Gort (Viscount), and Mayor, Sheriffs, and Citizens of Limerick, - Appellants; Attorney General, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1817 |
| Date | 25 May 1817 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 3 E.R. 1424
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. iii. 324. S.C. in Irish Court of Chancery, sub nom. A.-G. v. Limerick (Corporation of), Beat. 563. Commented on in Powerscourt v. Powerscourt, 1824, 1 Moll. 616, at p. 618; Incorporated Society v. Richards, 1841, 1 Dr. & War. 258, at p. 314; and see A.-G. v. Flood, 1817, Hayes, 611; A.-G. v. Carlisle (Mayor of), 1828, 2 Sim. 437, at p. 446.
Information by the Attorney General, at the relation of a freeman of Limerick, against the Chamberlain, and Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Citizens or Common Council of that city, stating that certain lands and revenues were granted to and vested in the corporation at large for divers public uses and purposes, the improvement of the city, and the preservation and support of public buildings, bridges, highways, and establishments therein: that the defendants had usurped the powers of the whole corporate body, and that the Chamberlain, in concert with the Common Council, had contrary to the charters and immemorial usage applied the revenues to their private purposes, without reference to the citizens and freemen at large, in their general assembly or Court of D'Oyer Hundred, etc.: and praying that the Chamberlain might account, and that a receiver might be appointed. Demurrers, for want of equity and jurisdiction, overruled by M. B.; and the order affirmed [137] by the Lord Chancellor, who was of opinion that the" uses were charitable and that the fact was sufficiently alleged. Order affirmed in Dom. Proc.
IEELAND. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY. gort (viscount), and mayor, sheriffs, and citizens of limerick,-Appellants; attorney general,-Respondent [May 25, 1817]. [Mews' Dig. iii. 324. S.C. in Irish Court of Chancery, sub nom. A.-G. v. Limerick (Corporation of), Beat. 563. Commented on in Powerscourt v. Powerscourt, 1824, 1 Moll. 616, at p. 618 ; Incorporated Society v. Richards, 1841, 1 Dr. & War. 258, at p. 314; and see A.-G. v. Flood, 1817, Hayes, 611; A.-G. v. Carlisle (Mayor of), 1828, 2 Sim. 437, at p. 446.] [Information by the Attorney General, at the relation of a freeman of Limerick, against the Chamberlain, and Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Citizens or Common Council of that city, stating that certain lands and revenues were granted to and vested in the corporation at large for divers public uses and purposes, the improvement of the city, and the preservation and support of public buildings, bridges, highways, and establishments therein: that the defendants had usurped the powers of the whole corporate body, and that the Chamberlain, in concert with the Common Council, had contrary to the charters and immemorial usage applied the revenues to their private purposes, without reference to the citizens and freemen at large, in their general assembly or Court of D'Oyer Hundred, etc.: and praying that the Chamberlain might account, and that a receiver might be appointed. Demurrers, for want of equity and jurisdiction, overruled by M. B.; and the order affirmed [137] by the Lord Chancellor, who was of opinion that the" uses were charitable and that the fact was sufficiently alleged. Order affirmed in Dom. Proc.] The Attorney General for Ireland, at and by the relation of John Tuthil, a freeman of the city of Limerick, oil behalf of himself and the rest of the freemen, on the 8th Jan. 1816, filed an information in Chancery against the Appellants, John Prender-gast, Lord Kiltarton, now Viscount Gort, and the Mayor, Sheriffs, and citizens of the city of Limerick, setting forth, that Limerick was an ancient city, and a corporation by charter and prescription, by the name of the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Citizens; that by charters of Edward III., King John, and succeeding Kings, all which were confirmed by Queen Elizabeth, many franchises and privileges were granted to the citizens; and amongst other things 5 that they should have all the lands and waste places within the liberties or precincts of the said city to dispose thereof, with the common consent of the citizens, etc.; that by virtue of the charters, the corporation was seized, etc. of a very considerable estate in lands, the rents of which, and the receipts for tolls and customs, amounted to a very large annual sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunnane, Ag v Shannon Foynes Port Company
...SAUNDERS & ANOR 1952 AER 193 GLENCAR EXPLORATION PLC V MAYO CO COUNCIL 2002 1 IR 85 PORTER V MCGILL 2002 2 AC 357 VISCOUNT GORT & ORS V AG 3 ER 1424 HL & AG V MAYOR ALDERMAN BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF BELFAST & ORS 1855 CH 119 Synopsis: SALE OF LAND Contract Sale of land - Setting side - ......
-
Attorney General v The Mayor and Corporation of Carlisle Dobinson v The Mayor and Corporation of Carlisle
...use as would authorize the Attorney-General to interfere with it by information. The decision in The Attorney-General v. Gort (6 Dow P. C. 136) proceeded on the same principle. Besides that case differs from the present; because some of the members of the Corporation had possessed themselve......
-
Public Trusts
...101), ss 1, 2.25 Charity Commission Act 1830(1 & 2 W IVc 34).26 The Collected PapersVol3 (Cambridge: CUP,1911) 4 02.27 Gort vAttGen (1817) 6 Dow 136.John Barratt517rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2006(2006) 69(4)MLR LC expressly declined to i ntervene in a borough’s non-c haritable expenditur......