Bland v Crowley and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1851 |
| Date | 12 May 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 650
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 6 Railw Cas 756, 20 L J Ex 218
[922] bland u chowley and anothek May 12, 1851-By an agieement under seal between A B of the one part, and C 1) and E F (two of the provisional directors of a certain Company and piomoteis of a bill in Paihament foi making a ceitam Hallway,) of the other, aftei reciting .that it was pioposed to cany the line close to A B's paik and through his land, fiom which bill A B had as hitherto dissented, A B covenanted, in consideiation of the covenants thetein contained, that he would accede to the bill, and in consideiation of the assent given by A B to the bill, C D and E V covenanted with him, that, in the event o the bill being passed, the Company should pay him lot so much ot the laud as should be intersected by the Kailway at the rate of I'JOl per acre , and, secondly, that they should pay him .10001 in full compensation tot the general damage which the line of Kailway should 01 might do to the mansion, paik, and estate, including therein the ciossing of the road neai the entrance of the paik, the lowering of the road, the obsttuction of views, & j, the expense ot temporaly residence during the progress of the works, the depieciation in value as a residence, the additional expense in the cultivation of the farms by the alteiation of the road, and all othei damage to be done to the mansion and paik Then followed a covenant by A B for conveyance of the land on tender to him of I'JOl pel1 acre, and 30001 -Held, pei Paike, B, and Platt, B, that, upon the passing of the Act, C D and E F were bound by then co\enaut to pay A B J0001 , although the Kailway had not been cousti ucted, noi had any actual damage been 8 EX 823 BLAND 1 CROWLEY G5 1 dotie to the land , pet Pollock, C B , contra, that the taking of the land, 01 damage done thereto, was a condition ptecedent to such payment [S C 6 Railw Gas 756, 20 L J Ex 218] Covenant The declaration alleged, that the defendants and John Lawrie, since dead, on the 25th of July, 1845, being three of the piovisional directors of a Company registeied piovisionally, who were promoters of a bill then in Parliament to enable them to make a railway, and which said Company, when incoipouted, was intended to be called "The Dnect London and Portsmouth Railway Company," by articles of agreement, between the plaintiff of the first pait, and the defendants and the said John Lawrie of the second pait, and sealed with the seals of the defendants and the sard John Lawne, (profeit) after reciting that, according to the parliamentary plans deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county of Suirey, the line of the said railway was proposed to be earned close to the park of the plaintiff in the paush of Leatherhead, called Randalls Park, and through some of his land in that parish, and that the plaintiff had, until that time, dissented from and opposed the carrying of the said bill into a law , but in consideration of the covenants arid agreements thereinafter contained on the pait of the parties thereto of the second part, the plaintiff had consented to assent theieto it w.is witnessed, that, in pursuance of the sard agreement and irr consideration of the covenants and agreements of the paitias thereto of the second pait, the plamtitl did thereby covenant with the parties of the se-[523]-cond part, that he should accede to the bill, provided the same should pass into a law in the then present 01 then ensuing session of Parliament, and, in consideration of the assent given to the said bill by the plaintift, the defendants did thereby covenant with the plaintiff, that in the event of the said bill passing into a law in the piesent 01 ensuing session of Paihamerit, the said Company so to be incorporated thereby should and would fulfil the following stipulations, conditions and agreements Fust, that the Company should pay to the plaintiff, for such of his sard land intersected by the said line of Railway, as might be required for the purposes thereof, 01 as might be severed from the remainder of the helds, as shewn rn the patliamentaiy plans, at and after the rate of 1201 per acre, such sum to include all damage to arise from severance becond, that the said Company should pay to the plaintiff the sum of 30001, in full compensation for the general damage which the said line of Railway should ot might do to the said mansion, park, and estate, called Randalls, including thetem the ciossing of the road neai the entrance of the park by a bridge, the lowering of the said road, the obstruction of views, disturbance of the privacy and seclusion of the said park and mansion, the expense of temporary residence clurrug the progress of the woiks of the said Company, the depreciation in value as a residence, the additional expense in the cultivation of the farms by reason of the alteration in the toad leading to Leatherhead and other towns rn the neighbourhood, and of all other damage to be done to the said mansion and park; and the plaintift did thereby declaie and agree to and with the patties of the second part, that, on tender to him by the said Company of the sum of 1201 per acre, and so in propertrou for any less quantity than an acre, of so much of the said laud required by the Company for the put poses of the Radway, and alao on tender to him by the said Company of the said sum of 30001 and a sum of [524] 3001, he would convey to the Company the said lands The declaration then proceeded to state, that the plaintiff, in pursuance of the said articles of agreement, assented to the said bill passing into a law , and that the said bill passed into a law in the session of Pailia-raent next ensuing the making of the said articles of agreement, and the said Company became thereby incorporated by the name of "The Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Company" Then, as regarded the 30001, the declaration assigned as a breach, that, although a reasonable time for the payment of that sum had elapsed befoie the commencement of the suit and since the passing of the said bill into a law, and the satd Company and the defendants at a reasonable time before the commence-rnenfc of the suit had been lequested to pay him the same, yet neither the said Company nor the defendants nor the said John Lawne, nor any not either of them, had paid the same To this declaration the defendants pleaded, that the said Company did not enter upon the said lands of the plaintiff (o) (a) This was the fourth plea 6$2 BLAND l OHOWLEV EX 525 They also pleaded in like manner to the whole declaration, th.it the quantity of the sard land of the plaintiff intersected by the hue of the Railway was not noi was, any part theieof required by the said Company foi the pin poses of the said Railway, and that neithet was it or any pait thereof severed from the remainder of the fields as shewn in the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...1 Bing. N. C. 370. Wilbraham v. LiveseyENR 18 Beav. 206. Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426. Darlington v. HamiltonENR Kay, 550. Bland v. CrowleyENR 6 Ex. 522. Kelner v. BaxterELR L. R. 2 C. P. 174. Noble v. WardELRELR L. R. 1 Ex. 117; 2 L. R. 2 Ex. 135. Dykes v. BlakeENR 4 Bing. N. C. 463, 477. Gov......
-
Cooper Preston, - Appellant; The Company of Proprietors of the Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Junction Railway, - Respondents
...by the company. The latter opinion cannot be sustained. On, the passing of the Act the right to recover arises, Bland, v. Crowley (6 Exch. 522). If the railway had been made, and it could have been shown that no residential injury was * The Bill as originally filed set forth the introductor......
-
Sir Thomas Rokewood Gage, Bart., against The Newmarket Railway Company
...land, therefore, must be entered upon by the company before such compensation is payable. The reasoning of Parke B., in Bland v. Crowley (6 Exch. 522, 530), shews that neither of the breaches in this declaration can be sustained. The learned Judge says : " If no land should be required, the......
-
The Sough Yorkshire Railway and Rive Dun Company of The Great Northern Railway Company
...and that by implication they are prohibited from expending their funds for other purposes. [Parke, B. There was a case of Bland v. Growley (6 Exch 522), in which the directors of a Railway Company provisionally registered agreed with a private individual to purchase land of him ] The presen......
-
Pauline chronology and the problem of evidence: a legal perspective
...that he who avers, he 27. See, eg, per Lord Hardwicke in Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Ark 21, 49. 28. See, eg, per Parke B in Bland v Crowley 6 Exch 522, 529; per Bramwell B in Fowell v Tranter 3 H & C 458, 461; Attorney General v Lockwood (1842) 9M. & W. 378, 398 per Alderson B; Sweet v Pars......