Attorney General v The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Wigan and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1854 |
| Date | 25 January 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 114
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. affirmed, 5 De G. M. & G 52; 43 E. R. 789 (with note).
Powers of Municipal Corporation. Illegal Rate. Nuisance. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76.
[268] the attorney-general v. the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of wigan and others. Jan. 24, 25, 1854. [S. C. affirmed, 5 De G. M. & G 52 ; 43 E. E. 789 (with note).] Powers of Municipal Corporation. Illegal Sate. Nuisance. 5 & & Will. 4, c. 76. Where a municipal corporation are raising an illegal rate the proper course is to apply to a Court of law to quash the rate under the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, or to appeal by certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench, under the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Viet. c. 78, s. 44. It is not competent for persons having in their hands funds which have, been appropriated by an Act of Parliament to certain given purposes to apply them for the extension of those purposes, without a previous application to the Court of Chancery. Therefore such persons will not be permitted to apply the funds to pay the expenses of promoting a bill, which is thrown out, if they have not previously obtained the authority of the Court for so doing. Nor is it lawful for them to apply the funds in promoting a bill for an extension of the purposes of their existing statutes. Where an incorporated town had the benefit of a river passing through it, which was the main sewer of two-thirds of the town, and a bill was before Parliament for the purpose of enabling certain persons to abstract a very large portion of the water from this river before it reached the town: Held, that under the Municipal Corporation Act, and particularly sects. 90 and 92, whether the corporation of the town had any surplus Borough Fund or not, as they would be justified in incurring the expense of an information for an injunction to prevent the commission of such a nuisance, if unauthorised, they were equally justified in applying their funds to oppose the bill for legalising the threatened injury to the river. The corporation of the borough of Wigan were subject to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 96. They possessed some property in the nature of a Borough Fund, consisting of certain shops an,d houses in the town, and of the fair a,nd market tolls in the borough, but such property was not sufficient to defray the expenses directed by the Act to be paid out of such fund ; and there was never any surplus of the Borough Fund applicable to the public benefit of the inhabitants, or the improvement of the borough. In consequence of the deficiency of the Borough Fund borough rates were made and levied by the corporation from time to time, under the provisions of the said Act. In the spring of 1847 the corporation of the borough of Liverpool applied to Parliament for an Act to enable them to obtain a better supply of water from various sources, and, amongst others, from a stream of water which formed one of the principal supplies of the river Douglas, which flowed through the town of Wigan. The millowners and landowners using the [269] water of the river, apprehending an injury from the proposed Act, determined to oppose the bill, and desired the Corporation of Wigan to concur in such opposition; and a meeting of the town council was held, at which resolutions were KAY, 270. BURGESSES OF WIGAN 115 passed, authorising the solicitors of some of the opposing parties to oppose the bill also in the name of the Corporation of Wigan. A petition was accordingly presented to Parliament against the bill, under the seal of the corporation. The bill passed into an Act, which received the Royal assent on the 22d of July 1847; but the effect of the opposition made by the Corporation of Wigan was to cause to be introduced into the Act provisions to the effect that a very large body of water should be restored to the river Douglas above Wigan. After the passing of the Act the solicitors, who had conducted the opposition to the bill, signed and delivered to the town clerk of the Corporation of Wigan their bill of costs against the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Wigan, containing their charges in respect of such opposition, amounting to about 1400; and, not being able otherwise to procure payment of their bill, they commenced an action against the corporation for that sum. At the relation of one of the ratepayers of the borough this information was now filed against the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Wigan, and against the said solicitors, stating the principal facts above mentioned, and alleging that the town council of Wigan intended, if the action was decided against them, to pay the demand out of the Borough Fund, which could not be done without levying a rate for that purpose, or appropriating the proceeds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, At the relation of JOHN REA, on behalf of himself and all the other Inhabitants of the Borough of Belfast, subject to the payment of rates, Petitioner; THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN and BURGESSES of THE BOROUGH of BELFAST; and JOHN POTTS and fifteen others (Aldermen and Councillors of said Borough); JOHN THOMPSON (Treasurer) and JOHN BATES (Townclerk, and Solicitor to the Corporation); Respondents
...Attorney-General v. Mayor of NorwickENR 16 Sim. 225. Attorney-General v. AndrewsUNK 2 M. & G. 225. Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR 1 Kay, 268. Attorney-General v. Corporation of PooleUNKENR 4 M. & C. 17; S. C. (Parr v. Attorney-General), 8 C. & F. 409; 8 Beav. 17. Hazard v. LaneENR 3 ......
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 120; 17 L. J. Ch. 472. The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 701. Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268. Attorney-General v. Mayor of Norfolk 15 Q. B. 549. Attorney-General v. Mayor of Norwich 2 M. & Cr. 406. Attorney-General v. Mayor of Andrews......
-
Maunsell v Midland Great Western Ireland Railway Company
...of this agreement from which the Midland (1) Conf. Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Norwich, 16 Sim. 225; Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Wigan, Kay, 268. 70 MAUNSELL V. MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN 1H.&M.1S9. Company should be relieved and yet the North-Western Company must be bound by the rest of the agr......
-
Horn v The Kilkenny and Great Southern and Western Railway Company
...Company (13 Beav. 48), The Great Western Eailway Company v. Eushout (5 De G. & S. 290, 309), Attorney-General v. The Mayor, &c., of Wigan (Kay, 268); and as to so much (if any) of the costs as was properly due from the general body of the shareholders, the case was within the principle of T......
-
Name Index
...Keith C.--398 Smith, Kermit C.--269 Smith, Kimberly--196 Smith, Marilyn W.--503 Smith, Marshall S.--243 Smith, Martin--707 Smith, Mary Kay--268 Smith, Maureen--244 Smith, Michelle--445 Smith, Nancy M.--660 Smith, Patricia Grace--407 Smith, Patricia--684 Smith, Patrick F.--145 Smith, Paul R.......