DIMES against THE PROPRIETORS OF THE GRAND JUNCTIONCANAL. JUDGMENTOFTHEHOUSE,OFLORDS,ONAPPEALFROMTHECOURTOFCHANCERY.PRESENT:LORDST.LEONARDS,L.C.,LORDBROUGHAMANDLORDCAMPBELL,L.C.J.,JUNE23RD,24TH,26TH,29TH,1852. (Reportedin3H.L.759,17Jur.73.) Inasuitbyanincorporatedcompany,ordersweremadebyaVice-Chancellorinfavourofthecompanyandwereaffirmedonare-hearingbytheLordChancellor,whosignedtheVice-Chancellor”sorderforthepurposeoftheenrolmentwhichwasnecessaryforafurtherappealtotheHouseofLords.Itwasafterwardsdiscoveredthatatthetimeofthere-hearingtheLordChancellorheldsharesinthecompany. HeldbytheHouseofLords(inaccordancewiththeadviceoftheJudges)Judge DisqualificationbyInterest. ThattheproceedingsbeforetheLordChancellormustbeavoidedonappealonobjectiontakeninrespectofhisinterest.(1) Thathissignatureforthepurposeofenrolmentwasnotvoidable,beingmatterofnecessity.ThatthedisqualificationoftheLordChancellordidnotaffecttheVice-Chancellor,because hewasnotthemeredeputyoftheLordChancellor,butexercisedindependentthough subordinatejurisdiction. (1)SeeLondonandNorthWesternBy.Co.v.Lindsay,3Macq.99,astowhetherthisprincipleappliestotheHouseofLordswherethejudgmentisthejudgmentoftheHouse.Othercasesarecollectedbelow,p.109n. INTEEHOUSEOFLORDS. June23rd,24th,26th,29th,1852. ThiswasanappealtotheHouseofLordsfromadecreeandvariousordersoftheCourtofChancery.OneofthegroundsofappealwasthatLordCotterkham,whowasLordChancelloratthetimethedecreeandordersweremade,wasinterestedinthesubjectmatterofthesuit,asholdingsharesintherespondentcompanypartlyforhimselfandpartlyintrustforothers. Thecase,whichisonlyreportedhereonthispoint,aroseunderthefollowingcircumstances:- Therespondents,theGrandJunctionCanalCompany,whowereincorporatedby33Geo.3.c.80.,purchasedfromJosephSkidmorecertaincopyholdlands,holdenofthemanorofRickmansworth,whichwereconveyedtothembyadeedinthestatutoryformconveyingtothem"allestate,right,title,andinterestofthepersonconveying,"andcontaininganundertakingtoindemnifythemagainstallquit-rents,beriots,customs,andservicestobeclaimedbythelordinrespectofthelandsopurchased.Skidmorediedintestate,leavingThomasEmmettSkidmore,a,minor,hiscustomaryheir.Dimes,,heappellant,wasthelordofthemanor.ProclamationsweremadeintheManorCourtforthepersonentitledtocomeinandbeadmittedinrespectofthelandspurchasedbythecompanyandthenformingpartofthecanal,butnooneappeared.TheappellantDimesthenissuedawarranttothebailifftoseizethelands,andafterwardsrecoveredpossessioninejectment,onthegroundthatthecompanyhadacquiredanequitableestateonlyinthelandascopyhold. Theappellantthenproceededtoobstructthenavigationofthecanal,rindthreatenedtostopthenavigationaltogether,unlessthecompanypaidhim5,0001.Thecompanythereupon,onJune18th,1838,filedtheiroriginalbillinthesuitagainsttheappellantandSkidmoreseekingadmissiontothispartoftheircanalandtowingpathascopyhold,andprayinganinjunctionagainsttheappellant”sinterferencewiththenavigation.Onthesameday,Vice-ChancellorShadweitgrantedtheinjunctionexparte,andonJuly26th,1838,afterfullargument,continuedtheinjunctionuntilfurtherorder,onthetermsoftherespondentspayingintoCourt1,0501.asasecurityforthefinetobecomedueontheadmit.tanceofSkidmore.Thissumwasaccordinglypaid. 87]DimesagainetProprietorsoftheGrandJunctionCanal,1852.