Wilson & another v Martin`s executors
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 24 EG 119-122(4)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 December 1992. M, the defendants, successors in title to the Isenhurst estate, from which, in 1947, Sunset Farm had been sold to W`s predecessors including a Mr Howitt. Ownership of a wood between the two properties became disputed and in 1989, W fenced it and claimed a declaration and damages for trespass. At court this position was upheld; the judge was satisfied that H regarded the land as his and had passed on to W any rights gained by adverse possession. M appealed arguing that the presumption established in "Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd" should be applied and that there was insufficient evidence that H was in adverse possession at all material times. Held in M`s favour.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49061 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 69710-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 21 December 1992. M, the defendants, successors in title to the Isenhurst estate, from which, in 1947, Sunset Farm had been sold to W`s predecessors including a Mr Howitt. Ownership of a wood between the two properties became disputed and in 1989, W fenced it and claimed a declaration and damages for trespass. At court this position was upheld; the judge was satisfied that H regarded the land as his and had passed on to W any rights gained by adverse possession. M appealed arguing that the presumption established in "Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd" should be applied and that there was insufficient evidence that H was in adverse possession at all material times. Held in M`s favour.