Mercer v Liverpool, St. Helen's and South Lancashire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1904 |
| Date | 1904 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Lands Clauses Acts - Compensation - Lands Injuriously Affected - Interest created after Notice to Treat -
The owner of land received from a railway company notice (under their statutory powers which incorporated the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) to treat for part of his land, and the purchase-money was settled by agreement to include compensation for all injurious affection. Between the notice to treat and the agreement the owner granted a lease of some land near to the land purchased. The railway company exercised their powers and injuriously affected the lessee's land:—
Held, that the sum paid to the owner must be taken to have included compensation for the injury to the lessee's land, and that the lessee was not entitled to compensation under the
BY the
In October, 1891, the respondents gave Lord Gerard notice to treat for the purchase of part of his land and for the compensation for damage by execution of the works. In January, 1892, Lord Gerard sent in a claim, and in October, 1892, by agreement, the respondents paid him 23,000l. for the land, to include all compensation for all the damage by severance or otherwise injuriously affecting Lord Gerard's other property.
Meanwhile, namely, in June, 1892, Lord Gerard granted to the appellant's predecessor in title a lease for 999 years of land near and opposite to the land purchased, with covenants (inter alia) for building houses. The respondents exercised their statutory powers in making the railway, and in executing works referred to in s. 13 of the special Act of 1886 injuriously affected part of the land leased to the appellant's predecessor and since assigned to the appellant. For this injury the appellant claimed compensation under the
July 14, 15. Cripps, K.C., and Haldane, K.C. (MacConkey with them), for the appellant. No doubt a notice to treat for the purchase of land binds the land so that the owner cannot create any new interest in it to the prejudice of the promoters. Whatever interest he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munton v Greater London Council
...when a notice to treat is given, it binds the local authority to purchase, and the owner to sell at a price to be ascertained. See Mercer v. Liverpool Railway (1903) 1 King's Bench at page 664, approved 1904 Appeal Cases at page 463. Second, when there is an unconditional agreement fixing t......
-
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment; Brompton Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
...[1961] 1 W.L.R. 519; [1961] 1 All E.R. 610. Mercer v. Liverpool, St. Helens and South Lancashire Railway Co.[1903] 1 K.B. 652, C.A.; [1904] A.C. 461, H.L.(E.). Pinchin v. London and Blackwall Railway Co. (1854) 1 K. & J. 34. River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877) 2 App.Cas. 743, H.L.(E.......
-
Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council v Watkins
...for those new interests, contrary to Mr Jones's submission as to the application of section 77. Thus, in Mercer v Liverpool St Helens and South Lancashire Railway [1903] 1 KB 652, at 662, Stirling J held: "Now at law a contract for the sale of land creates merely a personal obligation betwe......
-
West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc.) v Birmingham Corporation
...(see Marylebone (Stingo Lane) Improvement Act ex. parte Edwards L.R. 12 Eq. 389, Mercer v. Liverpool St. Helens & S. Lancs. Railway [1904] A.C. 461). But it does not follow from this that values must be ascertained and assessed as at the date of a notice to treat. It is said that authorit......