CONSTITUTED BY

THE STANDARD

ACT OF PARLIAMENT. LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

EDINBURGH (Head Office) 3, GEORGE-STREET.

DUBLIN, 66, UPPER SACKVILLE-ST.

ESTABLISHED 1825.

LONDON, 82, KING WILLIAM-ST. GLASGOW, 35, ST. VINCENT-PLACE. DIVISION OF PROFITS.

A very large portion of the Profits is allocated periodically to the Assured on the principle of a TONTINE. Divisions have already taken place at five periods, viz.-1835, 1840, 1845, 1850, and 1855. The following are examples:

The Share of Profits attaching to a Policy may be applied to increase the Sum Assured, or the value may be received in Cash, or be applied to reduce the Annual Premiums.

The Sixth Division of Profits will be made on 15th November, 1860.

CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE.

UNCHALLENGEABLE POLICIES AND FREE RESIDENCE IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD.

Since 1851, when this Company promulgated the system of "Select Assurance," admission to which renders Policies indisputabl and unchallengeable on any ground whatever, the question of "Terms and Conditions" has become a most important point of consideration, and the day is quickly approaching when no one will hold a Policy from an office which does not give similar advantages. What a boon is it to all classes of Assurers to know, that whatever may happen, wherever the Assured may go, the claim will be met at death, subject to one simple condition, that the annual premium originally stipulated be punctually paid!

ADVANCES ON THE SECURITY OF POLICIES-AND SURRENDERS.

The Directors have lately adopted rules of the most liberal character with reference to Loans on the Security of their Policies, and to Surrenders, allowing surrender value on Participating Policies from the commencement of the Assurance, while the same sum which would be given for surrender will be given in loan without expense beyond the trifling stamp duty, and at a rate of interest which securities on land alone command. With these facilities, no Policy need be forfeited, except by carelessness, so long as the Assurance is of sufficient value to authorise an advance equivalent to the Premium.

Resident Secretary in Dublin, SAMUEL SMYLIE,

66, UPPER SACKVILLE-STREET.

Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its punctual delivery in Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day of publication.

All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGEGREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Address, as the columns of the Paper cannot be occupied with answers to anonymous communications--nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of manuscripts, &c.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION (payable in advance);--Yearly, £2. Single Number, 2s. 6d.

Published by EDWARD JOHNSTON MILLIKEN, 15, College-green, and printed at the Dublin Steam Press Printing Office, 65 Upper Suckville-street, by ROBERT G. SOUTER, Agent, who is authorized to receive orders for Advertisements.- January 15, 1858.

PRICE HALF-A-CROWN.

This Day is Published,

Price 7s. 6d. free by Post;

THE LAW OF

A HANDY BOOK ON PROPERTY LAW. JUDGMENT AND EXECUTIONS, together

In a Series of Letters. By LORD St. LEONARDS.

EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, Law Publisher, 15, College Green.

with the Duties and Offices of Sheriffs in relation to Writs of

Execution and Interpleader, with Forms, Cases, and Copious Index.

By ROBERT W. OSBORNE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

Dublin; EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN.

The Irish Jurist.

DUBLIN, FEBRUARY 1, 1858.

A VERY important question has been recently decided by the Court of Appeal in England, in the case of Bellamy v. Sabine (3 Jur. N. 8. 943), relative to the doctrine of lis pendens, and reversing the decision of the Vice-Chancellor; it was decided that there is no lis pendens between co-defendants. The facts of the case were complicated, but, so far as is sufficient to give an idea of the question raised, they were these: A, being seised of lands in feesimple, mortgaged them. There was a lien for unpaid purchase money affecting these lands at the time of the mortgage, of which the mortgagees had no notice, but to enforce which a bill was subsequently filed. Pending that suit, A again mortgaged the lands. The now plaintiff in this suit, in 1839 filed another bill, praying for specific performance of the contract for purchase, and contended that at the time of the previous mortgage, the mortgagees had, by reason of the pending of this suit, instituted in 1827 notice of this lien. In this position Vice-Chancellor Wood concurred, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The Lord Chancellor in his judgment said :—

