Doe dem. Murray, Lord Bishop of Rochester, against Bridges, 1831

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1831
Date01 January 1831
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1001

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Doe Dem. Murray, Lord Bishop of Rochester, against Bridges
1831.

S. c. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 113. Approved and applied, Lamplugh v. Norton, 1889, 22 Q. B. D. 456; Clegg v. Earby Gas Company, [1896] 1 Q. B. 595. Dictum adopted Passmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, [1898] A. C. 394; Johnston v. Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto, [1898] A. C. 454; Devonport Corporation v. Toser, [1902] 2 Ch. 193; [1903] 1 Ch. 759.

IB. & AD. 846. DOE V. BRIDGKS 1001 [846] did, it is clear that Holmes relinquished the possession, and with the possession the lien ended. It was also insisted that Holmes was the agent of the owners, and that the defendant was so also; and that as the cask, therefore, was in the possession of the owners, the plaintiff could not claim it as wreck. But, although both these persons appear to have received some general directions, two years before, to look after the cargo of this vessel, it is clear that neither meant to act upon those directions. They were not agents of the owners in this transaction. The jury have so found, in substance, with respect to the defendant. The same question would have been left to them, as to Holmes also, if required; and when the special ease was agreed upon, which did not raise any point of this sort, I distinctly offered to put any other question to the jury, which either side might require. The expression which Holmes used or adopted on cross-examination, "that be seized for the owners," is the only evidence that he meant to act upon the authority stated to have been given to him by the agent of the proprietors; and his conduct was at variance with that supposition. He made no claim to the Custom-House officers on their behalf, gave no notice to them, and quitted the possession of the goods. We think, therefore, that there is no ground for a new trial, and the rule must be discharged. I beg to add, that this judgment has not been seen by my brother Bay ley; but I have reason to know that he concurs with us in opinion, that the verdict ought to stand. Rule discharged. [847] Dos dem. murray, lord bishop of rochester, against bridges. 1831. By the Land-Tax Redemption Act, 42 G. 3, e. 116, s. 88, it is enacted, that where the land-tax charged on lands belonging to any bishop shall have been redeemed by such bishop with any money raised for that purpose by virtue of the recited Act and of that Act, such land-tax shall be considered as yearly rent payable to such bishop and his successors, over and above the reserved rent (if any) during the demise existing at the time of such sale, and shall be recovered and paid as such; and the land-tax redeemed shall in all future demises of such lands, &o. be added to the ancient and accustomed yearly rent reserved by such demises, and shall be reserved and made payable as such accustomed yearly rent, during the terms to be granted by such demises ; and shall be recoverable as such accustomed rent, and by the like remedies. Held, that in a lease of lands belonging to a bishop in right of his see, granted after the passing of this Act, the land-tax having been redeemed by such bishop with money raised pursuant to the Act, such redeemed land-tax must, in addition to the ancient and accustomed rent, be expressly reserved and made payable during the term granted by the lease; and, therefore, that a lease of such lands granted by a bishop, in which the redeemed land-tax was not so reserved and made payable, was voidable by the successor; and that although such land-tax had been regularly paid to the bishop who granted the lease: Held, secondly, that such lease, which had been granted in consideration of the surrender of a prior lease by deed-poll, having been avoided by the successor, the first lease was not revived by such avoidance. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 113. Approved and applied, Larnplugh v. Norton, 1889, 22 Q. B. D. 456 ; Clegg v. Early Gas Company, [1896] 1 Q. B. 595. Dictum adopted, Passmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, [1898] A. C. 394; Johnston v. Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto, [1898] A. C. 454; Dewnport Corporation v. Tozer, [1902] 2 Ch. 193; [1903] 1 Ch. 759.] Ejectment. At the trial before Alexander C. B., at the Spring Assizes for the county of Kent, 1829, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:-By indenture of lease, bearing date the 12th of July 1794, made between Samuel, the then Lord Bishop of Rochester, of the one part, and the Right Honourable Charles Lord Romney, Baron of Romney, in the county of Kent, of the other part, the said Lord Bishop, for the considerations therein mentioned, did for himself and his successors, grant and demise to the said Charles Lord Romney and his assigns, the premises therein described, to hold to the said Charles K. B. xxxvin.-32* 1002 DOE V. BRIDGES 1 B. & AD. 848. Lord Romney, his heirs and assigns, for and during the lives of the said Charles Lord Komney, the Honourable Charles Marsham, his son, and Robert Marsham, his brother's son, and the life of the longest liver of them. By an Act of Parliament, 42 G. 3, c. 116, intituled " An Act for Consolidating the Provisions of the Seve-[848]-ral Acts passed for the Redemption and Sale of the Land-Tax, and for Making further Provisions for the Redemption and Sale thereof," &c., in the sixty-ninth section, power is given to any bodies politic or corporate, to sell or mortgage lands, or to grant rent-charges thereon for the redemption of the land-tax; and by the eighty-eighth section it is enacted, " That where the land-tax charged on any manors, messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments belonging to any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 35 No. 1, April 2011
    • 1 April 2011
    ...impliedly creating a new cause of action with huge budgetary costs. (186) See Doe dem Murray v Bridges (1831) 1 B & Ad 847, 859; 109 ER 1001, 1006-7 (Lord Tenterden CJ); Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387, 394 (Earl of Halsbury (187) See Cutler v Wandsworth Sta......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT