Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Land - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 129 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Forster v Hale (1800) 5 Ves Jr 308
1800


Land, Company
An oral partnership agreement can be valid and if the partnership assets include land, then the land is held on a constructive trust for the partnership.
1 Citers


 
Knight v Halsey [1800] EngR 5; (1800) 2 Bos & Pul 172; (1800) 126 ER 1221
1800


Land, Taxes - Other
Hops are, by law, titheable after they are picked from the bind. And no usage can vary this rule. No evidence is sufficient to support a real composition, unless it have some reference to a deed of composition.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir Henry Harbert v Justinian Paget [1803] EngR 324; (1803) T Raym 53; (1803) 83 ER 29 (B)
1803


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Grey v The Duke of Northumberland [1806] EngR 374; (1806) 13 Ves Jun 236; (1806) 33 ER 283 (A)
23 Dec 1806


Land
Injunction by a Copyholder ; restraining the Lord, preparing to open a mine. Distinction, as to a mine opened, and working.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Mayor etc of Congleton v Pattison and Another [1808] EWHC KB J66
1 Jul 1808
KBD
Lord Ellenborough CJ, Le Blanc J
Landlord and Tenant, Land
The plaintiffs granted a lease of land subject to a covenant to give notice of those who worked in the silk mills to be erected and to pay fees for workers employed to cover the town's responsibilities to inhabitants brought into the town. They now sought payment from the defendants, who were successors in title, and who had not given notice or made payments as required. The defendants argued that they were not liable since it was only a collateral covenant and did not run with the land. Held: The claim failed: "This is a covenant in which the assignee is specifically named; and though it were for a thing not in case at the time, yet being specifically named, it would bind him, if it affected the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised, independently of collateral circumstances; or if it affected the mode of enjoying it. But this covenant does not affect the thing demised, in the one way or the other. It may indeed collaterally affect the lessors as to other lands they may have in possession in the same parish, by increasing the poor's rate upon them; but it cannot affect them even collaterally in respect of the demised premises during the term. How then can it affect the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised? Can it make any difference to the mills, whether they are worked by persons of one parish or another: or can it affect the value of the thing at the end of the term, independently of collateral circumstances? "
[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor v Neeham [1810] 2 Taunt 278
1810

Mansfield CJ
Estoppel, Land
“It would be a very odd in the law of any country, if A could take by any form of conveyance, a greater or better right than he had who conveys it to him; it would be contrary to all principle. But it does not rest merely on the general principle; if you look into all the books upon estoppel, you find it laid down, that parties and privies are not estopped, and he who takes an estate under a deed, is privy in estate, and therefore never can be in a better situation than he from whom he takes it.”
1 Citers



 
 Vowles v Miller; 9-Jul-1810 - [1810] 3 Taunt 137; [1810] EngR 416; (1810) 128 ER 54
 
The Attorney-General v Parmeter And Others In Re Portsmouth Harbour (1811) 10 Price 378; [1811] EngR 645; (1811) 147 ER 345
1811
CEC
MacDonald CB
Land
The defendants claimed rights under a charter granted by Charles I in 1628 granting lands and marshes subject to the overflowing of the sea. The charter declared that it had been granted in consideration and as compensation for the future expense of reclaiming the land from the sea. In fact nothing had been done under the charter until 1784, when the defendants began to build a wharf. Held: MacDonald CB said: "Let us next examine the common doctrine in the case of a grant made, and of which no advantage has been taken, and which has never been acted upon for a century and a half. It is most manifestly clear, either that the grant was never acted upon at all, or we must presume that it was surrendered, if ever the grantees did avail themselves of it. It has been argued thus: that supposing this was the case of a subject who had not acted upon such a grant for one hundred and forty years, the presumption must be the same as it was in the case of The Mayor of Kingston-upon Hull v Horner and the case of The Advowson of Chester-le-Street. In those cases there was nothing produced but a grant made at a distant time. The Court said, time must determine the title. Whenever we see a length of possession of this time, we must presume from the lapse of time, that an adverse grant is surrendered. So where we find the King by his subjects still in possession of this soil, by the passing and repassing of such vessels as can pass and repass, we must conclude that if it ever existed in force this grant had been in the interim surrendered to the Crown."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Jones 3 Camp 230
1811


Land
(Year?) A land owner has the right to obstruct the highway for the purpose of repairing his house so long as the inconvenience is 'necessarily' so caused and it is not prolonged for an unreasonable time.
1 Citers


 
Bennett v Neale And Others [1811] EngR 265; (1810-1811) Wight 324; (1811) 145 ER 1275
6 May 1811


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Chandler v Thompson [1811] EngR 500; (1811) 3 Camp 80; (1811) 170 ER 1312 (B)
11 Aug 1811


Land
If an ancient window be raised and enlarged, the owner of the adjoining land cannot lawfully obstruct the passage of light and air to any part of thespace occupied by the ancient window, although a greater portion of light and air be admitted through the unobstructed part of the enlarged window than was anciently enjoyed.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Bunn v Channen; 1813 - (1813) 5 Taunt 244
 
Parmeter, And Others v Attorney-General [1813] EngR 146; (1813) 10 Price 412; (1813) 147 ER 356; [1813] EngR 147; (1813) 1 Dow PC 316; (1813) 3 ER 713
13 Feb 1813
PC

Land
The Appellants, claiming under a grant by Charles I, of the soil between high and low water marks, along the coast of the county of Southampton, erect a wharf, dock, etc. between high and low water marks in Portsmouth harbour, Information to abate this as a nuisance. No possession of this particular spot under the grant, till 1784. Court of Exchequer decree a removal of the nuisance, and this decree affirmed by the Lords, solely on the ground of non-user as to this particular place, without reference to general validity of grant.
[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]

 
 Pickering v Rudd; KBD 20-Jun-1815 - [1815] EWHC KB J43; (1815) 4 Camp 219; [1815] 171 ER 70; [1815] EngR 883; (1815) 1 Stark 56; (1815) 171 ER 400 (B); [1815] EngR 884; (1815) 171 ER 70
 
James Earl of Fife v The Trustees of The Late James Earl of Fife and Others [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_88; (1816) 1 Murray 88
31 Oct 1816
SJC