[88 TheappellanthavingmovedbeforethethenLord.Chancellor,LordCottenham,todischargetheorderofJuly26th,hisLordshiponDee.15th,1838,variedthatorderbydirectingthatthe1,0501.shouldbesecurityforthefineontheadmittanceofanycopyholdtenanttheCourtmightthinkoughttobeadmitted,andtherespondentsundertookthatthefineshouldbeaccordingtothepresentvalueoftheproperty.TheinjunctionissuedonJuly6th,1839. Theappellantafterwardsbroughtanactionatlawformesueprofitsagainstthecompany.Thesuit,whichhadbeenorderedbytheVice-Chancellorfromtimetotimetostandover,thattheresultoftheactionatlawmightboknown,wasatlengthbroughttoahearingbeforetheVice-Chancellor(Shadwell),whoouNovember16th,1846(LordCottenhambeingthenLordChancellor),madeadecreebywhichitwasdeclaredthattherespondentSkidmoreoughttobeadmittedtenanttothecopyholdpremisesasatrusteefortherespondents,theCanalCompany.andtheinjunctionissuedpursuanttotheorderdatedJune18th,1838,andcontinuedbyordersdatedJuly26th,1838,andDecember15th,1838,wasmadeperpetual.(a) Theappellantthenpresentedapetitionofrehearing.ThecausewassetdownforrehearingbeforeLordChancellorCotten-ham,whoonJanuary27th,1848,afterargumentandtimetakentoconsider,deliveredjudgmentaffirmingthedecreeoftheVice-Chancellor.(b) OnFebruary24th,1849,theappellantgavenoticeofmotiontodischargetheLordChancellor”sorderofJanuary27th,1848,onthegroundthathehaddiscoveredthattheLordChancellor,LordCottenham,was,andformorethantenyearshadbeen,aholder,partlyinhisownrightandpartlyastrusteeforotherpersons,ofninety-twosharesintheGrandJunctionCanalCompany;andforleavetoamendIdspetition,andforsuchamendedpetitiontoberestoredtotheLordChancellor”spaperofrehearingsandappeals,andthatproperdirectionsmightbegivenbytheCourtofChancerybyissuingacommissionorotherwiseasmightbenecessary,forthehearinganddeterminationofhispetitionbeforetheMasteroftheRolls,LordLangdale,assistedbytwoJudgesoftheCourtsofCommonLaw. Thismotion,byLordCottenham”sdesire,washeardbytheMasteroftheRolls.whoonMay23rdstatedhisreasonsforadvisingtheLordChancellortorefusethemotionwithcosts.(c) (a)15Sim.402. (b)17L.J.Ch.206. (c)12Beay.SS. Theappellanthavingsubsequentlycommenced15actionsoftrespassagainstpersonsusingthecanal,theVice-Chancellor(Shadwell),onJune2nd,1849,grantedaninjunctionrestraininghimfrominstitutingsuchactions.ThisinjunctionissuedJane5th,1849. OnDecember10th,1849,theappellantwascommittedbytheVice-ChancellortothecustodyoftheKeeperoftheQueen”sPrisontillfurtherorder,forhiscontemptindisobeyingtheinjunctionofJuly6th,1839. Inpursuanceofthisorder,onJanuary11th,1850,theusualwarrantwasmadeoutbytheOfficeroftheCourtandsignedbytheLordChancellor,authorizingthetipstaffoftheCourttoarresttheappellantandconveyhimtotheQueen”sPrison. Theappellant,on28thJanuary1850,gavenoticeofamotiontodischargetheVice-Chancellor”sorderofcommittalofthe10thDecember1849,andtohavehisnoticeofmotionofthe24thofFebruary1849finallydisposedof,andanordermadepursuanttothetermsthereof;orthattheVice-Chancellor”sorderofthe2ndJuno1849refusingtheappellant”smotionmightbedischarged;orthatthecompany”sbillmightbetakenoffthefilewithcoststobepaidbytherespondents;orthatallfartherproceedingsmighthestayed. LordCottenhamhavingrequestedtheassistanceoftheMasteroftheRolls,LordLangdale,thismotionwasmadebeforetheirLordships,andfullyarguedbytheappellant”scounselonthe4thand6thofFebruary1850.Withouthearingtheotherside,theMasteroftheRollsadheredtotheadvicehehadalreadygiven,and,theLordChancellorconcurring,ordersoftheCourtweremadebytheLordChancellor,refusingwithcoststheappellant”smotionenderhisnoticeofthe24thofFebruary1849,andhismotionunderthenoticeofthe28thofFebruary1850.