Pinchin v The London and Blackwall Railway Company The Same v The Same
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 358
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on appeal, 5 De G. M. & G. 851; 43 E. R. 1101 (with note, to which add London Association of Shipowners and Brokers v. London and India Docks Joint Committee [1892], 3 Ch. 269.
Easement. Notice to treat. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 18, 21, 84 and 92. Railways Clauses Act, ss. 6 and 16. Counter Notice. Acquiescence.
[34] pinchin v. the london and blackwall railway company. the same v. the same. August 1, 3, 4, Nov. 9, 10, 15, 1854. [S. C. on appeal, 5 De G. M. & Gr. 851; 43 E. R. 1101 (with note, to which add London Association of Shipowners and Brokers v. London and India Docks Joint Committee [1892], 3 Ch. 269).] Easement. Notice to treat. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 18, 21, 84 and 92. Railways Clauses Act, ss. 6 and 16. Counter Notice. Acquiescence. Throwing a railway bridge over a yard belonging to a manufactory, and used for the preparation of colours, a process which required air and light, is taking a part of the manufactory within the 92d section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, notwithstanding that no part of the soil itself is actually taken or touched. A notice to treat for the purchase of the right or easement of making, and for ever maintaining, the railway by such bridge over the landowner's property is a valid notice within the 18th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The paramount object of the company's Special Act incorporating the Lands Clauses and Railways Clauses Acts is to enable the company to make the railway ; and the 6th section of the Railways Clauses Act refers to the Lands Clauses Act as that under which the compensation for lands "taken or used" under the Railways Clauses Act is to be ascertained, while the 16th section of the same Act gives power to construct the line by means of arches ; and the 84th section of the Lands Clauses Act provides that compensation shall be made for lands " required to be purchased or permanently used " by the company; and, therefore, companies are empowered permanently to use lands without actually taking the whole interest therein. The 16th section of the Railways Clauses Act applies to the general works of the line, and not to collateral works only, notwithstanding that tunnels are therein mentioned, and that, by sect. 13, only such tunnels can be made as are mentioned in the plans and books of reference; for the 16th section is expressly made subject to the other provisions of the Act. Where such a notice to treat, as above mentioned, was given three days before the time limited for exercise of the compulsory powers expired, and the landowner, fourteen days afterwards, by a counter notice, required the company to take the whole of the manufactory, such counter notice operated not as a determination but as a suspension of the original notice to treat until it was accepted by the company, and until such acceptance it was competent for the landowner to withdraw the counter notice, by which course the original notice would be revived. Such suspension is only upon the terms that the landowner is willing and able to sell the 1K.&J.35. PINCHIN V. LONDON AND BLACKWALL RLY. CO, 359 whole of the manufactory, and, therefore, an interlocutory injunction to restrain the company from proceeding to enforce their original notice was granted upon the landowner's undertaking to that effect. Nine months after the counter notice was served the company gave notice to the landowner of their intention to summon a jury to assess the compensation in respect of their original claim. Held, that the powers conferred by the Railway Acts were not lost by this acquiescence, and that the company were not bound to follow up their original notice until called upon to do so by the landowner. Upon being restrained from proceeding upon their original notice upon the above-mentioned terms, the company withdrew their notice to proceed thereon, and consented to take the whole of the manufactory, and proceeded to ascertain its value by summoning a jury under the powers of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Held, that they were, under all the circumstances, at liberty to do so, and an application for an injunction to restrain them was refused. Semble, that the jury would have authority to determine, if necessary, the extent as well as the value of the manufactory. These were two suits between the same parties, one of which succeeded the other after a short interval. The [35] object in each suit was to restrain the company from exercising their compulsory powers to take the Plaintiffs' land under somewhat different circumstances. The Plaintiffs, John Pinchin and Oliver Palmer Johnson, were colour manufacturers and grinders, oil and wax refiners, picklers, melters of tallow and manufacturers of resin and turpentine, and of various other articles, and cart and mill grease makers, carrying on these trades together as co-partners, in the New Road and Cable Street, in the county of Middlesex, close to the line of the Blackwall Railway. Their business premises consisted of lands and buildings, part of which had been purchased of the London and Blackwall Railway Company, and conveyed by them, under the powers of their Special Acts, to the Plaintiffs as tenants in common in fee-simple, and part consisted of four arches of the Blackwall Railway, which the Plaintiffs held from the company upon lease, for the term of 999 years. The Act for widening the line of the London and Blackwall Railway passed on the 27th of July 1846. By this [36] Act it was enacted that the "Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and so much of the "Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," as related to the construction and working of railways, to the temporary use of lands during the construction of railways, to the taking of lands for additional stations, to the mode of crossing of roads and construction of bridges, and to the construction of arches, culverts and works for the protection and accommodation of lands adjoining the railways, should respectively, except so far as the same might by this Act be otherwise provided for, and except such of the provisions thereof as might be inconsistent with the provision therein contained, be incorporated with and form part of this Act: and the purchase and taking of land, and the construction, working and use of the works thereby authorised, should be subject only to the provisions, regulations and restrictions of the "Lands Clauses Consolidation Act" and "Railways Clauses Consolidation Act." And by section 3, after reciting that plans and sections of the proposed widening of the London and Blackwall Railway, shewing the line and levels thereof, and also books of reference, containing the names of the owners, lessees and occupiers, or reputed owners, lessees and occupiers of the lands through which the same was intended to pass, had been deposited with the respective Clerks of the Peace for the county of Middlesex and for the City of London, it was enacted that, subject to the provisions in the said Act, and in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, contained, it should be lawful for the company to widen the said railway on the line and upon the lands delineated on the said plans, and described in the said books of reference, and to enter upon, take and use such of the said lands as should be necessary for such purpose. By another Act of Parliament, passed on the 28th of July [37] 1849, the time limited for the compulsory purchase or taking of lands for the purpose of widening the line was extended until the 27th day of July 1851. 360 PINCHIN V. LONDON AND BLACKWALL ELY. CO. IK.&J.38. A third Act of Parliament, passed on the 5th of June 1851, extended this time further until the 29th of July 1853. This Act is mentioned, infra, p. 64. The manufactory of the Plaintiffs, and the arches of the railway which they held upon lease, were included in the plans and sections and books of reference deposited by the company with the Clerks of the Peace of the county of Middlesex and of the City of London. On the 23d of July 1853 the Defendants served the following notice on the Plaintiffs:- " Parish St. George, Nos. 35, 36. " The London and Blackwall Railway Company. " To Messrs. John Pinchin and Oliver Palmer Johnson, and the several other persons or person (if any) interested in the lands or hereditaments hereinafter described: " You are hereby requested to take notice that, under and by virtue of an Act of Parliament made and passed in the session holden in the ninth and tenth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, intituled an Act for Widening the Line of the London and Blackwall Eailway and for Amending the Acts Relating to the said Railway, and The London and Blackwall Railway (Extension of Time) Act 1851, and the several other Acts of Parliament referred to in or by the Acts hereinbefore mentioned, or some or one of the said Acts of Parliament, the said London and Blackwall Railway Company require and intend, for the purposes and in execution of the powers given or contained in or by the said first above-mentioned Act of Parliament to [38] widen the line of the London and Blackwall Railway; and that such widening of the said railway where it adjoins the yard and colour manufactory belonging to you, the said John Pinchin and Oliver Palmer Johnson, on the north side of the said railway near Cable Street, and on the west of Christian Street, in the parish of Saint George, in the county of Middlesex, will be, by means of an iron beam or iron beams resting on piers erected outside the said yard and manufactory, with iron plates or brickwork, or partly iron plates and partly brickwork, between the face of the present viaduct of the London and Blackwall Railway, and such beam or beams; and that the width of such structure from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Association of Shipowners and Brokers v London and India Docks Joint Committee
...referred to in the course of the arguments: Veley v. Murder 12 Ad. &E. 233, 265,303; Pinthin v. The London and Black-wall Railway Company, 1K. & J. 34: 5 De G. M. & G. 851; Doherty v. Allman, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S.129; 3 App. Cas. 709 ; Sutton v. The South-Eastern Railway Company, 13 L. T. Rep......
-
Haynes v Haynes
...Birmingham, &(,., Railway Company (1 Sm. & Giff. 347; 3 De G. M. & G. '658). See Mtmroe v. Newry, &c., Railway Company (2 Ir. C. R. 260; 1 Kay & J. 34)." Now, with respect to Adams v. London and Blackwall Railway Company, all the observations of Lord Cottenham in that ease (to which I have ......
-
Pinchin v The London and Blackwall Railway Company
...E.R. 1101 BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH AND THE LORDS JUSTICES. Pinchin and , The London and Blackwall Railway Company S. C. 1 Kay & J. 34; 2 Eq. R. 1172; 1 Jur. (N. S.), 241; 3 W. R. 52, 125; 3 Eq. R. 433; 24 L. J. Ch. 417. See Great Western Railway Company v. Sivindon and Chel......
-
Schwinge v The London and Blackwall Railway Company
...under the 92d section, upon the first notice 1 It has been decided in the case of Pinchin v. The London and Black-wall Railway Company (1 Kay & J. 34), if, indeed, any authority or decision were necessary, that the effect of the counter notice, under the 92d section, to take all the manufac......