Murray and Another v Dunn and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1907 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1907] UKHL J0513-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 13 May 1907 |
[1907] UKHL J0513-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel for the Appellants this day upon the Petition and Appeal of Miss Catherine Isabella Murray, residing at St. Margaret's Tower, Strathearn Road, Edinburgh, and Patrick Blair, Writer to the Signet, Edinburgh, Trustees of the late David Murray, Deputy Controller of Excise for Scotland, and Chartered Accountant in Edinburgh, acting under his Trust Disposition and Settlement, dated 4th January 1866, and, along with codicils thereto, registered in the Books of Council and Session, 3d March 1877, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutor set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 19th of July 1906, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutor might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of Agnes Dunn, named in religion Sister Mary Aloysia, and Mary Frances Fisher, named in religion Sister Mary Agnes, William Campbell, Esquire, King's Counsel, Joseph Clement Gordon, Esquire, Joseph Monteith, Esquire, the Most Reverend James Augustine Smith, Doctor of Divinity, present Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, and the Right Reverend Monsignor William Grady, present Provost of the Chapter of the said Archdiocese of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, as such Archbishop and Provost respectively; and Mary Leslie, named in religion Sister Mary Sales, present Mother Superior, and Phillis Kyan, named in religion Sister Mary Walburga, Mary Potts, named in religion Sister Mary Teresa, the said Mary Frances Fisher, named in religion Sister Mary Agnes, and Mary Collins, named in religion Sister Mary Gabriel, present Mother Assistants, all of St. Margaret's Convent, Edinburgh, as such Mother Superior and Mother Assistants respectively, being the whole present members of the Council of the Roman Catholic Religious Community, formerly called Ursulines of Jesus, and now Ursulines of the Incarnation, resident in said Convent, trustees for said St. Margaret's Convent; and George Alexander Wilson, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and Counsel appearing for the said Respondents, but not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
... ... Ashley (FC) and another (FC) (Respondents) and Chief Constable of Sussex ... Rafferty J ordered that PC Sherwood be tried separately from the others and be tried first. On 2 May 2001, following a submission of no case to ... Cf Murray's Trs v Trustees for St Margaret's Convent (1906) 8 F 1109 , 1116-1117, ... ...
-
Nature Conservancy of Canada v. Waterton Land Trust Ltd. et al., (2014) 613 A.R. 205 (QB)
...are vague and indefinite in meaning they will not be enforced: Taylor v. Gilbertson (1854), 2 Drewry 391, 61 E.R. 770; Murray v. Dunn , [1907] A.C. 283; Noble v. Alley , [1951] S.C.R. 64, [1951] 1 D.L.R. 321 [...] Where such vagueness and uncertainty exists in a restrictive covenant imposed......
-
Lal Hiranand v Kamla Lal Hiranand
...v Harilela Padma Hari [2000] 2 SLR (R) 801; [2000] 3 SLR 696,CA (refd) Lloyd's Trust Instruments, Re (24 June 1970) (refd) Murray v Dunn [1907] AC 283 (refd) Nicolene Ld v Simmonds [1953] 1 QB 543 (refd) Tropwind, The [1982] 1 Lloyd's Rep 232 (refd) Rules of Court (Cap 322,R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)......
-
Cole v. Paterson, 2019 BCSC 45
...are vague and indefinite in meaning they will not be enforced: Taylor v. Gilbertson (1854), 2 Drewry 391, 61 E.R. 770; Murray v. Dunn, [1907] A.C. 283; Noble et al. v. Alley, [1951] S.C.R. 64, [1951] 1 D.L.R. [59] Similarly, in Podwin v. Gondziola, 2004 SKQB 225, the court dismissed an inju......
-
Contract formation
...Patman & Fotheringham Ltd v Pilditch (1904) Hudson’s BC (4th edition, volume 2) 368 at 371, per Channell J. Similarly, in Murray v Dunn [1907] aC 283, a restrictive covenant against constructing “any building of an unseemly description” was held to be void for uncertainty. Equally, however,......