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 applied for the discharge of the order.
Held: The application was dismissed. The Master of the Rolls sat with the Lord Chancellor to concur in the opinion.
Lord Cottenham LC,
[1850] EngR 242, (1850) 2 Mac and G 285, (1850) 42 ER 110

  • See Also – Dimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
    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 . .
    [1846] EngR 55, (1846) 9 QB 469, (1846) 115 ER 1353, [1846] EngR 1072, (1846) 15 Sim 402, (1846) 60 ER 675
  • See Also – 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 . .
    [1849] EngR 576, (1849) 12 Beav 63, (1849) 50 ER 984

Cited by:

  • 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. . .
    [1850] EngR 499 (A), (1850) 5 Exch 311
  • 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 . .
    [1850] EngR 769, (1850) 3 Mac and G 4, (1850) 42 ER 162
  • Appeal from – 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 . .
    (1852) 3 HL Cas 759, [1852] EngR 789, (1852) 3 HLC 759, (1852) 10 ER 301
  • See Also – 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 . .
    [1852] EngR 793, (1852) 3 HLC 794, (1852) 10 ER 315

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 December 2020; Ref: scu.297589