[1][2][3][4][5] The court held on the facts that a provision giving the lender a share of the profits of the operations of the theatre company granting the mortgage was not repugnant to the equity of redemption, and was valid.

At the outset of his judgment he expressed the view: ‘a mortgage is a conveyance of land or an assignment of chattels as a security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligation for which it is given.

He felt that, given the limited security a mortgage over a ten-year lease offered, it was a reasonable bargain and did not unduly fetter the right of the mortgagor to redeem.

The case has been cited subsequently with approval in various decisions, including the House of Lords in Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1913] UKHL 1.

"[6] The case was similarly criticised in British South Africa Company v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd [1912] AC 52.