South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtDivisional Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
21 cases
  • Parker v British Airways Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 1981
    ...will give the occupier a superior right to that of the finder. 16 Authority for this view of the law is to be found in South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, (1896) 2 Q.B., 45, where the defendant was employed by the occupier of land to remove mud from the bottom of a pond. He found two ......
  • Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 July 1995
    ...quite different principle governing unattached articles on land. 12 Unfortunately, the two principles became entangled in South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman [1896] 2 QB 44, another appeal to the Divisional Court from a county court, and a case which, on its facts, was just on the ......
  • Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; R v Warner
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 2 May 1968
    ...623), intention to control property as in cases about finders of goods on premises ( Bridges v. Hawkesworth 21 L.J.Q.B. 75; South Stafford-shire Water Co. v. Sharman [1896] 2 Q.B. 44; Hibbert v. McKiernan [1948] 2 K.B. 142) or in relation to sovereign immunity ( U.S.A. v. Dollfus Mieg u.s......
  • Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The illusory right to abandon.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 109 No. 2, November 2010
    • 1 November 2010
    ...Airways Bd., (1982) 1 Q.B. 1004; Bridges v. Hawkesworth, (1851) 21 L.J. Rep. 75 (Q.B.); South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Shannan, (1896) 2 Q.B. 44. (53.) An exception to this generalization would be wild animals indigenous to the area that the landowner had previously captured. As long as i......
  • All is not lost: the law of lost and found.
    • Canada
    • LawNow Vol. 38 No. 3, January - January 2014
    • 1 January 2014
    ...the thing? Did you, as landowner acquire higher rights even if you did not know of the lost item? South Staffordshire Water Co v Sharman, (1896) 2 QB44 (Eng) established that if the true owner is not known, the owner of the land on which it was found, even if he did not know about the lost ......

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