Condon v Mitchelstown Rural District Council

CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date18 December 1913
Date18 December 1913



Ross, J.



R. (Ferguson) v. Lurgan Rural District CouncilDLTR 47 I. L. T. R. 31.

R. (Ryan) v. Recorder of CorlIR [1913] 2 I. R. 241.

Steedman v. PooleENR 6 Hare, 193.

Tevlin v. Lisnaskea Rural District CouncilIR [1914] 2 I. R. 15.

Local Government —— Improvement scheme founded on representation on behalf of agricultural labourer — Right of such labourer to preference on first letting of particular cottage —

Von. 1.] CHANCERY DIVISION.. the property during the life of the plaintiff amounts to a restraint on anticipation. In that respect the terms of this devise are similar to those in Steedman v. Poole (1). Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff takes an estate for life for her separate use, with a restraint upon anticipation during coverture. Solicitor for the plaintiff : David III`Gonigal. Solicitor for the defendant : Francis Kerr. R. W. L. CONDON v. MITCHELSTOWN RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL. Local Government—Labourers (Ireland) Acts—Improvement scheme founded on representation on behalf of agricultural labourer—Right of such labourer to preference on first letting of particular cottage—Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 37), s. 29. hepresentations under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts were, on behalf of -certain labourers, made to a district council, representing that there were not sufficient houses in certain electoral divisions, and suggesting the building of cottages for the labourers mentioned in the representations. One of these representations was made on behalf of the plaintiff, and suggested the building of a cottage on a site in the townland of B. The council thereupon made a scheme, in pursuance of which they acquired a plot in the townland of B. and built ten cottages thereon. Under the same scheme they also acquired other plots in an adjoining townland and erected cottages thereon. The council had made regulations under sect. 29 of the Labourers Act, 1906, providing for a preference on the first letting of cottages comprised in the scheme to be given to labourers who had signed the representation on which the scheme was founded. Held by the Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of Ross, J.), that the plaintiff, assuming that he had a right of preference to some one of the cottages included in the scheme, was not entitled to a preferential right to a particular cottage, or to one of the particular cottages erected on the townland specified in the representation signed by him. 41):6 Hare, 193. 114 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1914. Ross, J. TRIAL OF ACTION. 1913. The defendants had framed an improvement scheme (sub CON DON v. sequently duly confirmed) under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, MlrcR LS- to acquire certain plots of land, and build cottages thereon. The TOWN RURAL DISTRICT plaintiff was an agricultural labourer, and one of the represenÂCOUN at. tations on which the scheme was founded was made on his behalf. This representation was as follows :— LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS, 1883 TO 1906. REPRESENTATION. (Cottages to be built in substitution for insanitary dwellings.) Mitchelstown Rural District No. 1. Mitchelstown District Electoral Division. We the undersigned, being agricultural labourers or ratepayers, represent that the under-mentioned labourers are living in houses which are unfit for human habitation, and should be provided with suitable house-accommodation, and that it is the duty of the district council to take proceedings under the Labourers Acts for the making of an improvement scheme in respect of the above-named electoral division. We suggest that cottages should be built in lieu of these dwellings on the holdings named in the Schedule set out below, and that suitable plots should be attached thereto. Signatures. Addresses. 1. James Finn, . Mitchelstown. 2. Patrick Russell, 3. William Roche, ), SCHEDULE. The defendants acquired, under the scheme, a plot of land in, the townlancl of Ballinwillin, in the occupation of the Countess. of Kingston, containing 1A. la. 28p. (described as plot No. 41), VOL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 115 upon which they built ten They also under the same .Thsa, J. scheme acquired a plot of land in the adjoining townland of 1913. DON Brigown, CO N respect of which a representation had been lodged v.. in Form 1 of the Forms in the Schedule to the Labourers MITCHEL S TOWN RURAL (Ireland) Order, 1906, suggesting the building of a cottage DISTRICT thereon for an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Marron, Appellant, and The Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council, Respondents
    • Ireland
    • House of Lords (Ireland)
    • 25 March 1915
    ...(No. 2) RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS Condon v. The Mitchelstown District CouncilIR [1915] 1 I. R. 113, 118. Condon's CaseIR [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118. Tevlin v. The Lisnaskea Rural District CouncilIR [1914] 2 I. R. 15. Local Government —— Labourer's Cottage — Preference on First Lettin......
  • Marron v Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 22 January 1914
    ...199.) MARRON and COOTEHILL (No. 2) RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL Condon v. Mitchels-town Rural District CouncilIR Unreported. Since reported [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118. Condon V. Mitchelstown Rural District CouncilIR Since reported [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118. Condon V. Mitchelstown Rural District Counci......
  • McDaid v Milford Rural District Council
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 1 January 1919
    ...[1915] 1 I. R. 216. (2) [1914] 2 I. R. 15. (3) In the Court of Appeal, beforeSir Ignatius J.O'Brien C., andRonan and Molony L.JJ. (4) [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118. (1) [1914] 2 I. R. 15. (2) [1911] 2 K. B. 786. (1) [1915] A. C. 792; [1915] 1 I. R. 216. (2) [1914] 2 I. R. 15. (3) [1918] 1 Ch. 266......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT