Interruption - what it is.

It may be here pointed out that by the L. P. Act, 1925, s. 1 (2), the only interests or charges in or over land which are capable of subsisting at Law are those mentioned in the five sub-clauses of that sub-section, sub-clause (a) being " an easement, right, or privilege in or over land for an interest equivalent to an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, or a term of years absolute." Sect. 187 (1) provides that where an easement, right or privilege for a legal estate is created, it shall enure for the benefit of the land to which it is intended to be annexed.

L. P. Act, 1925.

(r) Carr v. Foster, (1842) 3 Q. B. 581; 6 Jur. 837; and see It. v. Chorley, (1848) 12 Q. B. 515; 12 L. T. (O. S.) 371; Ladyman v. Grave, (1871) 6 Ch. 763; 25 L. T. 52; Smith v. Baxter, 1900, 2 Ch. 138; 69 L. J. Ch. 437; Goddard, 8th ed. 251.

(s) Carr v. Foster, sup.

(t) Eaton v. Swansea Water Works Co., (1851) 17 Q. B. 267, 274; 20 L. J. Q. B. 482, a fluctuating interruption caused by packing cases piled up was held not sufficient to prevent the statute operating in favour of a right to light; Presland v. Bingham, (1889) 41 Ch. D. 268; 60 L. T. 433.

(u) Davies v. Williams, (1851) 16 Q. B. 546; 20 L. J. Q. B. 338.

(x) See Lowe v. Carpenter, (1851) 6 Ex. 825; 20 L. J. Ex. 374; Hollins v. Verney, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 304; 53 D. J. Q. B. 430.

(y) Flight v. Thomas, (1841) 8 C. & F. 231; 3 P. & D. 442.

(z) Bridewell Hosp. v. Ward, (1893) 62 L. J. Ch. 270; 68 L. T. 212; Battersea (Lord) v. Commrs. of Sewers, 1895, 2 Ch. 708; 65 L. J. Ch. 61; Goddard, 8th ed. 201.

The Land Charges Act, 1925, s. 10, specifies, in five classes, a large number of interests in land which may be registered as land charges, Class "D" (iii) being "any easement, right, or (privilege over or affecting land created or arising after the commencement of this Act, and being merely an equitable interest (in this Act referred to as an equitable easement)." It is to be observed that there is nothing in the L. P. Act, 1925, which affects the operation of the Prescription Act or of the general law with reference to the acquisition of easements or rights over or in respect of land (a).

L. C. Act,


By the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, as amended by the Act of 1874, the time within which proceedings can be commenced for the recovery of any land, or rent, is restricted to a period of twelve years from the time at which the right to proceed for the recovery of such land or rent first accrued to the plaintiff, or the person through whom he claims (b). The Acts contain provisions extending the period of limitation in the case of disability and in the case of reversionary interests (c).

Title under the Statute of Limitations.

Sect. 1 of the Act of 1833 contains a wide definition of the word "land." The word "rent" in s. 1 of the Act of 1874 (which takes the place of s. 2 of the Act of 1833) means a rent which is a charge upon land, such as a rent-charge, or a quit rent or other ancient rent of inheritance, and does not mean the rent incident to the reversion expectant upon an ordinary lease (d).

"Rent" - its. meaning within the Act.

(a) S. 12 of L. P. Act, 1925.

(b) See s. 1 of the Act of 1874; and Doe v. Edmonds, (1840) 6 M. & W. 295; Magdalen Hosp. v. Knotts, (1879) 4 A. C. 324; 48 L. J. Ch. 579; Mayor of Brighton v. Guardians of Brighton, (1880) 5 C. P. D. 368; 49 L. J. C. P. 648; Haigh v. West, 1893, 2 Q. B. 19; 62 L. J. Q. B. 532; Re Earl of Devon's S. E., 1896, 2 Oh. 570; 65 L. J. Ch. 810.

(c) See 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 27, s. 3; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, ss. 3 and 5.

(d) Grant v. Ellis, (1841) 9 M. & W. 113; Doe d. Angell v. Angell,

In the case of an express trust (c), the right of action against the trustee does not accrue under s. 25 of the Act of 1833 until a conveyance has been made to a purchaser for valuable consideration; and then only as against such purchaser and persons claiming under him (f). And where a person assumes with or without consent to act in a fiduciary relation with regard to trust property, or knowingly assists a nominated trustee in a fraudulent or dishonest disposition of the trust property, he becomes constructively, and will be treated by the Court as, an express trustee (g).

In case of express trust.

Under s. 10 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, an express trust no longer prevents time from running against proceedings to recover any sum of money or legacy charged upon or payable out of any land or rent and secured by such trust (h).

Real Property Limitation Act, 1874.

By s. 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888 (i), the rights and privileges conferred by any Statute of Limitations are to be enjoyed by a person being a trustee or person claiming through him to the same extent as they would have been enjoyed if he had not been a trustee or person claiming through him, except where the claim is founded on fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party or privy, or is to recover trust property or the proceeds thereof still retained by the trustee or previously received by the trustee and converted to his use.

Trustee Act, 1888.

(1846) 9 Q. B. pp. 355, 356; Paget v. Foley, (1836) 2 Bing. N. C. 679, 688; Irish Land Commission v. Grant, (1884) 10 A. C. p. 26; Howitt v. Earl of Harrington, 1893, 2 Ch. 497.

(e) See Sands to Thompson, (1883) 22 Ch. D. 614, per Fry, J.; 52 L. J. Ch. 466; Price v. Phillips, (1894) W. N. 213; 11 T. L. R. 86; Soar v. Ashwell, 1893, 2 Q. B. 390; 69 L. T. 585.

(f) A.-g. v. Flint, (1844) 4 Ha. 147; Petre v. P., (1852) 1 Dr. at p. 397; 21 L. T. (O. S.) 136; and see as to express trusts, Salter v. Cavanagh, (1838) 1 D. & Wal. 668; Burne v. Robinson, (1839) ib. 688; Knight v. Bowyer, (1858) 2 D. & J. 421; 27 L. J. Ch. 520; Bullock v. Downes, (1860) 9 H. L. C. 1; 3 L. T. 194; Nugent v. N., (1885) 15 L. R. Ir. 321; Patrick v. Simpson, (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 128; 59 L. J. Q. B. 7; Be Lacy, 1899, 2 Ch. 149; 68 L. J. Ch. 488.