Nutson v. Hanrahan

Nutson v. Hanrahan

The consent clause in the leases did not constitute an acknowledgment of title by the lessors in the second mortgagee; possession by the first mortgagee for the statutory period vested title under the Limitations Act and, by s.24, the second mortgagee's rights and status to redeem were extinguished, therefore the appellants had no standing and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
[1925] SCR 662
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Mary Nutson; Appellant (plaintiff): Annie M. Murphy; Respondent (defendant): William A. Hanrahan; Respondent (defendant): Hanrahan, Hardie and Elliott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 May 1924
Procedural Posture
Action (mortgage Redemption) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Possession, Acknowledgment of Title, Lease, Right of Redemption, Mortgage Priority
Source Language
English
Property Law Mortgages Limitation of Actions Equity Statute of Limitations Possession Acknowledgment of Title Lease +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Nutson

Appellant (plaintiff)

Annie M. Murphy

Appellant (plaintiff)

William A. Hanrahan

Respondent (defendant)

Hanrahan, Hardie and Elliott

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Action (mortgage Redemption) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leases executed by mortgagee in possession and joined in by second mortgagee constituted an acknowledgment of title by the lessors under the Limitations Act
  2. 2 Whether possession by the first mortgagee for the statutory period gave the mortgagee title under s.20 of the Limitations Act
  3. 3 Whether s.24 R.S.O. c.75 extinguished the second mortgagee's rights and status to redeem

Ratio Decidendi

The consent clause in the leases did not constitute an acknowledgment of title by the lessors in the second mortgagee; possession by the first mortgagee for the statutory period vested title under the Limitations Act and, by s.24, the second mortgagee's rights and status to redeem were extinguished, therefore the appellants had no standing and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.