Lord Robert Grosvenor v The Hampstead Junction Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 1857 |
| Date | 15 July 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 796
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 731; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 1085; 5 W. R. 812. See Marson v. London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 105; Harvie v. South Devon Railway Company, 1874, 31 L. T. 426; Kerford v. Seacombe, Hoylake and Deeside Railway Company, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 274.
[446] lord robert grosvenor v. the hampstead junction railway company. Before the Lords Justices. July 14, 15, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 731; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 1085; 5 W. R. 812. See Marson v. London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 105 ; Harvie v. South Devon Railway Company, 1874, 31 L. T. 426; Kerfard v. Seacombe, Hot/lake and Deeside Railway Company, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 274.] Trustees of a charity purchased land and covenanted to erect upon it buildings, consisting of a hall in the centre, with almshouses (some on each side of the hall, and others forming wings of the main building), with a garden in the centre. A portion was to be built within a specified time, and the rest as funds were subscribed. Before more than the centre was completed a railway company, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, required to take a portion of the land which, when the design was complete, would be part of the garden in front of one of the intended (but then unbuilt) almhouses. Held, that the land was part of a house within the meaning of the 92d section of the Act. This was an appeal from the refusal by Vice-Chancellor Wood of a motion for an injunction to restrain the Defendants the Hampstead Junction Railway Company from taking a part of what was alleged to be a "house" without taking the remainder, according to the 92d section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.(l) The property in question consisted of a piece of land in front of the site of one of an intended row of alms-[447]-houses held by a charitable society called the St. Pancraa Almshouses Institution, under the following title:- By articles of agreement dated the 29th January 1852, and entered into by and between a corporation called " The Governesses' Benevolent Institution," and the Plaintiffs, who were trustees of the St. Pancras Almshouses Institution, of the second part, the Governesses' Institution agreed to sell to the Plaintiffs the land delineated in a plan thereto annexed, for the purpose of having certain almhouses built thereon by the Almshouses Institution, according to certain plans already approved by the Governesses' Institution. And it was thereby agreed that the centre portion of the almshouses, with accommodation for twelve inmates, as specified in a plan referred to, should be erected and completed within five years from the date of the agreement, and the remainder as soon after as the state of the almshouses funds would allow. The plans approved of delineated a row of almshouses, with a hall in the centre, wings at each end and a garden or pleasure-ground in front. lDEQ.aj.448. .LORD GROSVENOR V. THE HAMPSTEAD JUNC. RLY. CO. 797 Pursuant to the said agreement, the Plaintiffs, in the month of February 1852, took possession of the land. They afterwards entered into a contract with builders, dated the llth October 1852, for carrying the first-mentioned agreement into effect. There was annexed to this contract a plan which shewed the design of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v Hammersmith and City Railway Company
...Company (27 Beav. 242); King v. The Wycombe Eailway Company (28 Ibid. 104); Lord Grosvenor v. The Hampstead Junction Eailway Company (1 De G. & J. 446); The Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital v. The Charing Cross Railway Company (1 John. & Hem. 400); Colegrave v. Dias Santos 2 B. & Or. 76);......
- London Transport Executive v Congregational Union of England and Wales (Incorporated)
-
Alexander v The Crystal Palace Railway Company
...End of London and The Crystal Palace Railway Company (27 Beav. 242); [559] Lord G-rosvenor v. The, Hampstead Junction Railway Company (1 De G. & J. 446); King v. The. Wycmnbn Raihoay Company (28 Beav. 104); and see St. Thomas's Hospital v. The Charing Cross Railway Company (1 John. & Hem. 4......
-
King v The Wycombe Railway Company
...which were essential to its enjoyment. That such had been the decision in Lord Grosvenor v. The Hampstead Junction Bailway Company (1 De Gex & Jones, 446); Cole [106] v. The West London, &c., Railway Company (27 Beav. 242). That it was not a question of compensation, but that the company wa......