This section provides that no prior or other registration of the judgment shall be necessary, i. e., for the purpose of affecting the lands of the debtor; but such registration and re-registration every five years are required for the purpose of securing precedence in the administration of assets (p). (9.) Registration of County Court judgments. By 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 18, a registry of County Court judgments is established. (10.) Judgments Extension Act, 1868. By 31 & 32 Vict. c. 54, where judgment has been obtained in 31 & 32 Vict. the Courts at Westminster (now the High Court), a certificate c. 54. thereof registered in Ireland, and vice versa, shall have the effect of a judgment of the Court in which it is so registered (1). Where judgment has been obtained in the Courts at Westminster (now the High Court) or at Dublin, a certificate thereof registered in Scotland shall have the effect of a decreet of the Court of Session (r). Where decreet has been obtained in the Court of Session, a certificate of an extract thereof, registered in England or Ireland, shall have the effect of a judgment of the Court in which it is registered (s). The Courts named in the Act are to have control over registered judgments or decreets, in so far as relates to execution (t). Costs are not to be allowed in actions on judgments within the Act, unless by order of Court (u). But the Act is not to apply to any decreet pronounced in absence in an action proceeding on an arrestment used to found jurisdiction in Scotland (x). c. 31. By 45 & 46 Vict. c. 31, judgments of any inferior Court of 45 & 46 Vict. England, Scotland or Ireland may be made effectual in any other inferior Court in the United Kingdom by registry of a certificate of the judgment in such other inferior Court (y). But the Act is When judgment creditor can proceed under old statute of not to apply when the defendant was domiciled in another part of the United Kingdom at the commencement of the action, unless the cause of action arose, and the summons was served personally, within the district (). We may add, that except as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, it seems perfectly competent for a judgment creditor to proceed under the old statute of Edw. I. (a), without docketing or Westminster. registration, and even so to proceed as against creditors of the judgment debtor, at least while such debtor is living; although in case of proceeding under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, registration of the judgment is required as against such creditors (¿). (z) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 31, s. 10. (a) Sup. p. 47. (b) S. 19. CHAPTER XII. NOTICE OF JUDGMENTS AND PRIORITY UNDER THE REGISTRY ACTS. Sect. 1. Notice of judgments before 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 2. Notice of judgments under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and Page. 108 7. Difference between English and Irish Registry Acts 8. Registration is not notice 9. Search not absolutely necessary 111 112 107 12. Summary of the law of judgments. (1.) Notice of judgments before 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. Statute of BEFORE the Statute of Frauds, a purchaser or mortgagee, with Before notice of a judgment or other incumbrance, was bound by it in the same manner as the vendor or mortgagor was (a). Statute of The same law prevailed under the Statute of Frauds (b), by Under the which estates, of which a trustee for the debtor was seised at the time of execution, were made subject to execution; although difference of opinion once prevailed on this point (c). It would seem clear, that at law the lands were not liable (d), but it was urged that they were liable in equity, if the purchaser, &c., had notice. The precise point afterwards occurred, and it was (e) decided that a purchaser from the trustee, between the entry of the judgment and (a) Anon., 2 Ventr. 361, note; 2 Sug. V. & P. 665, ed. 11. (b) 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 10; sup. p. 52. (e) Pow. Mtg. 508, ed. 4; and Sug. V. & P. 656, ed. 11. (d) Hunt v. Coles, Com. 226; and see Com. Dig. tit. Execution (C. 14), and 2 Saund. 11. (e) Sug. V. & P. 656, ed. 11; Higgins v. The York Building Co., 2 Atk. 107. Notice equivalent to the execution with notice of the judgment, was bound by it in equity (f). Notwithstanding the enactments requiring docketing and regisregistration. tration, their particular object being to secure subsequent purchasers and mortgagees against secret incumbrances, a purchaser or mortgagee with notice of any undocketed or unregistered judgment, was bound by it, in equity, as completely as if the judgment had been docketed or registered within the period prescribed by the particular Acts. This was the case with regard to judgments, not docketed in pursuance of the Statute of Frauds (g), and generally under the Registry Acts (h). 1 & 2 Vict. (2.) Notice of judgments under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, By s. 13 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, it is provided that nothing c. 110, s. 13. therein contained shall be deemed to affect any doctrine of Courts 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11. of Equity, whereby protection is given to purchasers for valuable consideration without notice. But as this left a bonâ fide purchaser without notice in many cases still liable more extensively to judgment creditors than he was before the statute (i), it was by s. 5 of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, enacted that as against purchasers and mortgagees without notice of any such judgment, decrees, or orders, rules or orders, as in the Act mentioned, none of such judgments, decrees, or orders, rules or orders, should bind or affect any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest therein, further or otherwise, or more extensively in any respect, although duly registered, than a judgment of one of the superior Courts would have bound such purchasers or mortgagees, before 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, where it had been duly docketed according to the law then in force (k). Thus, as against purchasers or mortgagees without notice of subsisting judgments, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, was rendered a dead letter, so that as respects such purchasers and mortgagees, the old rule was restored (1). (f) Tunstall v. Trappes, 3 Sim. 286. was not a case of notice. (h) Le Neve v. Le N. 3 Atk. 646, and inf. p. 113. (i) Sug. V. & P. 533, ed. 14. (4) See Irish Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 90, s. 8, which contains a similar provision. (1) Sug. V. & P. 533, ed. 14; Dart and Barb. 456, ed. 5. c. 11. The effect of s. 5 of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, was to substitute registra- 2 & 3 Vict. tion under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, for the old docket (m); so that an old judgment not docketed, but registered under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, is prior to a subsequent mortgage of the equity of redemption, though without notice (m). Under this section, a registration of an old judgment not docketed previous to 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, s. 5, is valid, although the judgment creditor is dead (n). In a case where an annuitant having the security of an old docketed judgment, but not having received payment for nineteen years, filed his bill against certain incumbrancers who had obtained a decree for settling their priorities in a suit to which he was not a party, the Master of the Rolls aided him in bringing an ejectment by the removal of outstanding terms (). In this case, the subsequent incumbrancer had constructive notice of the judgment, but the bill was filed before 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11 received the royal assent, so that the effect of the notice against that and the earlier Act did not arise. (3.) Notice of unregistered judgment not now binding. c. 82. Notwithstanding the provision of the Acts of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, 3 & 4 Vict. s. 13, and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, s. 5, a purchaser was upon principle, equally as before, bound by notice of a judgment not duly registered. But by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82, a mortgagee, with notice of an unregistered judgment, is protected from the additional remedies of the judgment creditor under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110; and, since the old dockets are closed, he is equally safe from any remedy which, under the old law, depended upon docketing. Under these Acts, it was held that an outstanding docketed judgment, not registered under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, was not an objection to a title (p). The same would seem to apply to a judgment not re-registered at the end of the five years; for the subsequent mortgagee or purchaser, though aware of its previous registration, might presume that it had been satisfied (q). It was, however, still thought doubtful, whether a mortgagee (m) Doswell v. Recce, 11 Jur. N. S. 764, V. C. Wood. (n) Ib.; see Balfour v. Watt, 8 Mo. P. C. C. 190. (0) Smith v. Earl of Effingham, 7 Beav. 357. (p) Bedford v. Forbes, 1 C. & K. 33. (2) Beere v. Head, 3 Jo. & Lat. 310; Knox v. Kelly, 1 Dr. & Wal. 542; Hickson v. Collis, 1 Jo. & Lat. 94; Exp. Belfast Harbour Commissioners, 5 Ir. Jur. 35; Benham v. Keane, 1 Jo. & II. 685, affirmed 3 De G. F. & J. 318. |