Sharp County record., 1881-03-17
A Remarkable Canadian Lawsuit.

n
More than twcnty-sevcn years ago,
savs the Toronto H'Oje, a seaiarlng man
named William Mcllroy was the owner
of a farm in the County OF Simcoe, be-
ino the west half of lot eighteen in the
sixth concession of the Township Of
Adiala, He had wife and infant daugh-
ter That man is the hero of most
curious starry. He has not been heard
of for twenty-seven years. He has IN
all probability been long dead, and all
this time he has been the plaintiff in a
suit in the Court of Chancery OF this
nroyince, in which an order was made
no later than last Tuesday, A short
history of the case will probably be
found Interesting The bill was filed
on the Sth of August, 1854, by William
McIlroy as plaintiff, against E. II.
Hawke and John Moran as defendants.
The bill claimed that certain deed
giyen to Hawke, though in form abso-
lutte, was, in fact, mortgage, that
Moran (the brother of the plaintiff S
wife. who purchased from Hawke, was
in reality the agent OF McIroy, and
purchased in his own name for the ben
eft of NlcIlroy. The bill prayed that
the plaintiff might be allowed to re-
deem, and that the defendant Moran
might be held to be a trustee for him Of
the farm. Moran had gone into posses
sion ever since. The defendant, short
ly after his bill was filed, went to
the States in search of employment.
One letter was received from him by
his wife shortly after his departure,
and since that time he has never been
heard of. Mrs. McIlroy has conducted
the case throughout on behalf Of her
husband. The case was heard by the
full Court of Chancery on the 18th OF
June, 1855, Mr.. Connor, Q. c., appear
ING for the plaintiff, Mr.. Mcdonald and
Mr.. Strong for defendant Moran, and
Mr.. Barrett for defendant Hawke.
Judgment for the plaintiff was given
by chancellor Blake on the 18th of
March, 1856, V. c. Spragge cOncurring,
and v. C. Esten dissenting. The plaint-
iff was to be at liberty to redeem on
payment of $780, the farm being worth
at that time, as alleged, So, 200. The
defendants objected that the plaint-
iff was dead and the suit there
fore abated. Mrs. McIroy made
every effort to find her husband, but
without success. The decree was not
taken out nor was any further proceed
ing taken in the suit till in 1870 an
order of revivor was issued by Mrs.
McIlroy's solicitor reviving the suit in
the name of the supposed dead
mans daughter. The defendant
Moran-all this time in posses
sion of the farm-contended that
there was no evidence that McIlroy
was dead and made an application TO
set aside the order of revivor. An issue
was directed to try whether plaintiff was
alive or dead at the date of the order Of
revivor. and after host of witnesses
had been examined the Court gave its
decision that lit was not found by this
Court that the plaintiff VIM. Mcllroy
was alive at the date of the order of re-
vivor." Then enSued further delay,
for the issue of this order was retarded
that Mrs. Mcllroy might make further
! inquiries. Advertisements were in
serted in leading American papers; but
there was no response or tidingS Of the
missing man. The next move was to
set aside the order of revivor and issue
decree in the original style of writ.
The present Chancellor gave judgment
ON this application, holding that Miss
McIlroy, the plaintiff, by revivor might
accept the contention of Moran that the
original plaintiff was still alive. The
case came up on Tuesday last, when
counsel spoke to the form of the order
and the Court directed that the order
{ of revivor should be set aside on pay
ment of costs, and the decree issued in
the original style of cause. The decree
will then issue at once for the recovery
of the farm by the McIlroys. The wife
will go into possession as her husbands
agent and will, of course, claim that
Moran has paid himself over and over
again, for the money she originally ad-
vanced out of the rents and profits of the
farm. Although Moran has been in pos
session more than twenty-seven years,
the statute of limitation does not run
in his favor, as a suit has been in prog
.ress all the time. Thus, by an extraor-
'dinary series of accidents, as a decree
pronounced twenty-seven years ago is
only now taken out. The plaintiff is
probably dead, while his counsel at the
first hearing and two of the Judges
have also joined the silent majority.
The solicitors on both sides have been
changed several times in the course of
twenty-seven years. Mr.. Perdue, who
for the plaintiff (or rather the
plaintiff S wife), and Mr.. Hoyles, who
appeared for the defendant Moran were
still in the nursery when the suit began.
The only persons who appear through
1out are Mrs. McIlroy and her brother,
the defendant, Moran.