Lord Sudeley and Others v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1896 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1896] UKHL J1113-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 13 November 1896 |
[1896] UKHL J1113-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well yesterday as this day, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Right Honourable Charles Douglas Richard Baron Sudeley, and the Right Honourable Charles William Brudenell Bruce (commonly called Lord Charles William Brudenell Bruce), of Mayfield, in the County of Sussex, and Julius Alfred Bertram, of No. 34, Norfolk Street, Strand, in the County of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 21st day of February 1896, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Her Majesty's Attorney General (on behalf of Her Majesty), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the said Respondent, but not being called on; and due consideration had of what was offered for the said Appellants:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 21st of February 1896, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed; and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commissioner of Stamp Duties; Tan Kay Thye and Others
-
Re Cuff Knox, Deceased
...v. Archer-Shee [1927] A. C. 844; In re Ferguson[1935] I. R. 21 andIn re Figgis[1937] I. R. 179 followed. Sudeley v. Attorney-General [1897] A. C. 11 distinguished. Re Smyth. Leach v. Leach [1898] 1 Ch. 89 and Attorney-General v. Johnson[1907] 2. K. B. 885 considered. Cur. adv. vult. The arg......
-
Tan Kay Thye and Others v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
...in realty in respect of the two houses (on the basis of doubts entertained by Lord Herschell and Lord Shand in Sudeley (Lord) v A-G [1897] AC 11 is not material. Whether their rights be rights in property or rights in choses in action, the members of the two families are still co-owners of ......
-
Wu Koon Tai and Another v Wu Yau Loi
...in any specific asset of that estate: he had only a right to have the estate duly administered: Lord Sudeley v Attorney-GeneralELR ([1897] AC 11). Until completion of the administration and the vesting of the property in the devisee, the devisee could not convey the land in specie. But thei......
-
Table of cases
...(2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 417, 187 D.L.R. (4th) 407, [2000] O.J. No. 2131 (C.A.) ........................ 178 Sudeley (Lord) v. A.G. (1896), [1897] A.C. 11, [1886-1890] All E.R. Rep. 200, 66 L.J.Q.B. 21, 75 L.T. 398, 61 J.P. 420, 45 W.R. 305, 13 T.L.R. 38 (H.L.)........................................
-
Duties of Trustees
...as simple as this: trustees ought to bear the burden of demonstrating that they have acted in the best interests of the beneficiaries. 30 [1897] AC 11 (HL). 29 Wilson v Law Debenture Trust Corp plc , [1995] 2 All ER 337 (Ch). 30 If the British Columbia Law Institute’s proposed modern Truste......
-
Duties of Trustees
...between a solicitor and a trustee may not be privileged as against a beneficiary claiming under the trust: Sudeley (Lord) v. A.G. , [1897] A.C. 11 (H.L.). 28 Wilson v. Law Debenture Trust Corp. , [1995] 2 All E.R. 337 (Ch.). 29 If the British Columbia Law Institute’s proposed modern Truste......