Hindmarsh v Quinn [1914] HCA 27

Hindmarsh v Quinn [1914] HCA 27

An agreement which confers a right to work land and share profits, but expressly negatives the creation of a tenancy and includes no grant of exclusive possession, gives at most a profit à prendre or a licence coupled with an interest. Such rights, being incorporeal hereditaments, do not give the grantee the right to exclusive possession as against the owner, and thus are no defence to an action of ejectment by the legal owner. The owner's right to possession is not defeated by the grant of such a profit or licence.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Thomas Hindmarsh; Respondent/plaintiff: Ann Quinn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Profits À Prendre, Licences, Possession, Nature of Interests in Land
Property Law Ejectment Profits À Prendre Licences Possession Nature of Interests in Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Hindmarsh

Appellant/defendant

Ann Quinn

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement conferring a right to work and manage a dairy farm and to share profits gives exclusive possession to the grantee as against the owner.
  2. 2 Whether such an agreement creates a tenancy, a profit à prendre, or merely a licence coupled with an interest.

Ratio Decidendi

An agreement which confers a right to work land and share profits, but expressly negatives the creation of a tenancy and includes no grant of exclusive possession, gives at most a profit à prendre or a licence coupled with an interest. Such rights, being incorporeal hereditaments, do not give the grantee the right to exclusive possession as against the owner, and thus are no defence to an action of ejectment by the legal owner. The owner's right to possession is not defeated by the grant of such a profit or licence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.