Lynam v Butler
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (1924. No. 5898.) |
| Court | High Court (Irish Free State) |
Landlord and tenant - Action for recovery of possession - Expiration of lease - Order declaring the holding to be one to which the Land Act, 1923,applies - Effect of Order - Alteration in the relationship of landlord and tenant - Position of tenant - Rights conferred - Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), sect. 19, sub-sect. (3), sect. 24, sub-sect. (1), sects. 28, 29, 73, sub-sect. (2).
Sect. 24 (1) of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), provides:—"Subject to the provisions of this Act and notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, all tenanted land wherever situated . . . shall by virtue of this Act vest in the Land Commission on the appointed day, in the like manner and with the like consequences as if vesting orders under the Land Purchase Acts had been made on the appointed day in respect thereof in pursuance of subsequent purchase agreements entered into by the Land Commission with the respective owners of the lowest interest in the land constituting an interest saleable under the Land Purchase Acts, at the price fixed by or under this Act."
M., being tenant for life of certain lands, demised them for the term of her life to B. On her death, L., being entitled in remainder in fee-simple, brought an action to recover possession of the lands from B. During M.'s lifetime B. had obtained an order from Wylie J. declaring that the lands constituted a holding to which the Land Act, 1923. applied. "The appointed day" mentioned in sect. 24 (1) of the Act had not been fixed.
Held, that the statutory rights conferred, and the liabilities imposed, on the tenant of a holding to which the Act applies are unaffected by the expiration of the tenancy before "the appointed day," and that the provisions of the Act deprived the plaintiff of any right to recover possession of the lands.
The alteration in the relationship of landlord and tenant effected by the Act considered.
Trial of Action.
The plaintiff claimed possession of 1, the house, Offices, and lands of Mount Seskin, situate in the parish of Tallaght, barony of Upper Cross, and County of Dublin; 2, that part of the lands of Mount Seskin, known as the Causeway Farm; and 3, the shooting and all other ground rights attached to the said lands.
Mary MacInerney was, on and prior to the 30th day of July, 1920, seized as tenant for life of the said hereditaments, and continued so seize,d until the day of her death. By an Indenture of Lease dated the 30th day of July, 1920, the said Mary MacInerney demised the hereditaments to the defendant for the term of her natural life. She died on the 22nd day of August, 1924.
The plaintiff claimed possession as owner in fee-simple of the hereditaments under the limitations contained in the will of Francis Lynam, his title having accrued on the death of the said Mary MacInerney, the tenant for life. He also claimed mesne profits from the 22nd day of August, 1924.
The defendant in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keady v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
... ... Lynham v. Butler [1933] I.R. 74 considered. Cases mentioned in this report:— Cowan v. The Attorney General [1961] I.R. 411 ... ...
-
Tomasz Zalewski v The Workplace Relations Commission, an Adjudication Officer [Y], Ireland and the Attorney General
...to the Privy Council in 1925 against the Supreme Court's dismissal of his appeal in what are known as the “Ejectment Proceedings” case ( [1925] 2 I.R. 82 (H.C.): [1925] 2 I.R. 231 (S.C.)): such occurring at a crucial time in the State's ongoing separation from the United Kingdom (Dáil Debat......
-
Re Lynam's Estate
...any right to recover possession. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 14th July, 1925 (reported sub nom Lynhamv. ButlerIR, [1925] 2 I. R. 82, 231). The Judicial Committee gave leave to appeal, but the appeal was withdrawn following the passing of the Land Act, 1926. L. served not......
-
Lynham v Butler (No. 2)
...the plaintiff's claim for possession of the lands had been dismissed on the ground that the Land Act, 1923, applied to them (reported [1925] 2 I. R. 82, 231). He also relied upon an order of the Judicial Commissioner, dated February 7th, 1924, declaring that the Land Act, 1923, applied to t......
-
Thomas Mohr, Guardian of the Treaty: The Privy Council Appeal and Irish Sovereignty
...“best determined on the spot” and the court dismissed the three petitions. Later cases were less reassuring particularly Lynam v Butler [1925] 2 IR 82 which concerned provisions of the Irish Land Act 1923 which were only of domestic relevance and had no relation to the treaty. More concern ......