Hodge et Al v Hodge et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Joseph, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1984
• Neutral Citation: AI 1984 HC 6
• Docket Number: Civil Suit no. 17 of 1977
• Date: 14 November 1984

High Court

Joseph, J.

Civil Suit no. 17 of 1977

Hodge et al

and

Hodge et al

Appearances:

Mr. F. Kelsick for Appellants.

Respondents in person.

Real property - Possession —

Facts:

This was an appeal by the executors of the Estate of Joseph Hodge (deceased) against the decision of the Adjudication Officer with regard to certain boundaries fixed by him and his holding that the ownership of the remaining area of land was in undivided shares between the deceased and his collaterals —

Held:

The boundary set was correct. Joseph Hodge was in exclusive possession of the area in question. The appeal would be allowed. Order made that the areas of land in question be registered in the name of the personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Hodge.

Joseph, J.

1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Adjudication Officer dated 23rd February 1976, who held that the land of Joseph B. Hodge (deceased) does not extend further north than the southern edge of the pool of water: that the boundary line shall be parallel with the southern boundary and that the ownership of the remaining area of land is in undivided shares, as follows:

• 1. Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph B. Hodge (deceased) — ⅓rd share;

• 2. Personal Representative of Samuel Ernest Hodge (deceased) — ⅓rd share;

• 3. Personal Representative of Sarah Isles (deceased) — ⅓rd share;

2 as owners in common with absolute title. The common boundary as described above shall be shown as undemarcated. There is a restriction that no subdivision adjacent to the undemarcated boundary as shown on the index map be made until the boundary is fixed by the Registrar of lands in accordance with decision 234/EC/D.

3 A submission was made by the first respondent that the court ought not to hear the appeal as it was filed out of time. I rules that the appeal as it was properly before the court and heard it was a new trial giving both parties an opportunity to call witnesses. East to west, immediately south of land of Peter Hodge: the eastern boundary of this pond being the land purchased from Mary Louisa Smith by Joseph B. Hodge. The long portion of the portion of the ‘L’ runs east to west immediately south of land of Peter Hodge: the eastern boundary of this pond being the land purchased from Mary Louisa Smith by Joseph B. Hodge. The long portion of the ‘L’ runs south, and is bounded on the east by remaining land purchased by Joseph from Mary Louisa Smith; by The southern boundary of the area of land bought by Joseph B. Hodge from Mary Louisa Smith is land of James L. Webster.

4 The evidence for the appellant is that Isabella's children, Peter Hodge, Sarah Isles, Ernest Hodge and Joseph B Hodge worked only their portions as described earlier. Austin Hodge, Peter Hodge's son and cousin of parties, testified that from his youth (he was born in 1919)up to 1948, when he went to Curacao, his uncle Benjamin Hodge occupied the disputed land. In 1962, Thelma Hunte (appellants' sister and her husband Emerson occupied the land. Austin worked a portion of the disputed land for three years, having obtained Thelma Hunte's permission to do so. The appellants all allege that the respondents first made a claim to the land in 1971.

5 The case for the respondents is that the disputed land was not divided and that the expression “little pond” in the deed of 1914 refers to the pond south-west of the public road. The first respondent testified before the Adjudication Officer that, when in 1953 the second appellant stopped vehicles from passing on the land to get to the beach, his (first respondent's) father remonstrated with the second appellant and told him the land was undivided. He stated that in 1970 when Sarah Isles put down bounds on the land, the first appellants left the disputed land and occupied their own land and that he (first respondent) cultivated the land.

6 The second respondent stated that she had nothing to add to the evidence she gave at the hearing before the Adjudication Officer. She told the Adjudication Officer that the land had been owned by her Grandmother Isabella Hodge: in 1970 her mother Sarah Islos was the last heir and desired to have the land divided: the bounds were put down from the west to the east, and she bought the land from her mother and cultivated it. She testified that the first appellants were not in possession of the land.

7 Under cross-examination, the first respondent admitted that Pond ‘A’ is the larger pond and that the use of the expression “little” alters the boundary in favour of the appellants. He challenged that addition of the word “little” in the...