The history of the different prescriptions and times of prescription would be interesting to the student of constitutional history, but we have only space to allude briefly to them here. The first year of Henry I., the reign of Richard I., King John's last return from Ireland into England, the coronation of Henry III., the first voyage of Henry III. into Gascony, were the periods of limitation successively selected in Anglo-Norman times, and continued, some of them, till the reign of Henry VII. In that reign, the Wars of the Roses having unsettled all property, the Legislature rushed to the opposite extreme, and fixed a FIVE years limit by fine and non-claim. Charley's Real Property Acts; 20 Henry III. cap. 8; Stats. West. 1; 3 Edw. I. cap. 39. Previous to 3 & 4 Will. IV. cap. 27, which has been almost entirely copied into our Canadian Statute Book by 4 Will. IV. cap. 1, the remedy was only barred. By that Statute, the right itself is extinguished (a). "This," said Lord Leonards, "is a great improvement. This improvement has been preserved in our Stat. of 38 Vic. cap. 17, s. 15, and the Revised Statutes cap. 108, s. 15. In Hawks v. Palling (b), the Court asked whether the section did more than extinguish the right to sue." "There does not," observes Lord St. Leonards, " appear to be sufficient foundation for this doubt. It is not the right to sue that is barred, but the right and title to the subject itself that is extinguished (c). The effect is therefore to confer a title on those in possession for the specified period, which the former owner cannot disturb, and which the new owner is competent to convey, and consequently such a title as a Court of Equity will force on a purchaser.” (d) (a) Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87; Incorporated Soc. v. Richards, 1 Dru. & War, 289; 1 Wms. Saunders, 283, n. ; 2 B. & Ad. 413; 1 B. & Ald. 93. (b) 6 E. & B. 659. (c) Charley's Real Property Acts, 25. (d) Scott v. Nixon, 3 Dru. & War. 388; Lethbridge v. Kirkham, 25 L. J. (Q. B.) 89; Tuthill v. Rogers, 6 Ir. Equity Reports, 441; Moulton v. Edwards, 1 De G. and F. & J. 250; Real Property Statutes, 9; Charley, 25. In Ontario, according to our registry laws, a title by possession is probably the most difficult to get a purchaser to accept. The conveyancer has to pause in the construction of his title. He can find nothing on the registry books, and has to search for extraneous evidence in order to complete his chain of title. Of course, this all arises from the folly of our method of transferring land, a folly which it is hoped the Legislature of Ontario will become alive to at some future time. Years may elapse, and this book will be useful in the meantime. We may mention, however, that the folly consists in our system of dependent title. No part of the chain is stronger than any particular link. We should amend our folly by adopting the system of independent title, whereby each owner of land takes directly from the Crown. That is the system in all the Australian provinces, and it has been found in practice to be beneficial. Even with our present system it would much facilitate the work of the conveyancer, and, which is of greater moment, increase the security in landed property, if some legal procedure were adopted whereby persons acquiring title by length of possession would be enabled to obtain a patent from the Crown for the land. This would do away with the difficulty of ascertaining the validity of many titles. The operation of this Act will have a tendency to increase the number of persons who hold merely by possession; and if their title is good, they should have some means of registering it, and making a good paper title for those who come after them. We consider the Act for Quieting Titles too cumbrous, and not fitted for this branch of the subject. A short mode of procedure, whereby the person having title by possession might procure a patent from the Crown, is quite sufficient. It may be remarked that the public cannot release their rights, and there is no extinctive presumption or prescrip tion. This has been determined in our own courts in the case of Nash v. Glover, 24 Chy. 219, although it naturally arises from the doctrine that the Crown can do no wrong. In the above case, where an original allowance for road had been taken possession of and occupied by the plaintiff, and those under whom he claimed, for a period of forty years and upwards, held that such lengthened possession afforded no ground for opposing the action of the municipality in resuming possession of the road for the purpose of opening up the same. JONES ON PRESCRIPTION. PART I. REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO. CAP. 108. An Act respecting the Limitation of Suits relating to Real Property, and the time of prescription in cer tain cases. Preliminary, ss. 1-3. Period of limitation-ten years after right of action accrued, s. 4. When rights of action deemed to have accrued: 1. On dispossession, s. 5 (1). 4. In the case of wild lands, s. 5(4). 6. In case of tenancy from year to year, s. 5 (6). 7. In case of tenancy at will, ss. 5 (7) and (8). 8. In case of forfeiture or breach of condition, s. 5 (9), (10). 9. In case of future estates, ss. 5 (10), 5 (11), 5 (12). Period of limitation as to future estates, s. 6. Administrator to claim from death of deceased, s. 7. Entry not to be deemed possession, s. 8. Continual claims not to preserve rights, s. 9. Descent cast, warranty, &c., not to bar right of entry or action, s. 10. Possession of one joint tenant, &c., not to be deemed possession of another, s. 11. Possession of relatives not to be deemed possession of the heirs, s. 12. Acknowledgment to be equivalent to possession or receipt of rent, s. 13. Receipt of rent to be deemed receipt of profits, s. 14. Right of party out of possession extinguished at the end of the period limited, s. 15. Action for arrears of dower, rent and interest to be within six years, ss. 16-18. Mortgages: Mortgagor out of possession barred after ten years, s. 19. Acknowledgments, ss. 20, 21. Mortgagee barred after ten years, 8. 22. Actions for money charged on land Prescription in cases of easements: Rights of way, water and other Interruptions, s. 37. Pleadings in actions, &c., ss. 38, 39. Disabilities and exceptions: In cases of easements, ss. 40-42. Time during which a party under disability not to be counted, s. 40. Term of years excluded in computing time in certain cases, s. 41. Exception as to lands of the Crown, s. 42. In cases of land or rent, s. 43-45. Five years allowed from the termination of disability, s. 43. Twenty years the utmost allowance, s. 44. No further time for a succession of disabilities, s. 45. In 38 Vic. cap. 16, Ontario, 1874, the Act is entitled, "An Act for the further Limitations of Actions and Suits relating to Real Property." The preamble is as follows: "Whereas it is expedient to lessen the time for making entries and distresses, and for bringing actions and suits to recover land or rent in certain cases from forty to twenty years, and in certain other cases from twenty to ten years, and in certain other cases from ten to five years, and also to lessen the time for redemption by mortgagors, and for recovery of dower, and of money charged on lands or on rent, and of legacies; and also to provide for cases of money and legacies charged on land, or on rent secured by express trust, according to the provisions hereinafter contained respectively relating thereto." A question arose under this Act whether the right to bring an action for a general pecuniary legacy payable out of personal property was curtailed to the period of ten years. It was decided that the Statute of 3 & 4 Will. IV. cap. 27, applied (a), and our Revised Statutes have set it at rest. Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:— 1. This Act may be cited as "The Real Property Limitation Act." The system of having a short title for Acts of Parliament on account of its convenience has now come into vogue. There is unfortunately no short title by which the Statute of Limitations of the Imperial Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. is known to the law. As this Act embraces also the Act with regard to Easements, perhaps something might have been said in the title to have called attention to the fact. It is, however, better to have the title for Acts as short as possible, and the student is supposed to gather what is in the Act when he reads it. 2. The words and expressions hereinafter mentioned, which in their ordinary signification have a more confined or a different meaning, (a) Shepherd v. Duke, 9 Sim. 567; Cooke v. Creswell, L. R. 2 Eq. 116. Vide Revised Statutes, cap. 58, s. 8. |