Wm. Brandt's Sons and Company v Dunlop Rubber Company, Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 1905 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1905] UKHL J0803-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 03 August 1905 |
[1905] UKHL J0803-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 6th, as Friday the 7th, days of April last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Wm. Brandt's Sons & Co., of 4 Fenchurch Avenue, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 29th of January 1904, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of the Dunlop Rubber Company, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 29th day of January 1904, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Walton, of the 2d day of April 1903, thereby set aside, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants the costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal, and also the costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Malaysian Airlines System Bhd; Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd
-
Annie F Conlan and Thomas F. Coyle v Carlow County Council and James O'Neill and William M. Byrne
...J. G. T. (1) Before Gibson and Boyd, JJ. (1) 3 Q. B. D. 569. (2) 25 Times L. R. 190. (3) [1910] 2 K. B. 630. (4) Ibid., 636. (1) [1905] A. C. 454. (2) [1904] 2 Ch. (3) 39 I. L. T. R. 80. (4) 3 Q. B. D. 569. (5) [1898] 1 Q. B. 765. (6) [1902] 1 K. B. 10. (7) [1902] 2 K. B. 190. (1) [1899] 2 ......
-
New Falmouth Resorts Ltd v International Hotels Jamaica Ltd
...affect the process of equitable assignment in any way, since, as Lord Macnaghten observed in Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Company [1905] AC 454, 461, ‘The statute does not forbid or destroy equitable assignments or impair their efficacy in the slightest degree’. 54No particular form o......
-
Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and Others (No 3)
...on the latter an obligation to pay the assignee (see Snell's Equity 13 th Ed p 87–8, 92; William Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454, 462) . It is not disputed, as I understand it, that a right to rent is a chose in action capable of assignment in equity, although Mr Cherrym......
-
Assignment Of Choses In Action
...[accessed on 14th December 2023]. 26 See, William Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905] AC 454. 27 If it is incomplete, consideration may be required. Consideration will also be required where the assignment concerns some future chose as the agreement in such instance can only be......
-
Litigation Funding In British Virgin Islands Liquidations: Practical Guidance For Liquidators
...is permissible. 2 There are a number of limited and rare statutory exceptions. 3 William Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Tyre Co Ltd[1905] AC 454. 4 Section 5 Faryab v Smith [2000] 12 WLUK 340 at [38] The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matte......
-
BOOK DEBT FINANCING1
...12 Q B D 511. 14. Smith v SS “Zigurds” Owners [1934] A C 309. 15. Note the important case of William Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co[1905] A C 454. 16. See Part A(III)(2) below. The time when the debtor receives notice of the assignment is when the respective rights of debtor and assign......