173 / 266
of a person who dies intestate. By Section 2 the
Act applies on intestacy where a man leaves a widow
but no issue. By Section 3 the property will belong
to the widow absolutely and exclusively if its net
value as defined by Section 8 does not exceed £4,000.
Copies of the Act, price 6d, may be obtained from
the Government Publications Sales Office, G.P.O.,
Arcade, Dublin.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Where a purchaser under contract to purchase a house
with the aid o f an advance from a Building Society having
been allowed into possession before completion o f the
purchase and mortgage puts a tenant into possession o f
part o f the premises before completion can the tenant
acquire rights under the Kent Acts against the purchaser's
mortgagees who complete the mortgage and make the
advance without knowledge o f the tenant's existence ?
Yes. The purchasers in the case before the English
Court o f Appeal contracted to buy property in
September 1946. At the end of October the vendors
moved out and by arrangement the purchasers were
given possession of part. In fact they moved into
one portion o f the house and granted weekly
tenancies o f the other which came within the
provisions o f the Rents Acts. The question was
whether the mortgagees who subsequently granted
a loan without knowledge o f the position could
eject the tenants on the ground that they had a
paramount title as mortgagees. The Master of the
Rolls said that as between the mortgagors and the
tenant there was a tenancy by estoppel, and that if.
the mortgagors acquired a legal estate before the
charge, for however short a time, the estoppel
would ripen and the mortgagees’ claim would
necessarily be defeated. The mortgage in the present
case which was drafted by the mortgagees’ solicitors
described the property as “ now vested in the
mortgagors free from incumbrances.” The mort
gagees could not complain of the truth o f recitals
which they had caused to be inserted in their own
mortgage and there was no evidence in the present
case o f fraud or deception on the part of the mort
gagors or the tenants. The Court could not accept
the argument that the conveyance and the mortgage
were one transaction and that there was no time
during which the mortgagors had any legal estate
independent of a mortgage. The Building Society’s
appeal was dismissed with leave to appeal to the
House of Lords. (Church o f England Building
Society
v.
Piskor.—The Times Newspaper, 26th
March, 1954).
At what stage does the liability o f sureties on an
administration bondfo r the due administration o f the estate
o f a deceased person terminate
?
According to the Lord Chief Justice giving
judgment in the Queen’s Bench Division London,
the liability of sureties ceases when the estate has
been realised and the debts paid. Thereafter the
administrators hold the estate as trustees for the
next-of-kin and not as personal representatives. In
the case before the Court the plaintiff was sole
next-of-kin of her father who died while she was a
minor. Her husband was appointed administrator
and guardian until she should attain 21 years of
age and obtained letters of administration in that
capacity. The defendants who were the solicitors
with carriage of the administration entered into a
bond as sureties.
The defendants received the
purchase money of part of the estate and paid it to
the husband. All debts, funeral and testamentary
expenses were duly paid but the husband mis
appropriated part of the residue and disappeared.
The Court agreed with the submission of counsel
for the defendants that the object of the bond was
only to ensure the due winding up o f the estate
until the residue was ascertained and in the admini
strator’s hands and that as soon as the moneys were
all received and the debts paid the administration
was finished and the administrator’s character
changed from that of an administrator to that of a
trustee. To hold otherwise would mean if the
beneficiary had been a very young child that the
sureties would remain liable over a long period
o f years without being able to control the action
o f the trustee or relieve themselves of liability.
The only person entitled to receive the moneys to
whom the defendants were bound to account was
the administrator. The estate was then clear and the
administration was at an end. fHarvell
v.
Foster,
and Another.—The Times Newspaper, 12th March,
195
.
4
) -
^ **-rr
A ,z >
RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE.
“ Area ”—Definition considered— R.
v.
Arm
strong ” (Scarborough Quarter Sessions)—
(The
Solicitor,
April, 1954).
Case of the Landlord’s Cats (Westminster County
Ct.)
(S.J.,
27th March, 1954).
Devolution an Intestacy of Registered Land (
l.L .T
.,
27th March and 3rd April, 1954).
Expropriation in International Law (Bin Cheng)
(The Solicitor,
April, 1954).
General and Special Powers of Appointment—“ Re
Bransbury ” and te Re Churston Settled Estates
{S.J.,
20th March, 1954).
8 5