East London Water Works Company v Bailey and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1827 |
| Date | 26 June 1827 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 776
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 12 Moore, 532; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 175. Commented on, Church v. Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company, 1838, 6 Ad. & E. 860. Overruled, South of Ireland Colliery Company v. Waddle, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 475. Observations discussed and applied, Wells v. Kingston-upon-Hull, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 411.
east london water works company v. bailey and others. June 26, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 532; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 175. Commented on. Church v. Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company, 1838, 6 Ad. & E. 860. Overruled, South of Ireland Colliery Company v. Waddle, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 475. Observations discussed and applied, Wells v. Kingston-upm-Hull, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 411.] An act of parliament empowered the directors of a water company to make "contracts, agreements, and bargains with the workmen, agents, undertakers, and other persons engaged in the undertaking:"-Held, that an agreement for the fabrication and supply ol pipes at certain stated periods, was not valid unless under seal. The Plaintiffs, a corporate body, sued the Defendants in assumpsit, on a contract entered into February 25th, 1824, for the delivery of a certain number of iron pipes at stated periods, pursuant to certain proposals issued by the Plaintiffs, and accepted by the Defendants. The pipes were to be made according to a specification, containing minute details as to size, shape, and quality; were to be marked in various parts with the letters E. L. and were to be delivered, certain portions in April, May, June, 4BING. 284. EAST LONDON WATEK WORKS COMPANY V. BAILEY 777 July, and August 1824, and the residue by Lady-day 1825. The Defendants did not deliver the whole quantity contracted for, and this action was brought to recover damages for their failure to do so. The contract waa not under seal. The 47 G. 3, c. 72, s. 28, contains the following provision with respect to this company. "And the directors ahall and may contract and agree with any body politic, corporate, collegiate, or any person or persons being owner or owners, occupier or occupiers thereof, interested therein, and willing to sell or let the same, for the purchase or rent of lands, tenements, or hereditaments that may be wanted for the purposes of the undertaking, and the works thereunto belonging, and shall and may, on behalf of the said company of [284] proprietors, settle, adjust, and determine all matters, questions, and differences which shall or may arise between the said company of proprietors and the several owners of and interested in any lands, tenements, or hereditaments which may be wanted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Church against The Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company
...respect, was pointed out by Best C.J. in The Mayor of Stafford v. Till (4 Bing. 75); and in The East London Water Works Company v. Bailey (4 Bing. 283), it was held that a corporation could not sue for a breach of a contract by the defendant to deliver articles, though the statute there aut......
-
Beverley against The Lincoln Gas Light and Coke Company
...for standings, market places, sheds, and tolls, on an agreement not under seal. In The East London Waterworks Company v. Bailey (4 Bing. 283), where the directors of an incorporated company were authorised by Act of Parliament to " make contracts, agreements, and bargains with the workmen, ......
-
Wells v The Mayor, Company, of Kingston-upon-Hull
...Gas Company 6 A. & E. 846 Ludlow v. The Mayor of CharltonENR 6 M. & W. 815 Wood v. LakeENR Sayer 3 The East London Waterworks v. BaileyENR 4 Bing. 283 Watkins v. The Overseers of Milton-next Gravesend 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 601 L. Rep. 3 Q.B. 350 South of Ireland Colliery Company v. Waddle 18 ......
-
The COMMISSIONERS of PAVING, CLEANSING, and LIGHTING the CITY of DUBLIN v The LORD MAYOR, SHERIFFS, and CITIZENS of DUBLIN
...v. HeywoodENR 8 T. R. 468. Ibid. 471-2. Smith v. WhiteENR 6 Bing. N. C. 218. East London Waterworks v. BaileyENRENR 12 Moore, 532; S. C. 4 Bing. 283. the Valentia Peerage Case (a); and as to questions of evidence, he referÂred to the observations of Grose, J., who said, " I dread that rules......