William Horsley against Ralph Bell, Peter Censott, Matthew Butterwick, Executor of Simon Butterwick, Jane Etherington, Administratrix of William Seavers, and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1778 |
| Date | 01 January 1778 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 494
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[770] Case 369.-william horsley against ralph bell, peter censott, matthew butterwick, Executor of simon butterwick, jane etherington, Administratrix of william seavers, and Others. [1778.] The acting commissioners for making a brook navigable, with power to borrow money, &c., employed the plaintiff to do different parts of the works, and such of the commissioners as were present at the several meetings made orders relative thereto. Every one of them were present at some of the meetings, but no one was present at all the meetings. The fund proving deficient, held, all the acting commissioners were personally liable to pay plaintiff.-[Lib. Reg. 1777, A. fo. 149. S. 0. 11 Hill MSS. 459, and in Mr. Poole's MSS.; 1 Bro. 0. 0. 101, in note.] Before Lord Bathurst, 0., assisted by Mr. Justice Gould and Mr. Justice Ashhurst, 6th and 9th Feb. 1778. An Act of Parliament passed to make a brook, called Codbeok Brook, leading from the river Swale to the town of Thursk, navigable. The defendants, amongst a great many other persons, were named commissioners to put the act in execution. Certain tolls were to be paid by vessels which should navigate on the brook, and the commissioners were empowered to borrow money on the tolls. Large subscriptions were made, and the work was begun. The commissioners appointed a treasurer and a surveyor. The defendants were, or represented, all the acting commissioners, who employed the plaintiff to make cuts on different parts of the brook, and to do works in prosecution of the scheme, at certain prices ; and gave orders for that purpose at their several meetings. Several orders were made at different meetings, and by such of the defendants as were present at those meetings, but none of the defendants were present at all the meetings, or joined in all the orders; but every -one of them were present, and joined in making some of the orders. The plaintiff's demands amounted to more than 2800, and he received at different times sums of money on account, so that there remained 485 unpaid. The undertaking was not completed; but the plaintiff having furnished what he engaged to do, applied to the commissioners to be paid the remainder of his demand, which they declined to do, giving as a reason that they had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower v Griffith, and Thers
...Bench. BOWER and GRIFFITH, AND THERS. Horsley v. BellENRAmbler, 770; S. C. 1 Br. Ch. C. 100, n. Cullen v. The Duke of Queensberry1 Br. Ch. C. 100. Eaton v. BellENR5 B. & Ald. 34. Doubleday v. MuskettENR7 Bing. 110. Bogg v. PearseENR10 C. B. 534. Addison v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses......
-
Allison v Herring
...of Equity, in order to prevent the remedy from being lost, will act against some of them. Horslt.y v. Bell (1 Bro. C. C. 101, note; and Amb. 770), Merielv. Wymondsokl (Hard. 205), Douglas v. Horsfall (2 Sim. & Stu. 184), [588] Meux v. Maltby (2 Swanst. 277 ; see 283), Eaton v. Bell (5 Barn.......
-
Todd snd Another v Emly and Another
...responsible; that the orders are given by different parties makes no difference, all are equally liable. The case of Hursley v. Sett (Ambler, 770; 1 Bro. C. C. 101) is a distinct authority for the plaintiffs. There, an act of Parliament having been passed to make a certain brook navigable, ......
-
Auty v Hutchinson
...The law is laid down in similar terms in Smith's Mercantile Law (4th edit. p. 151). [Wilde, C. J., referred to Horsley v. Bell (Ambler, 770). There, the acting commissioners for making a brook navigable, with power to borrow money, &c., employed the plaintiff to do different parts of the wo......