Robert Harrison, - Plaintiff in Error; William Stickney and Others, - Defendants in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 August 1848 |
| Date | 21 August 1848 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 1033
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. xi. 1553; xii. 1097. Adopted on point as to retrospective rate, in Reg. v. Wigan, 1874, L.R. 9 Q.B. 327; and see A.-G. v. Church, 1864, 2 H. and M. 709.
Retrospective Rate - Statute.
[108] ROBERT HARRISON,- Plaintiff in Error; WILLIAM STICKNEY and Others,- Defendants in Error [June 25, 28, 1847 ; July 10, August 21, 1848]. [Mews' Dig. xi. 1553 ; xii. 1097. Adopted on point as to retrospective rate, in Beg. v. W igan, 1874, L.R. 9 Q.B. 327 ; and see A.-G. v. Church, 1864, 2 H. and M. 709.] Retrospective Rate - Statute. There is no rule of law which prohibits a retrospective rate In every case of rating the question is, whether the Act under which a rate is made, either expressly or impliedly, prohibits such rate from being retrospective. The 2 W. IV., c. 50 (public local) for draining the lands of Holderness, in the East Riding of the county of York, contains no prohibition against a retrospective rate. The commissioner under that act borrowed money (on which interest became due), for the purposes of the works directed by the act : Held, that a rate made to pay off the debt thus incurred, was under the provisions of that Act, a valid rate. This was an action of replevin, and the plaintiff in error was the plaintiff below. The defendants avowed under the authority of the act of the 2 W. IV., c. 50. The defendants replied de injuria, and the question was, whether the distress made by the defendants, under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, was lawful. By the forty-ninth section of this act of Parliament, the commissioner mentioned in it was authorised to enter into the lands and grounds within the limits of the said act, and to adjudge and determine what lands should be deemed and taken to be low lands and liable to contribute to the expences of the drainage thereof, and to cause a map to be made of such lands, expressing the names of the owners, and the [109] quantities in acres, roods, and perches of the same, belonging to each several and respective owner. The determination of the commissioner on this point was made subject to an appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the East Riding of the county of York, which appeal was to be made within a time therein mentioned. The fiftieth section enacted, that " after the expiration of the time for making the appeal, and after any alteration was made consequent upon such appeal, the commissioner should and might proceed to assess, tax, and charge all the low lands and grounds, and the owners and occupiers thereof, with such gross sum and sums of money as he should from time to time find necessary and requisite for defraying the charges and expences attending the obtain ing of the act, and carrying the same into execution, and to assess and rate eivery H.L. ix. " 1033 33a II H.L.C., 110 HARRISON V. STICKNEY [1848] owner and occupier of the low lands and grounds by an acre rate, with such share, part, and proportion of such gross sum and sums as should be in proportion to the number of acres, which each such owner or occupier had or was reputed to have of and in the said low lands or grounds!." The commissioner was to give twenty-one days' notice in writing of such tax to be made, and of the time appointed for payment, and, in case of neglect to pay within such twenty-one days, he was authorized, by warrant, to levy th'e sum by distress. By the fifty-first section, the commissioner and certain valuers named in the act were required to make a true valuation of the said low lands and grounds in their then present state; and by the fifty-second section the said commissioner and valuers were required, as soon as in the judgment of the commissioner the drainage and works necessary for effecting the same were perfected and completed, again to view and make [110] a second valuation of the said low lands and grounds in their drained and improved state. By the fifty-third section, when and as soon as the said second valuation was completed, so that the real improvement of the lands and grounds belonging to each owner and proprietor by means of the said drainage might be fully ascertained, by a comparative view of the said two valuations, the commissioner and valuers were required by some instrument in writing under their hands, to set forth the names of all the owners of the said low lands, and the quantity of acres belonging to each, and the improved value of such lands, and in and by the same instrument to proceed to tax the said lands and owners according and in proportion to the improved value, with each owner's respective quota or portion of the costs, charges, and expences attending the obtaining the act, and carrying the same into execution, up to the time of the completing such instrument. And in case the quota or portion of any owner as so assessed and taxed should exceed the sum with which such owner should have b'jcn taxed by virtue of the previous powers and authorities, that then such persons should, within twenty-one days after notice of such excess, pay