Bell v The Midland Railway Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date23 April 1861
Date23 April 1861
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 462

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Bell
and
The Midland Railway Company

S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 273; 4 L. T. 293; 9 W. R. 612. Discussed, Beckett v. Midland Railway, 1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 101. Referred to, Thompson v. Hill, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 567. Principle applied, Mayfair Property Company v. Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 519. Referred to, Addis v.

Gramophone Company, Limited, [1909] A. C. 500.

bell v. the midland railway coml'anv. April 23rd, 1801. [S. C. 30 Ti. J. C. P. 27.",; 4 L. T. 29:); 9 W. It. 612. Discussed, KeckM v. Midland Railway, 1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 101. Referred to, Tkvmpsim v. Hill, 1870, L. It. 5 C. P. 567. Principle applied, May/air Property Company v. .lohiwlnn, [1894] I Ch. S19. Referred to, Addis v. (}mmophtntK Company, Limited, [1909] A. C. 500.J By a particular section of the act of incorporation of a railway company, the owners of lands adjoining the line were imnowered to lay down or extend either upou their own lands or on lands on the side thereof belonging to the company, or upon the lands of any other persons, with the consent of such other persons, any collateral or continuous branch from such respective lands, &c., to communicate with the railway for the purpose of bringing carriages upon or across the same.-The plaintiff, in 1839, with the assent of the company, made a siding on his land connecting the railway with a wharf part of which was in his own occupation and other part in fcbat of certain tenants; and down to the year 1857 the company carried coals and other goods for the plaintiff and his tenants, placing the trucks on the siding and so sending them down to the wharf. In the course of that year, however, the company (with a view, as the jury thought, of diverting the trade from the plaintiff's wharf to another wharf in which they were interested) gave the plaintiff notice, under another section of their act, that, after the ;iOth of September, they would no longer provide him with locomotive power for the conveyance of his goods along their line : and oil the 1st of October they placed carriages and other things across the junction, for the purpose (as the jury found) of permanently obstructing and preventing the plaintiff and his tenants having access to the wharf by means of their railway.-Neither the plaintiff nor his tenants had availed themselves at this time of the authority given to them by the act of parliament to provide locomotive power of their own, and consequently they were not in a position to be actually obstructed. The tenants, however, finding their trade destroyed, removed from the plaintiff's wharf, and carried their business to the company's wharf:-Held, that these wrongful acts of the company constituted such a permanent obstruction and injury to the plaintiff's right to the use of his siding as to entitle him as Feversioner ,to maintain an action.-For the portions of the wharf occupied by his two tenants, the plaintiff was to be paid a certain royalty on all coals sold,-the minimum royalty to be paid by one being 2001. per annum, and by the other 1801. ; and the plaintiff was at the time of the obstruction complained of in treaty with a third person for letting him the remaining portioti of the wharf at .'{001. per annum : -Held, that the jury were warranted in taking these sums into their consideration WC. B. (IT. S.)i88. BELL V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY CO. 463 in estimating the amount of damage the plaintiff had sustained.-Held, also, per Willes, J.b and Byles, .!.,-that the case was one in which the jury were justified in giving exemplary damages. This was action against the Midland Railway Company to recover damages for an alleged wrongful obstruction of the communication between their railway and an adjoining wharf and branch railway of the plaintiff. The declaration stated, that, after the passing of the [288] act for making the Midland Counties railway (6 & 7 W. 4, c. Ixxviii.), and before the passing of tho act of parliament next thereinafter mentioned, the Midland Counties railway was made by a, company who were by the saifl act incorporated under the name and style of the Midland Counties Railway Company, and the plaintiff being, aa thenceforth until and after the thereinafter causes of action he had continued to be, the owner and occupier of lands adjoining or near to the said railway, made a wharf on his said lands at his own expense, and laid clown, extended, and until and after tha thereinafter mentioned acts and grievances complained of kept and maintained on his own lands and lands at the side thereof belonging to the said company, a collateral or continuous branch railway from the said wharf on a level with the defendants' said railway, and oil his the plaintiffs own lands and on lands at the side thereof belonging to the said Midland Counties Railway Company, to communicate with the said Midland Counties railway ; which said branch, was so made in pursuance of the said act for the purpose of bridging carriages upon the same, and to form, and did continually until the thereinafter acts and grievances complained of form, a junction with the said Midland Counties railway, for