Dalglish v Jarvie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1850 |
| Date | 25 June 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 89
BEFORE THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS LORD LANGDALE AND MR. BARON ROLFE.
S. C. 2 Ha. & Tw. 437; 20 L. J. Ch. 475; 19 Jur. 945. On the point of ex parte injunction, see London Assurance v. Mansel, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 368.
8 MAC. ftQ.. THE ATTOBNEY-GENERAL V. ANDREWS 87 [226] the attorney-general v. andrews. June 24, 1850. Before the Lords Commissioners Lord Langdale and Mr. Baron Rolfe. [S. C. 2 Ha. & Tw. 431; 20 L. J. Ch. 467; 14 Jur. 905. See Attorney-General v. Mayor, dec., of Wigan, 1854, Kay, 276. Followed, Attorney-General v. West Hartlepool Improvement Commissioners, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 156. See Cleverton v. St. Germain's Union, 1886, 56 L. J. Q. B. 85.] Commissioners under a local Act of Parliament, the object of which was to supply the town of S. with water, were empowered to raise funds by assessment, to be applied in certain specified ways, having immediate reference to the purposes of the Act, and in otherwise carrying the Act into execution. Held that, although the commissioners might have properly applied the funds raised in resisting a proceeding in Parliament prejudicial to the object of the Act, yet they were not justified in applying them to defray the expense of obtaining another Act of Parliament giving more extensive powers for carrying out the object of the existing Act. This was an application on behalf of the Defendant to discharge a special injunction granted by the Vice-Chancellor of England, on the 24th January 1850, whereby His Honour restrained the Commissioners of the Southampton Waterworks from paying any monies, being part of or arising from the rates levied or to be levied under the provisions of a local Act of Parliament, in or towards the expenses incurred, or to be incurred, in or about the preparing, promoting, or prosecuting an intended Bill or Act of Parliament. The information, which was filed at the relation of William James Le Feuvre, a town councillor and ex officio commissioner, against Richard Andrews, one of the commissioners (the Act constituting the commissioners authorised them to sue or be sued in the name of one of their body), stated that, by the following, among other provisions of the Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96 (local and personal), it was enacted;-that it should be lawful for the commissioners of the waterworks thereby authorised to continue and maintain the then present conduits, reservoirs, and other waterworks belonging to the town of Southampton, and to improve and extend the same, and particularly to enlarge the then present reservoirs in the Common near Southampton, and to build, erect, construct, and maintain such other re-[226]-servoirs or waterworks on the said Common as might be necessary or convenient, and as the commissioners should think proper for furnishing an additional supply of water, and from time to time to alter, repair, or discontinue the same works or any of them, and to substitute others in their stead, and generally to do and execute all other matters and things necessary or convenient for constructing, continuing, maintaining, altering, repairing, or using the works, and also to collect and raise water by boring in and under the said Common^ or by such other ways and means as they might from time to time think proper, and to take and use any springs or streams of water which might be found in constructing the said works, they, the said commissioners, doing as little damage as might loo, and making compensation for any injury that might be sustained by any persons or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mayer Investments Pte Ltd and Others; Tunas (Pte) Ltd
- Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock
-
VRL Services Ltd v Sans Souci Ltd
...the Kensington Income Tax Comrs case [1917] 1 KB 486 at 504 per Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, citing Dalglish v Jarvie (1850) 2 Mac & G 231 at 238, 42 ER 89 at 92, and Thermax Ltd v Schott Industrial Glass Ltd [1981] FSR 289 at 295 per Browne-Wilkinson J". (emphasis supplied) 10 The challenge of th......
-
R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., 2000 SCC 65
...97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 38]. Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850), 2 Mac. & G. 231; 42 E.R. 89, refd to. [para. 46]. R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [1917] 1 K.B. 486 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46]. R. v. Church of Scientology of To......
-
Table of Cases
...81 D.L.R. (4th) 121, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5, 50 Admin. L.R. 44 .............................. 265 Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850), 2 Mac. & G. 231, 42 E.R. 89 ....................................207, 312 Descôteaux v. Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860, 141 D.L.R. (3d) 590 ....178, 180, 181 Dow Chemical......