(a) LordCottenhamresignedthegreatsealOnJune19th,1850,andonthe26thofJuly1850theappellantwasreleasedfromcustodybyLordChancellorTruro,thecompanyconsenting,andtheappellantundertakingnottoviolatetheinjunctionagain.(b) TheappellantbroughtthepresentappealagainsttheVice-Chancellor”sdecreeofthe16thofNovember1846,andthenineseveralordersoftheCourtofChancery,datedrespectivelythe18thofJune.the26thofJuly,andthe15thofDecember1838;the27thofJanuary1848;the2nd (a)2Hall&Tw.92. (b):3Mac.&U4. 89]Dime.againstProprietorsofth and5thofJune,andthe10thofDecember1849;andthe4thand6thofFebruary1850;allofwhichhesubmittedoughttobereversed,first,becausethebillwasirregularlyfiledbyreasonofthepeonniaryinterestofLordCottenham,towhomitwasaddressed,whichinterestwasnotstatedinthebill,andalltheproceedingsonitwereirregular,anditoughttohavebeentakenoffthefile;secondly,becausethedecreeandalltheordersmadeinthecausewerevoidbyreasonofthepecuniaryinterestofLordGoftenltam;andforotherreasons. ToallowoftheappealtotheHouseofLordstheseorderswereenrolled,someupontheapplicationofthedefendantandsomeontheapplicationoftheplaintiff,byorderofLordChancellorCottenhant.(a) TheHousedesiredthatinthefirstinstancethequestionofthecompetencyofLordChancellorCottenhanttohearanddecidethecaseshouldbediscussed. ARGUMENTportTHEAPPELLANT. TheSolicitor-General(SirF.Kelly)(b)andSmyelties(Selwyn(c)withthem)for theappellant:Atthetimeoffilingthisbill,June13,1838,LordChancellorCotten-hamwastheholderofsharesinthiscompany;thatfactrenderedhimincompetenttohearanddecidethesnit,andhisincompetencyaffectedtheVice-Chancellor,whowashisdeputy.Therewas,therefore,novalidjurisdictioninthiscase,andthewholeproceedingswereincompetentandvoid.ThedecisionoftheMasteroftheRollsthattheinterestoftheLordChancellorasashareholderinthecompanydidnotconstituteanobjectiontohisdecidingonamatterinwhichthatcompanywasalitigantpartyiserroneous.(d)Theprincipleofthelawisthatnomanshallhejudgeinhisowncause;anditisfortheinterest,notonlyofthepeople,butofthejudgesthem-selves,thatthatprincipleshouldbestrictlyenforced.Heretheinterestissuchasthelawtakesnoticeof;iftheproprietorsoftheCanalhadnotbeenincorporated,LordCottenhantmusthavebeennamedasapartyonthefaceoftheproceedings.Theobjectionaffectsthewholeoftheproceedings,forLordLangdalehimselfhasheldthatthereis (a)"Mr.DimescouldnottakehisappealtotheHouseofLordsuntilhehadenrolledthedecree,andthedecreeoftheVice-ChancellorofEnglandcouldnotbeenrolledbeforeithadreceivedthesignatureoftheLordChancellor." LordLangdale,intheCourtbelow. (b)AfterwardsLordChiefBaron. (r)AfterwardsLordJusticeofAppeal.(d)12Beay.63. eGrandJunctionCanal,1852.[90 nodifferenceforthispurposebetweentheLordChancellorandtheVice-Chancellor.Hejustifiedwhathadbeendoneonthegroundofnecessity,saying,thatunlessthecausecouldbeheardasithadbeen,therewouldbeafailureofjustice.Thatpropositionisdemonstrablyincorrect. LordST.LEONARDS,L.C.:Yourargu- mentputsyouinasingularposition.YoucomehereinconsequenceoftheenrolmentofthedecreebytheLordChancellor.Inaskingfortheenrolment,youaskforhisinterferenceasLordChancellor.YetyousaythatthewholeproceedinginChanceryisvoid,onaccountofhisinter.ference,hebeingincompetentordisqualifiedbyreasonofinterest...
