|
[land law, title – ejectment]
Doe dem. Taylor
v. Little
Supreme Court of New South
Wales
Willis J., March 1840
Source: Australian,
12 March 1840
(Before Mr. Justice Willis,
and a common jury)
Doe dem Taylor; v. Little - This was an action of ejectment
brought to recover possession of certain premises situate in Kent-street,
Sydney. The plaintiff put in a deed of grant of the premises in
question under the hand and seal of the Captain General and Governor
Sir George Gipps, dated 7th May, 1838, which granted the premises
to him as heir at law of Mary Ann Green, deceased. Mr. Windeyer,
for the defendant, took various legal objections to the deed of
grant itself, as a ground for nonsuit. His Honor thought there was
great weight to be attached to the learned gentleman’s argument,
but he would not decide, by his single veto, a case of so
much importance, as it affected every landed proprietor in the colony.
He was glad to see such a point raised for solemn argument, because,
if there wanted any thing to make such title conclusive, the defect
being shown, would, no doubt, be supplied by the government. The
learned Judge then reserved every objection that could be taken
upon the face of the grant, as to a nonsuit being entered for the
defendants, and the case then proceeded upon the merits. It appeared
that the mother of the lessor of the plaintiff held the premises
in her original right, and afterwards intermarried with one John
Green, a man under sentence of transportation for life. During Mrs.
Green’s coverture with her second husband, the premises were mortgaged,
and subsequently sold by the sheriff under a writ of fieri facias,
the defendant becoming the purchaser. Not feeling himself satisfied
with the sheriff’s title, the defendant subsequently procured a
conveyance of the property from Green, but the plaintiff, Taylor,
the heir at law of Mrs. Green, went to the Court of Claims, and
obtained, through that channel, a deed of grant for the premises.
The learned Judge summed up for a verdict for the plaintiff, wishing
to leave the deed of grant unimpeached until the case came for argument
under the points reserved before the full Court. The jury, however,
found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs. Foster
and Checke - for the defendant, Mr. Windeyer.
|