CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board

1949 English land law decision

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 8, 2026
Entity authorityQ15147624 ↗
Source-derived summary

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500 is an English land law and English contract law appeal decision. The case, decided by Denning LJ, confirmed positive covenants can supplant privity of contract in contracts to improve land and secondly a covenant should be implied where the contract shows an intention that the obligation would attach to the land. The case thirdly held in that context, a somewhat uncertain description of lands which was capable of being rendered certain by extrinsic evidence was sufficient to enforce the covenant.

Facts

The River Douglas Catchment Board agreed with a number of landowners of certain westerly land between the River Douglas and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal to carry out some work if some contribution to the cost was given. In 1940 Mrs S, one of the covenantees, sold her land ("Low Meadows") to Smith, which incorporated Snipes Hall Farm Ltd in 1944 as his agricultural tenant. In Autumn 1946 the Eller Brook burst its banks and flooded Smith and Snipes Hall Farm land. They made a claim against the Board for damages in breach of contract (and in tort, not considered on the facts).

Legal questions arising

There was never any question that the main damage was suffered by the tenant and the tenant had the same locus standi as the landlord, exercising under a lease from time to time his legal rights. The question of liability in tort was not considered, instead a few words were said if that question had to be considered by the court (obiter dicta). The question was whether not having been privy to the original agreement was a bar to any recovery.

Editorial summary

“Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board” enters the record as 1949 English land law decision. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Smith, Snipes and Hall can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1949, 1940, 1944, 1946—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Smith, Snipes and Hall.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Smith, Snipes and Hall provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q15147624. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1949, 1940, 1944 and 1946.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board primary sources, Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board archive and Smith research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.