Scotland, Land
Reduction of a trust-deed and deed of entail subscribed by the late Earl of Fife.
[ Bailii ]
 
Chaytor And Others v Trinity College, Cambridge, And Wood [1817] EngR 30; (1817) 3 Anst 841; (1817) 145 ER 1056
1817


Local Government, Land
One owner of lands in a township may sue for himself and the others to establish a contributory modus for all the lands there.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ogilvie v Foljambe [1817] EngR 662; (1817) 3 Mer 53; (1817) 36 ER 21
25 Jul 1817

Sir William Grant
Land
Sir William Grant said: "The subject-matter of the agreement is left, indeed, to be ascertained by extrinsic evidence; and, for that purpose, such evidence may be received. The defendant speaks of "Mr Ogilvie's house' . . and parol evidence has always been admitted in such a case to shew to what house, and what premises, the treaty related".
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Lord Grosvenor (1819) 176 ER 720
1819


Utilities, Land
An obstruction interfering with navigation on the Thames with a public right of navigation was unlawful even if erected with the Conservators' consent unless the Conservators were granted statutory power to give such consent.
1 Citers


 
Vooght v Winch (1819) 2 B & Ald 262; [1819] EngR 166; (1819) 2 B & A 662; (1819) 106 ER 507
1819


Transport, Land
Public rights of Navigation could not be extinguished by physical obstruction.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte Holland, In Re Harvey [1819] EngR 785; (1819) 4 Madd 483; (1819) 56 ER 784 (A)
22 Dec 1819


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir John Beckett, Bart v Micklethwaite, Jonathan Lupton, And Obadiah Brook [1821] EngR 114; (1821) 6 Madd 199; (1821) 56 ER 1067
26 Jan 1821


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Blundell v Catterall (1821) 5 B&ALD 268; [1821] EngR 579; (1821) 5 B & A 268; (1821) 106 ER 1190 (B)
7 Nov 1821

Abbott CJ, Holroyd, Best JJ
Land
The defendant used a beach "between the high-water mark and the low-water mark of the River Mersey" at Great Crosby in Lancashire for the purpose of providing bathing facilities (including bathing machines and carriages for members of the public who wished to swim in the sea). The plaintiff, the Lord of the Manor of Great Crosby and owner of the beach in question, sought an injunction to restrain this use. The defendant argued that all members of the public had the right to use a beach for the purpose of gaining access to, and bathing in, the sea. Held: (Best J dissenting) Unless such a right could be established by usage and custom, there was no "common-law right for all the King's subjects to bathe in the sea and to pass over the seashore for that purpose".
Holroyd J said: "By the common law, all the King's subjects have in general a right of passage over the sea with their ships boats and other vessels, for the purposes of navigation commerce trade and intercourse, and also in navigable rivers . ."
. . And : "Where the soil remains the King's, and where no mischief or injury is likely to arise from the enjoyment or exercise of such a public right, it is not to be supposed that an unnecessary and injurious restraint upon the subjects would, in that respect, be enforced by the King, the parens patriae."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Dickens v Shaw Hall on the Seashore from 1822
1822

Holroyd J
Land
A right to 'wreck' will not of itself confer a title by presumption of law to the ownershipof the soil above the shore as against the Crown.
Holroyd J discussed whether a grant of a right of wreck include also any right in the land: "I think it may be evidence of ownership, particularly if coupled with other acts of ownership of the right of soil. Where the crown grants the right of wreck it is probable the crown grants the right of soil also; but if the crown grant the right of wreck alone, by that grant the party would have the right to come and take the wreck, as incidental to the grant, otherwise the grant of the right could not be the grant of anything whatever."
1 Citers


 
The Duke of Bedford v The Trustees of The British Museum [1822] EngR 457; (1822) 2 My & K 552; (1822) 39 ER 1055
6 Jul 1822

Lord Eldon
Land
Where land is conveyed in fee, by deed of feoffment, subject to a perpetual ground rent, and the feoffee covenants for himself, his heirs and assigns, with the feoffor, the owner of adjoining lands, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, not to use the land in a particular manner, with a view to the more ample enjoyment by the feoffor of such adjoining lands, and the subsequent acts of the feoffor, or of those claiming under him, have so altered the character and condition of the adjoining lands that, with reference to the land conveyed, the restriction in the covenant ceases to be applicable according to the intent and spirit of the contract, a Court of Equity will not interpose to enforce the covenant but will leave the parties to law.
Whether upon such a covenant there could be any remedy at law against the assigns of the covenantor, quaere.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Duke of Bedford v British Museum [1822] EngR 456; (1822) 1 Coop T Cott 90; (1822) 47 ER 761 (B)
6 Jul 1822


Land

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Niven v Pitcairn (1823) 2 S 270
1823


Scotland, Land
Large leaden vessels which were not fastened to the building in any way but simply rested by their own weight were held to be heritable since they had had to be taken to pieces in order to be removed and had then been sold as old lead.
1 Citers


 
William Mountford v Robert Scott, James Blake, And Charles Warner [1823] EngR 672; (1823) Turn & R 274; (1823) 37 ER 1105
23 Jul 1823


Land
Where deeds are deposited for the purpose of obtaining credit, the person with whom they are deposited has no lien upon them for what is due to him in respect of monies previously advanced.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Holmes v Goring (1824) 9 Moore 166; (1824) 2 Bing 76
1824
CCP
Best CJ
Land
A right of way of necessity ceases if and when there is a cesser of the necessity which brought it into being. Best CJ said that a way of necessity is limited by the necessity.

