Perry v clissold 1907 ac 73 land was being resumed

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the true owner. Perry v Clissold [1907] AC 73 Land was being resumed (reclaimed) by a public authority under legislation that required compensation to be paid to the owner of the land. The actual owner was unknown, but the person in possession (originally as a trespasser) had entered into possession some 10 years earlier, had made improvements to the land, received rent, and appeared in the council’s rate books as a rateable person and paid rates. During the 10 years of occupation, the occupant had held continuous exclusive possession and there had been no notice of adverse claims. ISSUE: Can continuous long-term, undisputed possession constitute a possessory title? DECISION: The occupier was not a mere trespasser but had a possessory title that gave the occupant a valid claim against everyone but the true owner. COMMENT: The only person who can defeat the claim of the occupier of the land (except for the statutory passing of time) is the person who can prove title by evidence of a conveyance. Goods Where goods are found, mere possession may establish a property in goods against everyone except the true owner; hence the expression ‘possession is nine-...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 04/23/2012.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online