In the Mihm & Dundas v. Balkovski & Woodlinger case, supra, it is pointed out by Lamont, J. that the vendor was still living on the farm, cut the grain, and exercised the usual control over the farming operations, just as he had done before the sale. In that case, it seems to me that the main fact leading to the conclusion that there was not an actual and continued change of possession was, that the vendor, while continuing to live on the farm, was still exercising his usual control over the farming operations, and that anyone visiting the farm would not see that there was any change.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.