Smith And Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. V. River Douglas Millers Case Study

The well-known case of Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. v. River Douglas Catchment Area [1949] 2K.B. 500 is helpful. In that case, the facts were as follows:-
In 1938, the defendants entered into a covenant with eleven landowners who owned land along a certain stream. On a landowner’s payment of a part of the cost, the defendants would improve the banks on the stream and maintain the banks in future. Two years later, in 1940, one landowner sold her land to Smith who, in 1944, leased the land to Snipes Hall Farm Ltd.

In 1946, the banks burst and flooded the adjoining land, because of the defendant’s negligence in maintaining the banks, in breach of the 1938 covenant. It was held that the plaintiffs could enforce the covenant as it touched and
The “chain of covenants” by which the successors in title of the covenantee, contract to indemnify his predecessor in title for any future breaches. In essence, each purchaser of the burdened lands covenants separately with their immediate predecessor to carry out the positive covenant. Thus, if the original covenantor is sued on the covenant, he will be able to recover any damages paid from the person he sold the land.

2. The “doctrine of mutual benefits and burdens” which posits that one does not take an interest in land without taking the benefits and burdens and passing them equally to successors in title.

The burden in equity
The foundation of the law in this area is the leading case, Tulk v Moxhay [1848]. The criteria which must be satisfied for the burden of a covenant to be enforceable are as follows: The burden must have intended to run with the and the covenant must be negative by nature

The benefit must have been made to benefit land which the covenantee held at the time he made the covenant.

Covenants in equity
The mid - nineteenth century saw a balancing act between the desires for industrial development and the preservation of residential amenities for the private
The homeowner (Mortgagor) is able to access financing from financial institutions (Mortgagee) that hold the property as security for the money while the legal interest remains with the landowner. Building Societies play a very key role in this regard. However, there is the National Housing Trust (NHT), in Jamaica that also does financing at a very low or competitive interest rates. In Jamaica, employers and employees pay a small percentage of wages and salaries into a fund operated by the latter institution from which persons can benefit. It is important to note that self-employed persons can also place money in this fund with the NHT and thereafter derive housing benefits.

Lindley MR in Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 Ch 474 , defined a mortgage as a disposition of an interest in land or other property as a security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligation for which it is given. It has also been defined as “as a conveyance or other disposition of an interest in property designed to secure the payment of money or the discharge of some other obligation”.

As is the case with many interests in land, mortgages can be either legal or