The Queen, on the Prosecution of Hinchlife, against The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 425
COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 7 Railw. Cas. 266; 22 L. J. Q. B. 57; 17 Jur. 62; 1 W. R. 35. Overruled and reversed, York and North Midland Railway v. R., 1853, 1 El. & Bl. 858, 873(n.).
1EL. &BL.229. THE QUEEN V. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RCY. CO. 425 the queen, on the prosecution of hinchuff, against the lancashire and yorkshire railway company. 1852. Per Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge and Crompton Js.; Erie J. dissentiente:-A. Company having obtained an act of parliament for making a railway, on representation that it will be for the public benefit, with compulsory powers for taking lands along the proposed line, is bound, from the time when such act receives the Royal assent, to execute the work.-The Royal assent makes the Act binding as a contract by the Company with the public and with the landowners, whether the clauses under which the railway is to be made be in form imperative or permissive.-And the Court will enforce the performance by mandamus at the instance of one of the landowners:- Although the powers conferred upon the Company are temporary: And- Although the Company have taken no atep, by issuing shares or otherwise, to carry the act into execution.-A mandamus, issued as above stated, called upon the Company immediately after receipt of the writ to do and take all necessary acts and steps, both as to the purchase of lands and otherwise, for making and completing, and to make and complete, the railway. The Company's act, referred to by the writ, estimated the expense of the works at a stated sum, and enacted that it should be lawful for them to raise a capital to that amount by creation of shares, and by mortgage. It did not appear by the mandamus that this had been done.-Held, nevertheless, that the requisition of the writ was proper, as it must be taken to imply that the Company should raise money by the means pointed out in the act, and it did not appear to be impossible or illegal that they should do so.-And (on demurrer) that a return, alleging merely that the Company had taken no step, either by purchase of lands or otherwise, for making the railway, was no answer. [S. C. 7 Railw. Gas. 266; 22 L. J. Q. B. 57 ; 17 Jur. 62; 1 W. R. 35. Overruled and reversed, York and North Midland Railway v. R., 1853, 1 El. & Bl. 858, 873 (n.).] Mandamus; teste, May 8th, 1852. The writ recited stat. 8 & 9 Viet c. xxxix., local ar;d personal, public, "For making a railway from Huddersfield in the West Riding of the county of York to or near Penistone in the same Riding, there to form a junction with the Sheffield, Ashton under Lyne, & Manchester Railway, to be called The Hudderstield & Sheffield Junction Railway " (a)1; whereby, after reciting (sect. 1), that the [229] making of a railway from or near Huddersfield in the West Riding, &c. to or near Penistone in the said West Riding, there to form a junction, &c. (as above), with a branch to the town of Holmfirtb, " would be of great public advantage, and that the persons" thereinafter named were "willing, at their own expense, to carry such undertaking into execution;" but the same could not be effected without the authority of Parliament; it was enacted, &c.: Companies, Lands and Railways Clauses Consolidation Acta to be incorporated with this act: certain subscribers to be united into a Company for making and maintaining a railway from or near Huddersfield to the Sheffield, Ashton under Lyne, & Manchester Railway, together with a branch therefrom to the town of Holmfirth, &c., and to be incorporated by the name of The Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company : capital of the Company to be 532,0001.: regulation as to number and value of shares: and enactment (a)2 that it should be lawful for the Company to borrow on mortgage or bond any sums not exceeding ui the whole 177,3331., subject to the restrictions in the same act mentioned : And, after reciting deposit of plans and sections and books of reference containing the names of the owners, &c. of the lands through which the line was intended to pass, it was enacted (sect. 16) that, subject to the provisions of the several acts therein mentioned, it should " be lawful for the said Company to make and maintain the said railway and works in the line and upon the lands delineated on the said plana and described in the said books of reference, and to enter upon, take, and use such of the said lands as" should " be necessary for such pur-[230]-pose:" And that the said railway should commence in the parish of Huddersfield in the West Riding, there to (a)1 Royal assent, June 30th 1845. (a)' Sect. 8. By this clause no part of the sum was to be borrowed till the whole capital should have been subscribed for, and one half paid up. K. B. xlvii.-14* 426 THE QUEEN V. