Lord Sudeley and Others v Attorney General

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date13 November 1896
Judgment citation (vLex)[1896] UKHL J1113-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Date13 November 1896
Lord Sudeley and Others
The Attorney General.

[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
109 cases
  • Commissioner of Stamp Duties; Tan Kay Thye and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1991
  • Re Cuff Knox, Deceased
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 December 1963
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 February 1991
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 25 October 1996
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Duties of Trustees
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Trusts The Trustee
    • 21 June 2014
    ...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......

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