the same to the commissioner, and in case of default in payment of such excess, the commissioner was authorized to enforce payment by the same means as other taxes were therein directed to be recovered; and the commissioner was further required to pay and apply such excess, when paid as aforesaid, in paying and refunding to such other of the said proprietors, such sum as they had paid over and above what was their respective quotas and proportions as assessed and taxed by the said commissioner and valuers should amount unto, and in case the monies [111] which should be raised for such excess should not be sufficient to refund to the said last-named owners what they should have overpaid, then such deficiency should be made good to them out of the next assessment of taxes that should be made under the act. The fifty-fifth section provided, that after the last mentioned assessment, the commissioner should cease to be a commissioner, and the owners of the said lands were authorized to appoint trustees for the purpose of carrying the said act and certain other acts therein recited, into execution; and by the fifty-seventh section, the trustees were authorized thereafter to tax the owners of the said lands proportionately, according to the tenor of the last instrument, with such further sums as they should from time to time judge necessary, for defraying the expences of repairing and maintaining the works, and any improvements which might òfrom time to time be found necessary, and the salaries of officers and other incidental causes. By the fifth-ninth section, the tenants were authorized to deduct out of their rents the amount of the rates paid by them; by the sixtieth section, unoccupied lands were to remain a security for the assessments; and by the sixty-first section, tenants for life were enabled to borrow money on the security of .their land. The seventy-third section enacted, that no order, etc., made by any justice, nor any bye-law, rule, order, or other proceeding, to be made or had by or before the said commissioner, by virtue of the powers granted by the said act, should be quashed or vacated for want of form only; and the seventy-eighth section enacted, that where any distress should be made for any sum of money to be levied by virtue of the act, the distress it [112]-self should not be deemed unlawful nor the parties trespassers on account of any defect or want of form in the summons, conviction, warrant of distress, or other proceeding relating thereto, nor should the party distraining be deemed a trespasser db initio on account of any irregularity which should be after- 1034 HARRISON V. STICKNEY [1848] II H.L.C., 113 wards committed, but the person aggrieved by such irregularity should recover full compensation for such special damage by an action on the case. The commissioner appointed by the act was William Stickney, one of the defendants, and he and two other persons, Godfrey Park and Cornelius Collett, were appointed by the act valuers; and they continued to fill these offices until the completion of the drainage. Soon after the passing of the act, Stickney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, At the relation of JOHN REA, on behalf of himself and all the other Inhabitants of the Borough of Belfast, subject to the payment of rates, Petitioner; THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN and BURGESSES of THE BOROUGH of BELFAST; and JOHN POTTS and fifteen others (Aldermen and Councillors of said Borough); JOHN THOMPSON (Treasurer) and JOHN BATES (Townclerk, and Solicitor to the Corporation); Respondents
...190. Attorney-General v. Corporation of DublinUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 465. Frewin v. Lewis 4 M. & C. 249. Harrison v. StickneyENR 2 House of Lords Cases, 108. Attorney-General v. Mayor of NorwichENR 1 Keen, 700; S. C., 2 M. & C. 406. Attorney-General v. Corporation of ExeterENR 2 Russ. 45, 54. ......
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...King v. The Trustees of the Norwich Road 5 A. & E. 563. The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 761. Harrison v. StickneyENR 2 H. L. C. 108. Jones v. JohnsonENR 7 Ex. 456-7. Attorney General v. LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 130. VOL. II.) Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 371 THE QUEEN (J......
-
The Queen (at the prosecution of John G. R Porter) v The Guardians of The Omagh Union Same v Pelly
...The Attorney-General v. Barrett Ir. R. 3Eq. 392. Murphy v. Guardians of Belmullet UnionUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 215. Harrison v. Stickney 2 H. L. Cas. 108. Gen. v. Barrett Ir. R. 3 Eq. 392. Harrison v. Stickney 2 H. L. Cas. 108. Murphy v. Belmullet UnionUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 215. Attorney-General v. Bar......
-
R(The Commissioners of Public Works) v The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of The Town of Wexford, Being The Urban Sanitary Authority of That Town
...B. 180. The Mayor, &c., of St. Helens' v. St. Helen's CollieryUNKENR 4 J. P. 39; Emden's Digest for 1884, col. 407. Harrison v. Stickney 2 H. L. Cas. 108. Thorpe v. Adams L. R. 6 O. P. 125. Garnett v. BradleyELR 3 App. Cas. 944. Reg. v. Bedlington OverseersUNK 48 J. P. 486; and Emden's The ......