Wright v Macadam

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1949
Year1949
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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
50 cases
  • Ward v Kirkland
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Graham v Philcox
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 Abril 1984
    ...is to say, a right known to the law." 16 Both these cases were cited with approval in the judgments in this court in the later case of Wright v. Macadam (1949) 2 King's Bench 744. In relation to the instant appeal, the facts of that decided case are of some interest. The defendant landlord ......
  • Crow v Wood
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 9 Junio 1970
    ...although it was not expressly mentioned. 12 Section 62 has already been considered in this Court, notably in Wright v. Macadam, 1949, 2 K.B. 744: and Phipps v. Pears & Others, 1965, 1 Q.B. 76. It is clear from those cases that when land in common ownership is severed and one piece of it......
  • Phipps v Pears
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 10 Marzo 1964
    ...that it is capable of being granted at law so as to be binding on all successors in title, even those who take without notice, see Wright v. Macadam. 1949, 2 K. B., 747. A fine view, or an expanse open to the winds, may be an fiadvantage" to a house but it would not pass under Section 62. W......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Preliminary Sections
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...Corporation (1992) 66 P & CR 234, [1993] 19 EG 134, [1992] EGCS 132, CA 53 Woodyer v Hadden (1813) 5 Taunt 125 150 Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744, [1949] 2 All ER 565, 93 SJ 646, CA 11 Page 59 Table of Cases lix Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798, [1974] ......
  • Creation of Easements and Profits
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Part I. Easements and profits à prendre
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...1 Ch 47 at 53. 15 Watts v Kelson (1870) 6 Ch App 166; Robins v Tupman [1993] 15 EG 145 (drainage into soakaway). 16 Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744 at 752; P&S Platt Ltd v Crouch [2004] 1 P & CR 18 at [59]. 17 Green v Ashco Horticulturalist Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 889 at 897C–898B; International ......
  • AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROPERTY AND INSOLVENCY: THE INSOLVENT COMPANY’S ENCUMBERED ASSETS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 Diciembre 2008
    ...he is making; (1994) 14 OJLS 8 at 93. Also, see the point made in the following paragraph in the text. 158 See, eg, Wright v Macadam[1949] 2 KB 744 (CA). 159 London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1278. 160 Moody v Steggles (1879) 12 Ch D 261. 161 Since A&W c......
  • Pushing the envelope of proprietary interests: the nadir of the numerus clausus principle?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 39 No. 2, December 2015
    • 1 Diciembre 2015
    ...Wilson, 'What's in an Easement? More Than Just the Name' (2001) 16 Australian Property Law Bulletin 33, 36. (51) [1952] 1 Ch 488. (52) [1949] 2 KB 744. (53) [1972] 1 WLR 1355. (54) (2007) 71 NSWLR 381. (55) Ibid 389 [39] (Santow JA), 420 [207] (Campbell JA). (56) (2008) 37 WAR 498. (57) Ibi......