Beaver against The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1857 |
| Date | 23 June 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 17
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 311; 4 Jur N. S. 23.
beaver against the mayor, aldermen and citizens op manchester. Tuesday, June 23d, 1857. Declaration stated that defendants erected a bridge across a certain canal, part of the bed of which belonged to plaintiff, and also erected certain walls adjoining, and caused the said bridge and walls to be so constructed as to project over parts of the said land of the plaintiff.-Plea, that the several acts, matters and things complained of were lawfully done by defendants under and by virtue of powers given to them by a certain Act of Parliament (setting out the year and title).-Held : that this general form of plea was good, and that it was not necessary to allege the particular facts upon which the defendants relied as bringing them within the statute. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 311; 4 Jur. N. S. 23.] Declaration stated that plaintiff waa possessed of certain land forming part of the bed of the Rochdale Canal; that defendants made and erected a certain bridge, to wit a bridge across the said canal; also certain walls under and adjoining and near thereto; and that defendants, wrongfully and against the will of plaintiff, and without his authority or consent, caused the said bridge and walls to be so made, built and constructed, that parts of the same extended and projected, and have ever since extended and projected, and do still extend and project, above and over parts of the said lands of the plaintiff. Plea. That the several acts, matters and things, [45] whereof the plaintiff complains, wera lawfully done performed and executed by the defendants under, in pursuance, and in exercise and by virtue, of the powers contained in and given to the defendant! by an Act 6f Parliament, made &c. (8 & 9 Viet. c. cxli., local and personal, public, " Teh effect improvements in the borough of Manchester for the purpose of promoting the health of the inhabitants thereof"). Demurrer. Joinder. (The plaintiff also new assigned.) Manisty, for the plaintiffs. The plea is bad both in form and in substance. The defendants ought, after setting out the Act of Parliament under which they allege themselves ;to have acted, to have set out the particular facts which brought them within ita provisions; Benson v. Welby (2 Wras. Saund. 154). In note (6) to that casei(2 Wros. Saund. 155 (6th ed.)), it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v The Blackrock Township Commissioners and Pluck
...446. Davis v. Curling 8 Q. B. 286. Mason v. The Birkenhead Improvement CommissionersENR 6 H. & N. 72. Beaver v. The Mayor of ManchesterENR 8 E. & B. 44. Whatman v. PearsonELR L. R. 3 C. P. 422. Murray v. M'SwineyUNKUNK Ir. R. 9 C. L. 545. [And see Geddis v. bann Reservior Company, Ir. R. 11......