Carson v Jeffers and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | (1959. No. 174/P.) |
| Date | 01 January 1961 |
Grazing and conacre agreement - Lands subject of charge - Order for sale of the lands made in mortgage suit prior to agreement - Licensee having notice of mortgage suit and order at date of agreement - Implied term that agreement shouls terminate if necessary for purpose of implementing order in mortgage suit - Payment of consideration for licence a condition going to root of agreement - Non-payment of consideration - Possession.
The plaintiff at all material times was the registered owner of part of the lands of C., and of premises known as C. House situated thereon. He was also at all material times the registered owner of part of the lands of M. By deed of charge, dated the 5th June, 1955, the plaintiff charged the lands of C. with the repayment of certain principal money and interest in favour of C.A.S. By an order of the High Court, dated the 28th January, 1957, made at the suit of C.A.S. the usual reliefs in a mortgage...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Philip Norman McCall Bernard Joseph Anthony Keenan
(personal representatives of Eileen McClean dec'd) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, SPC 00678
...to above] and Income Tax. Between terra and vestura terrae there is a marked distinction …” [Mr Massey’s emphasis]82. In Carson v Jeffers [1961] IR 44 Budd J held that a landowner who entered into “an ordinary agistment agreement, or licence to graze and conacre lands” did not thereby part ......