Cross v Sprigg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1850 |
| Date | 01 June 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 44
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
tau^'t rf .^-7-3 [100] heathcote v. the north staffordshire railway company. Feb. 7, 8, June, 1850. [S. C. 2 Ha. & Tw. 382; 6 Rail. Cas. 358; 14 Jur. 859. See De Mattos v. Gibson, 1859, 4 De G. & J. 298; Steele v. North Metropolitan Railway Company, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 240; In re London, Chatham & Dover Railway Arrangement Act, 1869, L. R. 5 Ch. 673, n.; Fothergill v. Rowland, 1873, L. R. 17 Eq. 141.] Although the Court will, in a proper case, exercise its jurisdiction by injunction touching proceedings in Parliament for a private bill or a bill respecting property, yet it has no power to interfere to deprive a party of the right of applying to Parliament for a special law to supersede the rules of property by which he finds himself bound, whether arising from contract or otherwise. A party agreed with a railway company to withdraw his opposition to their bill in Parliament in consideration of their completing their line of railway in a particular manner. The company subsequently found themselves unable to carry their contract into execution, and gave notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for an Act to authorise them to abandon their scheme. The Lord Chancellor dissolved an injunction, granted by the Vice-Chancellor of England at the suit of the party with whom the company had contracted, restraining the company from making this application. This was a motion of-behalf of the company to discharge an injunction granted by the Vice-Chancellor of England, on the 22d January 1850, whereby the company were restrained from presenting any petition, and from making or prosecuting any application to Parliament for obtaining an Act to authorise them to abandon or 40 HEATHCOTB V. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY CO. a MfAC. *0, 101. relinquish the Silverdale and Apedale Branch Railways or either of them, or to authorise anything whatever to be done or omitted to be done by the .company inconsistent with or repugnant to the covenant on the part of the company contained in the indenture of the 10th October 1846 in the pleadings mentioned, and from giving any notice or taking any proceedings required by the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament to warrant the introduction into or the progress through Parliament of any such Act. [101J The original bill in this case was filed on the 2d July 1849 by Richard Edensor Heathcote against the Defendants, the North Staffordshire Railway Company, and was amended on the 6th December 1849. The bill as amended stated that, by an Act passed in the 9 & 10 Viet., the North Staffordshire Railway Company were authorised to construct a branch railway from or out of their main line at or near Stoke-upon-Trenfc in the county of Stafford, to Newcastle-under-Lyne and Silverdale in the same county, called the Silverdale Branch Railway, and for that purpose to take and use, among other lands, part of a certain canal called the Gresley Canal, belonging to the Plaintiff; that the Plaintiff was an opponent to the Act in Parliament, but withdrew his opposition in consideration of an agreement entered into between him and the company; that this agreement was afterwards embodied in an indenture, bearing date the 10th October 1846, and made and duly executed between and by the company of the one part, and the Plaintiff of the other part, whereby the Plaintiff covenanted to assist the company in obtaining an Act of Parliament authorising the formation of a branch railway from the Silver-dale Branch Railway to certain furnaces at Apedale in the county of Stafford, belonging to the Plaintiff, called the Apedale Branch Railway, and in the event (which happened) of the company not deeming it advisable to make use of the bed of the Gresley Canal as the site of the Apedale Branch Railway, within one week from the opening to the public of the Apedale Branch Railway, to convey and assure to the company so much of the canal as was therein specified, the company covenanting to apply at the then next Session of Parliament, and to use their utmost efforts to obtain an Act empowering and requiring the [102] company to construct the Apedale Branch Railway, and with all practicable expedition after such Act should be obtained to complete and open for use the Apedale Branch Railway; that, in pursuance of the provisions of such indenture, the company did in the then next Session of Parliament apply for and obtain such Act, whieh authorised and required the company to construct the Apedale Branch Railway by a line diverging out of the Silverdale Branch Railway at a considerable distance from the Gresley Canal, and running throughout at a greater distance therefrom than the limits of deviation allowed to the company by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ; that the Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform the covenants on his part contained in the indenture, but that the company had not taken any steps towards making the Apedale Branch Railway, nor, until then quite lately, the Silverdale Branch Railway : that in fact neither of the said branch railways had then been begun, and that the company had determined, or had in contemplation, not to make the Apedale Branch Railway at all, and to make only a portion of the Silverdale Branch Railway; that not only the construction of the Apedale Branch Railway, but also the extension of the Silverdale Branch Railway to the furthest point authorised by the before-mentioned Acts or either of them, was most important to the interests of the Plaintiff; that it was at the date of the indenture fully understood and agreed between the Plaintiff and the company that the Silverdale Branch Railway should be constructed, and that the construction thereof, as