 
Moore v Rawson [1824] EWHC KB J28; [1824] 107 ER 756
1824
KBD

Land
The defendant denied infringement of the plaintiff's right of light. An old building had a window in one side. That building was replaced by one with a blank wall. The defendant then erected his own building alongside the new blank wall. Held: The right to light had been lost. The temporary disuse was a complete abandonment of the right. "Every man, prima facie, is entitled to enjoy all the light and air which come to his own land. The enjoyment of lights for twenty years, in a particuler mode, is presumptive evidence of a grant by the owner of the adjoining land of the privilege so to enjoy the light. Here, the former owners of the plaintiff's premises enjoyed the light for that period, they must therefore be taken to have had a grant from some person capable of making it; and that being so, the right which was once vested in the owners of the plaintiff's premises, could not be divested out of them, except by a release of the right so granted to them, or by a non user of the right for such a length of time as would warrant the presumption of a release. "
[ Bailii ]
 
Ongley v Chambers [1824] EngR 356; (1824) 1 Bing 483; (1824) 130 ER 193
12 Feb 1824


Ecclesiastical, Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe Dem Whalhead v Ossingbrooke [1824] EngR 522; (1824) 2 Bing 70; (1824) 130 ER 231 (A)
11 May 1824


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Montague
1825

Bayley J
Utilities, Land
The Commissioners of Sewers might have the power to extinguish public rights of navigation if they found that it would be for the benefit of the whole level.
1 Citers


 
Harper v Charlesworth [1825] EngR 115; (1825) 4 B & C 574; (1825) 107 ER 1174
1825

Bayley J
Land
A claim to eject somebody from land must be supported by a deed establishing ownership of an interest in the land.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Rev John Daniel v The Award of The Commissioners for Liquidating British Claims On France [1825] UKPC 1
25 Nov 1825
PC

Land
(United Kingdom) A corporation of British subjects in a foreign country, existing for objects in opposition to British law, and under the control of a foreign government, is not erititled to claim any compensation from the government of the country in which they existed, for the confiscation of their property under a treaty giving that right to British subjects.
The individual members of such a corporation are also equally incapacitated from making any claim, as British subjects, for the loss of their income arising from the funds of such a corporation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Duke of Somerset v Fogwell (1826) 5 B & C 875; [1826] EngR 601; (1826) 108 ER 325
1826


Agriculture, Land
Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of "separalem piscariam," that is an incorporeal and not a territorial hereditament, and a term for years in it cannot be created without deed. Semble, that the owner of a several fishery, in ordinary cases, and where the terms of the grant are unknown, may be presumed to be owner of the soil.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Winter v Loveday [1826] EngR 718; (1826) Freem KB 507; (1826) 89 ER 382
1826


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Russell [1827] 6 B&C 566
1827


Transport, Land
"The right of the public on navigable rivers is not confined to the passage: trade and commerce are the chief objects and the right of passage is chiefly subservient to those ends."
1 Citers


 
The Marquis of Stafford v Coyney [1827] EngR 201; (1827) 7 B & C 257; (1827) 108 ER 719
1827


Land
Where a land-owner suffered the public to use, for several years, a road through his estate for all purposes, except that of carrying coals : Held, that this was either a limited dedication of the road to the public or no dedication at all, but only a licence revocable ; and that a person carrying coals along the road after notice not to do so, was a trespasser. Semble, that there may be a Iimited dedication of a highway to the public.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cooke v Yates [1827] EngR 294; (1827) 4 Bing 90; (1827) 130 ER 702
10 Feb 1827


Land
Meadow will pass in a recovery under the word "land", and the Court will not amend by adding the word "meadow."
[ Commonlii ]
 
Toosey Administratrix Of Toosey v Williams [1827] EngR 890; (1827) M & M 129; (1827) 173 ER 1105 (C)
22 Dec 1827


Land, Contract
In an action to recover the deposit on the purchase of an estate on the ground of a defect in the vendor’s title, specified on rescinding the contract, no objection can be insisted on at the trial which was not stated as a reason for refusing to complete the contract, if it be of such a nature that it might, if then stated, have been removed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Cubitt v Porter [1828] 8 B & C 257
1828

Bayley J
Land
A question arose as to the user of a wall separating adjoining lands belonging to different owners. It was held that common user is prima facie evidence that the wall and the land on which it stands belongs to the owners of those adjoining lands in equal moieties as tenants in common. The jury found that the wall was a party wall. The plaintiff having brought an action against the defendant for trespass to the wall because he had pulled it down, the argument was whether the verdict of the jury was, in fact, a verdict for the defendant. "There was evidence of a common user by both parties, which justified the presumption either that the wall was originally built, on land belonging in undivided moieties to the owners of the respective premises, and at their joint expense; or that it had been agreed between them that the wall and the land on which it stood should be considered the property of both as tenants in common, so as to insure to each a continuance of the use of the wall."
1 Citers


 
Cormack v Anderson (1829) 7 S 868
1829


Scotland, Land

1 Citers


 
Doe On The Demise of W Wilkins v The Marquis Of Cleveland And Joseph Parsley [1829] EngR 57; (1829) 9 B & C 864; (1829) 109 ER 321
1829


Land
Possession of land for any time less than twenty years by a feoffee is not presumptive evidence of livery of seisin. An endorsement on the feoffment (purporting to have been made by the attorney thereby appointed to deliver seisin,) that he had done so in the presence of A., is not evidence of that fact, although the deed is produced by the defendant, at the desire of the plaintiff, unless the defendanct claims under it.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe On The Joint And Several Demises Of The Rev H D Broughton And D W Stow v John Gully [1829] EngR 58; (1829) 9 B & C 344; (1829) 109 ER 128
1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
A rector in 1814, and after the 13 Eliz. e. 20, had been repealed, in consideration of 600l, granted, bargained, and sold the rectory and glebe lands, and all tithes, &c for 100 years, to the grantee of an annuity for securing the same, After the passing of 57 G. 3, c. 99, by deed, reciting the grant of the annuity, and that A. B. had agreed to lend the rector 600l to enable him to redeem the annuity, the grantee of the same, in consideration of 600l, by direction of the rector, assigned to A. B. the 600l by him paid for the purchase of the annuity, and the term, and the rector confirmed to A. B. the rectory for that term, for the purpose of securing the repayment of the sum advanced by him to redeem the annuity, as well as other sums : Held, that inasmuch as the term was created after the passing of the 43 G. 3, e. 84, which repealed the 13 Elk. e. 20, against charging bengfices, the assignment of it for the purpose of securing the money paid as the consideration for the annuity, was valid, and vested the legal estate in A, B., although made after the 57 G. 3, c. 99, which, perhaps, revived the 13 Eliz c. 20, so far as related to charges upon benefices.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Early v Garrett and Lankester; 1829 - [1829] EngR 61; (1829) 9 B & C 928; (1829) 109 ER 345
 
