Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884 Excerpt:.... Railway Go at the time of the execution of the com-eyance. Besides that, I am entitled to look and I do look at the plan. On the face of the Chltty'J' plan it appears that the stables abut upon the private road in question, and at the time when the deed was executed, the tenant Hayes was in occupation of the stables and had actually the user of the way for the purposes of going to and from them. Now the user by the tenant clearly did not create an easement or right of way annexed to the fee simple of the land conveyed, because the user was only a tenant user over land which belonged to the landlord. If authority were wanting for that, Gayford v. Moffatt (1) is sufficient to shew that no right is acquired so as to become annexed to the fee simple by the enjoyment, even as of right, by a tenant of a way over his own landlord's ground. Before I go to the authorities I will mention the following point. During the argument I put this case to the Plaintiffs counsel: assume that a house abuts on a private road belonging to the owner of the house, with its front door opening on to the private road, and that there is an ordinary back way to the house, so that, as a matter of fact, you could get into the house, not by the front door in the ordinary way, but by the back door. If in those circumstances the owner of the house and of the private road in front were to grant the house, and the deed were entirely silent as to the private road running in front, would the grantee of the house have a right of way? The Plaintiffs counsel said "No;" and as far as I am aware there is no express decision on the point. But if that point should ever come for decision, it seems to me it will be worthy of consideration whether the same principle which applies to the grant...