McMAHON v HASTINGS

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: M. R.
• Judgment Date: 11 June 1913
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 11 June 1913

McMahon

and

Hastings.

M. R.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1913.

Real property — Law of Limitations — Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, s. 3 — Adverse possession — Mother entering as bailiff — Purchaser with notice of infant's rights — Demand of possession by infant on attaining age — Notice — Vendor and purchaser.

A person entering upon an infant's estate with notice of the infant's rights becomes his bailiff.

Quinton v. Frith (I. R. 2 Eq. 396) followed.

A person who by so entering into possession of an infant's estate makes himself a bailiff of that estate, continues to be such bailiff, notwithstanding the infant's coming of age, until the relationship is dissolved by some other circumstance or combination of circumstances.

A demand of possession by the infant will be such a circumstance, but if made within six years before action brought, it affords no defence under section 3 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874.

The following statement of the facts and pleadings is taken from the judgment of his Lordship:—

“This action was brought to have a deed of conveyance to the defendant declared invalid under the following circumstances:— One Patrick McMahon held certain premises in Kildysart, county Clare, under a lease, dated 27th May, 1874, for a term of fifty-one years, which is still in existence.

“By indenture dated the 31st December, 1883, Patrick McMahon mortgaged these leasehold premises to William Boyd, to secure a debt of £288 18s., with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum.

“Patrick McMahon was married to the defendant, Kate Hastings, and died intestate on the 29th February, 1884, leaving him surviving his widow, the said Kate Hastings, and two infant children, of whom the plaintiff is one. The other child died in infancy, so that the beneficial interest in the premises devolved, subject to the mortgage, and to claims in the administration of the estates of Patrick McMahon and the child who died, upon the plaintiff and the defendant, Kate Hastings, in equal shares.

“The premises mentioned were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and Patrick McMahon carried on therein the business of a publican and grocer. After his death his widow continued to reside on the premises, and to carry on the business. She did not take out administration to her deceased husband.

“The plaintiff resided with her mother for about a year after the father's death, and then went to live with her grandfather at a place about three miles distant from Kildysart. The other child lived with her mother until its death at the age of six years. In November, 1887, the mother married George Hastings, and he went to reside on the premises and carried on the business.

“By deed of assignment, dated 22nd October, 1889, made between William Boyd (the mortgagee) of the one part, and Michael Hastings (who was George Hasting's father) of the other part, reciting the lease and the mortgage already mentioned, and reciting that Catherine Hastings (viz. the defendant, Kate Hastings) had out of her own resources paid off a considerable portion of the mortgage debt, leaving due and owing on foot thereof the sum of £146 1s., for principal and interest from the 25th March then last past, and reciting that William Boyd had agreed to assign, as thereinafter appeared, the mortgage and the moneys thereby secured to the said Michael Hastings for the sum of £125, it was witnessed that in consideration of £125 paid to the said William Boyd by the said Michael Hastings, the receipt of which was acknowledged, William Boyd assigned, or purported to assign, to Michael Hastings...