Leasehold Interest: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Naegele v. Oke, 1916 CanLII 577 (ON CA)== | ==Naegele v. Oke, 1916 CanLII 577 (ON CA)== | ||
Page 504: | |||
::The written agreement of September, 1911, is, I think, to be construed as relating to the existing ram and pipes and to their then use for supplying water to lot 13. The evidence shews clearly that it was drawn to confirm and continue that which had been in existence and in actual use under an oral agreement for seven or eight Years, and was not a general right to take water. That which the plaintiff Naegele acquired under his agreement with the Hallidays was, therefore, I think, a license personal to himself, good for 49 years, subject to earlier determination by his death, or because he was no longer in occupation of the Naegele farm, so as to enable him to enjoy the benefits of the license. | |||
::No estate in the lands of Halliday (or Oke) was acquired by Naegele. The license does not include " assigns," and so "was not transferable. | |||
::At the time this action was instituted, Francis Naegele had sold the lands to which the hydraulic ram conveyed the water, and Pitblado, the purchaser, was in possession, so that, on the date when the writ was issued, he (Francis) had no rights capable of enforcement by the Court. | |||
Revision as of 20:57, 17 August 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-01 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1969 |
| Page Categories: | [Legal Principles], [Contract Law], [Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (Commercial Tenancy)], [Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Leasehold Interest, CLNP 1969, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-01 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2022/08/17 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Naegele v. Oke, 1916 CanLII 577 (ON CA)
Page 504:
- The written agreement of September, 1911, is, I think, to be construed as relating to the existing ram and pipes and to their then use for supplying water to lot 13. The evidence shews clearly that it was drawn to confirm and continue that which had been in existence and in actual use under an oral agreement for seven or eight Years, and was not a general right to take water. That which the plaintiff Naegele acquired under his agreement with the Hallidays was, therefore, I think, a license personal to himself, good for 49 years, subject to earlier determination by his death, or because he was no longer in occupation of the Naegele farm, so as to enable him to enjoy the benefits of the license.
- No estate in the lands of Halliday (or Oke) was acquired by Naegele. The license does not include " assigns," and so "was not transferable.
- At the time this action was instituted, Francis Naegele had sold the lands to which the hydraulic ram conveyed the water, and Pitblado, the purchaser, was in possession, so that, on the date when the writ was issued, he (Francis) had no rights capable of enforcement by the Court.
References
- ↑ Naegele v. Oke, 1916 CanLII 577 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/gw6mx>, retrieved on 2022-08-17
