South Staffordshire Water Company v Sharman

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtDivisional Court
Year1896
Date1896

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
24 cases
  • Re Cohen, decd.; National Provincial Bank Ltd v Katz
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Parker v British Airways Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 1981
    ...Bridges v. Hawkesworth. Mr Hawkesworth undoubtedly had a right to exercise such control, but his defence failed. 24 South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman was followed and applied by McNair J. in City of London Corporation v. Appleyard, (1963) 1 W.L.R., 982. There money was found in a s......
  • City of London Corporation v Appleyard
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
    ...Solicitors: Comptroller and City Solicitor; Lawrance, Messer & Co.; Guillaume & Sons, Weybridge. [Reported by MISS H. JELLIE12 T.L.R. 402, D.C. Per curiam: If possession had vested in the finders and not in the company in possession of the premises, the finders, as employees of an i......
  • 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......
  • Get Started for Free