Chamberlain against The West End of London and Crystal Palace Railway Company. [in the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH, and THE COURT of EXCHEQUER CHAMBER]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1862 |
| Date | 02 May 1862 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 1197
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
chamberlain against the west end of london and crystal palace railway company. Friday, May 2d, 1862.- Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 184S, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, and Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 20, a. 6. Lands "injuriously affected." Compensation. - Declaration stated that the defendants, a railway Company, under the powers of their Act, took for the pur-posea of their railway a portion of a highway from L. to W., and constructed the railway across it, and a deviation road and bridge over the railway, and by the execution of the railway and works houses of the plaintiff were injuriously affected ; and set out proceedings in an arbitration under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, by which the umpire appointed by the arbitrators awarded compensation. to the plaintiff. Plea, setting out the form of the appointment of the arbitrator on the part of the defendants, and the award, which recited the notice 1198 CHAMBERLAIN '.THE WEST END OF LONDON 2 B. & S. 8M. of the plaintiff to the defendants that, by the execution of the railway and works, they had injuriously affected certain houses of which the plaintiff was lessee, befog four houses on the highway, and eight other houses which, at the time of the execution of the works, were in the course of erection for the purpose of being used as dwelling houses, fronting a new road running at right angles to the highway, and found, that by reason of the obstruction of the highway, by the construction of the railway across the same, the access to the houses of the plain tiff was, notwithstanding the substitution of the deviation road, rendered less convenient for the occupiers, and many persons would be prevented from passing the same, and the houses had thereby been rendered less suitable for being used and occupied as shops, and the value of the houses had been greatly diminished. On demurrer, held by this Court, and affirmed by the Exchequer Chamber, that the houses of the plaintiff were injuriously affected within the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, and The Eailways Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Viet. e. 20, s. 6, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. [Affirmed in Exchequer Chamber, 2 B. & S. 617; 32 L. J. Q. B. 173; 8 L. T. 149 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1051 ; 11 W. R. 472. Followed, Senior v. Metropolitan Eailway, 1863, 2 H. & C. 267. Referred to, In re Stockport Timperley v. Allrincham Railway, 1864, 33 L. J. Q. B. 253. Distinguished, Bidcelt v. Metropolitan Railway, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 191. Referred to, Eagle v. Charing Cross Railway, 1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 93. Approved, Metropolitan Board of Works v. McCarthy, 1874, L. R. 7 H. L. 243. Referred to, Lyon v. Fishmongers Company, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 684. Approved, Caledonian Eailway v. Walker's Tnistees, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 260.] [806] The declaration stated that the defendants, under and by virtue of the provisions of "The West London and Crystal Palace Railway Act, 1853," 16 & 17 Viet. e. elxxx., and " The West London and Crystal Palace Railway Act, 1857," 20 & 21 Viet. c. cxliii., and the Acts incorporated with those Acts respectively, were authorized to take and did take, for the purposes of a railway about to be constructed by them, a piece of land forming portion of a highway leading from London to Wandsworth, in the county of Surrey, and were authorized to construct and did construct the railway across the highway upon such portion of the same, and were authorized to construct and did construct a deviation road and bridge over the railway; that, by the execution of the railway and'works authorized by the above mentioned Acts of Parliament, certain houses, buildings, tenements and premises belonging to the plaintiff were injuriously affected, and the plaintiff thereupon became entitled to compensation in respect of such injurious affecting; that the defendants did not make satisfaction for the same under the provisions of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 184C; and the plaintiff thereupon gave notice in writing to the defendants that he desired to have the compensation settled by arbitration, and stated in such notice the nature of his interest in the houses, buildings, tenements and hereditaments, in respect of which he claimed compensation, and the amount of compensation so claimed therein; that the defendants were not willing, and disputed their liability, to pay the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial