Stirling J: ‘Now at law a contract for the sale of land creates merely a personal obligation between the vendor and purchaser and does not bind the land; in equity such a contract binds the land and that not only as against the vendor, but also as against all persons claiming under him with notice of the existence of the contract. On the other hand legal rights and interests in and to land bind all persons, whether with notice or not; and I apprehend that rights and interests arising under a notice to treat fall within this rule. It is for this reason, as it seems to me, that it has been held that an interest in land which has been created by the owner after service of a notice to treat is not a subject for compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845: see, for example, Ex parte Edwards; Wilkins v Mayor of Birmingham. In accordance with the same principle, it was laid down by Lord Romilly in Carnochan v Norwich and Spalding Ry Co. that the purchase of land in respect of which a railway company has served a proper notice to treat, and in respect of which the company has entered into possession, is ‘in truth but the purchase of an interest in the purchase-money’.’
Judges:
Stirling J
Citations:
[1903] 1 KB 652
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Affirmed – Mercer v Liverpool, St Helen’s and South Lancashire Railway HL 1904
. .
Cited – Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council v Watkins CA 12-Feb-2003
Land had been purchased compulsorily, but the respondent unlawfully returned to possession in 1966, and now claimed title by adverse possession. The Council executed a vesting deed poll in 1988. The Council asserted that he could not be in adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.238203