Fisher v Winch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1939 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Boundaries - Sale of land formerly in common ownership to different purchasers - Construction of conveyances - Boundaries traced by reference to ordnance survey map - Ditch and bank - Whether presumption of ownership applicable.
On the sale of part of an estate, the land sold was described in the parcels to the conveyance and declared to contain “by estimation 16.316 acres or thereabouts …. all which said premises are more particularly described in the first schedule …. and delineated on the plan drawn hereon ….” In the schedule the different parcels were set out by reference to the numbers on the ordnance survey map with their description and acreage. The plan was copied from the ordnance survey map with which the numbers and acreage shown corresponded. Another part of the estate west of this land was subsequently conveyed to another purchaser, there being at the boundary of the respective properties at the time of the conveyances a bank with a hedge on it and a ditch to the west, the origin of which was unknown. In an action in which the owners of the respective pieces of land claimed ownership of the ditch, evidence was given that, when a hedge ran along a piece of land, it was the universal practice to treat it as the boundary in delineating the parcels shown on ordnance survey maps and to calculate their acreage by measurements taken from its centre:—
Held, (1.) that the presumption that the person who made a ditch dug it at the extremity of his own land on to which he threw the soil to make a bank was applicable to agricultural land when the boundary was not otherwise ascertainable; (2.) that, if on the true construction of the conveyances it appeared what the boundary was, the presumption did not operate; (3.) that though the boundary shown on an ordnance survey map was not in itself evidence of the true boundary as between adjoining owners, the limits and the acreage of the land here conveyed were described by reference to that map, and, there being evidence that the boundary on that map ran along the middle line of the hedge, that line was the boundary of the land conveyed.
APPEAL from a decision of Humphreys J. at the Lewes Assizes.
Philip Saillard, the owner of a large estate, died on February 15, 1916. On October 30, 1922, his trustees conveyed to Mrs. Sarah Anne Johnson (the predecessor in title of the defendant, Donald Winch) part of that estate described in the parcels to the conveyance as “all that messuage tenement or tenement or farmhouse and farm with the out-houses thereon together with the several closes, pieces or parcels of land belonging thereto, called or known as Dairy Farm, situate in the parish of Colgate and county of Sussex, containing by estimation 16.316 acres or thereabouts and now in the occupation of the purchaser, all which said premises are more particularly described in the First Schedule hereunder written and delineated in the plan drawn hereon and thereon coloured green.” The schedule set out the different parcels by reference to the numbers on the ordnance survey map with their description and acreage. The plan delineated on the conveyance was copied from the ordnance survey map with which the numbers and acreage shown corresponded. On April 2, 1930, the personal representatives of Mrs. Sarah Anne Johnson conveyed a great part of this land to the defendant. On October 31, 1922, the trustees of the will of Philip Saillard conveyed to Charles Gent (the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, Mrs. Martha Fisher) a piece of land lying west of that conveyed to Mrs. Sarah Anne Johnson and adjoining it. This was described in the parcels to the conveyance as: “All that piece or parcel of land situate in the parish of Colgate in the county of Sussex, containing by admeasurement 3.261 acres or thereabouts and numbered 214 on the ordnance survey map for the said parish which said piece or parcel of land for greater clearness and by way of identification only is delineated on the plan drawn hereon and thereon coloured green.” The plan was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
...years earlier. And it is, as I have said, for Wibberley to establish its title to the strip. 24 The majority relied upon the case of Fisher v. Winch [1939] 1 K.B. 666. In that case, the trustees of a large estate sold it off in parcels. On 30 October 1922 they conveyed Dairy Farm to the def......
-
Gannon v Ni Ghruagain
...- Whether maps conclusive in case of substantial discrepancy - Gillespie v Hogg [1947] Ir Jur Rep 51 followed; Fisher v Winch [1939] 1 KB 666 distinguished - Registration of Title Act 1964 (No 16), s 85 - Relief granted (2006/2340P - Laffoy J - 2/3/2010) [2010] IEHC 359 Gannon v Ní Ghruaga......
-
Davey v Harrow Corporation
...the line indicated the centre of the existing hedge. This is in accordance with the invariable practice of the Survey as was proved in Fisher v. winch 1939 1 K.B. 666 and in our opinion, after that case and this, courts in future can take notice of this practice of the Ordnance survey as at......
-
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
...not arise where the land had been conveyed by reference to the Ordnance Survey map which delineated the boundary. The Recorder applied Fisher -v- Winch [1939] 1 K.B. 666 and Davey -v- Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 Q.B. 60 and held that:- "The boundary of the land conveyed to Mrs Burton by the......