The South Eastern Railway Company, Appellants, against The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Dorking, Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 1226
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 633; 7 Railw. Cas. 877; 18 Jur. 672. Applied, R. v. London and North Western Railway, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 147. See Great Central Railway v. Banbury Union, [1907] 1 K. B. 717; [1909] A. C. 91; Great Central Railway v. Sheffield Union, [1908] 1 K. B. 757; [1909] A. C. 91.
[491] the south eastern railway company, Appellants, against the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of dorking, Respondents, 1854. The undertaking of the R. railway Company was, under an Act of Parliament, let to the S. E, Company at an agreed rent for 1000 years ; and the S. E. Company entered and occupied the line under the lease. By a subsequent Act, the two Companies were amalgamated ; and, in lieu of the rent formerly paid to the R. Company, the shareholders became entitled to annuities, equivalent in amount to the rent, chargeable on the funds of the amalgamated Company, of which the R. line tiow became a branch. - Two rates were made by the overseers of the parish of D. on the S. E. Company as occupiers of a portion of the R. line which passed through that parish. One was made during the time that the R. line was the property of a separate Company, but occupied by the S. E. Company as tenants under the lease. The other was made after the analgamation. Notice of appeal was given against each ; and a case waa stated for the opinion of this Court. The first question for the Court was, in substance, Whether the rent, during the period when the line was on lease, and the amount of the annuities paid for the line after the amalgamation, were the proper criterion of the rateable value of the branch line. - Held, by the whole Court, that they were not the criterion of the rateable value, which depended upon the present annual value of the property occupied, aud might be more or less than the sum which the parties had agreed to give for it. - The case stated that traffic was brought by the R. line on the main line of the S. E. Company, and profit was thua obtained by the S. E. Company from the R. line, as a feeder to the main line of the Company : and it waa found, as a fact, that, if the R. line was in the market, it would be an object of competition between the S. E. line and rival companies, and the rent would, in fact, be enhanced by such competition. The second and third questions for the Court were, in substance, Whether these matters should be taken into account iu estimating the rateable value of the part of the R. line within the parish of D., or whether the rateable value should be calculated solely on the profits of the line itself. On this: - Held, by Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge J. and Crompton J., that both these matters were to be taken into account, inasmuch as, though lying out of the parish of D., they enhanced the value of the occupation of the portion of the line in D., and, though there might be much difficulty in calculating the result, the Sessions were to find it as nearly as they could. - Erie J. dissenting, and holding that the enhanced earnings on the parts of the line of the S. E. Company out of the parish of D. were to be rated in the parishes where these parts were situate, and not in the 3 EL. & BL. 492. SOUTH EASTERN RLY. CO. V. OVEKSEERS OF DORKING 1227 parish of D., and that the only question was, what was the rent which would now be given for the occupation of the part of the line in D. [S. C. 2 0. L. R. 633; 7 Railw. Gas. 877 ; 18 Jur. 672. Applied, M. v. London and Nwth Western Railway, 1874, L. 11. 9 Q. B. 147. See Great Central Railway v. Banbury Union, [1907] 1 K. B. 717 ; [1909] A. C. 91; Great Central Railway v. Sheffield Union, [1908] 1 K. B. 757 ; [1909] A. C. 91.] Notices having been given of appeal against two several rates for the relief of the poor of the parish of Dorking, a case was, by order of a Judge and consent, stated for the opinion of this Court. The material parts of the case were as follows. [492] "The South Eastern Railway Company was established and incorporated under that name by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. Ixxv.(a). " The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company were incorporated under that title by The Reading, Guildford and Reigate Railway Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Viet. c. clxxi.(A)), and were thereby authorized to make a railway from The Great Western Railway at or near the Reading station of such railway in Berkshire, to join The South Eastern Railway in the parish of Reigate in Surrey. The same statute enacts that it shall be lawful for The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company to demise or lease The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway to The South Eastern Railway Company for such term, and upon such conditions, as shall be or shall have been agreed upon between the said Companies, and to carry into effect any arrangement, inconsistent with any of the provisions thereinbefore contained, that shall be or shall have been agreed upon between the said Companies, subject to the provision next thereinafter contained, which is to the effect that The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Company should proceed with the construction of the entire line from Reading to Reigate, so that the same should be completed within the time limited by the Act, and that it should not be lawful for them to enter into any agreement with The South Eastern Railway Company for the abandonment of any portion thereof. " By articles of agreement, under the respective com-[493]-mon seals of the said Companies, made llth May 1847, it was agreed between the said Companies that The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company should grant to The South Eastern Railway Company a lease at a rent equal to 51. 