R v The Grand Junction Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1844 |
| Date | 10 May 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 804
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. D. & M. 237; 4 Railw. Cas. 1; 13 L. J. M. C. 94; 8 Jur. 508.
the queen against the grand junction railway company. [Friday, May 10th, 1844.] Where a railway company, incorporated by Act of Parliament in the usual form of such Acts, made their profit partly by fare as carriers, and partly (6) Regina v. Pmsmby, 3 Q. B. 14. ~ 4Q.B.19. THE QUEEN V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY CO. 805 by tolls received from other carriers : Held that, in assessing them to a poor rate, the proper measure of rateable value was, not the amount of the tolls actually received, or which would have been received if all the carrying business had been performed by others, but the rent (after the deductions required by the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96), at which the railway might be reasonably expected to let to a yearly tenant, having the same powers and advantages as the company. The sessions ascertained the rent by taking the gross receipts of the company in respect of their own railway, and making the following deductions from them : viz. 1. Interest on tho capital invested in the moveable stock of the company. 2. A per centage on the same capital for tenant's profits and profits of trade. 3. A per centage on the same sum for annual depreciation of stock beyond ordinary annual repairs. 4. The actual annual expenses of conducting the business of carriers, maintenance of way, repairs of buildings, insurance, direction, rates, taxes and other disbursements as railway owners and carriera 5. The fair annual value of stations and buildings rated separately from the railway. 6. An annual sum per mile for the renewal and reproduction of the rails, sleepers, &c. Held, that these deductions (the amount of which was for the sessions to determine) included all that was properly referable to trade, and that the sessions might fairly infer that a yearly tenant of the railway, under the circumstances above stated, would give the balance as rent. [S. C. D. & M. 237 ; 4 Railw. Cas. 1; 13 L. J. M. C. 94; 8 Jur. 508.] On appeal against a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Seighford, in the county of Stafford, whereby the above company were rated, iu respect of so much of the railway and land adjoining as lay within the parish, in the sum of 10501., the sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the following case. The appellants were incorporated, and the Grand Junction Railway formed, by and under an Act, 3 & 4 W. 4, c. xxxiv. (local and personal, public), altered and extended by other Acts of Parliament, namely, 4 & 5 W. 4, c. Iv.; 5 & 6 W. 4, c. viii. ; 5 & 6 W. 4, c. ix.; 1 & 2 Viet. c. lix. ; 3 & 4 Vicb. c. xlix. (all local and personal, public); which were to be taken to be part of the case. Under these Acts, not only has the line of railway, [19] as originally contemplated from Warrington to Birmingham, been constructed, but other railways, made by other parties from Warringtou to Newton and from Crewe to Chester, have become the property of the appellants, and now form part of the Grand Junction Railway; and the whole is managed, aa to accounts and otherwise, as one entire business. Over all these railways, and also over the Liverpool and Manchester Railway between Newton and Liverpool in the one direction and Newton and Manchester in the other, the appellants exercise the right of being carriers, on their own account, of passengers and goods, providing for themselves stations or stopping places, locomotive power, carriages, coke and watering places, and all other things necessary and convenient for conveyance of passengers and good*, and charging for such conveyance reasonable fares and freights, in addition, as regards the said Grand Junction Railway, to the tolls or tonnages which they are authorised by the said Acts to take : and by this carrying trade, as well as by the toll, the appellants make profits. Other parties also exercise the right of being carriers over various parts of the Grand Junction Railway; and, amongst others, over that part which is iu the respondent parish ; provided for themselves, without the consent or concurrence of the appellants, and independently of them (subject, however, to the control of the appellants under the provisions of the said Acts, and of the several Acts for the regulation of railways), locomotive power, carriages, coke and watering places, and all other things necessary and convenient for the con-veyauce of passengers and goods, and separate stations with needful branches into or communications with the same: and they, like the appellants, make profits of [20] their trade so carried on over the railway, and pay to the appellants the tolls or tonnages duly fixed by the appellants pursuant to the said Acts, being the same tolls as formed the basis of the calculations hereinafter mentioned as contended for by the appellants. A third class of carriers over the Grand Junction Railway hire from the company locomotive engines and the use of stations, &c., but find their own carriages ; and these likewise make profits over the railway. They also pay to the appellants tolls or tonnages, besides a compensation for the use of the power, stations and other accommodations provided for them. 806 THE QUEEN V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY CO. Q. B.U. The total length of so much of the railway as lies between Birmingham and Newton is ergiby-four miles, and from Crewe to Chester twenty-one miles; making together one hundred and five miles. The distance along the Liverpool and Manchester Railway from Newton to Liverpool is fifteen miles, and from Newton to Manchester sixteen miles. The length of railway within the respondent parish is one mile: and there: is no fetation, stopping place or property of the appellants there, other than the railway itself. The appellants have duly caused toll boards or lists to be made and published as required by sects. 