The Gazette 1927-30

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

APRIL, 1928]

45

IRISH FREE STATE. HIGH COURT. BAIRD v. MURPHY. (Before Sullivan, P. ; Meredith and O'Byrne, J.J.) 1927, Oct. 11, 13 ; Dec. 8.—Practice—Juris diction of Master — Appointment of Receiver by way of equitable execution. The plaintiff had applied to the Master of the High Court for an order appointing a Receiver by way of equitable execution over the pension payable to defendant. The Master had marked the motion docket " No order for want of jurisdiction." The plaintiff applied to the High Court to discharge the Master's order or to make the order sought. Held unanimously, that the jurisdiction conferred on the Master by Order XIII, r. 2 (1) to make " any order which under the practice heretofore in force might have been made as of course " did not confer juris diction to make any order " which might have been made on an ex parte application," and that the Master was right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to make the order sought. (Reported The Irish Reports [1928], I. R., page 125.) THE SOCIETY'S CALENDAR. The Calendar and Law Directory of the Society for 1928 can be obtained in the Secretary's Office, 45 Kildare Street, Dublin, price five shillings; by post, five shillings and sixpence.

•of notice of appeal defendant threatened to distrain for the costs of dismiss, and plaintiff's Solicitor paid the amount of costs to the defendants' Solicitors at their request. The appeal was allowed, and the defendant (White) ordered to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal. Neither the defendant (White) nor his Solicitors (J. Beatty and W. Beatty) would refund the amount paid for costs of the Circuit Court proceedings, and the plaintiff sued them both by summary summons for £39 4s. lid. for money payable by the defendants for the use of the plaintiff, being the amount of the taxed costs of White of a dismiss in an action by the plaintiff, Burke, against the defendant (White) as defendant in the Circuit Court of Dublin, and which dismiss was reversed with costs by the Special Commissioners on appeal. Held, that the amount could not be recovered from the defendants' Solicitors, as a Solicitor receiving money on behalf of a client does so as his agent, and the ordinary rules of law applicable to principal and agent apply ; but held that the money could be recovered from the defendant (White) as money received to the plaintiff's use. Judgment given for the full amount, with costs, against the defendant (White), and judgment given in favour of the defendants (J. and W. Beatty, Solicitors) dismissing the claim against them without costs. (Reported The Irish Reports [1928], I. R., page 91.) ALL communications connected with THE GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Society, 45 Kildare Street, Dublin, C.17.