Perry v Clissold
- Facts
- Clissold was in possession of land. Perry (a stranger, not the true owner) trespassed on the land. Clissold sued Perry for trespass. Perry argued that Clissold had no proved title (ownership) and therefore could not sue.
- Issue
- Whether a person in possession of land can maintain an action against a trespasser without proving ownership/title.
- Held
- The Privy Council held that possession by itself is good title against all the world EXCEPT a person who proves better title. Clissold, being in possession, was presumed to be the owner until someone proved a superior claim. Perry (a stranger/trespasser) could not challenge Clissold's possession; only the true owner could. Clissold's action succeeded.
- Principle
- Possession by itself is good title against all the world except a person having better title: a possessor can sue a trespasser even without proving ownership
Facts
- Clissold was in possession of land. Perry (a stranger, not the true owner) trespassed on the land. Clissold sued Perry for trespass. Perry argued that Clissold had no proved title (ownership) and therefore could not sue.
Issue
- Whether a person in possession of land can maintain an action against a trespasser without proving ownership/title.
Held
- The Privy Council held that possession by itself is good title against all the world EXCEPT a person who proves better title. Clissold, being in possession, was presumed to be the owner until someone proved a superior claim. Perry (a stranger/trespasser) could not challenge Clissold's possession; only the true owner could. Clissold's action succeeded.
Ratio decidendi
1. Possession raises a presumption of ownership. 2. A possessor can sue any trespasser; need not prove title. 3. Only a person with better title (true owner) can defeat the possessor's claim. 4. As between two wrongful possessors, prior possession prevails over later. 5. The law protects possession to maintain public order and prevent self-help.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
Use to explain why law protects possession independently of ownership. Key for questions on possessory rights, the hierarchy of title, and the principle that a trespasser cannot challenge possession by pointing to absence of title. Contrast with adverse possession (which requires the passage of time).
Cite this
Citation
Perry v Clissold [1907] Appeal Cases 73Reported: [1907] Appeal Cases 73. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.