Page Line 89 23 Add "See Palmer v. Thames Conservators, 1902, 1 Ch. 163." 99 40 Add "A hoarding may be erected by a borough council on a metropolitan open space (Boyce v. Paddington, 1902, W. N. 201)." Add "See Quicke v. Chapman, 1902, W. N. 163." 100 48 120 10 Add "The general doctrine of the immunity of the Crown may apply nowithstanding the insertion in the statute of a clause expressly exempting the Crown as to certain matters (Hornsey Council v. Hennell, 1902, 2 K. B. 81).” 122 27 As to presuming the inrolment at Quarter Sessions of a certificate of justices, see Leigh Council v. King, 1901, 1 Q. B. 755. 128 47 Add "As to the presumption applicable where a cestui que trust encroaches on other land included in the same settlement, see East Stonehouse Council v. Willoughby, 1902, 2 K. B. 334." 131 141 59 After Dixon v. Batey, add "Compare Smith v. Stocks, 10 B. & S. 701." 10 30 Smith v. Stocks, also reported 10 B. & S. 701. Add "As to a cestui que trust being tenant at will to his trustee, see further, East Stonehouse Council v. Willoughby, 1902, 2 K. B. 318." 163 15 Add "For the case where trustees by mistake permitted one cestui que trust to occupy land belonging to another cestui que trust, see East Stonehouse Council v. Willoughby, 1902, 2 K. B. 318." 170 27 179 29 " 41 180 17 185 Last 186 24 192 4 Add "Where possession of mortgaged land was taken and held by the mortgagee for three years before his death, and after his death was retained by the tenant for life of his real and personal estate for a period sufficient to bar the mortgagor, the land devolved as personal not real estate (Re Loveridge, Drayton v. Loveridge, 1902, W. N. 165; 87 L. T. 294; see Re Woodhead, Cadman v. Carr, 1884, W. N. 174)." Add "Where a trespasser acquired title by possession as against a tenant for years, who subsequently executed a surrender to the landlord, no right of entry as against the trespasser accrued to the landlord until the expiration of the term (alter v. Yalden, 1902, 2 K. B. 304).” Add "See Walter v. Yalden, 1902, 2 K. B. 304." Add "The reversion in fee expectant on a term of years has been held not to be a future estate or interest expectant on a particular estate' within the meaning of the proviso (Walter v. Yalden, 1902, 2 K. B. 304).” For "1894, 1 Ch. 220," read "1894, 3 Ch. 220." 197 51 For “1859 "read" 1856." 209 10 Re Davis, Davis v. Davis, now reported 1902, 2 Ch. 314. 35 After Aylesford v. Morris, add "See now Money Lenders Act, 1900." 210 44 Add "Interest at four per cent. was allowed on a debt claimed against the insolvent estate of a lunatic under a contract of indemnity given by him (Re Hunt, Harvey's Claim, 1902, 2 Ch. 318)." Page Line 212 40 Bradshaw v. Widdrington, now reported 1902, 2 Ch. 430. 221 42 251 27 280 Add "And as to sub-section 3, see Re Harrison, Allen v. Cort, 1892, W. N. 148." 13 Re Holland, Greg v. Holland, now reported, before C. A. 1902, 2 Ch. 360. See p. 387. 48 Add "In a lease of freeholds, it seems that operative words may pass by estoppel a subsequently acquired estate (Goodtitle v. Morse, 3 T. R. 371)." Add "See Rimmer v. Webster, 1902, 2 Ch. 173." Add "See Farquharson v. King, 1902, A. C. 325; Rimmer v. Add "And see Re Bankes, Reynolds v. Ellis, 1902, 2 Ch. 333." Add "See Re Harrowby and Paine, 1902, W. N. 137." 402 15 For "8 Ves. 258" read "18 Ves. 258." 54 403 6 24 Re Maddock, Llewellyn v. Washington, now reported 1902, Re Bate not followed. Re Roberts, R. v. R., 1902, W. N. 196. 405 421 17 Add “The rights and liabilities, under sub-section 2, of the administratrix of an equitable mortgagor of freeholds were said to include the right to redeem, and the liability to be sued in a foreclosure action; to which action the mortgagor-heir was held not to be a necessary party (Re Harrowby and Paine, 1902, W. N. 137)." 427 6 After Re Walters, add “See Re Douglas and Powell, 1902, 2 Ch. 296." After Fulton v. Andrew, add "See Brisco v. Baillie Hamilton, After Re Puddephatt, add "See Re Peverett, 1902, P. 205." After Treloar v. Lean, add “See Leonard v. Leonard, 1902, P. For "any" read "my." 457 465 1 480 23 For “p. 457” read “p. 451.” 493 58 After Howard v. Sadler, add "See Sutton v. English, &c. Co. 1902, 2 Ch. 502." h Page Line 518 43 After Robinson v. Kilvert, add "See Budd Scott v. Daniell, 1902, 2 K. B. 351." 547 37 (Questions as to the amount of vendor's costs on a sale should 551 14 not be raised under the Act, the solicitor not being a party (Re Webster and Jones, 1902, 2 Ch. 551). 548 559 568 16 After Moggridge v. Clapp, add "See Re Handman and Wilcox, 1902, 1 Ch. 599; Re Douglas and Powell, 1902, 2 Ch. 296." 32 Add "See Quicke v. Chapman, 1902, W. N. 163." 22 580 45 660 57 688 52 677 Add "A lessor's covenant did not render assignees of the reversion liable for acts done by them on land adjoining the demised land, and to which adjoining land they had acquired an independent title subsequent to the lease (Davies v. Town Properties Corporation, 1902, 2 Ch. 635)." A receiver appointed under the section by a mortgagee of leaseholds by sub-demise was not liable to pay rent to the head landlord. Sub-section 2 only applies as between mortgagor and mortgagee (Hand v. Blow, 1901, 2 Ch. 721). Add" An appointment by deed of trustees of a compound settlement under a clause contained in one of the instruments constituting such settlement was invalid (Re Hammond Spencer, 1902, W. N. 200)." 