Wise v Metcalfe (1829) 10 B&C 299
1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
The responsibility of a lay rector to his church was to keep it into substantial repair but without ornament.
1 Citers


 
Tooth v The Dean And Chapter Of Canterbury [1829] EngR 460; (1829) 3 Sim 49; (1829) 57 ER 919
13 May 1829


Ecclesiastical, Land
The Dean and Chapter of C., being rectors of a parish, leased all the tithes belonging to the rectory. The lessees filed a bill for tithe of hops against the occupiers, to which the vicar was made a party as claiming that tithe. The occupiers then file a cross-bill against the dean and chapter and their lessees, for a discovery and production of documents. Demurrer by the dean and chapter alIowed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Chambers v Waters [1829] EngR 475; (1829) 3 Sim 42; (1829) 57 ER 916
21 May 1829


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Grafton v Griffin [1830] EngR 461; (1830) 1 Russ & My 336; (1830) 39 ER 130
6 Mar 1830


Land
Where the Plaintiff has by tortious means got into possession of property, pending a suit to establish his equitable title to it, the Court will not stay legal proceedings against him for the recovery of possession.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Egerton v Jones [1830] EngR 549; (1830) 3 Sim 392; (1830) 57 ER 1044 (B)
3 May 1830


Land
Upon the allowance of exceptions to a report approving of a title, the Court will, on the application of the vendor, refer it back to the Master to review his report, in orders to give the vendor an opportunity of producing evidence to remove the objection.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Egerton v Jones [1830] EngR 780; (1830) 1 Russ & My 694; (1830) 39 ER 266
5 Aug 1830


Land
An exception to a report in favour of the title having been on argument allowed, leave was given to the Plaintiff, some time afterwards, to go again before the Master, for the purpose of bringing evidence to shew that the objection which the Court had sustained, was, in the circumstances, immaterial.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Rev John Rudd, Clerk v John Wright, John Wood, John Coupe, James Wagstaff, Ann Chambers, And John Horncastle [1830] EngR 820; (1830) You 147; (1830) 159 ER 942
10 Nov 1830


Land, Ecclesiastical

[ Commonlii ]
 
Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley (1831) 2 B & Ad 792; [1831] EngR 276; (1831) 109 ER 1336
1831

Lord Tenterden LCJ
Land
The court explained the Act: "The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, - that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act."
Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 79
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Flight v Barton (1832) 3 My & K 282
1832


Land
The silence of the vendor's agent is equivalent to a representation that there is no covenant prohibiting the current use of a property being sold.
1 Citers


 
The Mayor And Burgesses of Truro v Reynalds Same v Bastian [1832] EngR 386; (1832) 8 Bing 275; (1832) 131 ER 407 (B)
23 Jan 1832


Land
The corporation of T. having proved a prescriptive right to tolls, Held, that it was not destroyed by a charter of Elizabeth granting and confirming among, other things all the ancient rights of the corporation, but exempting the inhabitants from toll in all places except London : Held, that this exemption applied to the tolls of all other places (except London), but not to the tolls of T.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Drewell v Towler; 4-Jun-1832 - [1832] EngR 642; (1832) 3 B & Ad 735; (1832) 110 ER 268
 
Parker v Smith And Others [1832] EngR 924; (1832) 5 Car & P 438; (1832) 172 ER 1043 (B)
19 Dec 1832


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Chambers v Waters [1833] EngR 42; (1833) Coop T Br 91; (1833) 47 ER 33
1833


Land, Contract

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Mansfield v Walker's Trustees; Inglis v Mansfield; 1833 - (1833) 11 S 813; (1835) 1 S & Macl 203
 
Trustees of the British Museum v Finnis (1833) 5 Car & P 460; [1833] EngR 408; (1833) 5 Car & P 460; (1833) 172 ER 1053
1833

Patteson J
Land
The jury were to be asked to find whether land had been dedicated as a public right of way. Patteson J directed them that: "If a man opens his land, so that the public pass over it continually, the public, after a user of very few years, would be entitled to pass over it, and use it as a way; and if the party does not mean to dedicate it as a way, but only to give a licence, he should do some act to show that he gives a licence only. The common course is, to shut it up one day in every year, which I believe is the case at Lincoln's Inn."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bright v Walker [1834] EngR 32; (1834) 1 CrM & R 211; (1834) 149 ER 1057
1834

Parke B
Land
Where a way had been used adversely and under a claim of right, for more than twenty years, over land in the possession of a lessee who held under a lease for lives granted by the Bishop of Worcester. Held that under the act 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, this user gave no right as against the bishop, and did not affect the see. Held also, that, as the user could not give a title as 'against all persons having estates in the locus in quo, it gave no title as against the lessee and the persons claiming under him, and that no title was gained by an user which did not give a valid title as against the bishop, and permanently affect the see. The declaration for disturbance of the above mentioned right of way alleged that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain wharf, close, and premises, and by reason thereof ought to have had, and still of right ought to have, a cerfain way from this wharf, close, and premises into &c. (describing the way), as to the said whurf and premises belonging and appertaing :-Held that the plaintiff's possession of the land at the time of the injury committed.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d. Lewis v Rees (1834) 6 C&P 610
1834

Parke B
Land
Encroachments made by a tenant enured for the benefit of his landlord, "unless it appears clearly by some evidence at the time of the making of the encroachments that the tenant intended the encroachments for his own benefit …"
1 Citers


 
Flight v Booth [1834] 1 Bing NC 370; [1834] 1 Scott 190; [1834] 131 ER 1160; [1834] EngR 1087
24 Nov 1834

Tindal CJ
Land, Contract
The auction particulars stated that the land was subject to covenants restricting use of the property for certain offensive purposes. After successfully bidding it was shown to be subject to other substantial restrictions against non-ofensive trades also. Held: The purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover his deposit. Even though a misdescription may be unintended, where it is a material and substantial point, and a court could infer that the purchaser would not have bid for the property, the purchaser is not restricted to recovering compensation but may choose to rescind.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas v Thomas [1835] 2 Cr M and R 34; (1855) 69 ER 701; [1835] EngR 323; (1835) 2 CrM & R 34; (1835) 150 ER 15
1835

