Star.
London, England, 1822-07-09 00:00:00

. _ .
'
: "7" .... . ~,,, p.:,.., , .4
F:.:._
•,:ye
. #
" . .
.
. • . - •.. .. -
• . _.
,/--
.
. . .
.. . .
_ • :—'. - ...' -
. . .
20,A--‘ ‘111.;)% -•''-' • '- •
.....t.. , f •
. 1 • • . . f
41F‘ Pl
. . . °f44l-
•• • , • •-►
Q S ' 10
at. .
. .. .. 4- .-.--- -: , —...,..5,:!•-f---
. ~
~.....
• sZie-," 6-1 /-e-___-•/.
, , I . .
*.. -.),1 "I—.:* '4. ". . 4 ~
. .

•

.yJ.

. -*,

[PI4 fth SEVEN-PNCF.

. . -
pantheons, or buildings, would extend beyond the
!north line of Southampton House, obstruct the view
of his tenants, and greatly depreciate the.value of his
i property on the spot, and in the vicinity ; and he
therefore prayed, that the defendants might not be
allowed to erect any buildings except such as were
within the meaning and scope of the original gra..c
to Ralph Montague. An application upon this sub-
ject had been made to the Vice-Chancellor for an in-
junction; but he 'declined interferiug till it should be
ascertained whether the original covenant on the part
of-Ralph Montague was ri covenant running with the
land ; for unless such was its effect, no relief could be
granted. The question had stood over in order to as=
cert:Crt a/tether any mode could be adopted by which
it might be settled. His Honour had directed a case
to be made for the opinion of the Judges of the Com-
mon Pleas, but the parties not ccuceiving that course
would be effectual, had never drawn up the order of
the Vice-Chancellor. They were desitous of having
the matter determined by the opini.sn of the Lord
Chancellor, and with that view had brought forward
the present application. The Learned Counsel pro-
c-..eded to argue at length is support of the injunction.
He was followed by Mr. Lir-men/me, Mr. ABER,.
CROMBY, and Mr. CULLEN, who contended against
the right of the Trustees to enlarge the line cf their
buildings beyond the limits pointed out and defined
by the conveyance, tin-O.Th the medium of which it
had come into their possession.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resi;ted the motion. He
observed, that the Duke of Bedford ought to have
brought aw action at law ; but admitting that he was
entitled to come into a Court of Equity, the Court
could grant him no relief. The question was, what
was the situation and intention of the parties at the
time of their enter:ng into the contract. Montague
House was at that time free from all buildings, and
did not obstruct the view from Southampton House;
but when the proprietors of Southampton House had
-pulled it down and erected buildings on the spot, and
surrounded Montague House with them, he con-
tended that they could not ccule into a Court of
Equity to rostra 1p the Trustees horn proceeding with
their projected *orks.
Mr. WETHERELL and Mr. PULLEN supported the
same line of argument, and insisted that the altera-
tion made by the Duke of Bedford in the state of the
property, amply jpstified the defendants in the con=
duct they had adopted, and absolutely precluded the
plaintiff from all title to the extraordinary inter-.
ference of this Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he was anxious to
have the assistance of the Master of the Rolls, for
many reasons. He himself was an official Trustee of
the Museum, though he had been so negligent that
he knew nothing of the buildings,, nor did he believe
liehad Amor been there, except when he was obliged
to wa}k through the grounds to get the safest way to
Westminster, after an attempted destruction of his
house. The single point was, whether the Duke of
Bedford, if an action could be maintained, must be
content with the action compensating hint for any
injury he had to complain of; or whether he.was en-
titled to the better relief a Court of Equity was in
the habit of giving by injunction. It was in the me-
mory of all (of himself at least), that there was not
one brick on another in the street called Gower-
street; and when Gower-street was built, and Bed-
ford-square was built, nobody could doubt that the
persons who had houses in Bedford-square thought
them of more value, from the circumstance of having
the square on one side, and the Museum Gardens on
the other ; and the houses on the east side of Gower-
street were advertised as more valuable than those oft
the west, for the reason that they were pleasant ha-
bitations to everybody, particularly to lawyers pent
up in the Temple, who could get their breakfast at
six in the morning, which was the custom, and have
a comfortable walk from one of these streets, where
there was not a single house, till they found their
way to Queen-square. From time to time, however,
buildings were raised round Montague House, and
the Trustees now sought to erect their building. His
Lordship then proceeded to consider whether the
Duke of Bedford, having defeated the object of Mr.
Montague, to secure Montague House from being
surrounded by buildings, was entitled to come into
a Court of Equity for relief. He WAS unable to find
this was one of those cases in which a Court of Equity
would grant relief by injunction; and in stating that
without prejudice, he requested the Ma. Ater of the
Rolls to inform him in what view he saw the case.
The MASTER of the RoLLs said that, as the case
came under consideration now for the first time, and
considering his situation, in common with his Lord-
ship, as Trustee of the Museum, he shou'ld have de-
sired some time for consideration if i.e could have
brought himself to entertain the least doubt; but
after having given the matter all the consideration in
his power, he bad no hesitation in at once giving his
opinion. Hi -
fined to the
whether the

equitable ass
supposed the

conduct; bui
state of. the ,
doped and w;

perty in its

gaged respect
remained in

Duke, havin,

mein not apl

to assist
The LORD
that was, th;

Mr. SHA.
the Duke of
sake of the r
[Gentlemen
The Lew
1 was any rented:
i vidt affecwhot

• 1,
": • ,' '

~.

.

~i

-{~~~

. . -
-le thought the single question was con-
' jurisdiction of the Court. In consiJciing
Duke was precluded f:om haring art
ssistance from the Court, it was not to be
to Court cast the least imputation on his .
•
,ut had not the Duke, from the altered
.. I
property, by his own act, entirely Aar.- i
r
waived all that was applicable to the pro-
former state? Did nut all that was en- I
ecting the propeity belong to it whilst it ,
,1':
1 that state? It was his opinion that the
ng changed the property, made the agree- i.
pplicable so as to call on A Court of Equity
:..
m
ID CHANCELLOR slid the consequence of
flat the injunction could not be granted.
,DWELL observed. that the sole object of 1 it
if Betilbrd was to try the question, for the ~11
personal comfort and convenience of the :
his tenants. '
Lthose
dithsemnissasatiththate if t 4
I;tniad ostCryealltantedricarsi.t
i