Tulk v Moxhay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1848 |
| Date | 22 December 1848 |
| Court | Chancery Court (EW) |
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
- Howie v New South Waleslawn Tennis Ground Ltd
-
Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Kingswood Motors (Addlestone) Ltd
... ... Cousins [ 1969 ] 2 Ch. 106 , C.A. and Acrow (Automation) Ltd. v. Rex Chainbelt Inc. [ 1973 ] 1 W.L.R. 1676 , C.A. applied ... Tulk v. Moxhay ( 1848 ) 2 Ph. 774 and London County Council v. Allen [ 1914 ] 3 K.B. 642 , C.A. distinguished ... The following cases ... ...
- Tam Kam Cheong v Stephen Leong Kon Sang
- Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham (No. 2)
-
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.......
-
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......
-
Table of cases
...of India, [2005] EWHC 2666 (Comm) (QB).............................................................. 190 Tulk v Moxhay (1848), 2 Ph 774, 41 ER 1143, [1843–60] All ER Rep 9 (Ch) .... 599 Turbo Resources Ltd v Petro Canada Inc, [1989] 2 FC 451, 91 NR 341, 22 CIPR 172 (CA) ..........................
-
Other Interests in Land
...to distinguish them from leasehold covenants. Neither term is ideal for two reasons. First, leases often contain 113 (1848) 2 Ph 774, 41 ER 1143 [ Tulk cited to Ph]. 114 Ibid at 777–78. Other Interest s in Land 157 restrictive covenants (e.g., not to use the leased premises for commercial p......
-
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 ...................................................................