Sir J. W. Ramsden, Bart. et Al v Dyson et Al
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1866 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1866] UKHL J0511-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 May 1866 |
[1866] UKHL J0511-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 15th, Friday the 16th, Monday the 19th, Thursday the 22d, Friday the 23d, Monday the 26th, and Tuesday the 27th Days of June, as Monday the 3d and Tuesday the 4th Days of July 1865, upon the Petition and Appeal of Sir John William Ramsden of Byram in the County of York, Baronet, Henry James Ramsden of Oston Hall in the County of York, Esquire, John Charles Francis Ramsden of Busbridge Hall in the County of Surrey, Esquire, William John Freschville Ramsden, an Infant, by the said Henry James Ramsden, his Father and Guardian, George John Serjeantson of Hanlith Hall in the said County of York, Esquire, Isabella Ramsden of Byram in the said County of York, Widow, Edward William Harvey Lord Hawke, and George Lane Fox of Bramham in the said County of York, Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the 2d of March 1864; (which said Decree was signed and enrolled on the 2d of August 1864;) and praying their Lordships to reverse, vary, or alter the said Decree, and to dismiss the Bill of Joseph Thornton and Lee Dyson, therein mentioned, with Costs, to be paid by Lee Dyson, John Buckley, and James Bates, or to grant to the Petitioners such other Relief in the Premises as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom and Justice, should seem meet; as also upon the joint and several Answer of the said Lee Dyson, John Buckley, and James Bates, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the said Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the 2d of March 1864, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Reversed: And it is hereby Declared, That the said Bill of Joseph Thornton an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canadian Pacific Ry. Company v The King
... ... Plimmer v. Mayor of Wellington ( 1884 ) 9 App. Cas. 699 and Ramsden v. Dyson ( 1866 ) L. R. 1 H. L. 129 distinguished; Lala Beni Ram v. Kundun Lall ( 1899 ) ... ...
-
Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd v Tully (Duclie Ermine) et Al
...second defendant's priority cannot be displaced by the plaintiff's subsequent equitable interest." 22 The rule in Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129 was relied on by Mr. Codlin to show that Blue Haven had acquired an equitable interest. The law on this issue has been developed in Dilly......
- Cheng Hang Guan v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd
- Victor Crabb (Plaintiff v Arun District Council (formerly Chichester Rural District Council) (Defendants
-
The Land Registration Act 2002 – the Show on the Road
...18; [2009] 1 WLR 776 at [90]–[99] restored the previous, laxer, demand for a belief merelyin some kind of right: Ramsden vDyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129, 171; Plimmer vMayor etc of Wellington(1884) 9 App Cas 699, 713.60 Jennings vRice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; [2003]1P&CR8at[45]–[51], [56].61 For prop......
-
Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions
...taking advantage of bright-line common lawrules in order to obtain a benefit they were never meant to get, comes very5Ramsden vDyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 HL, 140–141.6 Since such ‘fixtures’ become part of the land, see Law of Property Act 1925, s 62(1).Irit Samet© 2015 The Author. The Modern La......
-
Missing Reliance
...claim: see pp 74, 77ff.36 This seems to be the position in the ‘mistake’ cases of proprietary estoppel: see eg Ramsden vDyson(1866) LR 1 HL 129, 140–1, per Lord Cranworth.37 The appropriate remedy would appear to be compensation for loss, which might differ from paymentat the market value.T......
-
Hopes, Expectations and Revocable Promises in Proprietary Estoppel
...The claimant wasJimmy’s son David, who had started helping on the farm after Peter’s wife died26 ibid at [65]; cf ibid at [81].27 (1866) LR 1 HL 129.28 n 4 above at[81].29 ibid at [66].30 ibid at [71].31 ibid at [91].32 See B.McFarlane and A. Robertson,‘TheDeath of Proprietary Estoppel’[200......