Miller v Woods
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1836 |
| Date | 22 February 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 191
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
rolls court. [8] miller v. woods. Feb. 16, 17, and 22, 1836. In this case W. T. Woods, the son of the Defendant, was appointed a tax collector by certain commissioners of taxes, and on that occasion he executed two several bonds for £5900 and £63, in which his father, W. Woods, the Defendant, and two other persons were sureties, and became jointly and severally bound. These bonds were to secure the due and punctual payment of the taxes collected by W. T. Woods. In 1833, W. T. Woods became a defaulter for £1800, and the Defendant, W. Woods, became liable, under the bonds, to make good the default; and being called on for payment, he deposited an indenture of lease with the commissioners, and executed a memorandum, dated 13th September 1833, stating, that the lease was deposited as a security to the commissioners for payment of £1800, which he had become liable to pay as the surety of his son. It was admitted that the principal did not bear interest. The Plaintiffs claimed as mortgagees, subsequent to the deposit being made, and had notice of the lien of the commissioners. The question was, whether the commissioners could have an immediate sale of the premises, or whether the mortgagors were not entitled to six months' notice to redeem, and if not then redeemed, to sell. the master of the rolls, during the argument, addressing Mr, Teed (who appeared for the Defendant Woods and the mortgagees), said, there are many cases in which payment of interest will induce the Court to delay, and here you want delay without paying interest. His Lordship afterwards said, in this case, no interest being paid, his impression was, that it would take it out of the decision of the Master of the Rolls, but he would consider his judgment. Feb. 22. the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale] said, the admission in the answer of the Defendant, W. Woods, that £1800 was due, did not bind the other Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Guardians of The South Dublin Union, Complainants; v Daniel Jones, Defendant
...Ireland has always been not to give costs where the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case : Richardson v. Conway (7) ; Little v. Donnelly (8). English authorities are not binding on the Irish Courts on points of practice. The practice is not settled in England, as shown by Brown v. ......
-
J Husbands and others v Cemex UK Operations Ltd: 1807121/2020 and others
...Claimants: (1) John Husbands (2) Andrew Shutt (3) Chris Donnelly (4) Jamie Lotherington (5) Phillip Shutt (6) Stephen Senior (7) Craig Donnelly (8) Andrew Fewkes Respondent: Cemex UK Operations Limited Heard at: Leeds by CVP Before: Employment Judge Maidment On: 19 November 2021 Representat......
-
McCausland (Paul) v Arundell (Michael) and AXA Insurance
...remarkable prescience as to where the ambulance driver would choose to park. [39] On the second occasion Arundel said he had known Donnelly 8 or 10 years as an acquaintance. He stated that after braking he did not stop but executed a u-turn and returned along the road to the Limavady end of......
-
VA06.3.041 – Kilsaran Concrete
...stone quarries and produce different products. 7. There are huge variations between the comparisons introduced by both Mr. Dineen and Mr. Donnelly. 8. The Tribunal prefers Mr. Dineen’s methodology to that of Mr. 9. The Tribunal finds that the tarmac plant was in operation on the valuation d......