Burkinshaw v The Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1850 |
| Date | 05 June 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 208
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 6 Railw Cas 600, 20 L J Ex 246 Referred to, Haynes v Haynes, 1861, 1 Dr & Sim 426, Spencer v Metropolitan Board of Works, 1882, 22 Ch D 142, Church v London School Board, 1892, 8 T L R 310.
bubkinshaw v the birmingham and oxford junction railway company June 5, 1850-The woids "lands which shall have been talccn for or injuriously affected by the execution of the works," in the 6cSth section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 Viet o 18, include such lands only as are actually taken 01 actually affected by the works -A , the piopuetor of cettain houses, which weie liable to be taken for making a Railway, under the proviiiorrs of the local Act of the promoteis of the undertaking, received a notice under the 18th section of the 8 Vrct c 18, from the promoters, that the property would be required by thorn for the Railway, and the notice demanded the particulars of A 's interest theiem, and stated their willingness to purchase it A duly fuirushed these particulars, and a sum of 45001 was set upon the property by him, which amount he claimed fiom the promoteis as a compensation foi taking the property, and he required payment thereof, or that a warrant should be issued by the Company, to summon a jury to assess the piopet amount, under the provisions of the Act The Company took no further step in the matter -Held, that, under these circumstances, A could riofc maintain an action to recover from them the 45001 [S C 6 Railw Gas 600, 20 L J Ex: 24G Referred to, Hai/nt-, v Hayne\ 1861, ( Dr Sc Sm 4J6, b'pmm v Metmpohtun Uaaid of ]cnl\ 1882, 22 Ch D 142, Chmch v London School Boaiil, 1893, 8 T L R 310.] Debt The declaration stated, that, before the commencement of this suit, and before the giving of the notice next heieinaftor mentioned, to wit, on i^c , to wit, under and by virtue of the provisions of a certain Act of Parliament, (9 & 10 Viet, Aug J) uititled "An Act for making [476] a Railway fiom Biirmngham to join the Lines of the proposed Oxford and Rugby, and Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverharnpton Railways, and to he called ' The Birmingham arid Oxford Junction Railway ,"' and of a certain othei Act of Parliament, (9 & 10 Viet, Aug J) uititled "An Act for making a Railway into Birmingham, in extension of the pioposed Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway," the defendants weie incorporated, and were thereby authorised and empowered to make and maintain a Railway theiem described and specified, and to execute the works necessary for the same, and to take such of the lands therein mentioned as should be necessaiy for the purposes of the said Acts and the works thereby authorrsed , and that, before the commencement of this sutt, and before and at the time of the giving of the said notice, the plaintiff was seised of 1 ;am lands, that is to say, certain messuages, iLc , m Birmingham, and descnbed in the books of reference deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county of \Varwick, bei ig the plans and books mentioned and referred to in the secondly above-mentioned AcfJ, aud the said lands being lands which the said Company weie authorised and empowered, by vrrtue of the Acts of Parliament, to take foi the purposes of makrng and maintaining the said Railway, that is to say, the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway And that the plaintiff being so seised as aforesaid, the defendants, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, required to take the sard lands ot the plaintiff, for the 5 EX 477 BURKINSHAW V THE BIRMINGHAM, ETC, ItLY OO 209 purpose of making and maintaining the said Kj.ilw.iy And that the defendants thereupon, after the passing of the said Acts, to wit, on the 9th of January, 1847, caused a certain notice in writing to be served upon the plamtrft, whereby notice was given by the defendants to the plamtitf, that the said Kailway would pass thiough the said lands of the plaintitt, and th.it the defendants required to purchase and take the same, for the purposes of the said .Railway, and that the defendants weie willing to treat for the purchase thereof, [477J and of all estates and interest therein, and as tu the compensation to be made to all parties for the damage that might be sustained by reason of the execution of the works of the "aid railway Arid that the defendants, bf their sard notice, demanded from the plaintitt the paiticulais of his estate and interest in the said lands, and of the claims made by him in respect thereof , and that the said notice did state the paiticulais of the said lands so required , and th.it the defendants did, to wit, at the said time of serving the said notice, take the said lands of the plaintiff, foi the execution of the works of the said Railway , and the plaintitt thereby, then being so seised as aforesaid, became and was entrtled to a Luge sum, exceeding 501, to wit, the sum of 45001, as compensation from the defendants in respect of the said lands and of his interest therein, and that the plaintitt and the defendants did not, within twenty-one days after the servrce of the said notice by the said defendants, 01 at any time, agiee as to the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendants for the said inteiest of the plaintitt in the said lands, 01 for any damage that might lie sustained by him by reason of the execution of the works, or as to the amount of any other compensation , and that afterwards, to wit, on the 17th of July, 1849, to wit, after the expiration of the said space of twenty-one days, the plaintitt being so entitled to such compensation, and the compensation to which he was so entitled exceeding the sum of 501, and the defendants not having m icle, and no one having made satisfaction of or for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº ACQ 320 2010. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 30-08-2012
...2 EGLR 15 Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corpn (No 2) [1976] Ch13 Burkinshaw v Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Co (1850) 5 Exch Rep 475 Attorney-General v Manchester Corpn [1931] Ch 254 DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES Introduction The claimant in this reference is the owner of......
-
117 ER 1503
...Railway Company (16 Q. B. 539, 544), the Court took the same view. And in Burkinshaw v. Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Company (5 Exch. 475), it was held that the word " taken," in sect. 68, when used with reference to the occupation of land by the company under sects, 85, 86, must ......
-
Haynes v Haynes
...therefore, they cannot afterwards depart from it." In the next case of BurTangshaw v. The Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Compmy (5 Exch. 475) the company gave the Plaintiff notice; and the Plaintiff thereupon sent in a claim for 4500, and required the company to summon a jury. The-c......
-
The Marquis of Salisbury against The Great Northern Railway Company
...Railway Company (16 Q. B. 539, 544), the Court took the same view. And in Burkinshaw v. Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Company (5 Exch. 475), it was held that the word " taken," in sect. 68, when used with reference to the occupation of land by the company under sects, 85, 86, must ......