Ontario. Court Of King's Bench
Published: 2013-09
Total Pages: 318
Get eBook
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1858 edition. Excerpt: ...legislature has passed afils l _ (G) 4 '1'. R. 588. See 2 Chitty, P, C. "Departure," (bl 1 Burr. 322 BALDWIN no AL. v. nomooimnr. 288 facilitate and ensure the means of ascertainingthe true boundaries of lots according to their numbers, and if common sense is to have any thing to do with the decision of this question, it would be manifestly absurd to hold this description of the land claimed as bad for uncertainty. On the authority of Cottingham v. King, Burr, 621, Joans v. Heel, Cro. Eliz. 235, and the observation made by the court in Knight v. Syms, 4 Mod. 97, I think we may hold this declaration good. It is true, that declaringfora close merely by name has been often held to be insuflicient, and in 4 Mod. 97, the reason is given. The court say, " Names of places are neither necessary nor material in giving possession, because they often change with the properties, -and the sheriff must have sufficient notice out of the record itself to give possession." This reason is wholly inapplicable to land in this country, designated by the proper lot and concession, for that is a name not liable to change at the will of the proprietor, but known and recorded in public offices of the government and sufficient to direct the sheriff with certainty; better indeed than any mode in use in England, or any other mode that can be adopted here. Council can sustain actions for such fees to be paid to themslves by their clients, as are established according to the table of fees under the 45th section of the statute 2 Geo. IV., ch. 2; but where the.fees claimed are not such as come within this provision of the act, the general principle of law in force in England applies equally to this province, and counsel have no right of...