Pretty v Solly
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1859 |
| Date | 29 January 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 1032
ROLLS COURT
See Wakefield v. Duke of Buccleuch, 1866, 70 L. R. 4 Eq. 625; L. R. 4 H. L. 392.
"*- let, -s ,g0g, pRETTYw solly. Jan. 24, 29, 1859. lyi'itl..'*-. ]yi.ff. f?. [See Wakefield v. Duke of Bucdeud, 1866, 70 L. R. 4 Eq. 625; L. R. 4 H. L. 392.] Rules of construing statutes, where a general enactment in it would override a particular one, and where two parts of it are contradictory. The word "soil" in an Inclosure Act held to mean "surface." Specific performance of a contract for sale of lands held under an Inclosure Act refused, it appearing upon the context that the right of the lord to the minerals in the allotted lands had not been affected by the Act. An Inclosure Act directed allotments for public and specific purposes, and that one-fifth should be allotted to the lord of the manor for his interest in the " soil," and that the remainder of the common lands should be divided amongst the commoners, to be held in severalty. And it was declared that the lord's seignorial rights were not to be prejudiced, except the right to the " soil," and that the lord might thereafter enjoy all rents, heriots, &c., "and all mines, minerals, quarries and other royalties," and as if the Act had not been passed. Held, that the lord retained his rights to the mines and minerals under the land allotted to the commoners in severalty. The Defendant agreed to purchase from the Plaintiffs a small piece of freehold land, with a cottage erected thereon, which had formerly been allotted by the Commissioners under an Inclosure Act of the 45 Geo. 3, c. xcii. The Defendants insisted that the Plaintiffs had not shewn a right to the minerals, and he refused to complete. The Plaintiffs thereupon instituted this suit for a specific performance; and a reference was made as to title. The Chief Clerk found, that a good title could be made to the allotment, cottage and premises, except as to the mines and minerals (if any) under them, to which a good title could not be made. MBEAV. 607. PRETTY V. SOLLY 1033 A motion was made by the Plaintiffs to vary the certificate. The question turned on the terms of the Act of Parliament, the material parts of which were as follows :-It recited that there were (1) common meadows, (2) a [607] tract of waste, called Canford Heath, of 9000 acres, (3) waste landa in Poole, and (4) waste mudlands. That Mr. Arrowsmith claimed to be the lord of the manor and to be entitled "to the right of soil" of and in the lands, subject to the rights of common, &c., and that "it would be advantageous to the several proprietors and persona interested in the said common meadows, heaths, waste lands and commonable ground, " if the same were divided, and specific parts thereof allotted in proportion to the property, rights of common and other interests of the proprietors therein;" and the mudlands were allotted, &c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council
...submission in the principle that in statutory construction the specific overrides the general —generalia specialibus non derogant (see eg Pretty v Solly (1859) 26 Beav 606). In his view, the council's proposed action and the reason for taking it "fall squarely within section 66(2)", and acc......
- Maqbool Singh Dhillon v PP
-
Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd v Friends Life Ltd
...ordinary meaning), and some of which may assist in dealing with a more specific problem, such as that enunciated by Sir John Romilly in Pretty v Solly. With few, if any, exceptions, the canons embody logic or common sense, but that is scarcely a reason for discarding them: on the contrary. ......
-
John Philip Sawkill v Highways England Company Ltd
...principle that in statutory construction the specific overrides the general — generalia specialibus non derogant (see eg Pretty v Solly (1859) 26 Beav 606 53 ER 1032). In his view the council's proposed action and the reason for taking it “fall squarely within section 66(2)”, and accordingl......
-
Real Estate Meets Trust Law: Land Registration Ontario Style
...Blaney McMurtry LLP, for his research assistance. Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5. Pretty v. Solly (1859), 26 Beav. 606, at p. 610, 53 E.R. 1032, at p. This article was originally published by The Ontario Bar Association (www.oba.org). The content of this article is intended to provide......