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RLY. CO. 1 EL. & BL. 231. form a junction with the proposed railway from Huddersfield to Manchester (being the undertaking of the Huddersfield & Manchester Railway and Canal Company), and thence should pass from, in, through or into the several parishes, &c. and other places therein specified, and terminate by a junction with the Sheffield, Ashton under Lyne, & Manchester railway at or near Penistone in the township, &c., in the said West Riding : And that the said branch should commence, &c.; describing the course of such branch from and out of the main line at or near Brockholes in the West Riding to a termination at or near Holmfirth : powers for compulsory purchase of land not to be exercised after two years from the passing of the act (sect. 19): enactment (sect. 20), that the railway should be completed within five years from the passing of the act, and that, on the expiration of such period, the powers of that or the recited acts, granted to the Company for executing the railway or otherwise in relation thereto, should cease to be exercised, except as to so much of the railway as should then be completed : And that by the same act powers were given to the Company to demand tolls for the use of the railway, as therein mentioned. The writ further recited that, by stat. 9 & 10 Viet. (c. cclxxvii., local and personal, public), "To incorporate The Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company with The Manchester & Leeds Railway Company " (c), after reciting the first above mentioned act, and that the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company had commenced the construction of the said Huddersfield & [231] Sheffield junction railway under the powers of the said act, and had introduced into Parliament a bill or bills for making certain extensions, &c. of or to their then present lines of railway, and that the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company had constructed the Manchester & Leeds railway authorized by the Manchester & Leeds Railway Act, 1836 (6 & 7 W. 4, c. cxi., local and personal, public); and reciting that it was considered that the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction railway might be worked with greater economy and advantage and convenience if managed in conjunction with the undertakings of the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company ; and that the said Companies were respectively willing that arrangements should be made for vesting upon certain conditions the undertakings of the Hudderafield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company, with the works, &c. thereof and all the property, &c. of the same Company, in the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company, and that the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company ahould be incorporated with the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company upon the terms and conditions thereinafter expressed : it was enacted that the several undertakings of The Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company, commenced or not then commenced, and all their lands, moneys, and other their real and personal estate, &c., and all their rights, &c., should, subject to the existing debts, liabilities, &c. of the said Company, be, and the same were thereby, vested in the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company, and might be lawfully executed, completed, held, used and exercised by and in the name of the last mentioned Company in the same manner and to the same extent as the Hudderafield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company [232] could have executed, completed, held, used, exercised and enjoyed the same if that act had not been passed, save only so far as the execution, completion, use, &c. of such undertaking, rights, &c., might be inconsistent with this Act: And the iwrit recited that, by the same act, it was further enacted that all the powers, authorities, &c., matters and things contained in any act or acts relating to the Hudderafield, &c. Junction Railway Company should, with reference to such works, &c. as had been or might have been done by that Company in relation to their said undertaking, and save only as far as they were inconsistent with this act, &c., be executed, done, performed and observed by, and be applied and applicable to, the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company, their directors, officers, &c., in every respect, and as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes, as if the name of the Manchester & Leeds Railway Company had in every case been inserted in the acts relating to the Huddersfield & Sheffield Junction Railway Company instead of the name of that Company. The writ then further recited that by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Companies Act, 1862, and The Ennis and West Clare Railway Company; ex parte Hill
...Union v. Heffernan Ir. 11 Eq. 302. Reg. v. ChampneysELR L. R. 6 C. P. 384, 395. Reg. v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 1 El. & Bl. 228. Reg. v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENR 1 El. & Bl. 253. Re London and Portsmouth Co.ENR 12 Beav. 269. Re Waterford and Lismore Railway C......
-
Stadsraad, Lichtenburg v Administrateur, Transvaal
...v Germiston L. L. Board and Another, 1948 (2) SA 331 te bl. 337; Standard Tea & Coffee saak, supra te bl. 408; R v Detody, 1926 AD 198 te bl. 228; R v Bennett & Co. (Pty.) Ltd. and Another, 1941 T.P.D. 194 te bl. 200; Halsbury, vol. 36, para. 585 en 587; Assam Railways saak, supra te bl. 45......
-
S v Omega Bearing Works (Edms) Bpk en Andere
...van die ander twee appellante. Vgl. R. v. A Mantell, 1959 (1) SA 771 (K) op bl. 775H - 776C; Goosen v Stevenson, 1932 T.P.D. 223 op bl. 228; Alli v De Lira, 1973 (4) SA 635 (T) op bl. 637H - Maar, so betoog mnr. Cillié wat namens appellants opgetree het, daardie getuienis is ontoelaatbaar o......
-
Phame (Pty) Ltd v Paizes
...1955 (1) P.H. A6, vollediger gerapporteer as Ramos v Jackson in Farlam & Hathaway, A Case Book on the South African Law of Contract, bl. 228, het die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling in 'n saak wat groot ooreenkoms vertoon met hierdie een, beslis dat 'n eis om skadevergoeding gegrond op onskuldi......