The Respondent, an impropriate rector, having by a decree of the Court of Chancery been found to be entitled (under the decree made in pursuance of the act 37 Henry VHI.) to the tithes, according to the value, of warehouses in London, occupied by the Appelant and which never had been rented, the Court has jurisdiction to make an order upon the Appelant to permit inspection, for the purpose of ascertaining the value. Such an order cannot be executed by force, but operates only on the person, as a foundation for process of contempt, and to take the Bill, pro confesso, if necessary.
Lord Redesdale said: ‘The arguments urged for the Appellants at the Bar are founded upon the supposition that the Court has directed a forcible inspection. This is an erroneous view of the case. The order is to permit; and if the East India Company should refuse to permit inspection, they will be guilty of a contempt of the Court . . It is an order operating on the person requiring the defendants to permit inspection, not giving authority of force, or to break open the doors of their warehouse’.
Judges:
Lord Redesdale
Citations:
[1821] EngR 243, (1821) 3 Bligh PC 153, (1821) 4 ER 561
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Kynaston v The East India Company 1-Feb-1803
. .
Appeal from – Kynaston v The East India Company 4-May-1819
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd CA 8-Dec-1975
Civil Search Orders possible
The plaintiff manufactured and supplied through the defendants, its English agents, computer components. It had reason to suspect that the defendant was disclosing its trade secrets to competitors. The court considered the effect of a civil search . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.329829
