Terence M’Mahon had left his house in St Christopher to his seven children as tenants in common. One of them (William) frequently occupied the house, three others occupied it occasionally, and three not at all. The executors of one of the children (Hannah) who had never occupied the house claimed that William was liable to Hannah’s estate for a seventh of the rent in respect of his occupation.
Held: Mere occupation (in the absence of agreement) would not make one co-owner liable to the others for rent. The house was open to all the tenants in common, William had been in occupation, but there was no exclusion of the other tenants in common: ‘Where there was neither contract nor exclusion, nor anything received, occupation by one tenant in common created no liability for rent to the other tenants in common.’
Judges:
Cottenham LC
Citations:
(1846) 1 Coop t Cott 457 (47 ER 944), SC 2 Ph 127 (41 ER 889)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – MacMahon v Burchell 20-Apr-1843
A share of rent due from the occupying tenant of certain premises to the estate of a testatrix, who was one of several tenants in common of the same premises, allowed to be set off by her executors in a suit for a legacy bequeathed by the testatrix . .
See Also – M’Mohan v Burchell 30-Apr-1845
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Byford v Butler; In re Byford deceased ChD 10-Jun-2003
The house was owned in joint names. The husband became bankrupt, and the wife continued to pay the mortgage as to interest and capital. The trustee sought a declaration as to the ownership of the interests in the house. After the husband died, the . .
See Also – M’Mohon v Burchell 5-Jun-1846
. .
See Also – William M’Mahon And Wife v Burchell And Another 4-Dec-1846
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Land
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.183863
