Bull v Bull
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1220-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 December 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1220-1
Lord Justice Denning,
Lord Justice Hodson and
Lord Justice Hodson.
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal.
MR A. BURROWS (instructed by Messrs Canter Hellyar & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR L.B. SCRAPIRO (instructed by Messrs Daybell, Court, Cooper & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
This is a most unfortunate dispute between mother and son. The son is now about 30 years of age and he has always lived with his mother. They have lived in several different houses, but the latest house since 1949 has been 101, Rishden Gardens, Ilford. This house was bought partly with her money and partly with his, but the son seems to have provided the greater part and the conveyance was taken in his name. In April, 1953, the son married and it was arranged that his mother should have two rooms in the house and that he and his wife would have the rest. Soon afterwards, however,differences arose between the mother and hex daughter—in—law with the result that the son told his mother to leave the house. She has not, she says, been able to find other accommodation suitable to her needs and so she has not left. She is still there. The son has therefore brought these proceedings to turn her out. In answer to the claim the mother says that, although the house stands in her son' name, she herself contributed quite a lot of money towards it, and that in these circumstances he cannot turn her out like this or, at any rate, not without paying her the amount which she put into it.
The Judge has found that the mother did contribute a substantial amount towards the house and that she did not intend to make a gift of that money to her son. There was therefore no presumption of advancement but a resulting trust in her favour. Furthermore, the Judge finds that, when the house was bought, it was the intention of both mother and son that the house, although taken in the son' name, should be a home for them both. The Judge has held that in these circumstances the son cannot turn the mother out now as if she was a trespasser; and that his only remedy is by application to a court of equity. The son appeals to this Court.
Similar circumstances must often arise in families, but strangely enough there is no authority on the point. The son is, of course, the legal owner of the house; but the mother and son are, I think, equitable tenants in common. Each is entitled in equity to an undivided share in the house, the share of each being in proportion to his or her respective contribution. The rights of equitable tenants in common as between themselves have never, so far as I know, been defined; but there is plenty of authority about the rights of legal owners in common. Bach of them is entitled to the possession of the land and to the use and enjoyment of it in a proper manner. Neither can turn out the other; but if one of them should take more than his proper share the injured party can bring an action for an account. If one of them should go so far as to oust the other he is guiltyof a trespass: see Jacobs v. Seward,. Law Reports, 5 House of Lords, page 464. Such being the rights of legal tenants in common, I think that the rights of equitable owners in common are the same, save only for such differences as are necessarily consequent on the interest being equitable and not legal. It is well known that equity follows the law; and it does so in these cases about tenants in common as in others.
In support of this view I would refer to the words used by Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, over 200 years ago in Cowper v. Cowper (1734) 2 Peere Williams, at page 753: "The law is clear; and courts of equity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irani Finance Ltd v Singh
...was intended to be enjoyed "in specie" and where no sale was in reality in contemplation. 15 He submitted that a comparison of the case of Bull v. Bull, 1955 (1) Q.B. 234 with the recent case of Barclay v. Barclay (a transcript of the judgments in which is in the Bar Library but is as yet ......
-
Barclay v Barclay
...of the said Will". He also raised the Statute of Limitations. 6 The County Court Judge felt himself bound by the decision in this Court of Bull v. Bull (1955, 1 Q.B., 234) to hold that Allan Barclay was an equitable tenant in common of the bungalow and could not be turned out by this action......
-
Christopher McGuinness v Francis McGuinness
...CHRISTOPHER MCGUINNESS PLAINTIFF AND FRANCIS MCGUINNESS DEFENDANT Citations: MCMAHON V KERRY CO COUNCIL 1981 ILRM 419 BULL V BULL 1955 1 QB 234 Synopsis: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL Adverse possession Licence - Whether defendant acted to his detriment - Proof of detriment Adverse possession - Whe......
-
Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland
...the purchase, have an equitable interest which affects the legal estate? This was much considered in this court some years ago. It was in Bull v. Bull (1955) 1 Queen's Bench 234. Thelegal estate was in the son but the mother had contributed to the purchase money. Delivering the judgment of ......
-
The Changing Face of Trusts: The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
...under which applications for orders forsale of the home in cases of matrimonial or cohabitation difficulties were not25 See Bull vBull [1955] 1 QB 234.26 [1982] Fam 63, 71.January 1998] Trusts of Land Act 1996The Modern Law Review Limited 1998 infrequently made. The new provision specifical......