Holmes v Powell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 510
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
[572] holmes v. powell. Before the Lords Justices. June 12, 24, July 25, 1856. When a man is of right in possession of a corporeal hereditament, he is entitled to impute knowledge of that possession to all who deal for any interest in the property, and persons so dealing cannot be heard to deny notice of the title under which the possession is held. Nor is it necessary that such possession should be continually visible or actively asserted. Where therefore the purchasers of mines took possession under the agreement for purchase without any conveyance : Held, that a subsequent purchaser of the land without any exception of mines took with notice of the agreement, and was bound specifically to perform it. This was an appeal of the Defendant from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, 8DEO. M. &0.573. HOLMES V. POWELL 511 declaring the Plaintiff* entitled, as against the Appellant, to a specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of mines at Bradford in Yorkshire, and restraining the Appellant from proceeding at law to recover damages by reason of the Plaintiffs getting coal from the mines. The agreement was dated the 26th of August 1823, and was made between Richard Dawson of the one part and Benjamin Kaye and John Wilkinson Balme of the other pact, and thereby .Richard Dawson agreed to sell and Benjamin Kaye and John W. Balme agreed to purchase for 2000 as tenants in common the mines, veins and seams of coal under the several closes of land described in the agreement in Allerton in the parish of Bradford, commonly called Crossley Hall estate, with liberty to sink pits, drive drifts, levels and watercourses, and to get, win, work and raise and dispose of the coals ; and also to erect such building or buildings and to put up such as might be requisite for the working the mines. And Benjamin Kaye and John W. Balme thereby agreed to pay unto Richard Dawson his heirs and assigns 2000 by yearly instalments, at the respective times and in manner thereinafter mentioned. Soon after entering into this agreement, Mr. Kaye died, arid on the 8th of November 1841 his executors, Thomas Kaye and Edward Townend, agreed to purchase Mr. Balme's interest under the agreement. They sub-[573]-sequeiitly sold all their interest under the agreements to John Bland and William Collingham, who afterwards sold the benefit of the agreements to the Plaintiff John Holmes. John Holmes took William Collingham and others into partnership, and they instituted this suit for a specific performance of the agreement of August 26, 1823. The 4th, 9th, 10th, llth and 14th paragraphs of the bill stated to the following effect:- 4. The said Benjamin Kaye and John W. Balme entered into possession of the mines, seams and veins of coals so agreed to be sold to them; immediately after the execution of the agreement, and continued to work and win coal therefrom until the death of the said Benjamin Kaye in the year 1836. The purchase-money mentioned in the said agreement was duly paid by them to the said Richard Dawson. 9. The said Thomas Kaye and Edward Townencl continued to work and win the coal from the mines, veins and seams mentioned in the said agreement from the date thereof until the month of August 1850. By an agreement dated the 1st of August 1850, and made and executed between and by the said Thomas Kaye and Edward Townend of the one part and John Bland and the Plaintiff William Collingham of the other part, the said Thomas Kaye and Edward Townend agreed to sell to the said John Bland and William Collingham, who agreed to purchase the coal belonging to the said Thomas Kaye and Edward Townend, and held by them under leases from the Misses Dawaon and Mr. Fawcett, and lying in the township of Allerlon-cum-Wilsden, at or for the sum of 50 payable as therein mentioned, but subject, nevertheless, to the conditions and restrictions mentioned in the said leases or under which the said vendors then [574] held the said coal. On this agreement a receipt for the 50 as purchase-money is endorsed, dated the 24th clay of April 1854. The 10th paragraph stated that the coal described as held under leases from Misses Dawson and Mr. Fawcett was so described by mistake, and was the coal in question. The llth paragraph stated that John Bland and the Plaintiff William Collingham got coal from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramlal v Mahase et Al
...1st Edition, Vol. 25, paras 573,575,576; (2) Stokell v Niven (1889) 64 IT 18; (3) Daniels v Davison 34 ER 167; (4) Holmes v. PoweII 44 ER 510; (5) Snell's Equity, 29th Edition 609–610; (6) Bluck v Gompertz 7 Ex 862; (7) Halsbury's laws of England (4th Edition), Vol. 12, para 1453; (8) Woodf......
-
Young v Halahan
...C. Court. YOUNG and HALAHAN. Motte v. Boxwell Ir. R. 3 Eq. 167. Thompson v. Lambert Ir. R. 2 Eq. 433. Holmes v. PowellENR 8 De G. M. & G. 572. Allen v. AnthonyENR 1 Mer. 282. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Burnell v. BrownENR 1 Jac. & W. 168. Wright v. GoffENR 22 Beav. 207. Earl of B......
-
Stodart v Dalzell, Company
...In England the law is clear, and based on broad principles of equity, equally applicable in this country.—See Holmes v. Powell, 8 De G. M. & G. 572, and the authorities cited in White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity, ii., p. 37, et seq., and particularly p. 1 Colquhoun v. Wilson's Trust......