the= purpose of conveying or carrying coal and other products from and by the said railway into and along the said branch to the said wharf: That the said Midland Counties Railway Company, for the purpose aforesaid, at the request of the plaintiff, made a proper and convenient opening and approaches thereto in their said railway, necessary for effecting, and thereby did effect, the said communication and ^ junction, and made the said opening and communication at such place as was, so far as iprac-ticable, moBt convenient to all the parties interested, and as might least inteBferej with the passagp [289] along the said railway, and so as not to endanger the safety of persons using on- travelling upon the said railway ; which opening and communication from thenceforth until the thereinafter said causes of action existed, and duriijig all that time the said railway and branch was used by the plaintiff and his tenants for the purposes aforesaid, and the profits and advantages of and from the said wh&rf to the plaintiff and his tenants thereof arose from a large business there establishjed of receiving, landing, wharfing, and keeping and selling there coals and other good^ sent from or from a point near to a colliery on or near to the said railway, along th^ said railway, and thence along the said branch to the said wharf: That, before the cjauses of action thereinafter mentioned, and in the seventh year of our Lady the now Queen, an act of parliament to consolidate the North Midland Counties and Birmingharh and Derby Juijction railways was passed and put into execution (7 & 8 Viet. c. xviii.), and thereby the said Midland Counties Railway Company was dissolved and was qniterl with othei! companies, and amalgamated with and into the Midland Railway Conjipany therein mentioned, and which company the defendants are: That afterward^, and whilst the said branch^ junction, and. communication and the defendant's said railway were being used by the plaintiff and others his tenants or occupiers claiming Binder him of fhe said wharf for the purposes aforesaid, and while the plaintiff was ownQr and seised in his demesne as of fee of his said lands and wharf, and the said whapf and lands as to part thereof were in his possession, and as to the rest thereof were in the occupation of tenants from year to year of the plaintiff or their sub-lessees, the (reversion immediately expectant on the said terms from year to year then and still belonging to the) plaintiff, the defendants, by placing [290] and keeping placed and driving in and into and upon the ground above, at, and near the said opening or communica-tion, and in and into the soil of the said t ranch railway, poles, posts, wooden balks, railway carriages, waggons, trucks, heavy chattels, and other obstructions, obstructed, stopped up, and closed the said communication and opening, and prevented and kept prevented the plaintiff and the said occupiers of the said wharf from using the said branch for the purposes aforesaid, whereby the traffic of the said wharf, arid the profits to the plaintiff by way of royalty on coals wharfed there, and otherwise, had been destroyed and diminished ; and by means of the defendants' said wrongful act and 404 BELL V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY CO. 10 C. B. (N. g.)J9i. breaches of duty, aud during the same, the business of the said wharf was permanently and irrevocably transferred to a wharf of the defendants, and the tenants of the plaintiff of the said wharf at high 7-ents had lawfully determined their tenancies, as they would not but for the said wrongful conduct of the defendants have clone ; and the expenses to the plaintiff of making the said wharf, of laying down the said branch, and providing the same with proper means and appliances for the use of the same, had been wholly lost to the plaintiff, aud...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Rookes v Barnard
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 de janeiro de 1964
    ...and Merest v. Harvey, the sums awarded were so large as to suggest that they were intended to be punitive. 164It is not until Bell v. Midland Railway Company (1861) 10 C.B. (N.S.) 287, that there is a clear dictum. The plaintiff brought an action against the railway company for wrongful obs......
  • Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 7 de junho de 2001
    ...said, at p 523, that the question whether exemplary damages for nuisance were available prior to 1964 depended on a proper view of Bell v Midland Railway Co (1861) 10 CB(NS) 287, he held that exemplary damages could not be awarded for damage flowing from public nuisance, such a claim not ha......
  • A.B. v South West Water Services Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 de novembro de 1992
    ...make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. I have quoted the dictum of Erle C.J. in Bell v. Midland Railway Co. Maule J. in Williams v. Currie suggests the same thing; and so does Martin B. in an obiter dictum in Crouch v. Great Northern Railw......
  • Broome v Cassell & Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 23 de fevereiro de 1972
    ...passage wherein it is defined simply will not do. Lord Devlin founded his second category on a sequence of cases beginning with Bell v. Midland Railway Co. [1861] 10 C.B.N.S. 287, and on the judgment of Maule J. in Williams v. Currie (1845) 1 C.B. 841, 848, and the dictum of Martin B. in Cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT