Rye v Rye: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Rye|Rye|1962|AC|496}} stands as [[common law]] authority — from [[Lord Denning]], no less — for the proposition that “one cannot grant oneself a lease”, but is even more compelling testimony to the unlimited caprice of the English litigant. | {{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Rye|Rye|1962|AC|496}} stands as [[common law]] authority — from [[Lord Denning]], no less — for the proposition that “one cannot grant oneself a lease”, but is even more compelling testimony to the unlimited caprice of the English litigant. | ||
For what kind of fellow would get into an argument with himself of sufficient feist as to bring formal legal proceedings against himself — let alone, upon losing them, to ''appeal'' it, all the way to the House of Lords? This is a feat of [[Albert Haddock|Haddock]]ian proportions. There is a certain kind of fellow who could start a fight in an empty building, as we all know. But when | For what kind of fellow would get into an argument with himself of sufficient feist as to bring formal legal proceedings against himself — let alone, upon losing them, to ''appeal'' it, all the way to the House of Lords? This is a feat of [[Albert Haddock|Haddock]]ian proportions. | ||
There is a certain kind of fellow who could start a fight in an empty building, as we all know. But when he is fighting about the [[Ontology|ontological]] essence of his claim to be in that building, that is a whole other thing. | |||
There is, no doubt, a sanguine explanation to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and being, as it was, penned by a giant of modern jurisprudence and a man of no small literary talent, would doubtless repay reading, but — inasmuch as it would displace the mental image I currently have, of a man pursuing himself to the highest tribunal in the land to contest his right to occupy his own house — it would still rank as a disappointment, so I do not propose to find out what that explanation is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves. | There is, no doubt, a sanguine explanation to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and being, as it was, penned by a giant of modern jurisprudence and a man of no small literary talent, would doubtless repay reading, but — inasmuch as it would displace the mental image I currently have, of a man pursuing himself to the highest tribunal in the land to contest his right to occupy his own house — it would still rank as a disappointment, so I do not propose to find out what that explanation is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves. |