The Estate of William H. H. Barton

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 October 1909
• Date: 29 October 1909
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

In the Matter of the Estate of William H. H. Barton.

Appeal.

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.

1910.

Land Purchase Acts — Irish Land Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 37), s. 48, sub-e, 4 — Estate “so circumstanced that it would … sold without the consent of the owner as to price” — Date of ascertainment.

The date of sale is the date to be applied in considering whether an estate is so circumstanced that it would, independently of the Act of 1896, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, within the meaning of section 48, sub-section 4, of the Land Act, 1903.

An absolute order for the sale of an estate by the Land Judge was in force at the date of the passing of the Land Act, 1903, the estate being then insolvent. The petition for the sale of the estate was dismissed on 11th November, 1903. The owner subsequently took proceedings in the Land Commission, and sold the estate to the tenants under the Act of 1903. At the time of the pro-ceedings and sale in the Land Commission the estate was solvent:—

Held, affirming the decision of Ross, J., that the exceptions in section 48, sub-section 4, of the Land Act, 1903, did not apply, and that the bonus was payable.

Appeal by the Treasury from the decision of Ross, J. [1909] 1 I. R. 205, where the facts are reported.

Serjeant O'Connor. K.C., and Dudley White, for the appellants.

Matheson, K.C. (with him, E. S. Murphy, who was not called on), for the respondent (the vendor):—

The arguments of counsel were substantially similar to those reported in the Court below.

Serjeant O'Connor. K.C., and Dudley White, for the appellants.

Matheson, K.C. (with him, E. S. Murphy, who was not called on), for the respondent (the vendor):—

The Master of the Rolls:—

I wish to guard myself expressly from any suggestion that the decision of Mr. Justice Ross might not be upheld on more grounds than the one so clearly stated in his judgment.

I think with my colleagues that it is absolutely unnecessary to enter on an examination of those grounds, or to indicate what they are. When they arise we should be all free to consider them. I am clearly of opinion that the order of Mr. Justice Ross can be upheld, and should be upheld, on the grounds stated in his judgment.

Palles, C.B.:—

I concur, for the reasons succinctly stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Ross. The solution of the question...