Attorney General v Shadwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1910 |
| Date | 1910 |
| Year | 1910 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance
...a school "provided" and maintained by the school board under the 1870 Act. The approach laid down in the decisions in A-G v. Shadwell [1910]1 Ch 92 and Habermehl v. A-G (supra) was followed. The trustees' fee simple determined in 1874, the land reverted and the claim to the reverter became......
-
(1) Michael Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council
...charitable trust” it “would not have the drastic consequence of causing a reverter”. 26 At [16]–[18], Lord Hoffmann explained that Attorney General v Shadwell [1910] 1 Ch 92 is authority for the proposition that “if the grantor has chosen one of the three statutory purposes and the land cea......
-
Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance and Another v Jenkinson and Others
...determinable on the land ceasing to be used for such of the purposes mentioned in the Act as were specified in the conveyance: see Attorney-General v Shadwell [1910] 1 Ch. 92. Before 1926 a determinable fee simple was capable of existing as an estate at law and it invariably existed as suc......
-
Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance (No 2)
...restrictions would not have the drastic consequence of causing a reverter. 16 The matter is not however free from authority. In Attorney General v Shadwell [1910] 1 Ch 92 the terms of the grant were for practical purposes identical with those in this case, save that the parish was Northolt......
Request a trial to view additional results