The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-27 00:00:00

misrepresentions giving liberty to endorse special
circumstances on the postea, and reserving all costs
until the issue was tried.

THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY U. DIMES.-

I UDGNIENT.

The Loup CuANCELLOR also gave judgment in
this case, which came before him upon an appeal from
a decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
It appeared:that, as long ago as the year 1774, the
Grand Junction Canal Company bad obtained an
Act of Incorporation, under which they concluded
purchases of land, and took leases for the purpose of
carrying out the lino of inland navigation, in-
cluded in which was a piece of copyhold land
purchased of one Skidmore, tenant by copy of court
roll to the lord of the manor. Dimes, the defendant,
had come in first as mortgagee, and subsequently
had bought the manor with all its rights. Skidmore
had for thirty years been tenant to the lord, render-
ing him customary services and fines, and then died,
and the heir of Skidmore being an infant, the lord
of the manor seized the copyhold land until he could
have a tenant capable of rendering him the cus-
tomary services, treating the company as trespassers
upon their own line of navigable canal, and bringing
a large quantity of bricks with which he threatened
to impede the navigation. The lord then informed
the company that he should not desist from this course
unless the company should agree to buy up his
interest. ID this state the case came before the
Vice-Chancellor of England, who, in giving judg-
ment, stated that he considered the whole diffi-
culty had arisen from the fact that when
the Act of Parliament was passed, under which the
plaintiffs had power to make their canal, sufficient
consideration was not given to the circumstance that
a portion of the land to be taken was copyhold ; if that
fact had been brought to the attention of the framers
of the Act there would have been more special pro-
visions intro heed. As it stood, his Honour thought
that the Act had authorised any person who had the
right, title, or interest in the land, by such a con-
veyance, the form of which was pointed out, to con-
vey all their right, title, and interest. Jos. Skidmore
was the copyhold tenant of this land, and the corpora-
tion purchased from him, for valuable consideration,
and the land was conveyed under the Act. He con-
sidered that this Act provides for the conveyance by a
party who had an interest of his own and no more, and
it could not mean that where a party by that form
conveyed his interest, that he should be taken to have
passed anything :which trespassed on the rights of
others. Joseph Skidmore, in conveying his interest,
had perfect right to demand that his copyhold should
be continued to his grantee by the admission of his
heir, but it could never have been intended by the
Act that he should pass the absolute interest in the
land which, in fact, would be passing what did not
belong to hini. His opinion was, that the heir of
Skidmore was a trustee for the company, and the
company could compel the: lord to admit such heir.
He therefore declared that Thomas Edmund Skid-
more, the heir of Joseph Skidmore, the copyholder,
according to the custom of the manor, was the person
who ought to be admitted tenant on the court rolls,
and, when admitted, that he would be a trustee of the
estate for the company, and that there should be a
reference to the Master to decide what fine was to be
paid by the company upon the admission of Skid-
more's heir, and that the company should pay his
costs, and recover them from the defendant Dimes.
The Lord Chancellor, after adverting to the facts at
some length, stated his opinion to be that the decree
of the Vice-Chancellor of England was perfectly
correct, and ordered the appeal to be dismissed, with
costs.—Judgment affirmed, with costs.