Ranken v The East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court of Chancery
Judgment Date19 December 1849
Date19 December 1849

English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1075


The East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway Company

S. C. 19 L. J. Ch. 153; 14 Jur. 7.

[2983 ranken v. the east and west india docks and birmingham junction railway company. Dec. 19, 1849. [S. C. 19L. J. Ch. 153; 14 Jur. 7.] Some property was mortgaged to the Plaintiffs, who were not bound to receive their money until a future day. A railway company, with knowledge, treated with the mortgagor alone, and, not agreeing, paid into Court, to the credit of the mortgagor, the amount of compensation, but made no provision for the compensation to the mortgagees under the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 114. The company then took possession, and commenced pulling down the building. The Court restrained the company from proceeding, until the value of the mortgagees' interests had been ascertained and paid or secured. In 1848 R. B. Hardy, being entitled to some property in the line of the above railway, for the residue of a term of ninety-six years, by an indenture, dated the 10th of March 1848, mortgaged it to the Plaintiffs Ranken and Ingles, to secure 700 with interest at five per cent. The mortgage deed contained a proviso, that if Hardy duly paid the interest and the ground rent, and performed the covenants in the lease, the Plaintiffs " should not, nor would, require payment of the principal money until the 5th of March 1851," nor institute any proceedings to enforce the payment, or obtain possession, or foreclose ; and if the 700 and interest should not be paid on the 10th of March 1849 it should not be lawful for Hardy " to oblige or compel the Plaintiffs," &c., " to receive and take the principal sum of 700, &c., before the 10th of March 1851." The Defendants were enabled by their Act (9 & 10 Viet. c. cccxcvi.) to make a railway from the East and West India Docks to join the London and Birmingham Railway, and " The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," was incorporated into the Special Act. On the 16th of February 1849 the company gave notice to Hardy that they 1076 BANKEN V. EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCKS, ETC., RLY. CO. 12 BKAV. 299. required to purchase the [299] property and were willing to treat for the purchase, and they demanded the particulars of hia estate and claims. On the 9th of March 1849 Hardy sent in his claim-value 1365, compensation 170; and he thereby also stated, that the property was in mortgage to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants proceeded to treat with Hardy alone, and sent an agreement for his approval, which was not executed. On the 3d of July 1849 Hardy's solicitor wrote to the company us follows :- " Mr. Hardy, as you are aware, is not in a position to sell the property free from incumbrances; and if your clients wish the negociation to be continued and to purchase the property, they must, at once, make arrangements with the mortgagees, who, according to the terms of the mortgage deed, cannot be compelled to take their money before the expiration of three years from the date of the mortgage deed. The mortgagees are also clients of mine, and will, I dare say, be ready to treat with the company as to their interest, if proper terms are offered, but much will of course depend upon the nature of the offer. I must however give your company (through...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bell and Others v The Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of The City of Belfast
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 20 Noviembre 1913
    ...60. (1) 15 Q. B. 634. (1) I. R. 1 Eq. 1. (2) [1911] 1 I. R. 271. (1) L. R. 7 Q. B., at p. 8. (2) 9 App. Cas. 480. (1) L. R. 7 Q. B. 1. (2) 12 Beav. 298. (3) L. R. 1 Ch. (1) 10 Ir. Eq. R. 60. (2) [1911] 1 Ch. 604. ...
  • Johnston v The Dublin and Meath Railway Company
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 10 Diciembre 1866
    ...COMPANY Lessee Dawson v. M'Intyre 7 Ir. Law Rep. 552. Winch v. WinchesterENR 1 V. & B. 375. Ranken v. East and West India Docks CompanyENR 12 Beav. 298. Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR 5 Sim. 419. Reidy v. PierceIR 11 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 361. Morrow's EstateUNK 14 Ir. Ch. Rep. 44. Palmer's case 5 Co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT