By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the form prescribed by the Act, which, notwithstanding some of the lands were copyhold, was adapted to the conveyance of freeholds only. A copyholder used the form and afterwards died without having made any surrender of the tenements comprised in it to the lord of the manor.
Held: The company, being a corporation, was not entitled to be admitted to the tenements, but that they were entitled to have the customary heir of the deceased tenant admitted ; and the Court declared that, on his admittance, he would be a trustee for the company.
Citations:
[1846] EngR 55, (1846) 9 QB 469, (1846) 115 ER 1353, [1846] EngR 1072, (1846) 15 Sim 402, (1846) 60 ER 675
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 2-Jun-1849
The defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff to use the canal constructed across his land. After he had been ordered to allow the boats to pass, the defendant brought 15 actions in trespass. The company now sought an injunction to restrain . .
See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes CA 4-Feb-1850
The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .
See Also – Dimes v Lord Cottenham 2-May-1850
The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .
See Also – In Re Dimes 26-Jul-1850
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the . .
See Also – Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
Second Appeal from – Dimes v The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others 29-Jun-1852
The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.301951