209 / 266
conveyancers as it reviewed very fully the authorities
on the subject o f the damages obtainable by the
purchaser of a newly erected dwelling house from
a vendor-builder for defects in the construction of
the house. As a general rule, there are no implied
conditions on the sale of land and in the absence of
an express condition in the contract o f sale, no
remedy will lie for such defects. However, in the
case o f the purchase o f a house in the course of
erection, there are certain implied warranties as to
condition for the protection o f the purchaser. It
would appear from the judgment o f the President
o f the High Court that most defects, whether in
materials or workmanship, are regarded as affecting
habitability. The important question in most cases
will be to decide whether the house was still in
the course o f erection at the date when it was
purchased. The decision o f the President o f the
High Court will, no doubt, be a leading authority
on the law in this important matter.
(2) ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST SOLICITOR.
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
I
n
Deignan
v.
Greene, an action against a solicitor
for damages for alleged negligence noted in the
Irish Taw Times and Solicitors’ Journal
of 5th June,
1954, Murnaghan J. held that the action was in
substance based on contract, and that on the authori
ties it was the substance rather than the form of
the pleadings which should be considered. Accord
ingly the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury, and the
Central Office had rightly refused to accept a notice
of trial by a Judge with a jury. Reference was made
to Jarvis
v.
Moy, Davies and Others (1936,
I.K.B.,
399) and Somers
v.
Erskine (1943, I.R ., 348) and
Liston
v.
Munster & Leinster Bank (1940, I.R ., 77).
It is understood that the plaintiff has appealed to
the Supreme Court.
(3) SOLICITORS’ LIABILITY ON
ADMINISTRATION BOND.
T
h e
Society’s
Gazette
for April last contained a
note o f a decision o f the Queen’s Bench Division,
England, in the case o f Harvell
v.
Foster and another,
in which the Court held that the object of an admin
istration bond is only to ensure the due winding
up o f the estate until the residue has been ascertained
and is in the administrator’s hands, and that as soon
as the moneys have all been received and the debts
have been paid, the administration is finished and
the administrator’s character changes from that of
administrator to that of a trustee. On this view of
the law, the Court held that the administrator having
completed the administration, received the residue,
and absconded without paying the beneficiary, the
solicitors who were the sureties on the administration
bond were not liable for his default.
This decision has been reversed by the Court of
Appeal in England. In their opinion on the failure
o f the administrator to account for the proceeds of
realisation o f the estate, he having misappropriated
it to his own use, the administrator was shown not
to have “ well and truly administered the estate
according to law ” within the true meaning and
intent of the bond. In the view of the Court, the
duty o f an administrator as such must at least
extend to paying the funeral and testamentary
expenses and debts and legacies (if any) and where
as in the present case the immediate distribution
was impossible owing to the infancy o f the person
beneficially entitled, to retaining the net residue in
trust for the infant. At least until the administrator
could show that he had done that, it could not in
the Court’s judgment be said o f him that he had
duly administered the estate according to law.
(The
Times
newspaper, 16th July, 1954.)—(1954)- a- A L L
E .R . 736.
(4) COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
OF LAND
TRIBUNAL IMPROPERLY CON
STITUTED-DECISION INVALID
T
h e
plaintiff was the owner of a plot o f agricultural
land o f about three acres. On June 16th, 1951, the
Minister o f Agriculture and Fisheries gave notice
in writing to the plaintiff that under the Agriculture
Act, 1947, s. 85 (2), he proposed to issue a certificate
certifying that he was satisfied that it was necessary
for the purpose o f enabling him to secure or maintain
the full and efficient use o f the land for agriculture,
that possession o f the land should be, retained by
him or on his behalf. In accordance with s. 85 (5)
o f the Act, the plaintiff required that the Minister’s
proposal should be referred to the Agricultural
Land Tribunal.
On September 24th, 1951, the
tribunal heard the reference. For that hearing the
two nominated members of the tribunal, who should
have been appointed by the Minister, were appointed
by the secretary of the tribunal (who had no specific
instructions from, and had no powers delegated
to him by the Minister to make the appointments)
in consultation with the chairman o f the tribunal.
On October 12th, 1951, the tribunal issued its
3
i