The Ryde Commissioners v The Isle of Wight Ferry Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1862 |
| Date | 10 March 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 1029
ROLLS COURT
[616] the ryde comm[ksioners -a. the isle of wiuht ferry company. March 4, 10, 1862. The Defendants proposed turning an inclined road or slipway, leading from the town to the seashore, from the north-east to the north-west. It appeared that this, so far from producing any injury, would make a more convenient landing-place. Held, that whether the Defendants were authorized or not, the Court would not interfere in the matter. The Plaintiffs were incorporated by "The Ryde Improvement Act, 1854," with certain powers. The Defendants were incorporated by " The Isle of Wight Ferry Act, 1856," which incorporated "The Companies," &c., "The Lands," and the " Harbour," &c., Clauses Acts. The subject in dispute was an inclined road or slipway at the esplanade at Ryde, called " George Street slipway," which was used by the public for the purpose of landing coals and merchandize, from ships beached on the sands in front of the town. The Plaintiffs complained that the Defendants had compulsorily taken part of the esplanade and outer wall, without paying the compensation, and that they were obstructing the slipway. The bill stated that the De-[617]-fendants alleged it was their property, and that they were entitled to block it up and destroy it, or to exact a toll for its use, but this was disavowed at the Bar. The facts relating to the matter are more fully stated in the judgment. The bill prayed as follows :- "That the Defendants, their agents, servants and workmen may be restrained, by the order and injunction of this honorable Court, from taking or retaining possession of, injuring, obstructing or otherwise interfering with the George Street slipway or the wall thereof, or doing anything to prevent, obstruct or endanger the free access thereto and user thereof." " That the Defendants may pay the costs of this suit." The cause came on upon a motion for a decree. Mr. Baggallay and Mr. John Pearson, for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. C. T. Simpson, for the Defendants. They cited Ware v. The Reymt'x Canal Company (23 Beav. 57-r , and 3 De G. & J. 212); The Mayor of Liverpool v. The Chorlc.y Widznwrk* Company (2 De G. M. & G. 852); Elmhirxt v. Xpenw (2 Mac. & G. 45). 1030 RYDE COMMISSIONERS V. ISLE OF WIGHT FERRY CO. 30BEAV.618. March 10. the master of the eolls [Sir John Romilly], In this case there is a great deal of paper, and some amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney-General v Bray Township Commissioners and The Bray Pavilion Company Ltd
...G. 304. Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers' Gas CompanyELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 71. Ryde Commissioners v. Isle of Wight Ferry CompanyENR 30 Beav. 616. Wilson v. Furness Railway CompanyELR L. R. 9 Eq. 28. West v. DobbELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 460. Hyde v. Warden 3 Ex. Div. 72. Doe v. MarchettiENR 1......
-
Attorney General v Lawless
... ... name of, or on account of, an insurance company, who were the employers of the accused, who was ... ...
-
The Attorney-General v The Bray Township Commissioners and The Bray Pavilion Company Ltd
...Positive Government Security Life Assurance Company (Limited) 1 Ex. Div. 88. The Ryde Commissioners v. The Isle of Wight Ferry CompanyENR 30 Beav. 616. The Attorney-General v. The Cockermouth Local BoardELR L. R. 18 Eq. 172, 178. The Attorney-General v. The Mayor of Liverpool 1 Myl. & Cr. 1......