13 Re Hotham, Hotham v. Doughty. Order of Cozens-Hardy, J., 690 39) varied by C. A., 1902, 2 Ch. 575. 688 27 Add "See Re Hammond Spencer, 1902, W. N. 200." 701 23 Re Llanover, Herbert v. Freshfield, now reported 1902, 2 Ch. 679. 726 28 For "35 Ch. D. 209" read" 38 Ch. D. 209.” 749 31 For "1874" read "1877." ... 20 II. MODES OF CLAIMING INCORPOREAL RIGHTS APART FROM THE ... A Whether the Prescription Act, 1832, has superseded the B Of Grants, Express and Implied, of Incorporeal Rights; c Of the Presumption of Lost Grants D Prescription at Common Law E Customs and Usages F Modes of Claiming Profits à Prendre III. RIGHTS OF COMMON IV. WAYS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE V. WATERCOURSES, AND RIGHTS IN RELATION TO WATER 94 99 107 An Act for shortening the Time of Prescription in certain Cuses (a). [1st August, 1832.] § 1. Time limited for establishing rights of common and other profits à prendre...1. §2. Ways, easements, and watercourses...4. § 3. Light...10. §4. How periods of limitation are to be computed...13. § 5. Pleadings...15. § 6. Period less than that provided by statute not to be allowed...18. § 7. Saving in favour of persons under disabilities...18. § 8. Time excluded in computation of period of forty years...19. WHEREAS the expression "Time Immemorial, or Time whereof 2 & 3 Will. 4, the Memory of Man runneth not to the contrary," is now by c. 71, s. 1. the law of England in many cases considered to include and denote the whole period of time from the reign of King Richard the First, whereby the title to matters that have been long Claim to right of common and other profits à pren dre not to be defeated after thirty years' enjoyment by showing the commencement. 2 & 3 Will. 4, enjoyed is sometimes defeated by showing the commencement c. 71, s. 1. of such enjoyment, which is in many cases productive of inconvenience and injustice; for remedy thereof, be it enacted, That no claim which may be lawfully made at the common law, by custom, prescription (b), or grant, to any right of common (c) or other profit or benefit, to be taken and enjoyed from or upon any land of our sovereign lord the King, his heirs or successors, or any land being parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster or of the Duchy of Cornwall (d), or of any ecclesiastical or lay person, or body corporate, except such matters and things as are herein specially provided for, and except tithes, rent, and services, shall, where such right, profit, or benefit shall have been actually taken and enjoyed by any person claiming right thereto without interruption for the full period of thirty years, be defeated or destroyed by showing only that such right, profit, or benefit was first taken or enjoyed at any time prior to such period of thirty years, but nevertheless such claim may be defeated in any other way by which the same is now liable to be defeated; and when such right, profit, or benefit shall have years' enjoy been so taken and enjoyed as aforesaid, for the full period of sixty years, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, unless it shall appear that the same was taken and unless had by enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing. After sixty ment the right to be absolute, consent or agreement. (1) Subject matter of the first section. (a) By 21 & 22 Vict. c. 42, this act was extended to Ireland. The reader is referred to Note II. at the end of this act (pp. 20 et seq.) dealing with the nature of prescription at common law; what things may or may not be claimed by prescription; how a right depending upon it may be lost; the difference between prescription and custom; and the modes of claiming profits à prendre. (c) As to rights of common, see Note III. at the end of this act. (d) The provisions of this act are not affected by the Act for limiting Actions and Suits by the Duke of Cornwall, in relation to Real Property (23 & 24 Vict. c. 53, s. 2). (1) Subject-matter of the Section...2. (2) Enjoyment under the Section.....3. Prescriptive rights in gross (for instances of which see Barrington's case, 8 Rep. 136 b; Welcome v. Upton, 6 M. & W. 536; Devonshire v. Pattinson, 20 Q. B. Div. 263) are not within the scope of the statute (Shuttleworth v. Le Fleming, 19 C. B. N. S. 687). The first section relates to such claims as may be lawfully made at common law, by custom, prescription, or grant, to any right of common or other profit or benefit to be taken or enjoyed from or upon any land. Tithes, rent and services are excepted from this act. The Tithe Act, 1832, provides the limitation of time with respect to claims of a modus decimandi, or exemption from, or discharge of tithes (see Shelford's Tithe Acts, 3rd ed.; Leach's Tithe Acts, 5th ed.). The Real Property Lim. Acts, 1833 & 1874, post, limit the time within which actions and suits must be brought respecting tithes not belonging to a spiritual or eleemosynary corporation sole. The limitation of time for the recovery of tithes is not affected by the Tithe Act, 1836 (see s. 49). The first section of this act includes different subjects from those in the second, and distinguishes between easements and common or profit à prendre; a different limitation is established for the former and latter |