Ryan v. Ryan

Ryan v. Ryan

The evidence justified the trial judge’s finding that the plaintiff held as the owner’s servant/agent/caretaker (and thus possession was the father’s), and in any event the evidence established that a new tenancy at will was created within ten years by agreement and conduct; accordingly the plaintiff did not acquire a statutory title and the appeal is allowed restoring the verdict for the appellant.

Citation
(1881) 5 SCR 387
Parties
Appellant: Michael Ryan; Respondent: Patrick Ryan
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 1881
Procedural Posture
Action (trespass to Realty) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial in Court of Common Pleas, No Jury)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; verdict and judgment of the lower court restored in favour of the appellant (defendant in the original action).
Legal Topics
Tenancy at Will, Adverse Possession, Possession as Caretaker/agent, Creation and Determination of Tenancy by Conduct, Effect of Verbal Acknowledgments, Payment of Taxes as Evidence
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Statute of Limitations Tenancy at Will Adverse Possession Possession as Caretaker/agent Creation and Determination of Tenancy by Conduct Effect of Verbal Acknowledgments +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ryan

Appellant

Patrick Ryan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action (trespass to Realty) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial in Court of Common Pleas, No Jury)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired title by possession/statute of limitations
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's possession was as caretaker/agent (not adverse) or as tenant at will
  3. 3 Whether a new tenancy at will was created within ten years, interrupting the running of the statute

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence justified the trial judge’s finding that the plaintiff held as the owner’s servant/agent/caretaker (and thus possession was the father’s), and in any event the evidence established that a new tenancy at will was created within ten years by agreement and conduct; accordingly the plaintiff did not acquire a statutory title and the appeal is allowed restoring the verdict for the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; verdict and judgment of the lower court restored in favour of the appellant (defendant in the original action).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Verdict and judgment of the Court below restored in favour of appellant