The estate of Mary M.Sweetman

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Wylie, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1912
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 12 November 1912

In the Matter of the Estate of Mary M. Sweetman.

Wylie, J.

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.

Land Purchase Acts — Irish Land Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 42), s. 15, sub-s. 1 — Limitations on advances to tenant-purchasers — Prior advance redeemed — Computation of, on application for subsequent advance.

A tenant applying for an advance under the Land Purchase Acts, in pursuance of an agreement entered into after the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909, can only obtain such a sum as, when added to any previous advances obtained by him, will be within the limits prescribed by section 15, sub-s. 1, of the said Act, and it is immaterial whether the prior advances were made before or after the passing of the said Act. In computing the amount of advances for the purpose of section 15, sub-s. 1, the original amount of a prior advance must be reckoned, whether entirely redeemed or not.

Question of Law submitted by the Estates Commissioners for the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner under section 23 (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

From the memorandum of the Estates Commissioners the following facts appeared:—Patrick Hanlon, who was tenant of five holdings on above estate, had entered into agreements, dated the 1st day of November, 1910 (subsequent to the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909), for the purchase of the said holdings at prices amounting in the aggregate to the sum of £4144, and had applied for advances amounting in all to the sum of £4144, for the purchase of said holdings. The said Patrick Hanlon had not, since the passing of the said Act of 1909, obtained any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, but prior thereto he had obtained advances amounting to the sum of £5000, under the Land Purchase Acts, for the purchase of other holdings. The annuities payable by the said Patrick Hanlon in respect of said advances of £5000 had been by him redeemed, and there was at present no subsisting liability in respect of said advances.

The following question was submitted:—Is a tenant, who has, after the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909, entered into an agreement for the purchase of his holding entitled (subject to the terms of section 15 of the said Act) to obtain an advance under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of his said holding, notwithstanding that, prior to the passing of the said Act, he had obtained advances to the extent of £5000 under the Land Purchase Acts, for the purchase of other holdings, the annuities in respect of which advances he has since redeemed?

James O' Connor, K.C., Carrigan, K.C. (with them D. J. O'Brien), for Patrick Hanlon:—

The only provisions now in force limiting the amount of advances in pursuance of agreements for the purchase of holdings entered into after the passing of the Act of 1909 are those contained in section 15 (1) of that Act. The first statutory limitation on the amount of advances was that prescribed by section 34 (3) of the Act of 1881. There the limitation was in respect of any one purchase, and a tenant with several holdings could get an advance up to the limit in respect of each. That provision was repealed by section 18 (2) of the Act of 1887; and, by section 17 of that Act, a new limitation was imposed on the aggregate amount of advances to any one purchaser of land. This section was impliedly repealed by section 2 of the Act of 1888, which reduced the limit of the amount of advances to any one purchaser of land, subject as mentioned in the section. This section, as modified by section 1 (4) of the Act of 1903, regulated the amount of advances that could be made to any one tenant-purchaser up to the time of the passing of the Act of 1909. These provisions are now repealed by section 15 (3) of the Act of 1909, save as regards advances made in pursuance of purchase agreements entered into before the passing of this Act. The language used in sub-section 1 is, “no advance exceeding the sum of £3000 shall be sanctioned … to any tenant, in pursuance of an agreement for the purchase of a holding” … In other words, the Legislature has reverted to the policy of the Act of 1881. The limitation imposed by the sub-section merely affects the amount that can be advanced in respect of any one holding. It follows that a tenant coming in under the Act of 1909, who has several holdings, is entitled to an advance up to the limit mentioned in the sub-section in respect of each, quite irrespective of any previous advance made to him under the Land Purchase Acts. The main object of imposing a limitation on the amount that can be advanced is to ensure that the tenant-purchaser will be in a position to offer sufficient security to the State. To this extent only is the fact that the tenant-purchaser has paid off his previous advances a material consideration. Apart from that, the fact that the previous advance has been paid off does not affect the right of the tenant-purchaser to get the advance now applied for.

Arthur Meredith, K. C., for the vendor, supported the arguments put forward by Patriot Hanlon:—

Section 15 of the Act of 1909 draws a clear distinction between advances for the purchase of holdings under “this Act” and under the prior Land Purchase Acts. A similar distinction appears in section 17 (2) of the...