Alderson, Gurney BB, Lord Abinger CB
Land
A unity of possession of the land in and of the land in qua an easement exists, does not extinguish but only suspends the easement, where the party is seised in fee of the one parcel , and possessed for the residue of a term of the other. - Where a party has a right to have the droppings of rain fall from his wall upon the premises of another, right is not destroyed by his raising the height of the wall.
Re-entry will not be construed as tortious if it can be construed rightful. Alderson B said: "If I am seised of freehold premises, and possessed of leasehold premises adjoining, and there has formerly been an easement enjoyed by the occupiers of one as against the occupiers of the other, while the premises are in my hands, the easement is necessarily suspended, it is not extinguished, because there is no unity of seisin; and if I part with the premises, the right, not being extinguished, will revive."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bower v Hill (1835) 2 Scott 535
1835
CCP
Tindal CJ
Land
The plaintiff, in his declaration, claimed as appurtenant to his close, "a certain way from the said close . . . unto and along a certain stream or watercourse . . . unto and into a certain navigable river" Held: There is nothing to prevent a landowner from granting a private easement of passage in these terms.
1 Citers


 
Evans v Getting [1835] EngR 88; (1835) 6 Car & P 586; (1835) 172 ER 1376
1835


Land, Evidence
The manors of R and S the parishes of C and of Y, and the counties of Brecon were coterminous: Held: that in an action for disturbance of common, in which the boundaries of the two manors came in question, a county history of the county of Brecon, which stated the boundaries of he counties at this spot, was not receivable in evidence.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe on the Demise of John Birtwhistle v Agnes Vardill [1835] EngR 75; (1835) 2 Cl & Fin 571; (1835) 6 ER 1270
1835
KBD

Wills and Probate, Land, Family
Quaere, whether a child, born in Scotland, of parents domiciled there, who at the time of his birth were not married, but who afterwards intermarried in Scotland, (neither having in the meantime married any other person,) can take as heir lands of his father in England.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte French [1835] EngR 907; (1835) 7 Sim 510; (1835) 58 ER 932
31 Jul 1835


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Baird v Ross (1836) 14 S 528
1836


Land, Scotland
A dominant proprietor of land was not entitled to load or unload or turn carts unless he could do so on the cart way.
1 Citers


 
Chapman v Gatcombe [1836] 2 Bing N C 516
1836


Land
One separate hereditament cannot be appurtenant to another.
1 Citers


 
Wright v Williams [1836] 1 M & W 77; [1836] 1 Gale 410; [1836] Tyr & Gr 375; [1836] 150 ER 353
1836


Land, Limitation
The plaintiff landowner had a copper mine. The water from the mine, which had been contaminated with metallic substances discharged over a neighbour's land. He sought to establish a right to do so by prescription. The right was claimed over land subject to a tenancy for life. Held: Such a claim was in the nature of a claim to a water course. The claim should be pleaded as 'for the full period of forty years next before the commencement of the suit' . It was no full answer to say that the servient land was subject to a tenancy for life, siince though the period of the tenancy for life was to be excluded, that exclusion was conditional upon the reversioner making objection within three years after the end of the tenancy for life.
Prescription Act 1832

 
Tasker v Small [1836] EngR 780; (1836) Donn Eq 82; (1836) 47 ER 241 (B)
3 Jun 1836

Lord Cottenham LC
Land, Equity
The words in a Settlement to raise Money by 'Mortgage, Annuity or otherwise," authorises a Sale of a reversionary Estate.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the rule by which a purchaser becomes in equity the owner of the property sold "applies only as between the parties to the contract, and cannot be extended so as to affect the interests of others."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe On The Demise Of Stilwell v Mellersh [1836] EngR 1009; (1836) 5 Ad & E 540; (1836) 111 ER 1270 (B)
8 Nov 1836


Land
A surrender of copyhold larids in the manor of F. was proved to have been taken by S., who stated that he held the officer of clerk of the castle of F., which was in the manor, by patent from the lord ; that there was a custom for him to take surrenders that the steward also took them, and that he, S, had a concurrent jurisdiction with the steward. The patent contained no authority to that effect. Held, evidence for a jury that S. was entitled by custom to take the surrender.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Osborn v Wise (1837) 7 Car & P 761
1837

Parke B
Land
Easement of necessity for use arising after grant but predictable.
1 Citers


 
Thomas v Dering (1837) 1 Keen 729; [1837] EngR 595; (1837) 1 Keen 729; (1837) 48 ER 488
1837

Lord Langdale
Land, Equity
The court put forward: "the general principle that the court will not execute a contract, the performance of which is unreasonable or will be prejudicial to persons interested in the property, but not parties to the contract"
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v The Commissioners of the Thames and Isis (1837) Law Reports Journal, Vol xv pp 17-23; (1837) 15 LJ Rep 17
1837


Transport, Land
In 1833 Lord Boston complained to the Commissioners about the construction of the Cut above Hedsor Water on the Thames. The Commissioners did not act on the complaint. Accordingly Lord Boston claimed compensation from the Commissioners for the loss of income from the towing path on his estate occasioned by the Cut. The Commissioners defended the claim, but the Buckinghamshire Court of Quarter Sessions awarded Lord Boston £1,000 compensation in respect of loss of income from his towpath, £120 in respect of money expended on his stables and £200 as costs. When the Commissioners did not pay, Lord Boston applied in the King's Bench for an order of mandamus and in 1836 such order was granted.
1 Citers


 
Jones v Williams (1837) 2 M&W 326
1837
ExcC

Land
A four-judge of the Court was asked as to the admissibility of evidence in a case as to trespass upon the bed of a river where title was uncertain and where the dispute was whether the claimant or defendant owned the very part of land upon which the alleged trespass had occurred. Parke B observed: "In ordinary cases, to prove his title to a close, the claimant may give in evidence acts of ownership in any part of the same enclosure; for the ownership of one part causes a reasonable inference that the other belongs to the same person: though it by no means follows as a necessary consequence, for different persons may have balks of land in the same enclosure; but this is a fact to be submitted to the jury."
1 Citers


 
Barraclough v Johnson (1838) 8 Ad & E 99
1838

Littledale J
Land
A public right of way was claimed and it was said that what mattered was the impression given to the public. Littledale J directed the jury: "A man may say that he does not mean to dedicate a way to the public, and yet, if he had allowed them to pass every day for a length of time, his declaration alone would not be regarded, but it would be for a jury to say whether he had intended to dedicate it or not. The facts may warrant them in believing that the way was dedicated, though he has said that he did not so intend: and, if his intention be insisted upon, it may be answered that he should have shewn it by putting up a gate, or by some other act."

