176 / 328
MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL
OCTOBER IITH: The President in the Chair, also
present Messrs. Thomas A. O'Reilly, Ralph J.
Walker, D. B. Gilmore, James R. C. Green, Gerald
Y. Goldberg, Charles Hyland, Peter E. O'Connell,
Peter D. M. Prentice, T. V. O'Connor, George A.
Nolan, Patrick Noonan, James J. O'Donovan,
John J. Nash, Niall S. Gaffney, John Carrigan,
Francis J. Lanigan, Reginald J. Nolan, Raymond A.
French, Brendan A. McGrath, Eunan McCarron,
Brendan T. Walsh, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, John C.
O'Carroll, William A. Osborne, J. Bernard
MacGarry, John Maher, Augustus Cullen, Daniel J.
O'Connor, Robert McD. Taylor.
The following was among the business transacted :
Sub-sale by purchaser. Costs
A member acted for a tenant of house property
which he had agreed to purchase from his landlord
at £1,200. Subsequent to the signing of the contract
and before the sale had been completed the purchaser
agreed to resell to his brother. Member acted tor
all three parties and the deed of conveyance was
signed by the landlord, purchaser and the sub-
purchaser. The subsale was made in consideration
of the money due to the first purchaser. Member
enquired if he was entitled to the scale costs on the
subsale and he stated that very little work had been
done by him on the subsale. Presumably he had
made only one investigation of title.
The Council on a report from a committee decided
that member was entitled to the following fee:
(1) as against the first vendor the commission scale
charge on the agreed price plus Schedule II charges
for the additional work consequent upon the subsale.
(2) As against the first purchaser Schedule II charges
for the additional work so far as not covered by
(i) plus the appropriate commission scale charge in
respect of the subsale. (3) As against the sub-
purchaser the appropriate commission scale charge
in respect of the subpurchase. This is on the
assumption that all work was substantially carried
out as described in the General Orders. Where one
solicitor acts for vendor and purchaser the registra
tion fee is not chargeable against the purchaser.
(See Society's GAZETTE for December 1956, page 5 3.)
NOVEMBER STH : The President in the Chair, also
present Messrs. John Maher, Augustus Cullen,
William A. Osborne, Brendan T. Walsh, J. Bernard
MacGarry, D. J. O'Connor, James R. C. Green,
D. B. Gilmore, Charles Hyland, Peter D. M.
Prentice, Desmond Moran, Brendan A. McGrath,
George A. Nolan, Niall S. Gaffney, Francis J.
Lanigan, John Carrigan, James W. O'Donovan,
T. V. O'Connor, Desmond J. Collins, Patrick
Noonan, Reginald J. Nolan, R. McD. Taylor,
Raymond A. French, Peter E. O'Connell, Eunan
McCarron.
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting
The Council unanimously resolved that Mr. Charles
Hyland be appointed as one of the Society's
representatives on the Council of Law Reporting in
place of Mr. Dermot P. Shaw who had resigned.
Law Reform
The Council considered draft memoranda prepared
by members on the law of evidence (Messrs.
O'Reilly and O'Connell); Guardianship of infants
(Messrs. Walsh and Osborne); Wills (Messrs.
Prentice and Hyland) and Administration of estates
(Messrs. Noonan and MacGarry) and it was directed
that they be sent to the Department of Justice with
the amendments agreed upon at the meeting.
International Bar Association
Mr. Carrigan was appointed as a vice-president
of the Association in place of Mr. Arthur Cox.
Solicitor instructed to take proceedings to
upset deed approved by his partner
Two members who practise in partnership sub
mitted the following query. A client of one of the
partners owned some land on a river bank and he
purported to sell a right of fishing in severally
which was attached to the land to a club of eighty
members. The deed of conveyance was drawn up
by another solicitor and submitted to member for
approval on behalf of his client. He approved the
deed and the transaction was completed. It then
transpired that in addition to the client about twenty
other persons had a right of fishing in the same
water and when they became aware of the alienation
of the right by the client they objected and they
came to member's partner for advice. He advised
them, after taking counsel's opinion, that the
alienation was bad and could be set aside and he
was instructed to institute proceedings to have the
deed set aside. At this stage he realised that the
deed of alienation had been approved by his partner
and he enquired if he was entitled to act for the
plaintiffs in the contemplated proceedings in his
own name. The Council, on a report from a
committee, were of opinion that no member of the
firm could act in the proceedings contesting the
validity of the deed which had been approved by
one of the partners.
NOVEMBER 22ND, 1962 : The President in the Chair,
also present Messrs. Francis J. Lanigan, Desmond J.
Collins, T. V. O'Connor, James R. C. Green,