the suit of Francis questioning Sabine's title, and
while it was pending, they cannot set up against
Francis any right from which Sabine, their mort-
gagee, was excluded by the decree. Their title was
good against Sabine, and so may be asserted against
whatever is due to him under the decree; but against
Francis, the plaintiff in the former suit, they can
be in no better position than Sabine himself. This
proposition is not disputed; but John Bellamy, the
plaintiff here, contends further, that not only did
and Good from insisting against Francis
the pendency of Francis's suit prevent Brickenden
upon their
mortgage, but inasmuch as the proceedings in that
suit gave notice of his, the now plaintiff's, equitable
rights under the deed of the 8th June, 1827, there-
I have already stated that for this argument I can
fore they took their mortgage subject to those rights.
discover no warrant. Of course, if they had notice
of the suit, the case might be different. Notice of
the equitable claim insisted on by the plaintiff
would prevent their setting up a legal title against
that claim; and whether the notice came to them
by means of their being made aware that a suit was
pending in which the right claimed appeared to be
claimed, or in any other manner, would be imma-
terial. But in such a case the legal title would be
affected, not by reason of there being lis pendens,
but by reason of the mortgagees having notice of
the claim. Here there is no suggestion that any
such notice existed. That this is the true doctrine
as to lis pendens appears to me not only founded on
principle, but also consistent with the authorities.
been devised to a trustee to sell for payment of
In Culpepper v. Aston (2 Ch. Cas. 115) land had
debts. The heir filed his bill against the trustee,
alleging that the real estate was not wanted for the
debts, and therefore praying a conveyance.
held that a sale by the trustee pendente lite did not
bind the heir. So, in Sorrell v. Carpenter (2 P Wms.
482), the plaintiff instituted a suit against one Ligo
upon a claim which by the decree he established to
certain leasehold estates. Pending the suit Ligo
sold to the defendant. The question was, whether
the defendant Carpenter could sustain his purchase.
Lord King was clear that he could not, although

It was

"I cannot concur in this view of the law. It is scarcely accurate to speak oflis pendens as affecting a purchaser upon the doctrine of notice, although undoubtedly the language of the Court often so describes its operation. It affects him, not because it amounts to notice, but because the law does not allow to litigant parties and give to them, pending the litigation, rights in the property in dispute, so as to prejudice the op-upon some formal ground the bill in that case was posite party. Where a litigation is pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind require that the decision of the Court in the suit shall be binding, not only upon the litigant parties, but also upon those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit, whether such alienees had or had not notice of the pending proceedings. If this were not so, there could be no certainty that litigation would ever come to an end. A mortgage or sale made before final decree to a person who had no notice of pending proceedings would always render a new suit necessary, and so interminable litigations might be the consequence. Thus, in the present case, it is certain that although Brickenden and Good were entirely ignorant of any right on the part of Francis Bellamy to question the title of Sabine derived under Edward, yet as their mortgage was made to them by Sabine after the institution of

dismissed. In both these cases the doctrine really was, that pending a litigation a defendant cannot by alienation affect the right of the plaintiff to the property in dispute; and the same principle is applicable against the plaintiff, so as to prevent him from alienating, to the prejudice of the defendant, where, from the nature of the suit, he may have in the result a right against the plaintiff; as in a bill by a devise to establish a will against an heir, if in the result the devise is declared void, the heir is not to be prejudiced by the alienation of the devisee (the plaintiff) pendente lite. (See Garth v. Ward, 2 Atk. 174.) The language of the Court in this case, as well as in Worsley v. The Earl of Scarborough (3 Atk. 392), certainly is to the effect that lis pendens is implied notice to all the world. But I confess I think that is not a perfectly accurate mode of stating the doctrine. What ought to be said is, that pendente lite neither party to the

litigation can alienate the property in dispute so as

to effect his opponent."

And Sir G. J. Turner, L.J. said :

LITERARY SALE ROOMS,

31, ANGLESEA-STREET.

Valuable Law Library of the late Honourable Judge Jackson.

with instruction to sell this particularly fine and valuable Library by Auction.

