The King against The Company of Proprietors of The Liverpool Exchange
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1285
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 550; 3 L. J. M. C. 107.
[465] the king against the company of proprietors ok the liverpool exchange. 1834. By a;*statute, which incorporated a company, the company was empowered to purchase land and erect buildings thereon, in which the proprietors were to be beneficially interested in proportion to their subscriptions, and such interest was to be personalty ; and it was enacted that two or more rooms should be provided and used as public rooms for transacting business relating to trade and commerce, and suitably furnished for the purpose. One of the rooms so provided was supplied with newspapers and other publications, and non-proprietors were admitted upon an annual subscription : Held, that the company was rateable for the revenue (after deducting the expenses of the room) arising from such subscription, though stock in trade, profits, and personalty were not rated in the parish, the rate being taken in the parish upon the fair annual value of the property to be let. By the statute, each proprietor was entitled to attend the room without making any payment: and, by the by-laws of the company, each proprietor was entitled to a payment from the company of an annual sum upon every share above one held by him; and every proprietor not attending the room was paid by the company an annual sum : Held, that the company was not rateable for the value of the privilege of such of the proprietors as attended. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 550; 3 L. J. M. C. 107.] On an appeal by the Company of Proprietors of the Liverpool Exchange, at the (a) The reporters were indebted to Mr. Barstow for the note of Rose v. Haycock. 1286 THE KING V. PROPRIETORS OF LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE 1 AD. & E. 486. Quarter Sessions for the borough of Liverpool, against a rate by which the proprietors, as owners and occupiers, were rated at 2s. 4d. in the pound upon an annual sum of 12001. for their public news room in the Exchange Buildings, and the conveniences and improvements thereof, and the privileges thereto annexed or appertaining, the rate was confirmed, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case :- The appellants are a company incorporated by Act of Parliament, 42 G. 3, c. 71 (a), intituled " An Act for Enabling certain Persons in the Town and Port of Liverpool, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, to Erect an Exchange there for the Accommodation of Themselves and the Merchants and Others concerned in Trade in the said Town and Port, and for Incorporating the Proprietors thereof ;" the preamble of which states, that the merchants, brokers, underwriters, and others concerned [466] in trade and commerce in the town and port of Liverpool, had for a long time past experienced great inconvenience from the want of a public exchange, and rooms and buildings for the purpose of transacting the general trade and business of the said town and port. By sect. 2 the company were empowered to purchase certain houses, buildings, lands, and premises mentioned in the Act. By sect. 5 the company were empowered to pull down the houses and other buildings, and to erect on the land an extensive and ornamental range of public buildings, with a spacious area in front, to be called by the name of the " Liverpool Exchange," according to certain plans. By sect. 6 it was enacted, that the area to be formed in front of the aforesaid buildings should be appropriated to the public use of the merchants, and traders, and inhabitants of the town of Liverpool, and of persons resorting thereto for the purposes of trade and commerce, in the manner of an exchange, under such regulations and restrictions, and to be opened and closed at such times, as the said company of proprietors, their successors or assigns, should from time to time direct; and further, that two or more rooms should be provided in the said intended buildings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...98 ER 977 Kempe v Spence (1779) 2 Black W 1244; 96 ER 733 R v Mast (1795) 6 TR 154; 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......