The King against W. Jolliffe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1787 |
| Date | 14 November 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 50
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
7 T. R. 598. 5 East, 480. 1 M. & S. 667.
Approved, Pimlico Tramway Company v. Greenwich, 1873, L. R. 9 Q. B. 13.
50 THE KING V. JOLLIFFE 2 T. R. 91. the king against W. jolliffe. Wednesday, Nov. 14th, 1787. If A. has an exclusive right of using a way-leave over land which he holds in commou with B. paying B. a certain sum yearly, and has the privilege of using a way-leave occupied by C. paying him so much per ton for the goods carried over it, A. is not liable to be rated to the relief of the poor in respect of either of such way-leaves. Q. Whether the owner of the land, who receives a profit for such way-leave, is not liable to be rated for such an increase of value? [7 T. B. 598. 5 East, 480. 1 M. & S. 667.] [Approved, Pimlico Tramway Company v. Greemvich, 1873, L. E. 9 Q. B. 13.] The defendant was rated to the poor in respect of certain way-leaves or liberties of passage over certain lands in the township of Harraton, Durham, rented by him for conveyiug and carrying his coals worked out of his coal-mines and collieries [91] in Waldridge to the river Wear, and there lodging the same in his staith till they are put into keels or lighters, and carried down the said river to the port of Sunder-land in the said county, to be there put on ship-board, at the yearly rent in the whole of 7521. 4s. being the amount of what he paid annually for such way-leaves or liberties of passage to the several owners of the lands through which the same way-leaves or liberties of passage are granted. On appeal the sessions of Durham confirmed the rate, and stated the following case for the opinion of this Court : The appellant is the proprietor and worker of certain coal-mines and collieries in the township of Waldridge in the parish of Chester-le-Street, in the county of Durham, which have been won by him and wrought for above five years last past. For the purpose of exporting the coals won and wrought out of the said coal-mines and collieries, and vending the same by water sale, the defendant contracted with R. Milbarike, Esq. who is tenant in common with himself, and others, whose respective grounds lie between the said collieries and the river Wear, for certain way-leaves or liberties of passage for leading coals with coal waggons or otherwise, and of making and laying waggon-ways in and through their lands and grounds in the moat con venient direction to or towards the river, for a certain term of years, at and under certain yearly rents and payments, and upon certain conditions stipulated and agreed upon. In pursuance of those contracts, the defendant obtained leases from those several persons of such way-leaves, and liberty of making and laying waggon-ways in and through the lands and grounds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce and the Bath River Navigation Company against Willis and Two Others
...on the company to reinstate the railway, which they had broken up. Secondly, as to the towing path, this case is like Eex v. Jolliffe (2 T. R, 90), where a party was held not rateable for way-leaves. Bex v. Bell (7 T. R. 598), may be cited for tha defendants: but there the party who was hel......
-
The King against Thomas
...have a mere easement in alieno solo, cannot. They are not, therefore, the occupiers of the land covered with water; and Bex v. Jolliffe (2 T. R. 90), is an express authority to shew that a mere easement in the soil of another is not rateable. The right which the proprietors of this navigati......
-
The King against Watson
... ... If land so applied be rateable at all, it would be less_ inconvenient to rate it in the hands of the corporation who are seised of the freehold; though many difficulties of another sort would present themselves against such a rating. In R. v. Jolliffe (6)1, one who had a way-leave over another's land, which was an enjoyment of the soil [484] in a particular mode, was holden not rateable for it, though it were a thing of value and let for a large rent; because the occupier of the land over which it passed was rated for it, and the land could not ... ...
-
William Roberts and Others, Appellants against The Overseers of Aylesbury, Respondents
...occupied, and a consideration paid for its occupation to the owner or his lessee]. Such a liberty is like the way leave in Rex v. Jolliffe (2 T. R. 90), which was held not rateable. There are no words in stat. 43 El. c. 2, s. 1, including this liberty; it cannot be comprehended under the te......