Tulk v Moxhay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1848 |
| Date | 22 December 1848 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1143
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S C. 1 Ha. & Tw. 105; 18 L. J. Ch. 83; 12 L. T. (O. S.)469; 13 Jur. (O. S.), 89. See Child v. Douglas, 1854, Kay, 570. Applied, Wilson v. Hart, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 468. Followed, Western v. Macdermott, 1866, L. R. 2 Ch. 74; Morland v. Cook, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 265. See Keates v. Lyon, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 222; Catt v. Tourl 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 656; Leech v. Schweder, 1874, L. R. 9 Ch. 465 n.; Aspden Seddon, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 502; Fairclough v. Marshall, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 46; Cooke v. Chilcott, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 700. Followed, Richards v. Revitt, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 226; Bewley v. Atkinson, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 295. See Greaves v. Tofield, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 573. Followed, Patman v. Harland, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 359. See London & South-Western Railway Company v. Gomm, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 562. Explained, Haywood v. Brunswick Building Society, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 403. Applied, London, Chatham, &c., Railway Company v. Bull, 1882, 47 L. T. 415. Doctrine limited, Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 750. Distinguished, Hall v. Ewin, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 78. See Sheppard v. Gilmore, 1887, 57 L. J. Ch. 11; Mackenzie v. Childers, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 278; Stuart v. Diplock, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 350; Clegg v. Hands,, 1890, 44 Ch. D. 504. Followed, John Brothers Abergarw Brewery Company v. Holmes [1900], W. N. 196. Personal covenants outside principle, Formby v. Barker [1903], 2 Ch. 539. See also, 2 Wh. and T., L. C. (7th Ed.), p. 215, note (i) to Le Neve v. Le Neve, and cases there collected.
' tffu - fl. moxhay. Dee. 22, 1848. [S. C. 1 Ha. & Tw. 105 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 12 L. T. (0. S.)/w' suros.), 89. See Child v. Douglas, 1854, Kay, 570. Applied, Wilson v. Hart, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 468. Followed, Western v. Macdermott, 1866, L. R. 2 Ch. 74 ; Morland v. Cook, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 265. See Keates v. Lyon, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 222 ; Catt v. TmirlL , 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 656; Lee.ch v. Schweder, 1874, L. R. 9 Ch. 465 n. ; Aspden '&%'"' Seddtm, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 502 ; Fairdmgh- v. Marshall, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 46 ; Cooke v. /I,, ChUcott, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 700. Followed, Richards v. Sevitt, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 226 ;i\3, '. Bewley t. Atkinson, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 295. See Grumes v. Tojidd, 1880, 14 Ch. Iu433. 573. Followed, Potman v. Harland, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 359. See London & South- 7* '+ Western Railway Company v. Gomm, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 562. Explained, Haywood \. Brunswick Building Society, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 403. Applied, London, Chatham, &c., Railway Company v. Bull, 1882, 47 L. T. 415. Doctrine limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Howie v New South Waleslawn Tennis Ground Ltd
- Tam Kam Cheong v Stephen Leong Kon Sang
-
Tan Soo Leng David v Wee, Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd and Another
...is binding on the whole world save a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice of such a right. See Tulk v Moxhay [] 41 ER 1143 and Wright v Dean. [1948] WN 271 Wynn-Parry J in Wright v Dean [1948] WN 271 said that the option clause created an interest in land - Londo......
-
Khemlani (Gui Luchmandas) and Monica Khemlani v Amidos Ltd Warrington Williams, Maureen Williams, and Others
...... . . 212 In the case of Tusk v Moxhay 1849 - 41 ER 1143 it was established that the burden of a restrictive covenant imposes an equitable burden which is enforceable against all ......
-
Can private development rules trump public planning policies?
...or Lauren Gray on +61 2 6163 1000 or email daniel.moulis@moulislegal.com or lauren.gray@moulislegal.com. Footnotes (1) Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 41 ER 1143. (2) P & A Swift Investments v.Combined English Stores Group Plc [1989] AC (3) Environment and Planning Assessment Act 1979, Section 28.......
-
Restrictive Covenants and Other Restrictions on the Use of Freehold Land in Public Ownership
...may be entered into by any person interested in land in the area of the LPA with 1 Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310. 2 Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774; Millbourn v Lyons [1914] 2 Ch 231; LCC v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642. 3 Which replaced Town and Country Planning Act 1971, s 52 (s 106 does not hav......
-
Table of Cases
...All ER 768, 64 TLR 30, CA 75 Tulk v Metropolitan Board of Works (1867–68) LR 3 QB 682, 32 JP 548, 37 LJQB 272, Exch 12, 14 Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774, 41 ER 1143, [1843–60] All ER Rep 9, LCCt 6, 12, 13–15, 16, 17, 19, 41, 61 Vodden v Gayton [2001] PIQR P4, [2000] 4 WLUK 172, QBD 80 Walke......
-
Enforceability of the Burden of a Freehold Covenant
...to be used for specific purposes (e.g. as a dwelling-house) then it implies a prohibition (i.e. an obligation which is negative 1 (1848) 2 Ph 774. 2 Land Registration Act 2002, ss 29(1), (2)(a)(i) and 32–34, in the case of registered land, the only recognised form of notice is the entry of ......
-
Table of Cases
...60, 61, 62, 64 Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44.................... 58, 59, 60, 64, 65 Tulk v Moxhay (1848), 2 Ph 774, 41 ER 1143 ..................................... 156, 158, 160 Turner v Turner, [1984] Ch 100 ...................................................................