94:
Mrs Gee sought an injunction to restrain publication of the letters as she felt the material would "wound her feelings and could have no other effect". The judgment does not give details of the letters beyond stating that they contained details of the
Plaintiff’s marriage, but since the Pritchard's
125:
He repudiated an argument that the publication of letters would be restrained because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the plaintiff. He said, "The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which the Court can take notice, as a case of civil property, which it is
71:
Pritchard sent the original letters back to Mrs Gee with a letter saying that he was returning the correspondence, but he had secretly made a copy of the originals. However, in a letter dated 14 May 1818, Mrs Gee was notified that
Pritchard intended to publish the letters.
67:
Pritchard) for numerous years and had corresponded. She wrote him letters about what she thought of his life and gave him guidance. However, they ceased to be on good terms and
Pritchard sought to publish the letters.
95:
birth was the product of an extramarital affair and his father, Mr Gee, had been the local lord of the manor, it is probable that it would have caused considerable harm to the plaintiff it if it had been made public.
88:
were also tenants of Mrs Gee. His claim was that he sought to publish not for monetary reasons but that the various actions bought him into disrepute with the parishioners, and he needed to clear his name.
104:
The Court held the case could proceed on the fact of property but not on the idea of feelings or wounded feelings or a violation of a trust or pledge, rather an injury to a property.
91:
Pritchard claimed that the letters were his sole property, and he was entitled to make such use of them as he might think proper.
209:
287:
302:
32:. The case related to what matters the court could consider, court consistency and the definition of property.
107:
292:
200:
Burke, Sir
Bernard, Burke's Dormant & Extinct Peerages, Harrison, 59 Pall Mall, London reprinted 1969
297:
180:
77:
118:, unless she has by some act deprived herself of it". He quoted Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in
8:
81:
45:
260:
247:
234:
222:
21:
41:
29:
25:
281:
114:(Mrs. Gee) had sufficient property in the original letters to authorise an
85:
57:
115:
122:"for at most the receiver has only a joint property with the writer".
111:
64:
63:
Mrs Gee had been on good terms with her step-son (who was also
49:
53:
18:
Ann Paxton Gee v
William Pritchard and William Anderson
279:
175:The decision has subsequently been Cited in:
280:
84:close to Beddington Park, and many
13:
246:Gee v Pritchard (1818) 36 ER 670
14:
314:
259:Gee v Pritchard (1818) 36 ER 670
233:Gee v Pritchard (1818) 36 ER 670
221:Gee v Pritchard (1818) 36 ER 670
56:and Mrs Ann Gee was Pritchard’s
266:
253:
240:
227:
215:
203:
194:
129:
1:
188:
35:
52:. William Pritchard was his
7:
99:
10:
319:
288:English property case law
40:William Gee had been the
272:Pope v Curl 2 Aitkin 342
163:Earl of Granard v Dunkin
303:Court of Chancery cases
181:Prince Albert v Strange
210:William Gee PRITCHARD
151:Lady Percaval v Phipps
134:The judgment cited:
293:1818 in British law
165:1 Bull and Beat 207
145:Thompson v Stanhope
126:bound to protect".
171:(1741) 4 Burr 2331
157:Southey v Sherwood
82:Walton on the Hill
169:Forester v Waller
30:Court of Chancery
310:
298:1818 in case law
273:
270:
264:
257:
251:
244:
238:
231:
225:
219:
213:
207:
201:
198:
22:(1818) 36 ER 670
318:
317:
313:
312:
311:
309:
308:
307:
278:
277:
276:
271:
267:
258:
254:
245:
241:
232:
228:
220:
216:
212:at ancestry.com
208:
204:
199:
195:
191:
132:
110:held that "the
102:
46:Beddington Park
38:
28:of the British
12:
11:
5:
316:
306:
305:
300:
295:
290:
275:
274:
265:
252:
239:
226:
214:
202:
192:
190:
187:
186:
185:
173:
172:
166:
160:
154:
153:2 Ves & Bw
148:
142:
131:
128:
101:
98:
97:
96:
92:
89:
76:Pritchard was
37:
34:
24:is a landmark
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
315:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
285:
283:
269:
262:
256:
249:
243:
236:
230:
224:
218:
211:
206:
197:
193:
183:
182:
178:
177:
176:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
136:
135:
127:
123:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
93:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
73:
69:
66:
61:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
33:
31:
27:
23:
20:
19:
268:
255:
242:
235:p677 and 671
229:
217:
205:
196:
179:
174:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
133:
124:
119:
106:
103:
86:parishioners
70:
62:
39:
17:
16:
15:
139:Pope v Curl
130:Authorities
120:Pope v Curl
58:step-mother
282:Categories
189:References
116:injunction
36:Background
159:2 Mer 435
141:2 Atk 342
112:Plaintiff
108:Eldron LC
261:page 678
223:Page 676
100:Decision
65:Reverend
26:judgment
147:Amb 737
248:p. 677
184:(1849)
78:rector
50:Surrey
42:lord
80:at
54:son
48:in
44:of
284::
60:.
263:.
250:.
237:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.