well as of the Apedale Branch Railway, formed part of the consideration which induced the Plaintiff to execute the same, and to withdraw his opposition to the Act authorising the construction of the company's main line. [103] The bill prayed in effect a declaration that no part of the hereditaments and premises of the Plaintiff comprised in the indenture of the 10th October 1846 was, after the execution of that indenture subject to be taken or purchased by the company under the compulsory powers contained in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and that all powers of the .company under that Act for the compulsory purchase of lands and hereditaments required for the Silverdale Branch expired on the 26th June 1849, and thereupon ceased and were not exerciseable, and that certain proceedings 1 MAC. ft0. Mt HEATHCOTE V. NOBTH STAFFORDSHIRE EAILWAY CO. 41 therein mentioned taken by the company under the 85th section of the Landa Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, were or had become irregular and of no effect; and that the company might be decreed specifically to perform the agreement on their part contained in the indenture, and with all practicable expedition to complete and open for use tha Apedale Branch Railway and also the Silverdale Branch Railway, to the full extent, authorised by the before-stated Acta or either of them, the Plaintiff being ready and willing to perform the agreements contained in the indenture on his part, and to convey and assure according to the provisions of such indenture to the company, theic successors and assigns, at their expense, so much of the canal with its appurtenances thereto belonging as was comprised in such indenture, and to treat with the eonpany for any other property of the Plaintiff which might be required: by the company for the bond fide, purpose of constructing the Apedale Branch Railway or the Silverdale Branch Railway to the full extent aforesaid ; and that the company might in the meantime be restrained from issuing any warrant to the Sheriff of the county of Stafford, requiring him to summon a jury for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the Plaintiff for the pur-[104]-chase of the hereditaments and premises comprised in the notice therein mentioned of the company, and from exercising any other power, or doing any act for the purpose of compulsorily taking possession of the hereditaments and premises, or purchasing or acquiring any interest in the same, and from entering upon or continuing in possession of such hereditaments and premises or any part thereof, and from digging or excavating or doing or executing any railway or other work in or upon such lands and hereditaments or any part thereof, and from obstructing or in any way interfering with the navigation of such canal or the free use and enjoyment thereof by the Plaintiff; and that the company might be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the costs of the suit. A supplemental bill was filed on the 19th December 1849, which, after setting out the original bill, stated, among other things, that, since the filing of the original bill, the company determined, and they intended to apply to Parliament at the next ensuing session for an Act to authorise the company to abandon the formation of the Silrer-dale and Apedale Branch Railways, and advertised such intention in the public newspapers, and served divers landowners, whose property was authorised by such Acts or one of them to be taken for the purposes of such branch railways or one of them, with a notice signed by the solicitors to the company, and expressed in the words and figures or to the purport and effect following :- "No. L36. North Staffordshire Railway (Abandonment of Branches to Neweastle-under-Lyne, Silverdale, and the Apedale Ironworks Amendment Acts), 47 Parliament Street, London, 30th November 1849.-Sir,-We beg to inform you that application is intended to be [105] made to Parliament in the ensuing session for an Act under the above name or title to authorise the North Staffordshire Railway Company to relinquish the formation of the following branch railways, namely: first, the branch railway authorised by 'The North Staffordshire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Money v Jorden
...Cl. & Fin. 45); Neville v. Wilkinson (1 B. C. C. 543); Hobbs v. Norton (1 Vern. 136); Pearson v. Morgan (2 B. C. C. 388); Cross v. Spiigg (6 Hare, 552); Flower v. Marten (2 Myl. & Cr. 459); Weke.it v. Raby (2 Bro. P. C. 386); Kirk v. Clark (Prec. in Ch. 275); Maun-sM v. White (1 Jo. & Lat. ......
-
Money v Jordan
...475), Neville v. Wilkinson (I Bro. C. C. 543), Hammersley v. De Bid (12 Cl. & Fin. 45), Hobbs v. Norton (1 Vern. 136), Cross v. Sprigg (6 Hare, 552), Wekett v. P,aby (2 Bro. P. C. 386, Toml. ed.), Kirk v. Clark (Prec.-Ch. 276), Scott v. Scott (1 Cox, 366) Pearson v. Morgan (2 Bro. C. C. 388......
-
Grahame v Grahame
...53. Polak v. EverettELR 1 Q. B. D. 669. Dowden v. LevisUNK 14 L. R. Ir. 313. Holme v. BrunskillELR 3 Q. B. D. 495. Cross v. SpriggENR 2 Mac. & G. 113. Kearslake v. MorganENR 2 T. R. 513. Stedman v. GoochENR 1 Esp. 3. Belshaw v. BushENR 11 C. B. 191, 201. Mockett v. AmesUNK 23 L. T. (N. S.) ......
-
Hedges v Aldworth
...v. HillUNK 1 Dru. & War. 94; S. C. 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 27. Reeves v. Brymer 6 Ves. 516. Tuffnell v. ConstableENR 8 Sim. 69. Cross v. SpriggENR 6 Hare, 552. Wilmot v. WoodhouseENR 4 Bro. C. C. 227. Wekett v. RabyENR 2 Bro. P. C. 386, Toml. ed. Eden v. Smyth 5 Ves. 341. Gilbert v. WetherellENR 2 S......
-
Work–life balance indicators and talent management approach: a qualitative investigation of Indian luxury hotels
...balance: evidences fromorganisations in India”,International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 33-42.ER44,61254 Bharathi, S.V. and Mala, E.P. (2016), “A study on the determinants of work–life balance of womenemployees in information technology companies i......