Lake v Craddock, et Al'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1732 |
| Date | 01 January 1732 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1011
LORD CHANCELLOR KING.
S. C. 2 Wh. & T. L. C. 952, 7th Ed. See Steeds v. Steeds, 1889, 22 Q. B. D. 541.
[158] Case 39.-lake v. craddock, et al'. [S. C. 2 Wh. & T. L. C. 952, 7th Ed. See Steeds v. Steeds, 1889, 22 Q. B. D. 541.] On an Appeal from a Decree at the Rolls. Lord Chancellor King. Five persons purchased West Thorock level from the commissioners of sewers, and the purchase was to them as joint-tenants in fee; but they contributed rateably to the purchase, which was with an intent to drain the level: after which several of them died ; they were held to be tenants in common in equity and though one of these five undertakers deserted the partnership for thirty years yet he was let in afterwards, and on what terms. The case was thus : Great part of the lands in West Thorock, in Essex, having been overflowed by the river Thames near Dagenham, and the land-owners not thinking it worth their while to pay the assessments made on them by the commissioners of sewers ; the commissioners decreed the lands to be forfeited, and conveyed them to 1012 LAKE V. CRADDOCK 3 P. WMS. 159. three trustees in trust to sell, and raise money for the draining of these overflowed lands. The defendant Craddock's father, the plaintiff Lake, and three others (five in all), having entered into an undertaking to drain the level, or overflowed lands of West Thorock, the trustees for the sale, by the consent and direction of the commissioners of sewers, did, by deed indented and inrolled, dated the 8th of February 1695, in consideration of £5145 paid to the commissioners by the five purchasers, convey this level to the defendant Craddock's father, the plaintiff Lake, the three others and their heirs; Upon which several sums of money were expended in carrying on the undertaking; and in 1699, the defendant Craddock's father paid his last contribution, which, with what he had advanced before, came in all to £1025. Afterwards, it seeming to be an enterprize, which would prove very expensive, and there being some uncertainty as to the success of it, the defendant Craddock's father wholly deserted it, and never more concerned himself therewith. The four other undertakers were advised, that "some neighbouring lands would be of service to their design : upon [159] which, in April 1703, they purchased the manor of Pomtshalls in West Thorock, of the Lady Smith, for £2550 ; and in February following, purchased the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Julie Anne Morton (as Executrix of the Estate of Jennifer Ruth Morton) v Simon Nigel Morton
...acquire the land as a partnership asset, they would be presumed to hold as beneficial tenants in common (see, for example, Lake v Craddock (1732) 3 P Wms 158). However, no restriction against dispositions by a sole surviving proprietor was entered on the register in respect of either proper......
- Calverley v Green
-
Commissioner of State Revenue v Rojoda Pty Ltd
...(2017) at 666 [18–07], 692–696 [18–63]–[18–66]. 41 Lake v Gibson (1729) 1 Eq Ca Abr 290 at 291 [ 21 ER 1052 at 1053]; Lake v Craddock (1732) 3 P Wms 158 at 159 [ 24 ER 1011 at 1012]; Lyster v Dolland (1792) 1 Ves Jun 431 at 434–435 [ 30 ER 422 at 423–424]; Jackson v Jackson (1804) 9 Ves Jun......
-
Mums Inc. v Cayman Capital Trust
...Q.C. for Mrs Randall. Cases cited: (1) Cray v. WillisENR(1829), 1 P. Wms. 529; 24 E.R. 847. (2) Lake v. CraddockENR(1732), 2 P. Wms. 158; 24 E.R. 1011; [1558–1774]; All E.R. Rep, 419. Legislation construed: Judicature Law (Law 11 of 1975, revised 1976), s.42(1): ‘If the court is satisfied t......