The Estate of Edward Vernon, Owner and Petitioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 May 1900
• Date: 16 May 1900
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD VERNON, OWNER AND PETITIONER.

Chancery Division

Statutes of Limitation — Discontinuance of possession — User of land — Immunity of a Crown department from costs.

(Moore) v. AbbottIR [1897] 2 I. R. 362, 415.

Agency Co. v. ShortELR 13 App. Cas. 793.

Attorney-General v. BurridgeENR 10 Price, 350.

Doe d. Egremont v. Pulman 3 Q. B 622.

Ex parte JordanUNK 31 L. R. Ir. 1.

In Leigh v. Jack 5 Ex. Div. 272.

In re Duffy's EstateIR [1897] 1 I. R. 307

In re GalvinIR [1897] 1 I. R. 525.

Leigh v. Jack 5 Ex. Div. 264.

Littledale v. Liverpool CollegeELR [1900] 1 Ch. 19.

M'Donnell v. M'KintyINTL 10 I. L. R. 514.

Peakin v. PeakinIR [1895] 2 I. R. 359.

Reg. v. BeedleENR 7 E. & B. 492.

Reilly v. ThompsonUNKIR I. R. 11 C. L. 238.

Sedden v. SmithUNK 36 L. T. R. 168.

Tottenham v. ByrneUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 376.

CASES VIIIMMINED 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. 1901. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE of EDWARD VERNON, OWNER AND PETITIONER. .Ross, J. 1900. April 30. Statutes of Limitation—Discontinuance of possession—User of land—Immunity May 1, 2, 16. of a Crown department from costs. In 1819 portion of the Bull of Clontarf, a sandy tract in Dublin Bay, was taken from V.'s predecessor, by the Dublin Ballast Board, after an inquisition, and an award was made, containing a map on which the boundary between the land taken and V.'s land was stated. Some years afterwards three wooden posts were put by an officer of the Board in a line considerably outÂside the boundary, as shown on the map. As these posts decayed two walls, 21 feet long by 8 feet high, were built on their site. These were the only physical marks of a boundary. V.'s cattle grazed beyond them without interruption. In 1865 a portion of the land between the boundary on the map and the walls, and which had been previously fenced off, was leased by the Board to the Admiralty. In 1876 and 1884 the question as to the correct boundary was raised between the Board and V. In 1884 V. commenced an action against the Board, claiming damages for trespass, and an injunction. This action was never brought to a hearing : 1901—VOL. I. THE IRISH REPORTS. [1901. Held, that there had been no discontinuance of possession by V., and that he was entitled to the land between the boundary on the map and the posts, except that portion leased to the Admiralty. Upon an objection by the Board of Trade claiming the foreshore, which was overruled : Held, that as the Board represented the Crown, and the case not falling within 18 & 19 Viet. c. 90, costs could not be given against them. In re Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company ; Ex parte Jordan (31 L. R. Ir. 1) not followed. O BJECTIONS to final notice to tenants by the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the Board of Trade, and the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admirals of the United Kingdom. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the Port and Docks Board, the Board of Trade, and the owner. The facts appear fully in the judgment. Ronan, Q.C., and O'Connor, Q.C. (with them D. F. Browne), for the Port and Docks Board : The boundary which the Port and Docks Board claim as the correct boundary, has been continuously marked out, first by the posts, and, since 1840, by the walls. We say, firstly, that this boundary was accepted and acted on by all the parties ; and, secondly, that, having regard to the nature of the property, and the erection by the Board of these walls, and the other acts, title must be held to have been acquired, by adverse possession, by the Board against the Vernon family for a long period. The portion which was leased by the Board to the Admiralty in 1865 is actually bounded by one of the walls ; and possession has gone and rent has been paid under that lease since then ; and where a large tract of land is in dispute, acts of ownership of part are evidence of ownership of the entire. Mr. John E. Vernon attempted to claim the land in dispute in 1876, when the Board insisted on the boundary, as marked by the walls, and Mr. Vernon then took no steps to enforce his claim. Again, in 1884, Mr. Vernon proceeded no further with the action he commenced against the Board, after the defence was filed and discovery made. [They cited Pollock's Essay on Common Law, pp. 2, 30, 31, 33.] VoL. 1.] CHANCEltY Di VISION. 3 J. H. Campbell, Q.C., and Jefferson, for Colonel Vernon, the Ross,2 owner :— 1900. The contention of the other side amounts to this :—We In re VERNON'S bought certain property in 1819, and because we put up some ESTATE. posts, which did not exclude the Vernon family, we have obtained a title by the statute. But the posts were as ineffectual to make time run against Col. Vernon as they were to keep out the cattle. As to the non-continuance of the action in 1884, we did not want to contend with a public department. As to the coastguards' garden, it was a matter of courtesy between Mr. J. E. Vernon and the coastguards, and time does not run. We grazed every part of the Bull. The posts and walls did not exclude us from the land. The fact that the litigation was not proceeded with is a neutral fact, if the obstruction did not prevent us from the ordinary enjoyment of the land. We rely on Littledale v. Liverpool College (1), Leigh v. Jack (2), and In re Duffy's Estate (3). As to the garden, if the Board have not established a claim to the land, the Admiralty cannot have established a claim to it, as they claim through the Board : Agency Co. v. Short (4) ; Peakin v. Peakin (5) ; Sedden v. Smith (6) ; Reilly v. Thompson (7). BlackÂburne's, C.J., judgment in 1M 'Donnell v. 11PKinty (8) was approved of by the Judicial Committee in Agency Company v. Short (4) , Darby and...