The Company of Proprietors of the Grand Surrey Canal v Hall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1840 |
| Date | 02 June 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 386
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Scott, N. R. 264; 9 L. J. C. P. 329. Applied, Vernon v. St. James, West-minster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 458. Principle applied, Attorney-General v. Esher Linoleum Company, [1901] 2 Ch. 650.
[392] the company ok proprietors of the grand surrey canal v. hall. June 2, 1840. ; [S. C. 1 Scott, N. E. ,264; 9. L. J. C. P. 329. Applied, Fernonv. St. James, West minster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 458. Principle applied, Attwney-ff&nercd v. Esher Linoleum ^Company, [1901] 2 Ch. 650.] ; . : By the 41 G-. 3, c. xxxi., s. 66, the incorporated Company of the Proprietors of the Grand Surrey Canal were required to make and maintain bridges over the canal for the use of the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands, and also where the canal was carried across any common highway, public bridleway or footpath.-In 1804, the company erected a swivel bridge at a spot where there was a public bridleway, and footpath, which bridge, as a carriageway, was intended'to be for the exclusive accommodation of the tenants of an adjoining estate, called the Eolls estate. From 1810 to 1822, the public occasionally used the bridge with carriages. In 1822, a church was built near to the canal, streets were formed, and the neighbourhood became very populous. From 1822 to 1832, the bridge was used by the public as a carriageway without interruption. In 1832, the company began to exact a toll from persons, not tenants of the Rolls estate, crossing tha bridge with carriages, and in 1834, they removed the; swivel bridge, and built a stone bridge in its stead.-In trespass by the company against the defendant for passing along the bridge with a horse and chaise, without the leave of the company; the judge after reading the evidence of the jury, told them that, supposing the bridge in question to have been originally built, as a carriageway, for the exclusive accommodation of the tenants of the Eolls estate, still if in consequence of the acts of the company, an idea grew up in the minds of the public that they intended to dedicate the bridge to the public use, such acts would amount to a dedication.-Held, taking all the summing up together, that there waa no misdirection; and that the evidence warranted the jury in finding that there had been a dedication.-Held also, that there was nothing in the constitution of the company, or in the nature of their property, to prevent them from dedicating the bridge in question to the public. Trespass. The declaration stated that defendant, on, &c., with force and arms, &c., broke and entered a certain close of the plaintiffs, being a bridge then erected and placed over and across a certain canal, called the Grand Surrey Canal, situate, &c.; and then by himself, and with a certain horse and chaise, went travelled, and passed in, upon, and over the said close without the leave or licence, and against the will of the plaintiffs. Plea, that before and at: the time when, &c. there; was and of right ought to have been, a certain common and [393] /public highway, into, through, over, and along the said close, in which, &c., for all the liege subjects, &e.. to go, pass, and repass on foot, and with horses, chaises, cattle, and carriages, at all .times ofjthe year, &c.,-with a justification under such right of way. Eeplication traversing the right of way, and issue thereon. .-'.-ò The cause was tried,before Lord DemaanC. J., at the lasfeSemmer assizes for the county of Surrey. By the 41 G. 3, c. xxxi., incorporating the plaintiffs under the name and style of The Company of Proprietors, of the Grand Surrey Canal, it : was enacted, (sect. 66). "That the said company of proprietors sfeallj at their own costs, (within six calendar months next after any part of the said.catnap its branches^,collateral cut or cuts, and 1 MAN. & 6.394. THE GRAND SURREY CANAL COMPANY V. HALL 387 towing paths thereto belonging, shall be dug out and formed,) divide and separate, and keep constantly divided and separated, the towing paths on each side of the said canal, its branches, collateral cut or cuts, and the trenches, feeders, or passages hereby 'authorized to be made on such part or parts thereof respectively, (as shall be deemed necessary by any three or more justices of the county of Surrey or Kent, in case there shall be any doubt or dispute about the same,) from the adjoining lands or grounds, by posts and rails, hedges, ditches, trenches, banks or other fences sufficient to keep Off sheep and other cattle; the same to be set out and made on the lands or grounds which shall be purchased by, conveyed to, or vested in the said company of proprietors as aforesaid; and the said company of proprietors shall, at their own proper costs and charges, from time to time maintain and support the said towing paths, and the said posts, rails, hedges, ditches, trenches, banks, and other fences so set up and made as aforesaid; and also shall, at their own like costs and charges make up, erect, and set up, and [394] from time to time maintain and support, such and so many convenient gates and stiles in, over, and through all the hedges and fences to be by them so made on the sides of such towing paths as aforesaid, and also all such bridges, fording places, arches, culverts, and passages over, under, or by the side of, or into the said canal or collateral cut, and the feeders, trenches, and aqueducts communicating therewith, and the towing paths on the sides thereof, of such dimensions and in such manner as any three or more justices of the peace for the said county of Surrey or Kent shall from time to time deem necessary and direct and in case there shall be any dispute about the same, for the use of the owners and occupiers of the lands and grounds, tenements, or hereditaments adjoining to such canal, its branches, collateral cut or cuts, and other works; or any of them respectively ; and the said company of proprietors shall not make the said canal, its branches, collateral cut or cuts, or any trench Or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rochdale Canal Proprietors v Radcliffe
...of an abuse does not exclude the supposition of such a grant as is here relied upon. In The Grand Surrey Canal Company v. Hall (1 Man. & G. 392), the proprietors of the canal were directed by statute to make and maintain bridges across the canal for the use of the adjoining landowners; they......
-
The Queen against Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, Baronet, and John Sutton, Esquire
...repaired : and it was held that they were indictable if they suffered it to be out of repair. In The Grand Surrey Canal Company v. Hall (1 Man. & G. 392, 401), where the proprietors of canal navigation were liable, under their Navigation Act, to maintain bridges, Tiudal C.J. said : " If the......
-
Roberts against Hunt
...public is entitled to use, though the parish be not bound to repair it? Patteson J. mentioned The Grand Surrey Canal Company v. Hall (1 Man. & G. 392). Lord Campbell C.J. If this were not a highway, the owners of the land might resume it, even if they had given a notice of dedication. Sect.......