Embracing, as it does, almost every work of merit or utility for

the Reports up to a very recent period, in most unexceptionable con

"I have not found any authority for carrying this H. LEWIS begs to announce that he is honored doctrine to the extent to which this decision has gone. No case, so far as I am aware, has yet occurred in which the doctrine has been applied so as to affect the title of the alience of a defendant by virtue of a claim not interfering with the title of the plaintiff in the pending litigation. What is said in the cases of Worsley v. Lord Scarborough (3 Atk. 392); Mead v.

extensive practice in the various Courts, or for reference, together with dition, also the Statutes, State Trials, &c., it offers a most desirable opportunity to Gentlemen of the Bar who may be forming Libraries,

or wishing to complete sets already begun, to obtain them now. The Sale will take place in these Rooms in a few days.

Just Published,

EVY on BANKRUPTCY and INSOLVENCY.

Lord Orrery (Id. 235); and also in Metcalf v. Pul- Third edition, price 16s., embracing the New Act and New Prac

vertoft (2 V. & B. 200), seems to me to tend the other way. I regard this decision, therefore, as one of first impression, and it is plainly one of the utmost importance. John Bellamy and Sabine were

tice.

T. O'GORMAN, Law Bookseller, 33, Upper Ormond-quay, Dublin.
Sent carriage free to country subscribers.

co-defendants in the suit which was pending when THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.

(Incorporated A.D. 1720, by Charter of George the First.) CORBET AND ARMSTRONG,

Agents and Stock Brokers,

No. 5, COLLEGE-GREEN, DUBLIN.
Fire, Life, and Marine Assurances on liberal terms.
Life Assurances with, or without, participation in Profits.
Divisions of Profits every Five Years.

Any sum up to £15.000 insurable on the same Life.

A liberal participation in Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership.

The Reversionary Bonus has averaged nearly two per cent. per annum on the sum assured, or 43 per cent. upon the Premiums paid. It is believed that no other old established company, affording to the the same period a rate of Bonus equal to this.

Irish public the accommodation of local agencies, has maintained during

the alienation to Brickenden and Good was made,
and the effect of the decision is to cut down the
title of Sabine's alienee in favour of his co-defendant,
John Bellamy. Generally speaking, between co-
defendants there can be no decree. Is it to be said
that there is a lis pendens between them? If so,
when did it commence? The service of the sub-
pena constitutes a lis pendens between the plain-
tiff and defendant; but when is the lis pendens
between co-defendants to commence? This is one
of the difficulties which would arise from this
extension of the doctrine. But the difficulties to
which the extension of the doctrine would lead are
but of little importance when compared with the
consequences which would result from it. If this
decision be right, and an alienee of a defendant is
by virtue of this doctrine of lis pendens to be
affected by the claim of a co-defendant, upon what
principle is the alienee to be protected against the
claims of a mere stranger? Laying out of conside-
ration the cases in which decrees can be made ROYAL

The Expenses of Management, being divided between the different branches, are spread over a larger amount of business than that transreduced to a sum so small as to account for the magnitude of the Bonus acted by any other office. The charge upon each Policy is thereby which has been declared, and to afford a probability that a similar rate will be sustained at future divisions.

This Corporation affords to the Assured a liberal participation in

Profits, with exemption from the liabilities of partnership; a rate of guarantee of a large invested Capital Stock :-the advantages of modern practice, with the security of an Office whose resources have been

Bonus equal to the average returns of Mutual Societies, with the

tested by the experience of nearly a Century and a half.
Tables of rates and all other information, may be had on application
to CORBET AND ARMSTRONG, Agents and Stock Brokers,
No. 5 College-green, Dublin.

Capital-£2,000,000, in 100,000 Shares of £20 each.

Trustees:

John Shaw Leigh, Esq.; John Naylor, Esq.
Directors, &c., in Liverpool:

Charles Turner, Esq., Chairman; J. Bramley-Moore, Esq., M.P
and Ralph Brocklebank, Esq., Deputy Chairmen.

FIRE BRANCH

Annual Premiums £130,000, exceeding almost every Office in the
United Kingdom.

