Mountcashell's Estate

Judgment Date27 November 1920
Date27 November 1920
CourtLand Commission (Ireland)
Mountcashell's Estate.

Land Commission.

Estoppel - Title - Bona fide mistaken statement - Finding of chief clerk as to ownership of lands - Mistake subsequently discovered - Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57) s. 1.

An erroneous statement in an affidavit, made bona fide but without full knowledge of the facts, does not operate as an estoppel against the party making it.

In an action to administer the real and personal estate of a deceased, a finding of fact in the chief clerk's certificate as to the ownership of lands is not conclusive; it is only conditional on title being shown to the lands, and is not in itself a good root of title.

C., tenant for life of the lands of T., married M., and died leaving M. her surviving. M. subsequently married F., the vendor, remained in possession and receipt of the rents and profits of the lands until his death, and on his death left all his property to the vendor, and appointed her sole executrix. Subject to C.'s life estate, the lands in fact belonged to R. in fee. He died in 1888, leaving all his property to his widow, H. In 1898, H., as creditor of M., brought an action for the administration of M.'s estate against F. In an affidavit filed in the action, F. stated erroneously but bona fide that M. was in his lifetime seised of the lands of T., and she also accounted in the action for £35, rent received by her thereout. On the said affidavit the chief clerk found that M. was seised of the lands, and by an order made on further consideration, M.'s real estate was ordered to be sold if the personalty should prove insufficient to pay his debts. The personalty was insufficient, but the lands of T. were not sold, as in fact M. had no title to them. No further steps were taken in the administration action, and the vendor remained in possession and receipt of the rents and profits.

The lands having been sold by her to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, held, that the vendor was not estopped by the administration proceedings in 1898, that she hud acquired as against H. a title to the lands under the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 1), and that consequently she was entitled to the residue of the purchase-money.

Question arising on final schedule.

Under the will of Richard Smyth, who died in 1858, estates, including the lands of Treanlois (otherwise Treanlewis), part of which had been sold in this mutter, were settled...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • AA Valibhoy & Sons (1907) Pte Ltd v Banque Nationale de Paris
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 12 April 1994
    ...v Jenkyn (1856) 5 WR 43; Lord Muskerry v Skeffington (1868) 3 LRHL 144; Anderson v Collinson [1901] 2 KB 107; Re Mountcashell`s Estate [1920] 1 IR 1; Fernando v Gunatilaka [1921] 2 AC 357 (PC)]. ... Privies are of three classes: (1) privies in blood for example ancestor and heir [Co Litt 35......
  • Dooley v Dooley
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • 1 January 1927
    ...before Kennedy C.J., FitzGibbon andMurnaghan JJ. (1) 1 Ch. App. 108. (2) 5 A. C. 249. (3) 14 Q. B. D. 141. (4) [1914] A. C. 215. (5) [1920] 1 I. R. 1. (6) 11 Prob. Div. 145. (7) 1 Ph. Ch. R. 582. (8) 8 T. L. R. 11. (9) [1914] 2 Ch. 13. (10) 31 Ir. L. T. R. 139. (11) 8 Ir. Jur. N. S. 159. (1......

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