 
Cowling v Higginson (1838) 4 M & W 245
1838


Land
A right of way may be for one purpose to the exclusion of other purposes. It is a question of fact on the evidence whether a right of way is for a limited purpose or purposes or is a general right for all purposes.
1 Citers


 
Williams v Wilcox [1838] 8 Ad & E 314
1838

Lord Denman CJ
Land
The channel of a public navigable river is a King's highway.
1 Citers



 
 Bliss v Hall; 17-Jan-1838 - [1838] EngR 346; (1838) 4 Bing NC 183; (1838) 132 ER 758
 
Whatman v Gibson [1838] EngR 539; (1838) 9 Sim 196; (1838) 59 ER 333 (B)
5 Apr 1838


Land
A, the owner of a piece of land, divided it into lots for building a row of houses, and a deed was made between him of the one part and X and Y, (who had purchased some of the lots from him) and the several persons who should at any time execute the deed of the other part; by which, after reciting that A had determined and proposed and thereby expresssly declared that it should be a general and indispensable condition of the sale of all or any of the lots that the proprietors thereof for the time being should observe and abide by the several stipulations and restrictions thereinafter contained ; it was mutually covenanted between A, X, and Y, and the several other persons who should at any time execute the deed, and each of them, A, X and Y, and the several persons, &c, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators thereby covenanted with with all and every the other and others of them, and with the heirs, executors, administrators or assigns of all and every the other and others of them mutually and reciprocally, that none of the proprietors of any of the lots for the time being should at any time carry on thereon the business of an innkeeper. A sold and conveyed one of the lots to B, and another to C, both of whom executed the deed of covenant. The Plaintiff afterwards purchased B’s lot, and the Defendant purchased C.’s lot with notice of the deed of covenant. The Defendant intending to use the house on his lot as a family hotel; an injunction was granted to restrain him from so doing.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ross v Boards [1838] EngR 652; (1838) 8 Ad & E 290; (1838) 112 ER 847
24 May 1838


Land, Arbitration
A. agreed to purchase land of B., the title to he made out to the satisfaction of B.’s attorney. The agreement being uncompleted, and disputes arising, all matters in difference between the parties, and the settlement of all questions on tbe agreement, were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded that B. should convey to A. the title to the above land, contained in two abstracts given in evidence on the arbitration ; he also prescribed the boundary of the land so to be conveyed, and ordered that B. should execute an indemnity bond to A., to be forfeited if A. should be evicted by reason of defect in the title ; and that, on execution of the premises, A. should pay the purchase-money. Nothing further was awarded as to the validity of the title. The goodness of the title had been a matter of dispute before the arbitrator. Held, that the award was bad, as not finally determining tho questions referred.
[ Commonlii ]
 
John Brookes And Mary, His Wife, v Hannah Burt [1838] EngR 902; (1838) 1 Beav 106; (1838) 48 ER 878
7 Nov 1838


Land
One of two tenants in common brought an action of ejectment against A. B, to recover possession of some property, but discovering (as the bill alleged) that tbere was an outstanding term, which the Defendant intended to set up, he filed a bill, praying a declaration of his right to a moiety of the estate, and for the delivery of the estate and title-deeds, and for an account of the rents. Held, on demurrer that, from the frame of the record, the other tenant in common was a necessary party ; but that the trustee of the outstanding term was not.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Green v Pulsford [1839] EngR 879; (1839) 2 Beav 70; (1839) 48 ER 1105
27 Jun 1839


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Edmund Francis Dayrell v Hoare, Cardwell, And Friday [1840] EngR 685; (1840) 12 Ad & E 356; (1840) 113 ER 847
12 Jun 1840


Land
Estates, hereditaments, and premises were devised to R. for life, with power to the tenant for life to make any lease of the said several estates, hereditaments, and premises, or any part or parts thereof, for twenty one years, reserving the most improved yearly rent with a condition for re-entry on non-payment so, that there should be no clause giving the lessee power to commit waste, and so as the rent should be incident to, and go along with, the reversion. Held, that this power did not authorise a lease of part of the land, with liberty to sport over the rest. Where defendant in trespass justifies in a right which he claims under the estate of tenant for life, simply as such, he must aver the continuance of the life.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Barnard, Blount, and All Other The Members Of The Stanhope And Tyne Railway Compan v William Wallis [1840] EngR 952; (1840) Cr & Ph 85; (1840) 41 ER 422
14 Nov 1840


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90; (1840) 49 ER 132; [1840] EngR 1054; (1840) 3 Beav 334
8 Dec 1840
ChD
Langdale MR
Land, Contract
The defendant offered to sell his land to the plaintiff for £1000. The plaintiff counter-offered £950, which was rejected. The plaintiff then said that he accepted the original offer. Held: Lord Langdale MR said: "there exists no valid binding contract between the parties for the purchase of the property. The Defendant offered to sell it for £1000, and if that had been at once unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract; instead of that, the Plaintiff made an offer of his own, to purchase the property for £950, and he thereby rejected the offer previously made by the Defendant. I think that it was not afterwards competent for him to revive the proposal of the Defendant, by tendering an acceptance of it; and that, therefore, there exists no obligation of any sort between the parties."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]

 
 Laird v Pim and Another; 18-Jan-1841 - [1841] EngR 237; (1841) 7 M & W 474; (1841) 151 ER 852
 
Henry Billington Whitworth And Robert Whitworth v Philip Augustus Gaugain, Joseph Mayor, And George Pel [1841] EngR 733; (1841) Cr & Ph 325; (1841) 41 ER 515
1 Jun 1841


Land

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Clifford v Turrell [1841] EngR 1212; (1841) 1 Y & CCC 138; (1841) 62 ER 826
11 Dec 1841

