The United Company of Merchants of England, Trading to the East Indies, - Appellants; Roger Kynaston, Esq., - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1821 |
| Date | 09 March 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 4 E.R. 561
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. xi. 402. Commented on in Smith v. Peters 1875, L.R. 20 Eq. 513; and see A.-G. v. Chambers 1849, 12 Beav. 159; Ennor v. Barwell 1860, 1 De G. F. and J. 529; Bennitt v. Whitehouse 1860, 28 Beav. 119, at pp. 120 and 121; Bennett v. Griffiths 1861, 3 E. and E. 467 at pp. 476-7; see R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 50. As to observations of Lord Redesdale (3 Bli. 164) as to sheriff breaking open doors, see note to Bwrdett v. Abbot 1817, 5 Dow. 165.
EAST INDIA COY. V. KYNASTON [1821] III BLIGH. [153] ENGLAND. court of chancery. The UNITED COMPANY of MERCHANTS of ENGLAND, TRADING to the EAST INDIES,-Appellants; ROGER KYNASTON, Esq.,-Respondent * [9th March 1821]. [Mews' Dig. xi. 402. Commented on in Smith v. Peters 1875, L.R. 20 Eq. 513; and see A.-G. v. Chambers 1849,- 12 Beav. 159; Ermor v. Batrwell 1860, 1 De G. F. and J. 529; Bennitt v. Whitehause 1860, 28 Beav. 119, at pp. 120 and 121; Bennett v. Griffiths 1861, 3 E. and E. 467 at pp. 476-7; see R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 50. As to observations of Lord Redesdale (3 Bli. 164) as to sheriff breaking open doors, see note to Bwrdett v. Abbot 1817, 5 Dow. 165.] The Respondent, an impropriate rector, having by a decree of the Court of Chancery been found to be entitled (under the decree made in pursuance of the act 37 Henry V-III.) to the tithes, according to the value, of warehouses in London, occupied by the Appellants, and which never had been rented, the Court has jurisdiction to make an order upon the Appellants to permit inspection, for the purpose of ascertaining the value. Such an order cannot be executed by force, but operates only on the person, as a foundation for process of contempt, and to take the Bill, pro confesso, if necessary. The Respondent, the impropriator or impropriate rector of the parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, part whereof lies within the city of London, or the liberties thereof, being entitled to the tithes of that parish, in the month of July 1804, filed his bill of complaint in Chancery against the Appellants, who were in possessi jn, as the owners and occupiers of certain warehouses and other premises situate in Gravel-lane, Petticoat-lane, Harrow-alley, Cutler's-street, and Parker's-gardens, within that [154] part of the parish lying within the city of London. The bill prayed that an account might be taken of the several sums of money due and owing to the Respondent from the Appellants, in respect of the tithes, rates for tithes, sums or customary payments, or other duties in lieu of tithes, on account of the warehouses and other premises held or occupied by them within such part of the rectory or parish of St. Botolph as aforesaid, or the titheable places thereof, in each year since the said month of May 1804, and that the Appellants might pay to the Respondent the money which should be so found due from them oil the taking of such account. The Respondent, by the bill, setting forth a, certain decree duly inrolled in the said Court of Chancery, bearing date on the 23d of February 1545, and made by Thomas, then Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed in the 37th year of the reign of Henry VIII, intituled, " An Act for Tithes in London," and charging that the tithes payable by the Appellants in respect of their premises, and the amount of the several sums to be paid by them, ought to be computed after the rate and in the manner directed by the decree, in proportion to the then or improved or last rent or value of the premises; and insisted upon his right to the tithes after such mode of computation. The Appellants, by their answer, stated " that all the warehouses and dwellinghouses situate in the places specified in the bill, were built by them: that having built, and being themselves the owners of the warehouses and dwelling-houses, they did not then, nor ever did, hold the same or [155] any part thereof under any yearly or other rent, or for any consideration in the nature or in lieu of rent, and that no yearly or other rent had at any time been paid for the said warehouses or ground. That as to' all the warehouses then in the occupation of them the Appellants, (except some warehouses called Rumball's, about which at present there is no question,) thereinbefore mentioned to be situate within that part of the said rectory or parish which is within the said city of London or the liberties thereof, the Appellants never having held the same at or subject to any rent, * See this case upon the hearing in the Court below, 3 Swan. 248. 561 IIIBLIGH. EAST INDIA COY. V. KYNASTON [1821] and no part thereof having been let since they were built, they the Appellants were unable to- set forth asi to their knowledge what was the then actual value thereof." The bill was afterwards amended, and the Appellants put in a further answer, the Respondent replied thereto; and the cause, being at issue, came on to be heard on the 2d day of March 1818, before the Master of the Rolls, when his Honor declared, " That the Respondent was entitled, among other things, to tithes alter the rate of two shillings and nine pence in the pound upon the annual value of all the messuages, warehouses, and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ADM International SARL v Grain House International S.A. (Formerly known as Compagnie Agricole De Commercialisation Et De Conditionnement Des Cereales Et De Legumeineuses S.A.)
...760; London v Lynn (1789) 1 H Bl 206, 209; United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies v Kynaston (1832) Bli 153, 163, 4 ER 561, R v J G Hammond & Co Ltd [1914] 2 KB 866, 110 However the writ of mandamus came to be used to seek to achieve the same objective. A preroga......
-
Ennor v Barwell
...of ascertaining the direction of the natural flow of the water. The following cases were cited-East India Company [530] v. Kynaston (3 Bligh, 153); Earl of Lonsdale v. Curwen (Ibid. 168); Ifalker v. Fletcher (Ibid. 172); Attorneti-General v. Chambers (12 Beav. 159); Benni.it v. f-Hiitehouse......
-
Attorney General v Chambers
... ... They cited Kynaaton v. The East India Company (3 Swan. 248), The East India ny t. Kynaston (3 Bli. (O. S.) 153), The Earl of Lonsdale v ... ...
-
Bennitt v Whitehouse
... ... He relied on The East India Company v. Kynaston (3 Bligh, O. S. 153); ... ...
-
Search Orders - Anton Piller Injunctions
...& Co (1877), 36 LT (NS) 51, [1877] WN 14; United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies v Kynaston (1821), 3 Bli 153, 4 ER 561 (HL); Walker v Fletcher (1804), 3 Bli 172, 4 ER 568; Bennitt v Whitehouse (1860), 28 Beav 119, 54 ER 311. 6 See M. Dockray & K.R. Thomas, “ Anto......
-
Table of cases
...1 (HL) ..................................480 United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies v Kynaston (1821), 3 Bli 153, 4 ER 561 (HL) ........................... 215 United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v Saskatoon Credit Union, 2009 SKCA 87 ........................
-
Table of Cases
...(H.L.) ............................. 343 United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies v. Kynaston (1821), 3 Bli. 153, 4 E.R. 561 (H.L.) ............................. 140 Table of Cases 577 United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v. Saskatoon Credit Union, 2009 SK......
-
Search Orders - Anton Piller Injunctions
...36 L.T. (N.S.) 51, [1877] W.N. 14; United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies v. Kynaston (1821), 3 Bli. 153, 4 E.R. 561 (H.L.); Walker v. Fletcher (1804), 3 Bli. 172, 4 E.R. 568; and Bennitt v. Whitehouse (1860), 28 Beav. 119, 54 E.R. 311. 6 See M. Dockray & K.R. Tho......