An Arbitration Between John Hawley, Sampson Bridgewood and John Goodwin and The North Staffordshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1848 |
| Date | 17 February 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 15
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 Jur. 389.
[33] In the Matter of an arbitration between john hawley, sampson bridge-wood and john goodwin and the north staffordshire railway company. Jan. 15, 22, 26, Feb. 14, 15, 17, 1848. [S. C. 12 Jur. 389.] Where the owners of land, which was required by a railway company, had made an appointment of an arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1846, but 16 IN RE HAWLEY refused to produce it for the purpose of enabling the registrar to draw up an order which had been obtained by the company, making the submission a rule of Court, the Court refused a motion on behalf of the company that the order might be drawn up, or that the landowners might produce the appointment. But there being in the landowners'affidavits, in opposition to the motion, a statement that their arbitrator had been duly appointed, and there being a recital to that effect in an appointment of an umpire, the Court, on a subsequent motion, ordered the submission to be made a rule of Court on that evidence of the appointment of the landowners' arbitrator. A railway company and the owners of land which was required by the company appointed, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, arbitrators, who appointed an umpire. The arbitrators and umpire met on the 4th of November, and adjourned to the following day. On that day the company's arbitrator did not attend. The other arbitrator and the umpire proceeded in his absence, notwithstanding the protest of the company's solicitor, and examined a witness. The company's solicitor left the meeting without examining his witnesses. No meeting was held after the 5th, nor had the company any notice to attend on the 6th or any subsequent day. On the 22d the landowners' solicitor informed the umpire that the arbitrators had not made an award, and required him to make his award, which he did on the 29th, without any evidence on the part of the company having been given. Held, 1st. That it must be presumed that the evidence taken ex parte on the 5th of November was not disregarded by the umpire. 2dly. That it was not a just inference from the above facts that the company had no evidence to adduce, or did not wish to adduce any. 3dly. That, whether there is or not any general rule that an umpire need not receive evidence or be active in summoning the parties, the umpire, in the above circumstances, ought to have made no award without tendering to the company an opportunity of producing evidence before him or addressing him. 4thly. That he was bound to take up the proceedings de now, or from the close of the 4th of November. 5thly. That, in the above circumstances, his skill or competency to decide from personal observation made no difference. 6thly. That his award was consequently bad, and ought to be set aside. Messrs. Hawley, Bridgewood & Goodwin were lessees of the Moss Field Colliery, with a tramway and wharf belonging thereto, at Stoke-upon-Trent. The North Staffordshire Eailway Company required, for the purposes of their Act, to carry their works over the wharf, for the formation of one of their branches, and to take 27 perches of the adjoining land, belonging to Hawley & Co., and gave the usual notice of their intention to take the property. Messrs. Hawley & Co. claimed 3380 as compensation^ and required the company to raise so much of the wharf as they did not take to a level with the railway, and to [34] afford them sufficient protection for a level crossing over the line. The company, by their agents, declined to give this sum, and offered 600. They then paid that sum into the bank, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and entered on the land. Messrs. Hawley & Co. required the amount of compensation to be ascertained by arbitration, and the company, on the 30th August 1847, appointed Mr. George Augustus M'Dermott their arbitrator; and in September Messrs. Hawley & Co. appointed Mr. John Higginbottom their arbitrator; and, within twenty-one days from the latter appointment, both arbitrators appointed Mr. Aaron Lewis Barton their umpire, in case they should differ. The time for the award was enlarged to 4th November, and that day was fixed for proceeding with the reference. On that day both the arbitrators and the umpire attended at the Crown and Anchor Inn, at Lay ton, and the inquiry continued during that day, and was adjourned, when the parties separated to the following day. On opening the reference, Messrs. Hawley & Co. claimed 5015. On the 5th November, early in the morning, the solicitor for the company received 2DEG.&SM.35. IN KB HAWLEY 17 a letter from Mr. M'Dermott, their arbitrator, saying that he was prevented from attending the reference on that day by urgent business, but suggesting that the arbitration should be proceeded with, and that he should be furnished with notes of the proceedings in the reference. The company's solicitor went to the place of meeting, and communicated the contents of this letter to the solicitor of Messrs. Hawley & Co., and to the other arbitrator, Mr. Higginbottom, and the umpire, Mr. Barton, and stated that he could not agree to the suggestion contained in it, that the reference should proceed in the absence of Mr. M'Dermott, the company's arbitrator. He therefore required that some other day should be fixed for proceeding with the reference. Counsel, however, who appeared [35] for Messrs. Hawley & Co., objected to any such postponement, and Mr. Higginbottom and Mr. Barton, the other arbitrator and umpire, sent a written notice to Mr. M'Dermott, informing him that, unless he immediately attended, they should proceed without him. The company's solicitor protested against this course; but Messrs. Hawley & Co.'s counsel insisted on the matter proceeding, and called one witness; whereupon the company's solicitor withdrew, and sent a formal notice to the arbitrator and umpire that he wholly objected to their proceeding. After he had left, the examination of the witness was continued. No further step was taken until November 11, on which day the company's solicitor gave notice to both the arbitrators, and to the umpire, requiring them not to make any award, or take any further proceedings in the matter of the reference, on account of the irregularity of the proceedings on the 5th of November. On the other hand, Messrs. Hawley & Co., at the expiration of the time for making the award, gave notice to Mr. Barton, requiring him to make his award. He complied with this latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Newry and Enniskillen Railway Company v The Ulster Railway Company
...455); Dobson v. Groves (6 Q. B. 637); In re Plews and Middleton (Ib. 845); In re Hawley and the North Staffordshire Railway Company (2 De G. & Sm. 33); Peterson v. Ayre (15 C. B. 724); Armitage v. Walker (2 K. & J. 211); Veale v. Warner (1 Saund'. 327); Bradditk v. Thompson (8 East, 344); D......
-
Florida Register Volume 45, Number 188, September 26, 2019, Pages 4247-4293
...10/13/2019 62-761.405 9/23/2019 10/13/2019 62-761.420 9/23/2019 10/13/2019 62-761.500 9/23/2019 10/13/2019 62-761.800 9/23/2019 10/13/2019 64ER19-3 9/19/2019 64B8-9.0141 9/24/2019 10/14/2019 64B32-2.001 9/20/2019 10/10/2019 64B32-2.003 9/20/2019 10/10/2019 65C-1.003 9/24/2019 10/14/2019 LIS......
-
Florida Register Volume 46, Number 169, August 28, 2020, Pages 3429-3459
...to adopt emergency rules to implement section 381.986, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY OF THE RULE: Emergency Rule 64ER20-31 repeals and replaces 64ER19-4, F.A.C., and amends the existing definitions in Rule 64-4.001, F.A.C., to update and add new definitions needed for additional rules being pro......
-
Florida Register Volume 48, Number 244, December 19, 2022, Pages 5049-5061
...to adopt emergency rules to implement section 381.986, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY: This emergency rule replaces and supersedes Emergency Rule 64ER19-8 and establishes the requirements and process for the renewal of medical marijuana treatment center licenses and the renewal application form ......
-
Florida Register Volume 45, Number 185, September 23, 2019, Pages 4179-4196
...45, Number 185, September 23, 2019 4187 Section IV Emergency Rules DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division of Disease Control RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 64ER19-3 Pesticide Use on Medical Marijuana SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE: Pursuant to Chapte......