HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0749 and id is 1 raw text is: 2 MY. & X. 552. DUKE OF BEDFORD V. TRUSTEES OF BRITISH MUSEUM 1055
it would certainly have been refused, and who, for that reason, abstained from
making the request. Such proceedings were to be regarded with much displeasure.
They were extremely improper towards the individuals, and they were highly
unbecoming towards the Court. Cases might be put, in which, by such unauthorised
and unjustifiable conduct, both the parties whose names were used, and the Court,
whose process was abused, might find themselves placed in a situation of considerable
'embarrassment, and from which, according to any known course of procedure, it
would be extremely difficult satisfactorily to escape. The order of the Vice-
,Chancellor must, therefore, be discharged; and an order made, according to the terms
of the motion, for striking out the names of Messrs. Harford and Mr. Davis as
Plaintiffs in the suit.
[552] THE DUKE OF BEDFORD V. THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
July 6, 1822.
<The reporters are indebted for the statement of this case to the kindness of Mr. Jacob.)
IS. C. 2 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 129; see Squire v. Campbell, 1836, 1 My. & Cr., 481.
Distinguished, Mitchell v. Steward, 1866, L. R. 1 Eq., 548; Western v. MacDermott,
1866, L. R. 2 Ch., 74; see Peek v. Matthews, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq., 518; Kilbey v.
Haviland, 1871, 24 L. T. 355; German v. Chaplman, 1877, 7 Ch. D., 278. Followed,
Doherty v. Allman, 1878, 3 App. Cas., 730. Applied and explained, Sayers v. Coliler,
1883-84, 24 Ch. D., 183; 28 Ch. D., 103; see Mackenzie v. Childers, 1889, 43 Ch.
D., 276; Knight v. Simmonds [1896], 2 Ch., 298. Distinguished, Osborne v. Bradley,
[1903], 2 Ch., 452.]
Where land is conveyed in fee, by deed of feoffment, subject to a perpetual ground-
rent, and the feoffee covenants for himself, his heirs and assigns, with the feoffor, the
owner of adjoining lands, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, not to use
the land in a particular manner, with a view to the more ample enjoyment by the
feoffor of such adjoining lands, and the subsequent acts of the feoffor, or of those
claiming under him, have so altered the character and condition of the adjoining
lands that, with reference to the land conveyed, the restriction in the covenant
ceases to be applicable according to the intent and spirit of the contract, a Court of
Equity will not interpose to enforce the covenant, but will leave the parties to
law.
Whether upon such a covenant there could be any remedy at law against the assigns
of the covenantor, qucere.
By a settlement, made in the year 1669, on the marriage of the Lady Rachel
Vaughan with the Honourable William Russell, afterwards Lord Russell, a messuage
called Southampton House, and the appurtenances, together with some fields adjoining,
situate at Bloomsbury in the parish of St. Giles, in the county of Middlesex, and then
the property of Lady R. Vaughan, were conveyed to trustees, upon such trusts as she
alone should, in manner therein mentioned, appoint.
By indenture of feoffment of the 19th of June 1675, made between the Honourable
William Russell and Lady Rachel Vaughan, his wife, of the first part, the trustees of
the settlement of the second part, and the Right Honourable Ralph Montagu of the
third part, it was witnessed that, in consideration of £2600 to the said William Russell
and his wife, paid by the said Ralph Montagu, and of the covenants thereinafter
mentioned, on his part to be performed, and of 5s. paid to the trustees (which sums
were acknowledged to have been received for the absolute purchase of the piece of
ground thereinafter mentioned), they the said William Russell and his wife, and by
their direction and appointment [553] the trustees, granted, bargained, sold, aliened,
released, enfeoffed, and confirmed unto the said Ralph Montagu, his heirs and assigns,
a piece of land lying in a field called Baber's Field, in St. Giles, containing seven acres
and twenty-five perches, described in a map annexed, and abutting eastward in part
upon the messuages lately erected by Mary Hudson, and in other part upon other part
of Baber's Field, northwards on Baber's Field aforesaid, westward in part upon the
messuage then in the occupation of John Morris, and in other part upon Baber's Field](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0749&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)