10s. per cent, per annum on the capital raised and to be raised by The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company, not exceeding 600,0001., without any participation in profits by the said last mentioned Company ; by way of commutation " for 41. 10s. per cent., and half profits as previously agreed for; "and that the portion of the line between Dorking and Reigate should be included in the said lease; and also that, when The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company should have made the said Reading, Guildford & Reigate line, they should grant, and The South Eastern Railway Company should accept, a lease thereof for 1000 years on the terms in such agreement mentioned. " The Reading, Guildford & Reigate line was completed, and opened for traffic throughout, from Reigate to Reading, before 15th March 1850, on which day a lease was granted by The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company to The South Eastern Railway Company, for the term of 1000 years, at the yearly rent of 33,0001. clear of all rates and charges except income tax. The lease also provided that The South Eastern Railway Company should pay interest, not exceeding 41. per cent, per annum, on a bond debt of 200,0001. incurred in making the Reading, Guildford & Reigate line, which interest amounts to the sum of 80001. a year. The South Eastern Railway Company are bound by the lease to keep the line in repair. When the lease was granted The South Eastern Railway Company were [494] bound by the agreement of llth May 1847 to take the lease." "The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway mentioned in the said lease forms a junction with The South Eastern Railway at Redhill in the parish of Reigate in the county of Surrey, and runs thence to Reading in the county of Berks; but it does not form a junction with The Great Western Railway. " The Reading, Guildford & Reigate line is worked by The South Eastern Railway (a) Local and personal, public: "For making a railway from The London and Croydou Railway to Dover, to be called The Soutb Eastern Railway." (If) Local and personal, public: "For making a railway from Reading to Guildford and Reigate," 1228 SOUTH EASTERN ELY. CO. V. OVERSEERS OF DORKING 8 El. & BL. 496. Company, in connection with the main line from London to Dover, and the branches connected therewith ; and The South Eastern Railway Company are the sole occupiers of the whole of the said lines, on which they carry on, exclusively, a business as carriers of passengers and goods. "There are 46 miles of railway between the junction at Redhill and Reading, but only 40 miles of this railway are demised by the lease; 6 miles of the line between Guildford and Ash belonging to The South Western Company, to the use of which The South Eastern Railway Company are entitled on payment of toll, pursuant to an agreement of The Reading, Guildford & Reigate Company and The South Western Railway Company. "The Reading, Guildford and Reigate line, leased to the South Eastern Railway Company, passed, for a length of 341 chains, through the parish of Dorking in the county of Surrey. " By a rate for the relief of the poor of the said parish of Dorking made on the 6th day of December, 1849, The South Eastern Railway Company were assessed, as occupiers of the portion of the said railway in Dorking parish, at a rateable value 2,2281. 2s. 6d. ; and the rate [495] demanded of The South Eastern Railway Company on that assessment amounts to 2221. 16s. 3d. For the purposes of this case, the said rate is to be taken as made after the date of the said lease, The South Eastern Railway Company not disputing that they were equally liable at the time of the making of the said rate, as if the said lease had been then made." The case then shewed that notice of appeal against this rate was given by The South Eastern Railway Company, and proceeded : "The respondents had in and by the hereinbefore mentioned rate assessed The South...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk v Lemmer
...Estates Ltd., 1959 (3) SA 150 (AA) te bl. 152 3; Motor Insurers' Association of S.A v Schuurman and Landsaat, 1961 (1) SA 486 (AA) te bl. 491; Rose's Car Hire (Pty.) Ltd v Grant, 1948 (2) 466 (A.A.) te bl. 471 - 2; H President Insurance Co. Ltd v Yu Kwam, 1963 (3) SA 766 (AA) te bl. 781. Ho......
-
Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd v Van der Vyver
...only remains to ascertain whether it has been discharged'. Met verwysing na hierdie sitaat sê HOEXTER, A.R., in Hirschel v Mrupe, supra op bl. 491: 'It seems obvious that the danger to which the learned CHIEF JUSTICE refers H must be a danger created by the conduct of the person sought to b......
-
S v Hougaard
...1967 (4) SA te bl. 575G - H; S. v Whitehead, 1970 (4) SA te bl. 436D; S. v Viljoen, 1971 (3) SA te bl. 487A; S. v Wilken, 1971 (3) SA te bl. 491D - G. Die vonnis wat deur die verhoorhof opgelê is, is in die omstandighede skokkend lig gewees en 1972 (3) SA p750 het nie voldoen aan die vereis......
-
S v Whitehead and Another
...Hof daarmee sal inmeng nie. S. v du Toit, 1959 (3) SA 233; S. v Zinn, 1969 (2) SA op bl. 540G tot bl. 542; S. v Wilken, 1971 (3) SA op bl. 491F - Cur. adv. vult. E Postea (September 23). Judgment Botha, J.A.: The appellants, Whitehead and van der Merwe, and Whitehead's wife, were charged be......