Farrelly, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 137, C. P.
Carroll v. Maher, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 470, C. P.
Carrigan v. Mullowney, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 254, Q. B.; S.
C. I. J. S. 550,

...

[ocr errors]

73

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Casey v. Deering, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 133, Q. B.
Casey v. Horner, 10 Ir. L. Rep, 221, Q. B.
Cash v. Trevor, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 433, Ex.
Cash v. Robertson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 352, Ex.
Cashin v. Coady, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 298, C. P.
Castlereagh Union v. Dillon, I Ir. Jur. 229, C. F.27, 28, 96
11 Castlebar Union, v. Lord Lucan, 1 Ir. Jur. 142, Q. B. 123
Cater v. Flattery, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 175, C. P.
4 Cater v. Flattery, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 117, Q. B.
112 Caulfield, In re, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 358, Q. B.
Chadwick v. Daly, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 176, C. P.
Chaffers v. Bingham, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 242, Q. B.
Chambers v. Franklin, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 356,
Chambers v. Bateson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 365, C. P.

73

53, 72, 132

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

134

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

...

Brady in Error v. Reg., 4 Ir. L. Rep. 21, Q.
Brady v. Bellew, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 348, C. P.
Brady v. Fitzgerald, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 295, Q. B.
Brady v. Rotheram, 1 Ir. Jur. 246, Ex.
Brandling v. Barrington, 6 B. & B. 475,
Brennan v. French, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 120, C. P...
Brennan v. Isaac, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 101, Q. B.
Brennan v. Monahan, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 545, Ex...
Brennan v. Monahan, Ir. L. Rep. 415, C. P.
Brennan v. Mullins, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 39, Ex.
Brett v. Taylor, Bl. D. & O. 35, Ex....
Brewster v. Kidgill, 12 Mod. 166,
Bridgeford v. Dublin & Kingstown Railway
L. Rep. 19, C. P.

[ocr errors]

...

...

[ocr errors]

93, 86

...

...

Co., 3 Ir.

...

Brien v. Brien, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 203, Q. B.
Broadbent v. Potter, 1 Ir. Jur. 264, Ex.
Broadbent v. M'Nicholl, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 417, C. P.
Brown v. Brady, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 245, Q. B.
Browne v. Browne, 1 Ir. Jur. 70, Ex...

[ocr errors]

102

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« EelmineJätka »