(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of the others, so that time did not run against those who … Continue reading Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson: PC 1968
The purpose of the section is to allow time to run against an administrator as from the intestate’s death, irrespective of whether a grant of administration has been obtained or not. Citations: (1886) 34 ChD 558 Statutes: Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 6 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Earnshaw and Others … Continue reading In Re Williams: 1886
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A delay in the application for the grant did not apply where time had not … Continue reading Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999
Mrs Jolly let a farm to her son who paid rent until 1881, but not thereafter, and her title to the farm was extinguished in 1893. She died in 1898. The question which arose was whether at her death any rent arrears remained due. Held: The extinction of the title also determined her entitlement to … Continue reading In Re Jolly: CA 1900
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud and claimed damages. At the trial the action was treated as action in the tort … Continue reading Nocton v Lord Ashburton: HL 19 Jun 1914
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section 70 relying on the statements. The judge held the statement inadmissible. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Where there … Continue reading Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company: CA 4 Nov 1999
