Buggy v.Maher

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1927
• Date: 01 January 1927
• Docket Number: (1924. No. 6756.)

S. C., J. C.,

Buggy

and

Maher

Husband paying rent and getting fair rent fixed - Purchase by husband under Land Purchase Acts - Husband's title registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, subject to equities - Husband predeceasing wife -Whether chattel real vested in wife by survivorship - Graft - Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885 (48 49 Vict., c. 73), s. 8 - Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (50 51 Vict., c. 33), s. 14 (3) -Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891 (54 55 Vict., c. 66), ss. 73 (2), 84 (1), 86 (1) -Petition to the King for special leave to appeal -Leave refused.

The marriage portion of a woman, married in 1881, was a certain farm which was held by her father under a tenancy from year to year. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether her father transferred the farm before the marriage to her or to her husband. After the marriage the husband's name was entered as tenant in the landlord's books and he paid the rent until 1895, when a fair rent was fixed under the Land Act of 1881. The husband's name remained in the landlord's books until 1908, when he purchased the holding under the Land Act, 1903. He was registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, as owner in fee-simple, subject to equities. He predeceased his wife. She remained in possession of the farm, and was joined by her brothers, the defendants, who seized the stock and assets of the husband and prevented his personal representative administering his estate. Subsequently the wife died, it was not proved whether intestate or not, and no administration was taken out to her. After her death the defendants continued in possession of the farm. The husband, by his will, had devised the farm to the plaintiff, and she, suing as devisee and his personal representative, sought to recover possession of the farm. O'Shaughnessy, J., made an order for possession. Defendants applied to have the judgment set aside, and that judgment be entered for them, contending that the farm was transferred to the wife before her marriage; that, as her chattel real which had not been alienated by her husband during his lifetime, it vested in her by survivorship, that it did not pass under her husband's will, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim possession:—Held by the Supreme Court, that the judgment of O'Shaughnessy, J., must be affirmed. PerKennedy, C.J., and FitzGibbon, J.: Because the purchase by the husband of the fee-simple of...