Lord Dudley against Lord Warde
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1751 |
| Date | 24 October 1751 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 73
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re De Falbe, [1901] 1 Ch. 530, 540.
[113] Case 55.-Lord dudley against Lord warde. October 24, 1751. [See In re De Falbe, [1901] 1 Ch. 530., 540.] Tenant for life, or in tail, erects a fire engine to work a colliery. It shall on his death be considered as part of his personal estate, and not go with the estate to remainderman. [Lib. Eeg. 1751, B. fo. 659 b. [S. C. Harg. MSS. Capper, A. 2, p. 68; Hill. MSS. 26 Vol. p. 264, from Mr. Ford's MSS.] William Lord Dudley died, seised of a colliery, on which were erected four fire engines, three of which had been erected by Earl Edward his father, who was tenant in tail of the estate (which came to Earl William under a settlement), and the fourth was erected by Earl William; but it did not appear whether Earl William was tenant for life or tenant in tail of the estate. Bill by plaintiff, as executor of William (Lord William died intestate; the plaintiff's bill was filed as administrator, Lib. Reg.), against the defendant, who was remainder-man of the estate, to have the four fire engines delivered up as part of the personal estate of Earl William. Lord Hardwire, C., after arguments at bar. There are two questions ; the first is a general question Whether fire engines of this nature erected by a particular tenant, or by tenant in tail, are to, be considered as part of the owners real or personal estate ? Second question is, as to three of the fire engines not erected by Earl William, but by Earl Edward, whether they will follow the same rule as those erected by the last tenant, Earl William 1 To first. There have been many questions of this kind, both in law and equity, and some determinations on very nice and almost frivolous circumstances ', but some general rules are very clear, as what is annexed to the freehold is to be considered as part of it, and yet there are some exceptions to that rule, as between landlord and tenant; what is erected by the latter for the sake of trade may be removed, though fixed to the freehold ; (1) indeed such removal must be during the term, or he will be a trespasser; so marble chimney-pieces, &c.: (2) but this does not hold between the heir and executor; (3) so might these engines be removed as between landlord and tenant. [114] And though the case between landlord and tenant does not hold so strongly throughout, yet it answers one objection ; viz. That a house has been built to which...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 7-day Trial
-
Cosby v Shaw
...3 Jon. & Lat. 397. Gore v. O'Grady Ir. R. 1 Eq. 1. Doherty v. AllmanELR 3 App. Cas. 709. Lawton v. LawtonENR 3 Atk. 13. Dudley v. WardeENR Amb. 113. Climie v. WoodELR L. R. 3 Ex. 257. Hellawell v. EastwoodENR 6 Ex. 295. Bishop v. ElliottENR 11 Ex. 113. Dumergue v. RumseyENR 2 H. & C. 777. W......
-
Baker v Paora - Te Tii Waitangi B3 (2015) 113 Taitokerau MB 31 (113 TTK 31)
...B3 AND BETWEEN WAIRETI PAORA Applicant Hearing: 20 August 2015 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 1 October 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER 113 Taitokerau MB TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................
-
Alexander v Godley
...Rep. 46 b. Herlakenden;s caseENR 4 Coke, 62 a. Galway v. Baker 7 Cl. & F. 379. Smith v. SurmanENR 9 B. & C. 561. Lord Dudley v. Lord WardENR Amb. 113. Stukeley v. ButlerENR Hob. 173. Weigall v. BromeENR 6 Sim. 99. Wilson v. Eden 18 Q. B. 474. Lee v. RisdenENR 7 Taunt. 188. Mackintosh v. Tro......