Between The Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company, Plaintiffs; and The London and North-Western Railway Company, The Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company, George Carr Glyn and William Cowan, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1850 |
| Date | 02 December 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 125
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD COTTENHAM.
See Hare v. London and North-Western Railway Company, 1861, 2 J. & H. 105. For subsequent proceedings, see S. C. 3 Mac. & G. 70; 16 Beav. 441; 4 De G. M. & G. 115; 6 H. L. C. 113; 26 L. J. Ch. 482; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 775; Taylor v. Chichester, &c., Railway Company, 1867, 2 Ex. 384; Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carriage Company, 1874, 9 Ex. 292; Attorney-General v. Great-Eastern Railway Company, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 487; Hire Purchase Furnishing Company v. Richens, 20 Q. B. D. 390; and see note to Eastern Counties Railway Company v. Hawkes, 1855, 5 H. L. C. 331.
[319] evans v. prothero. March 9, July, 1850. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cottenham. [S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 448; 15 Jur. 113; 1 De G. M. & G. 572 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 772. See Ex park Morgan, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 83 ; Ey, parte Odell, 1878,10 Ch. D. 84 ; Whiting v. Loomes, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 12. Distinguished, Ashling v. Bom [1891], 1 Ch. 568.] A receipt not having a proper stamp cannot be used as evidence of a matter collateral to the payment of the money. Thus, in a case where it was sought to prove an agreement for purchase by means of a receipt for the purchase-money, such reeeipt not being properly stamped : Held, that the evidence could not be admitted. In this case Vice-Chancellor Wigram, by a decree made on the hearing of the cause on the 9th April 1848, directed the trial of two issues : first, whether an agreement had been entered into'^by and between one Evan Richards and his brother Jenkin Richards, for the purchase of premises situate in the parish of Merthyr Tydvil in the county of Glamorgan; and, secondly, whether the purchase-money was paid in pursuance of this agreement. These issues were tried at Cardiff on the 19th July 1848, and the Plaintiff's counsel, in the course of his address to the jury, read a document which he said he should prove in evidence, which document purported to be a receipt for 21 as the consideration money mentioned in and paid by the purchaser, upon and before the execution of the said agreement. The following is a copy of the document:- "Reed, this 25th August 1827 of Mr. Jenkin Richards now and before the sum of twenty-one pounds, being the amount of the purchase of 3 tenements sold by me adjoining the river Taff: Received the contents. Witness, John Swaine-Evan Richards x ." This document was originally impressed with a sixpenny stamp, but when produced it had an additional stamp of XL Mr. Justice Wightman, under these circumstances, refused to receive the document in evidence. The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff on both issues, although Mr. Justice Wightman directed them that no evidence had been produced to prove the agreement. [320] The Defendants then applied to Vice-Chancellor Wigram, on the 6th December 1848, for a new trial, but His Honour refused the application. The Defendants appealed to the Lord Chancellor, who, on the 16th March 1849, directed a new trial of the issues, holding that no evidence of the agreement and purchase had been produced. The new trial took place at Cardiff, on the 16th and 17th August 1849, when the above-mentioned document was again tendered in evidence by the Plaintiff. Its reception was objected to by the Defendant, who contended that the document was not an agreement or conveyance of the premises in question; but Mr. Baron Platt overruled the objection. The jury gave a verdict for the Plaintiff on both issues. It did not very clearly appear whether any distinct objection was taken to the reception of the document in question on the ground that the receipt 'stamp was insufficient. The Defendant then moved before the Vice-Chancellor for a now trial; and His 124 EVANS V. PROTHERO 3 MAO. * 0. ML Honour, on the 4th December 1849, refused the application as to the first issue, but granted it as to the second. The Defendant now appealed to the Lord Chancellor. The Plaintiff also asked to discharge .the order of the Vice-Chancellor granting the new trial of the second issue; but the discussion before his Lordship was confined to the question raised by the Defendant. Mr. Walker, for the Defendant. The question here is whether a document being a receipt of purchase-money can be used in evidence for a collateral purpose. The Vice-Chancellor held that it could, considering this ease as ruled in favour of receiving the evidence by the decision of the House of Lords in Matheson v. fioss ('2 H. L. Ca. 286). [321] the solicitor-general [Sir John Romilly], and Mr. James, cmtm, relied on Matheson v. Boss (2 H. L. Ca. 286), and cited Horsfall v. Key (17 Law J. Exch. 266). They contended that, for the purpose for which the document was used, no receipt stamp at all was necessary. Mr. Walker, in reply. July. the lord chancellor [Cottenham] delivered out to the parties the following judgment previously to resigning the Great Seal. It is with the greatest reluctance that I find myself under the necessity, in this case, of directing a new trial. The property is very small, and the parties apparently very poor: but the litigation both at law and in equity must have been very expensive, and, though long protracted, has up to the present time produced no satigfactory result. The issues were, first, whether Evans had agreed to sell the property in question to Jenkins, and if he had, secondly, whether the purchase-money had been paid. At the trial a paper was produced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company v The London and North-Western Railway Company
... ... An Act authorized the Shropshire Union to lease several lines to the ... and the Shropshire Union Railway and Canal Company and two other Defendants, for the purpose ... The Plaintiffs, therefore, naturally opposed the bill; and to ... cases were cited: The East Anglian Railways Company v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (11 ... ...
-
The Directors, Company, of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, - Appellants; Henry Hawkes, - Respondent
...but to give the party the opportunity to try its validity at law. The Shrewsbury and Birmingham v. The North Western Railway Company (3 Mac. and G. 70). The next point relates to the power of promoters (which; as to this branch railway, these Appellants must be construed to be) to bind the ......
-
The Directors, etc. of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company v The Directors, etc. of the North-Western Railway Company and of the Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company
... ... [1857] The North-Western Hallway runs from London through Rugby to Birmingham, and then through ... the agreement was a legal question the Defendants might have the opportunity of taking the opinion ... dissolved the injunction, leaving the Plaintiffs at liberty to bring such action as they might be ... ...
-
Between The Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company, Plaintiffs; and the London and North-Western Railway Company, the Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company, George Carr Glyn, and William Cowan, Defendants; and between The London and North-Western Railway Company and The Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company, Plaintiffs; and The Shrewsbury and Hirmingham Railway Company, Defendants
...Union Railways and Canal Company Plaintiffs and The Shrewsbury and Hirmingham Railway Company Defendants. See S. C. (with note) 2 Mac. & G. 324; 3 Mac. & G. 70; 6 H. L. C. 113; 10 E. R, 1237; 16Beav. 441; 22 L. J. Ch. 682; 17 Jur. 845; 1 W. R. 172; 26 L. J. Ch. 482; 3 Jur. N. S. 775; 17 Q. ......