The Marquis of Salisbury against The Great Northern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1852 |
| Date | 20 January 1852 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 1503
QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 7 Railw. Cas. 175; 21 L. J. Q. B. 185; 16 Jur. 740. Commented on, Haynes v. Haynes, 1861, 1 Dr. & Sm. 445. See Tiverton and North Devon Railway v. Loosemore, 1882-1884, 51 L. J. Ch. 573; 22 Ch. D. 25; 9 App. Cas. 488. Referred to, Great Western Railway v. Swindon and Cheltenham Extension Railway, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 803. Not applied, Church v. London School Board, 1892, 8 T. L. R. 311. Referred to, Sewell v. Harrow and Uxbridge Railway, 1902, 19 T. L. R. 130; Mercer v. Liverpool, St. Helens and South Lancashire Railway, [1903], 1 K. B. 661; [1904], A. C. 461.
the marquls of salisbury against the great northern railway company. Tuesday, January 20th, 1852. Notice by a railway company to a land-owner, under seel. 18 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, requiring the lands for the purposes of the company, is a sufficient exercise of the powers of compulsory purchase given by that Act to place the company and the land-owner in the position of purchaser and vendor : and entry by the company upon the lands, after the previous steps prescribed by sect. 85 have been taken, is not an exercise of tha company's powers of compulsory purchase, but an act which is made legal by the previous exercise of those compulsory powers, and need not, therefore, be done within the period prescribed by sect. 123. [S. C. 7 Railw. Gas. 175; 21 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; 16 Jur. 740. Commented on, Haynes v. Haynes, 1861, I Dr. & Sm. 445. See Tiverlon and North Devon Railway v. Loose-more, 1882-1884, 51 L. J. Ch. 573; 22 Ch. I). 25; 9 App. Gas. 488. Referred to, Great fPesttrn Railway v. Swiitdon and Cheltenham Extension Railway, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 803. Not applied, Church v. Lmulon School Board, 1892, 8 T. L. R. 311. Referred to, Sewell v. Harrow and Uxbr'ulge. Railway, 1902, 19 T. L. R. 130; Mercer v. Liverpool, St. Helens and South Lancashire Railway, [1903] 1 K. B. 661; [1904] A. C. 461.] By an order of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, a special case was stated for the opinion of this Court. The material statements were as follows. [841] The plaintiff, for many years, has been, and still is, seised for life of certain lands situate in the parish of Hatfield, in the county of Herts, part of which consists of 1 a. 3 r. 1 p., hereinafter particularly described, subject only to a tenancy from year to year by the tenants or farmers of the plaintiff; and the plaintiff never had any greater estate than an estate for life in the same hereditaments. The case then stated that, by the Great Northern Railway Act, 1846 (a)2 (Royal assent 26th June), the Great Northern Railway Company, the defendants, were incorporated for the purpose in the said Act mentioned; and the Lands and Railways Glauses Consolidation Acts, 1845, are incorporated therewith (sect. 1). By sect. 27 of the said Great Northern Railway Act it was enacted "that the powers of the said company for the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of" the said Act (a)1 After being bailed on the conviction in Kent, the defendant had been again convicted of a similar offence in Middlesex, and committed to the house of correction there. A question now arose as to the custody to which he should bo remanded, the Middlesex gaoler refusing to transfer him to the Kent gaoler, who was in attendance pursuant to notice given him for that purpose. The Court (after conference with the Master) decided that he must be remanded to the custody of the gaoler for Kent. (a)2 9 & 10 Viet. c. Ixxi. (local and personal, public), " for making a railway from London to York, with branches therefrom providing for the counties of Hertford, Redford, Huntingdon, Northampton, Rutland, Nottingham, and the three divisions of the county of Lincoln a railway communication with London and York, to be called 'The Great Northern Railway Company.'" 1504 MARQUIS OF SALISBURY V. GREAT NORTHERN RLY. CO. 17Q. B. 842. " shall not be exercised after the expiration of five years from the passing of" that Act; and no other provision is made in that Act, limiting the time for compulsory taking or purchase of lands. The said company have not obtained an extension of time for the purchase by them of the said 1 a. 3 r. 1 p. of land, or any part thereof, pursuant to stat. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 3. On 21st May 1851, the Great Northern Railway Company gave the plaintiff a notice in writing of that [842] date; whereby they required to purchase and take, for the purpose of the said railway, the land described in the schedule and plan thereunto annexed. The case further stated that the notice called upon the plaintiff before the expiration of twenty-one days to deliver to Messrs. Baxter, Rose and Norton (the company's solicitors) a statement, in writing, of the sum which he was willing to receive in satisfaction and compensation for the value of such land ; and that the schedule described the said land (being that part of the plaintiff's land hereinbefore mentioned) as all those pieces or parcels of land, &c., delineated on the plan thereto annexed, as the same were then or were about to be staked or set or otherwise marked out for the purpose of the before mentioned railway, containing together by admeasurement 1 a. 3 r. 1 p., situate, &c., and then or late in the occupation, &o. And that the hereditaments, &c. above described were admitted to be parcel of certain lands, &c. delineated in the Parliamentary plan, and described in the book of reference thereto, deposited by the promoters of the London & York Railway Company, afterwards incorporated under the title of the Great Northern Railway Company, with the clerk of the peace for the county of Hertford, and in such plan and book distinguished by Nos. 136 and 143, &c. The case then stated that, on 26th May 1851, the plaintiff's solicitor, by letter to the solicitors of the company, offered to accept 6001. as the price for the said lands; which offer was, on the part of the said company, declined : and thereupon the company proceeded to adopt measures for obtaining possession of the said lands, pursuant to the 84th and 85th sections [843] of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 18). That, on 18th June 1851, they applied to two justices to appoint a surveyor, to determine the value of the said land : and they appointed a surveyor, who valued the same at 1581.: that, on 23d June 1851, the company deposited 1581. in the Bank of England, in the name, &c. of the Accountant General, to the credit of the plaintiff, which sum still remains so deposited : and that, on the following day, the defendants delivered to the plaintiff a bond, as prescribed by sect. 85. The company have taken no other measures towards the purchase of the said land save as herein stated ; and they took no measures for obtaining possession of the land within three years from the passing of the said special Act. On 21st May 1851, the company served a notice in writing of that date on Frederick Farr and John Farr, the tenants or occupiers of the plaintiffs said land, who hold the same as yearly tenants to the plaintiff, similar to the aforesaid notice served on the plaintiff. The case proceeded to state that, on 18th June 1851, the defendants and the said F. F. and J. F. disagreeing on the amount of compensation, the defendants caused them to be summoned to appear before two justices of the peace, &c. at, &o., in order that the said justices might determine the amount: and ultimately, on 8th July 1851, the said justices awarded to the said F. F. and J. F. 251. as compensation for their interest as tenants of the said land; that defendants thereupon tendered the said sum, which F. F. and J. F. refused to receive; and consequently they have not received the same, or any other compensation from the defendants. [844] In the same month of July, the company threatened to enter upon and use the plaintiffs said land without the consent or permission of the plaintiff, or his solicitors or agents, but did not enter upon the same; and the plaintiff thereupon, on 19th July 1851, filed his bill of complaint in the Court of Chancery against the said company, praying for an injunction to restrain them from entering upon or taking possession of plaintiff's said land, and from digging for gravel or committing any other act of waste or spoil thereon. On 4th August 1851, a motion was made in the said cause, before Sir J. L. K. Bruce V.-C., for an injunction according to the prayer of the bill; whereupon it was ordered (among other things) that a case should be made for the opinion of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench ; and the question was to be, whether the defendants, under the circumstances befnre stated, have, or had in the month of July last, the 17 Q. B. a. MARQUIS OF SALISBURY V. GREAT NORTHERN BLY. CO. 1505 right to take the lands comprised in the notice to treat, dated the 21st May last, in the plaintiff's bill mentioned. The caae was now argued by Bramwell, for the plaintiff. Sect. 27 of the company's Act declares that their powers for the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of the Act (which powers are, by sect. 1, the same as those given by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18) shall not be exercised after the expiration of five years from the passing of the Act. The company, therefore, have no right to enter upon the plaintiff's land, inasmuch as they have not exercised their compulsory powers within the prescribed period. All that they have done has been to give a [845] notice to the plaintiff that they required the land, and, upon his differing with them as to the price, to have the land valued, and to deposit a sum of money and enter into a bond, as prescribed by sects. 85, 86 of stat. 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18. [Patteson J. In Doe dem. Armitstead v. North Staffordshire Railway Company (16 Q. B. 526), we held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº ACQ 132 1998. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 06-04-2000
...Board (1963) 15 P&CR 53 Advance Ground Rents v Middlesbrough Borough Council [1986] 2 EGLR 221 Salisbury (Marquess) v Great Northern Ry (1852) 17 QB 840; 117 ER 1503 Tiverton and North Devon Ry v Loosemore (1884) 9 App Cas 480 Grice v Dudley Corporation [1958] 1 Ch 329 Bonham - Carter v Hyd......
-
Haynes v Haynes
...C. 615); Queen v. Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Company (15 Q. B. 634); Marquis of Salisbury v. Great Northern Railway Company (17 Q. B. 840); Hill v. Great Northern. 444 HAYNES V. BAJBNES , 1 DR. & Sffl. 430. Railway Company (1 Jur. (N. Si) 102) ; Exparte Hawkins (13 Sim. 6Q); Ric......
-
Tillett v The Charing Cross Bridge Company
...Lastly, that the notice to treat was of itself a sufficient contract. They cited Marquis of Salisbury v. Great Northern Railway Company (17 Q. B. 840) ; The Regent's Canal Company v. Ware (23 Beav. 575) ; Haiokes v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (1 De G. M. & G. 752 ; and 5 H. of L. Gas.......
-
The Marquis of Salisbury v The Great Northern Railway Company
...Annintead v. Tli ' North Staffordshire Railway Company, 16 Q. B. 526, and The Marquis of Salisbury v. The Great Northern Raihviiy Company, 17 Q. B. 840, shew that the company here could not be treated as trespassers. In the course of the argument in the last case, Lord Campbell, addressing ......