Bright v North
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1847 |
| Date | 13 February 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 924
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Wigan, 1854, Kay, 276. Considered, Attorney-General v. Mayor of Brecon, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 204. See R. v. White, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 312.
[216] bright-y. north. Jan. 30, Feb. 13, 1847. [See AUwney-Geneml v. Mayor, &c., of Wigan, 1854, Kay, 276. Considered, Attorneij-General v. Mayor of Brecon, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 204. See R. v. J-Phite, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 312.] Under an Act of Parliament, by which the conservators of river banks were empowered to apply the funds under their controul (which were raised by a rate upon the proprietors of adjacent lands), "in doing, constructing, and executing all such works, acts, matters, and things as they should from time to time deem necessary, proper or expedient for putting the banks into and maintaining the same in a permanent state of stability." Held, that they were authorized to apply a portion of the fund in watching, and, if necessary, opposing, a bill in Parliament for a project lower down the river, which was likely to be injurious to the banks under their superintendence. This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, overruling a general demurrer to the bill for want of equity. By an Act of Parliament, passed in the first year of the present reign, to provide for the better conservation of the banks of the river Ouse, in the county of Norfolk, the lands adjacent to the banks at each side were divided jnto six districts, and it was provided that the portion of the banks comprised within each district should be main- 2 PH. 217. BRIGHT V. ]STOHTH 925 tained by commissioners to be appointed from among the owners of lands of a certain quantity within such district, by means of funds to be levied by a district rate, not exceeding 3s. an acre in each year: and the fund so raised was to be applied "in making, doing, constructing, and executing, all such works, acts, matters, and things, as by such commissioners should from time to time be deemed necessary, proper, or expedient for putting so much ef the bank as was situate within their respective districts into and for maintaining the same in a permanent state of stability ;" and it was expressly provided that the commissioners of any one of the districts, or the owners of land within such district, should iiot be liable to maintain or repair, or to contribute to the maintenance or repair, of any part of the banks out of such district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower v Griffith, and Thers
...v. The Corporation of Belfast4 Ir. Ch. R. 119. Regina v. The Town Council of Dublin7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 317. Bright v. NorthENR2 Phillips, 216. Eastern Counties Railway Company v. HawkesENR5 H. L. C. 331. Bogg v. PearceENR10 C. B. 534. The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash10 B. & Cr. 349. B......
-
Simpson v Denison
...Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Company (2 Ph. 597), Ware v. Grand Junction Waterworks Company (2 Russ. & My. 470), Bright v. North (2 Ph. 216), Stevens v. The South Devon Railway Company (13 Beav. 48), Cohen v. Wilkinson (12 Beav. 125). There is no contest on the fact that the propo......
-
Munt, on behalf, Company v The Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Company
...beneficial. The right to apply to Parliament is therefore incident to their powers and to the duties imposed on them. Bright v. North (2 Phillips, 216), in which case the conservators of river banks were held authorised in employing the funds in watching, and, if necessary, opposing a bill ......
-
School Boards of Dunlop and Stewarton v Patrons of Cunninghame Graham Bursaries Endowment Fund
...4 S. 276, at 278. 2 Elgin County Road Trustees v. InnesSC, Nov. 10, 1886, 14 R. 48, at 51; Brighton v. NorthENR, 1847, 16 L. J. (Ch.) 255, 2 Ph. 216; Perth Water Commissioners v. M'DonaldSC, June 17, 1879, 6 R. 1050, at 3 45 and 46 Vict. cap. 59. 4 Ramsay v. United Colleges of St AndrewsUNK......