165 and 166 of the first Act above mentioned, and have duly kept accounts of tolls as required by sects. 19 and 20 of stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. lix. and sect. 27 of stat. 3 & 4 Viet. c. xlix., and have afforded free access to them as required by those Acts. The fares and charges for the conveyance of passengers and goods by the appellants, as carriers, are regulated by the number of miles through which they are carried, as well as by weight, bulk, value, &c., and various [21] other circumstances, in the same manner as the fares and charges of other carriers. The gross sum received by the appellants as tolls, including what they receive from other eompanies or persons using the railway as carriers, and also tolls, of which an account is kept, calculated upon all the passengers, goods, &c., carried by them for their own profit, amount together to the sum of 15001. in respect of so much of the railway as lies in the respondent parish, and for the current year of rating; and this is the grass produce of the land which the appellants, if not carriers, or which a lessee of the tolls, as such, would in fact have received, howsoever or by whomsoever the carrying business of the railway was conducted. And the appellants contended that this sum of 15001. ought to form the basis of any rate upon them in respect of their property in the respondent parish. The gross yearly receipts of the company, including as well the tolls actually received by them as the tolls, fares, freights and profits of every kind derived by them as carriers upon, and owners of, the Grand Junction Railway and its appurtenances in all the parishes between Birmingham and Newton and Crewe and Chester, and including also the profits of their stock in trade, and personal property as carriers in connection with and upon the entire Grand Junction Railway, and also the rents, profits and value of all their stations and other conveniences at and between Birmingham and Newton and Chester and Crewe, but excluding their receipts over the Liverpool and Manchester and other railways which do not belong to them, but for passing orer which, as carriers, they pay toll in the same way as the independent carriers over the Grand Junction Rail-[22]-way, are agreed lor the purposes of this case to amount to the sum of 440,3661. for the current year of rating. Adopting the principle of a mileage division thereof, that is to say, dividing the same by 105, the total length of the railway, the amount is 41901. (and a fraction) in respect of so much thereof aa lies in the respondent parish. And it is, for the purpose of the present case, admitted that the mileage principle of division is fair and equal as respects the respondent parish. It wa admitted and agreed (subject to the opinion of the Court as to the propriety and principle of each item of deduction) that, if the amount of tolls, namely 15001., is to be adopted as the basis of calculation, then the full net annual value of the appellants' rateable property within the respondent parish will be 7121. 10s., being 15001. minus the following deductions, which the Court of Quarter Sessions find to be reasonable in fact: (that is to say) (1.) 201. per cent, thereof for the tenant's subsistence (a) and profits; regard being had, in this case, to the extensive amount of responsibility, risk, &c. (2.) 21. 10s. per cent, for the collection of the tolls. (8.) 3501. per mile for the maintenance of the railway with the works and fences, and gate keepers; and also for engineers and police, as to so much of the two latter item* as are fairly chargeable on the proprietors of the railway as such. (4.) 701 per mile for poor rates, highway rates, church rates, and tithe commuta tion rent! charge. ! [23] (5.) 301. per mile for renewing or reproducing those portions of the subject of the rate which are of a perishable nature, such as the rails, chairs and sleepers, &c., when rendered necessary by accident or decay. (,) This was explained in the course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...101 ER 485 R v Liverpool Exchange (1834) 1 Ad & E 465; 110 ER 1285 R v Everist (1847) 10 QB 178; 116 ER 69 R v Grand Junction Railway Co (1844) 4 QB 18; 114 ER 804 North and South Western Junction Railway Co v Brentford Union Assessment Committee (1888) 13 App Cas 592 Great Western Railway ......
-
Black v Oliver
...to the existing occupier" (that is a quotation of Lord Justice C.J. delivering the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in R. v. The Grand Junction Railway Co. (1844) 4 Q.B. 18 at p.43). I think this proposition may be misleading. It is clear that the actual occupier must be taken into ac......
-
Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
...or a waterworks no change of use is likely to be feasible, and the nineteenth century railway cases (of which R v Grand Junction Railway (1844) 4 QB 18 was most fully discussed in this court) were concerned not with change of use but with the legal and financial arrangements (and possible c......
-
Townley Mill Company (1919) Ltd v Oldham Assessment Committee
... ... 2. Lifts and elevators mainly or usually used for passengers. 3. Railway and tramway lines and tracks. 4. Such part of any plant or any combination of plant and ... ...