Knight-Bruce VC
Land, Equity, Contract
The court considered the availability of specific performance to a seller of land. Knight Bruce VC said: "A case is stated in which, setting the Statute of Frauds out of the question, a bill might have been maintained by the defendant against the plaintiff, to compel him to execute the assignment. That, therefore, is a reason to compel the performance of the terms upon which the plaintiff agreed to execute the assignment."
Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the existence of consideration in addition to that referred to in a deed: "It is clear, even in cases where the Statute of Frauds does not apply, that the rules of law may exclude parol evidence where a written instrument stands in competition with it; but it has long been settled that it is not within any rule of this nature to adduce evidence of a consideration additional to what is stated in the written instrument . . the rule is that where there is one consideration stated in the deed, you may prove any other consideration which existed, not in contradiction to the instrument; and it is not in contradiction to the instrument to prove a larger consideration than that which is stated".
[ Commonlii ]
 
Lord Melville v Paterson (1842) 4 D 1311
1842

Lord Ordinary Ivory
Scotland, Land
A question arose about the application of the vesting provisions of the 1839 Act in a case where the debtor had died. Citing Bell in support, the Lord Ordinary (Ivory), whose decision was affirmed by the Second Division, referred to the position in the sequestration of a living debtor: "No doubt, the right thus declared to be vested in the trustee, will be no more than a right tantum et tale with what actually belonged to the bankrupt at the date of sequestration; and where the bankrupt, therefore, has previously granted a prior personal right, in the shape of a conveyance or security, to an individual creditor or other third party, upon which it would be in the power of such a party to run a race against the trustee, it may be necessary for the latter, with a view to exclude the completion of this inchoate adverse right, to obtain his own title first completed according to all the feudal forms, and so entered upon the records."
1 Citers



 
 Carr v Foster; 1842 - (1842) 3 QBR 581

 
 Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Company v Wauchope; HL 22-Mar-1842 - [1842] UKHL 710; 8 ER 279; (1842) 8 Cl & F 710; [1842] EngR 405; (1842) 8 Cl & Fin 710; (1842) 8 ER 279; [1842] UKHL J12
 
Cutts v Thodey [1842] EngR 1129; (1842) 13 Sim 206; (1842) 60 ER 80
3 Dec 1842


Land, Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Poole v Huskinson (1843) 11 M & W 827
1843


Land
A jury asked to uphold a public right of way has to find as a fact that there has been an act of dedication accompanied by the necessary animus dedicandi on the part of the landowner.
1 Citers


 
Bowker v Burdekin (1843) 11 M&W 128
1843

Parke B
Land, Contract
Parke B considered how a court identified whether a document had been delivered in escrow: "you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it is in form an absolute delivery, if it can reasonably be inferred that it was delivered not to take effect as a deed till a certain condition was performed, it will nevertheless operate as an escrow."
1 Citers


 
Hughes v Kelly (1843) 3 D & War 482
1843

Lord St Leonards
Land
(Ireland)
1 Citers


 
Poole v Huskisson (1843) 11 M and W 827
1843


Land
At common law a public right of way cannot be limited iin its use for a particular group of people (here the members of a parish).
1 Citers


 
Cliff v Wadsworth [1843] EngR 1024; (1843) 2 Y & CCC 598; (1843) 63 ER 268
6 Nov 1843


Land
One of several mortgagees compelled to pay the costs, and another refused his costs, of a suit to redeem the mortgage ; and the interest on the mortgage money declared to stop on the day of the tender.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Barnsley Canal Company v Twibell [1843] EngR 1096; (1843) 7 Beav 19; (1843) 49 ER 969
17 Nov 1843


Land
A canal company was authorised by, its Act, to purchase the coal, which the safety of the canal required to be left unworked. The purchase of part was delayed many years, and in the meantime a lease had been granted by the owner to a coal worker. The company purchased the interest of the owner. Held, that the coal worker was also entitled to compensation.
No equity can be founded on an allegation that a Court legally constituted is not properly competent to decide questions within its jurisrdiction; and where the legislature has given jurisdiction to a Court provided by the Act, and has made its decision final, if any inconvenience arises from the legal exercise of the jurisdiction, the Legislature alone can supply a remedy.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Lockwood v Wood (1844) 6 QB 50
1844

Tindal CJ
Land
A customary right over land becomes in effect a local law.
1 Citers


 
Whitworth v Gaugain (1844) 3 Hare 416; [1844] EngR 406; (1844) 3 Hare 416; (1844) 67 ER 444
1844


Land

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Young v Leith; IHCS 1844 - (1848) 2 Ross's LC 81; (1844) 6 D 370
 
Cutts v Thodey [1844] EngR 13; (1844-1845) 1 Coll 223; (1844) 63 ER 393
1844


Land, Contract

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Midland Counties Railway Company v Oswin; 12-Feb-1844 - [1844] EngR 251; (1844) 1 Coll 74; (1844) 63 ER 327
 
Mellor v Spateman [1845] EngR 155; (1845) 1 Wms Saund 343; (1845) 85 ER 495
1845


Land, Agriculture
A corporation may prescribe for common in gross for cattle levant and couchant within the town, but not for common in gross without numbe
[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith and Others v Martin [1845] EngR 238; (1845) 2 Wms Saund 400; (1845) 85 ER 1210
1845


Land
In an action on the case a garden may be said to be parcel of a messuage, and by that name may pass in a conveyance, although in a praecipe quod reddat, where land is demanded, it shall be demanded by the name of a garden.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Duncan v Louch [1845] EWHC QB J68; (1845) 6 QB 904; 115 ER 341; [1845] EngR 460; (1845) 115 ER 341
4 Feb 1845
QBD
Lord Denman CJ, Patteson J, Coleridge J, Wightman J
Land
A dominant owner of an easement has no obligation to repair or maintain the land over which the right of way is exercised.
An easement permitting the dominant owner to walk over all parts of the servient tenement purely for pleasure can exist in law
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Grenfell And Loveday v Edgoome And Dewstan [1845] EngR 955; (1845) 7 QB 661; (1845) 115 ER 638
10 Jun 1845


