Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Thellusson v Liddard: 1900

It was argued that section 63 of the 1881 Act operated to pass whatever estate, right or interest the conveying party had in the property there being considered at the date of the deed that was relevant in that case. Held: Stirling J approved the argument. Judges: Stirling J Citations: [1900] 2 Ch 635 Statutes: … Continue reading Thellusson v Liddard: 1900

Hanbury v Bateman: 1920

In the course of commenting on a discussion about the effect of section 63 of the 1881 Act: ‘The effect of the Act may be this, that a conveyance will have the effect of conveying every estate and interest which the person conveying can convey . . [but] I do not think you can read … Continue reading Hanbury v Bateman: 1920

Trimble and Another v Cassidy and Another: ChNI 29 Apr 2022

This case considers the nature and extent of the protection afforded by section 21(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 (‘the 1881 Act’) to a purchaser buying from a mortgagee or a fixed charge receiver. Judges: Mcbride J Citations: [2022] NICh 7 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland Land Updated: 08 September 2022; … Continue reading Trimble and Another v Cassidy and Another: ChNI 29 Apr 2022

Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903

The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with the draught from the lessee’s chimneys. Section … Continue reading Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903

Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927

The court was asked whether the conveyance of a farm out of which a tithe rentcharge issued carried with it, by reason of Section 63, the rentcharge itself. Held: The farm and the tithe rentcharge were two separate hereditaments and express words would be necessary to pass the rentcharge. The intention of the 1836 Act … Continue reading Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927

Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green: CA 1981

A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . .