Court : House Of Lords
Reported in : (1892)AC25; (1889)23QBD598; (1888)LR21QBD544
[1] The House of Lords, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision,[1] held that the acts were done with a lawful object of protecting and increasing the associations profits. Because no unlawful means had been employed, Mogul Steamship Co Ltd had no cause of action. Lord Bramwell's judgment read as follows. [2] “My Lords, the plaintiffs in this case do not complain of any trespass, violence, force, fraud, or breach of contract, nor of any direct tort or violation of any right of the plaintiffs, like the case of firing to frighten birds from a decoy; nor of any act, the ultimate object of which was to injure the plaintiffs, having its origin in malice or ill-will to them. The plaintiffs admit that materially and morally they have been at liberty to do their best for themselves without any impediment by the defendants. But they say that the defendants have entered into an agreement in restraint of trade; an agreement, therefore, unlawful; an agreement, therefore, indictable, punisha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
EARL OF HALSBURY L.C. My Lords, in this case we have had a long and learned argument by the two learned counsel who have appeared for the appellants. I am not certain that I quite understand the conflict between the two propositions, or that I quite understand on what principle one is supposed to decide these cases apart from the facts of each particular case. One principle, I think, has been established from the earliest period of the law down to the present time, namely, that if something has been made part of the house it must necessarily go to the heir, because the house goes to the heir and it is part of the house. That seems logical enough. Another principle appears to be equally clear, namely, that where it is something which, although it may be attached in some form or another (I will say a word in a moment about the degree of attachment) to the walls of the house, yet, having regard to the nature of the thing itself, and the purpose of its being placed there, is not intended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD MACNAGHTEN. My Lords, this appeal raises in a slightly different form and with some difference of circumstance the question which this House had to consider in the recent case of Noakes v. Rice.(1) Your Lordships, I think, have nothing to do now but to determine whether the distinction between the present case and the case of Noakes v. Rice(1), as finally decided, is or is not a solid and substantial difference leading to a different result. Other points, no doubt, were discussed at the bar, but the only effect of the discussion (1) [1902] A. C. 24. was to incumber and embarrass the argument on the one point which was really arguable. In my view, all these other points were and are immaterial, and I pass them by altogether. The distinction between Noakes v. Rice(1) and the case under review is brought out very clearly in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which was delivered by Stirling L.J. It is, I need not say, a most careful judgment, to which little or nothing could be adde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
EARL OF HALSBURY L.C. My Lords, in this case, which was tried before Joyce J., the learned judge gave judgment for the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any actionable wrong although he found that the erection of the buildings of which the plaintiffs complained had appreciably diminished the light which the plaintiffs had previously enjoyed. The Court of Appeal, as I understand their judgment, thought this was wrong, and ordered a mandatory injunction to pull the premises down, so as to restore all the light that had been previously enjoyed. If this principle should be sanctioned by your Lordships it would be for the first time that, in this House at all events, such a principle had been determined. I do not deny that authorities may be found for it, some of which have been cited at the bar, but I do not think that the exact question which is now in debate has ever been brought before this House until now. The question may be very simply stated thus: aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
EARL OF HALSBURY L.C. (read by Lord Macnaghten ). My Lords, I regret that the state of the authorities leaves me no alternative other than to affirm the judgment of Kekewich J. and the Court of Appeal. A perfectly fair bargain made between two parties to it, each of whom was quite sensible of what they were doing, is not to be performed because at the same time a mortgage arrangement was made between them. If a day had intervened between the two parts of the arrangement, the part of the bargain which the appellant claims to be performed would have been perfectly good and capable of being enforced; but a line of authorities going back for more than a century has decided that such an arrangement as that which was here arrived at is contrary to a principle of equity, the sense or reason of which I am not able to appreciate, and very reluctantly I am compelled to acquiesce in the judgments appealed from. LORD MACNAGHTEN . My Lords, both Kekewich J. and the Court of Appeal decided in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor.— This is a case in which a party to an agreement has admittedly broken it, and an action was brought for the purpose of enforcing the payment of a sum of money which, by the agreement between the parties, was fixed as that which the defenders were to pay in the event that has happened. Two objections have been made to the enforcement of that payment. The first objection is one which appears upon the face of the instrument itself, namely, that it is a penalty, and not, therefore, recoverable as a pactional arrangement of the amount of damages resulting from the breach of contract. It cannot, I think, be denied—indeed, I think it has been frankly admitted by the learned counsel—that not much reliance can be placed upon the mere use of certain words. Both in England and in Scotland it has been pointed out that the Court must proceed according to what is the real nature of the transaction, and that the mere use of the word “penalty” on the one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. When one examines these two appeals, I think it is impossible to say that any different question arises in the one from that which arises in the other. The same judgment is applicable to both. When one examines with care the different allegations made in the condescendences and the answers, I do not think any question arises as to the confidential nature of the employment between patient and medical man. I do not propose to express any opinion upon what would be the legal determination of that question if it arose. It may be that it raises very serious and difficult questions, and I certainly am not disposed to express an opinion either way in respect of questions which upon other grounds have no difficulty at all in their solution. The broad proposition I entertain no doubt about, and it seems to me to be the only question that properly arises here; as to the immunity of a witness for evidence given in a Court of justice, it is too late to argue that as if it were dou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD LOREBURN L.C. My Lords, in my opinion the judgment of the Court of Appeal ought to be affirmed. I can find no right of action in the wife of the tenant against the landlord either for letting the premises in a dangerous state or for failing to repair them according to his promise. The husband has sued successfully for breach of contract, but the wife was not party to any contract. Accordingly the appeal fails. LORD MACNAGHTEN . My Lords, notwithstanding the opinion of Mathew L.J., and the able argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of opinion that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls and Romer L.J. must be upheld. The facts are not in dispute. The law laid down by the Court of Common Pleas in the passage quoted by the Master of the Rolls from the judgment of Erle C.J. in Robbins v. Jones(1) is beyond question: "A landlord who lets a house in a dangerous state is not liable to the tenant's customers or guests for accidents happening during the term: for, fraud a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. The question in this case is whether a charitable bequest is to be treated as void for uncertainty. The bequest was of an unusual kind. Its object, according to the will, was to benefit persons who had shewn practical sympathy in the pursuits of science. A number of conditions were prescribed. The recipients of this bounty were, among other things, to be widowers or bachelors of fifty-five years of age or upwards, whose lives had been characterised by sobriety and other specified virtues. They were to be indigent, a provision which stamps the bequest as charitable. These conditions were not really canvassed in argument and need not be further considered, for no one of them is such as to impart to the bequest an uncertainty which will vitiate it in law. The only point seriously made against this clause in the will is that the recipients of this charity were to be persons who had “shewed practical sympathy in the pursuits of science.” These words have been su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. This appeal has been argued temperately, with the evident Knowledge that your Lordships have to decide what the law in fact is, and nothing beyond that simple question. Two points were raised by the appellants. The first and main point was that they were entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for the Universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh. The second was that at all events they were entitled to receive voting papers, and on tendering their votes to have their claim decided by the authority set up under the Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881. I will take these contentions in order. In regard to the alleged right of voting, the appellants assert that if ancient records are explored there is evidence of women having enjoyed this right, and no adequate ground for affirming a constitutional or common law disability on the score of sex. And further, that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, taken with the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!