Wilson v Lady Dunsany
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1854 |
| Date | 22 February 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 115
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 492; 2 W. R. 288. Disregarded, In re Klo'be, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 180.
[293] wilson v. lady dunsany. Feb. 17, 20, 22, 1854. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 492; 2 W. R. 288. Disregarded, In re Klvbe, 1884, 28 Ch.D. 180.] The priorities of creditors are regulated by the clomicil of the testator, though the personal assets may be situate and administered in another country. 116 WILSON V. LADY DUNSANY 18 BEAV. HM. The decree in a foreclosure suit iu Ireland is not a judgment for payment of the amount due, or of the balance after realizing the security. A foreign judgment constitutes but a simple contract debt. Lord Dunsany died domiciled in Ireland. This suit was instituted for the Administration of his estate, which turned out to be insolvent, and a competition therefore arose between his creditors, as to their respective priorities against the personal assets, under the following circumstances:- The testator was indebted upon mortgage to the Plaintiffs, who had, in his lifetime, instituted a foreclosure suit in Ireland. In November 1845 they obtained the decree usual in that country, for an account of what was due, and, in default of payment within a limited time, for a sale. Default being made in payment of what was due, a sale of the mortgaged property took place in June 1850, and after applying the produce towards payment of the mortgage debt, there still remained 2436 due to the Plaintiffs. The testator was also indebted to Greneral Carpenter in 1102 secured by covenant, on which an English judgment had been obtained ; and he was also indebted to Mr. Dawson in the sum of 576 upon bond, on which also an English judgment had been obtained. The personal assets in England amounted to about 608, and those in Ireland to about 1154. The question was, in what order they ought to be applied. Mr. E. Palmer and Mi1. Bovill, for the Plaintiffs. The assets of a testator must be administered in the [294] manner and according to the priorities of the law of the testator's domicil. It must be admitted that such is not the law of America. Story (Conflict of Laws, s. 525, p. 774 (3d edit.)), after observing that in some countries all debts stand in an equal rank, and are payable pwri passu, while in others, as in England, certain classes of debts, as bonds and judgments, are entitled to priority, proceeds thus:-"Let us suppose, then, that a debtor dies domiciled in a country where such priority of right and privilege exists ; and he has personal assets situate in a State where all debts atand in an equal rank, and administration is duly taken out in the place of his domicil, and also in the place of the situs of the assets. What rule is to govern in the marshalling of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reimers vDruce
...It is in the nature of a simple contract debt, arid creates no estoppel, as in the case of an English judgment, Wilson v. Lady Dimsany (18 Beav. 293); matters in pain may, therefore, be given in evidence regarding it. They insisted that the judgment of this foreign Court shewed error on the......
-
Hinds v Blacker and Coffey
...CompanyELR 7 Ch. D. 573. Dowling v. FordENR 11 M. & W. 329. Slim v. CroucherENR 2 Giff. 37; 1 D. F. & Jo. 518. Wilson v. Lady DunsanyENR 18 Beav. 293. Dymond v. CroftELR 3 Ch. D. 512. Marryat v. MarryatENR 28 Beav. 224. Saunders v. MilsomeELR L. R. 2 Eq. 575. Harding v. Edgecumbe 28 L. J. (......
-
James Bruce and Samuel Bruce v Mary E. Brophy
...do not think that we ought to depart from the ordinary practice. Holmes, L.J., concurred. R. ST. J. C. (1) 15 L. R. Ir. 71, at P. 75. (2) 18 Beav. 293, (1) 5 Moo. P. C. 393, 426. (2) Notes, vol. xxxiii, p. 28. (3) 15 L. R. Ir. 71. (1) In the Court of Appeal, before Sir Samuel Walker, C., an......
-
Beavan v Lord Hastings
..." Mr. Cole (Mr. Rolt, Q.C., with him), for the Plaintiff, cited Preston v. Lord Melville (8 Cl. & F. 12) and Wilson v. Lady Dunsany (18 Beav. 293). Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., and Mr. Freeling, for the Defendant, were not called on. vice-chancellor Sir W. page wood. I think that it is a misconception......