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Dixon v Fisher (1843) 5 D 775; [1845] EngR 973; (1845) 12 Cl & Fin 312; (1845) 8 ER 1426
12 Jun 1845
HL
Lord Cockburn
Land
Lord Cockburn said "no man can make his property real or personal by merely thinking it so."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Horrocks v Ledsam [1845] EngR 1043 (B); (1845) 2 Coll 208
26 Jun 1845


Land
Mortgagor's trustee to bar dower not entitled as against the mortgagee to his costs of a suit brought to foreclose the mortgage.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dale v Hamilton (1846) 5 Hare 369
1846


Company, Land
An oral partnership agreement mat be valid despite the partnership owning land.
1 Citers


 
M'Mahon v Burchell (1846) 1 Coop t Cott 457 (47 ER 944); SC 2 Ph 127 (41 ER 889)
1846
CA
Cottenham LC
Equity, Land
Terence M'Mahon had left his house in St Christopher to his seven children as tenants in common. One of them (William) frequently occupied the house, three others occupied it occasionally, and three not at all. The executors of one of the children (Hannah) who had never occupied the house claimed that William was liable to Hannah's estate for a seventh of the rent in respect of his occupation. Held: Mere occupation (in the absence of agreement) would not make one co-owner liable to the others for rent. The house was open to all the tenants in common, William had been in occupation, but there was no exclusion of the other tenants in common: "Where there was neither contract nor exclusion, nor anything received, occupation by one tenant in common created no liability for rent to the other tenants in common."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Cator v Croydon Canal Company [1846] EngR 32 (C); (1846) 4 Y & C Ex 593
1846


Land

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Dimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal; CExC 1846 - [1846] EngR 55; (1846) 9 QB 469; (1846) 115 ER 1353; [1846] EngR 1072; (1846) 15 Sim 402; (1846) 60 ER 675
 
Thomas v Gwynne; Thomas v Thomas [1846] EngR 424 (A); (1845-1846) 9 Beav 275
17 Feb 1846


Children, Land
An infant devisee had been ordered to convey real estate sold for payment of the testator's debts. He made default, and was not amenable to process. The Court, under the 1 W 4 c 60 s 8, directed a person to convey in his place.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Mann v Stephens [1846] EngR 921 (B); (1846) 15 Sim 377
23 Jul 1846


Land
A. being seised in fee of a house and a piece of open land near to it, sold and conveyed the house to E, and covenanted, for himself, his heirs and assigns, with B., his heirs and assigns, that no building whatever should at any time thereafter be erected on the piece of land. He afterwards sold and conveyed the piece of land to M. in fee, and took a covenant from him in the terms of that which he himself had entered into with B. The house, after divers mesne conveyance, became vested in Y in fee ; Y, before the land was conveyed to him, had notice of the covenant ; but, notwithstanding, he began to build upon the land. The Court, at the suit of X, restrained him from continuing the building.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Whitworth v Gaugain [1846] EngR 1170; (1846) 1 Ph 728; (1846) 41 ER 809
3 Dec 1846


Land

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Young v Leith; HL 1847 - (1847) 9 D 932
 
Mc Donnell v Mc Kinty (1847) 10 ILR 514
1847

Blackburn CJ
Land, Limitation
Discontinuance of possession of land can occur where the paper title owner having abandoned possession, actual possession is taken by another person in whose favour or for whose protection the Limitation Act could operate.
1 Citers


 
Pheysey And Sarah, His Wife v Richard Vicary [1847] EngR 229; (1847) 16 M & W 484; (1847) 153 ER 1280
6 Feb 1847


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ram Rutton Rae v Furrook-Oon-Nissa Begum And Rookya Begum [1847] EngR 667; (1847) 4 Moo Ind App 233; (1847) 18 ER 688
26 Jun 1847


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Banks v Whittall [1847] EngR 837; (1847) 1 De G & Sm 536; (1847) 63 ER 1182
9 Nov 1847


Land

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ramsden v The Manchester, South Junction, And Altrincham Railway Company [1848] EngR 168; (1848) 1 Exch 723; (1848) 154 ER 307
25 Jan 1848


Torts - Other, Land, Transport

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Fordyce v Sir Henry Bridges, Catherine Elizabeth Mary Reid, Madeline Curling, Jane Curling, Isabella Curling, Agnes Catherine Thomson, Mary Louisa Thomson, Emily Harriet Thomson, Gertrude Eliza Thomson, Florence Jessie Thomson, And Jo; 15-Mar-1848 - [1848] EngR 347 (C); (1847-1848) 2 Coop T Cott 325

 
 Tulk v Moxhay; 22-Dec-1848 - (1848) 2 Ph 774; [1848] 1 H & TW 105; [1848] 18 LJ Ch 83; [1848] 13 LTOS 21; [1848] 13 Jur 89; [1848] 41 ER 1143 LC; (1848) 11 Beavan 571; [1848] EWHC Ch J34; [1848] EngR 1005; (1848) 11 Beav 571; (1848) 50 ER 937; [1848] EngR 1059; (1848) 1 H & Tw 105; (1848) 47 ER 1345; [1848] EngR 1065; (1848) 41 ER 1143
 
Cope v Thames Haven Dock and Railway Co (1849) 3 Ex 841
1849


Land
"The subsection [on the execution of deeds by corporations] removes the necessity for enquiry as to the formalities required under the memorandum, articles, charter, etc., of the corporation; independently of this section the deed would be void unless such formalities were observed."
1 Citers


 
Morrell v Fisher (1849) Exch 591; [1849] EngR 1242; (1849) 4 Exch 591; (1849) 154 ER 1350
22 Dec 1849

Alderson B
Land
A devise of "all my leasehold farm-house, homestead, lands, and tenements at Headington, containing about 170 acres, held under Magdalen College, Oxford, and now in the occupation of Thomas Burrows" was construed as excluding two parcels of land not occupied by Thomas Burrows at Headington, the words relating to the acreage being rejected as a false description. The court considered the maxim "that if there be an adequate and sufficient description, with convenient certainty of what was meant to pass, a subsequent erroneous addition will not vitiate it. The characteristic of cases within the rule is that the description, so far as it is false, applies to no subject at all; and so far as it is true, applies to one only."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.