Losses Promptly and Liberally Paid.

between co-defendants, which are rare, and for the most part go no further than where it is necessary for the purposes of the plaintiff to adjudicate between the defendants, upon what ground is the case of a co-defendant to stand in a different position than that of a stranger? And if the doctrinə of lis pendens is to be carried so far as to affect a purchaser with notice in favour of a stranger, I hardly know what title would be safe, independently of the late acts requiring registration. Of course the observations which I have made are not to be taken as importing that the alienee of a plaintiff will not be bound as much as the alienee of a defendant, or to have any reference to cases where there is notice, independently of the lis pendens, or to cases in which the rights of the plaintiff may Amounting to £2 per Cent. per Annum on the sum Assured, being on

require that there should be an adjudication
between the defendants. But in this case no notice
is proved independently of the suit, and I see
nothing to show that the rights of Francis Bellamy,
the plaintiff in the suit which was pending when
the alienation was made, could render it necessary THE
for the interest of Francis Bellamy to decide any
question of right between John Bellamy and Sabine.
I am of opinion, therefore, that this decision cannot
be supported, and that the order must be varied in
the manner the Lord Chancellor has stated."

Every Five Years, from 31st December in each year.
PERCY M. DOVE, Actuary and Manager.

A. M'NEILE, 34 WESTMORELAND-ST., Agent.

CONSTITUTED BY

THE STANDARD

ACT OF PARLIAMENT. LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

EDINBURGH (Head Office) 3, GEORGE-STREET.

ESTABLISHED 1825.

GLASGOW, 35, ST. VINCENT-PLACE

A very large portion of the Profits is allocated periodically to the Assured on the principle of a TONTINE. Divisions have already taken place at five periods, viz.-1835, 1840, 1845, 1850, and 1855. The following are examples :

The Share of Profits attaching to a Policy may be applied to increase the Sum Assured, or the value may be received in Cash, or be applied to reduce the Annual Premiums.

General Statement of the Company's Business from 1846 to 1856.
Number of Proposals for Assurances made to the Directors.
Number of Assurance of Policies issued, exclusive of Annuities and
other transactions

10,490
8,390

£6,001,741 4 8
4,787,301 18 1

The Sixth Division of Profits will be made on 15th November, 1860.

CONDITIONS OF ASSURANCE.

UNCHALLENGEABLE POLICIES AND FREE RESIDENCE IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD

Since 1851, when this Company promulgated the system of "Select Assurance," admission to which renders Policies indisputabl and unchallengeable on any ground whatever, the question of "Terms and Conditions" has become a most important point of consideration, and the day is quickly approaching when no one will hold a Policy from an office which does not give similar advantages. What a boon is it to all classes of Assurers to know, that whatever may happen, wherever the Assured may go, the claim will be met at death, subject to one simple condition, that the annual premium originally stipulated be punctually paid!,

ADVANCES ON THE SECURITY OF POLICIES-AND SURRENDERS.

The Directors have lately adopted rules of the most liberal character with reference to Loans on the Security of their Policies' and to Surrenders, allowing surrender value on Participating Policies from the commencement of the Assurance, while the same sum which would be given for surrender will be given in loan without expense beyond the trifling stamp duty, and at a rate of interest which securities on land alone command. With these facilities, no Policy need be forfeited, except by carelessness, so long as the Assurance is of sufficient value to authorise an advance equivalent to the Premium.

Resident Secretary in Dublin, SAMUEL SMYLIE,

66, UPPER SACKVILLE-STREET.

Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE-GREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its punctual delivery in Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day of publication.

All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGEGREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Address, as the columns of the Paper cannot be occupied with answers to anonymous communications--nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of manuscripts, &c.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION (payable in advance) :--Yearly, £2. Single Number, 2s. 6d.

Published by EDWARD JOHNSTON MILLIKEN, 15, College-green, and printed at the Dublin Steam Press Printing Office, 65 Upper Sackville-street, by ROBERT G. SOUTER, Agent, who is authorized to receive orders for Advertisements- February 1, 1858.