Bell v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1865 |
| Date | 09 March 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 671
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. varied, L. R. 1 Ch. 303. See Midland Railway Company v. Checkley, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 25; Duchess Dowager of Cleveland v. Meyrick, 1867, 37 L. J. Ch. 128; Hext v. Gill, 1872, L. R. 7 Ch. 705, n.; Midland Railway Company v. Haunchwood Brick and Tile Company, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 555; Attorney-General v. Welsh Granite Company, 1887, 35 W. R. 619; Lord Provost of Glasgow v. Farie, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 687; Midland Railway Company v. Robinson, 1889, 15 App. Cas. 35.
Mines and Minerals. Freestone. Vendor and Purchaser.
[395] bell v. wilson. March 8, 9, 1865. [S. C, varied, L. E. 1 Ch. 303. See Midland Railway Company v. Checkley, 1867, L. E. 4 Eq. 25; Duchess Dowager of Cleveland v. Meyrich, 1867, 37 L. J. Ch. 128; Next v. Gill, 1872, L. E. 7 Ch. 705, n.; Midland Railway Company v. Haunchwood Brick and Tile Company, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 555; Attorney-General v. Welsh Granite Company, 1887, 35 W. E. 619; Lord Provost of Glasgow v. Fane, 1888, 13 App. Gas. 687; Midland Railway Company v. Robinson, 1889, 15 App. Cas. 35.] Mines and Minerals. Freestone. Vendor and Purchaser. In determining the extent of an exception of mines and minerals, the Court is guided by the circumstances under which the instrument containing such exception is framed, and the intention of the parties; and, therefore, where an exception of mines and minerals occurred in a conveyance on a sale, the Court held that freestone was not included in the exception, although in instruments framed under different circumstances it had been held to be included. This cause now came on to be heard. The suit was instituted for an injunction to restrain the Defendants, Frederick William Wilson, George Besley Wilson and John Simpson, from working a bed of freestone or sandstone, or from removing or selling the stone which might have been gotten on an estate, at Long Benton, in the county of Northumberland. The bill also prayed an account in respect of stone already gotten, and an assessment of damages sustained by the Plaintiffs in respect of previous workings of freestone on the said estate. The estate upon which the freestone in question was worked was purchased in 1801 by Henry Utrick Eeay, of Eichard Wilson, under an order of the Court of Chancery, made in a suit for administering the .estate of the grandfather of Eichard Wilson; and the estate was described in the conveyance to H. U. Eeay as consisting (inter alia) of a plot or parcel of. ground (theretofore part of a common) which had been allotted by certain Enclosure Commissioners in 1793 to Eichard Wilson, and containing 16 acres 2 roods 26 perches. The indentures of lease and release contained an exception to Eichard Wilson and other persons entitled to certain estates, called South White Bridges, under the will of Eichard Wilson, the father^ of (inter alia) "all mines and seams of coal and other mines, metals or minerals, as well opened as 672 BELL. V. WILSON 2DB. &SM.396. not opened, within and under the said [396] closes or parcels of ground thereby granted and released, with full liberty to search for, dig, bore, sink, win, work, lead and carry away the same, and to dig, bore, sink, win, work and make pit and pits, trench and trenches, groove and grooves, and to drive and make drifts, drains, levels, staples, water-gates and watercourses of any kind in, over, under, through or along all or any part of the said closes or parcels of ground, with sufficient ground room and heap room, and to erect fire-engines and other buildings, and to exercise, do and perform every liberty, matter and thing necessary for...
To continue reading
Request your trial