Woods v Reed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 971
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. M. & H. 256; 6 L. J. M. C. 105; 1 Jur. 407. Discussed, Jones v. Johnson 1850, 5 Ex. 876. Referred to, Reg. v. Wigan, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 322; Reg. v. Maidenhead Corporation, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 355.
WOODS v. reed. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-Under the Municipal Corporation Act 6 Will. 4, c. 76, h. 02, the council of a borough have no power to make a retrospective rate. [8. C. M. &H. 250 ; (i L. J. M. C. 105 ; 1 Jnr. 407. Discussed, Jones v. Johnson 1850, 5 Ex. 87(5. Referred to, liny. v. IVigan, 1874, L R. 9 Q. B. 322 ; liuj. v. Maidenheud Corporation, 1882, 8 Q. 13. D. 355.] This was an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for the seizing and taking of certain goods of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue-not guilty; and issue having been joined thereon, the following case was, by consent of the parties, stated under a judge's order for the opinion of the Court. After the passing of the act of Parliament 5 & (i Will. 4, c. 76, " for the regulation of municipal corporations in England and Wales," various expenses had been and were necessarily incurred in and by the borough of Stamford, in the county of Lincoln, being one of the boroughs within the operation of that statute, in carrying into effect the provisions of the said act. And the borough fund of the said borough not being sufficient for the payment of such expenses, at an adjourned meeting of the council of the said borough, pursuant to notice before then given for that purpose, duly held at the Town Hall, in and for the said borough, on Saturday the I.'5th May, 1837, at which the mayor and the major part of the councillors of the said borough were present, the council of the said borough estimated, as correctly as might be, .what amount, in addition to the borough fund, would be sufficient and necessary for the payment of the expenses which had been so incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the said act, the amount of such estimate being 23161. 2s. l^d. ; and by nn order then duly made at such meeting, after [778] reciting that by the accounts of the said borough and otherwise, it appeared that since the passing of the said act of Parliament various expenses had been necessarily incurred in the said borough, in carrying into effect the provisions of the said act therein, and that the borough fund of the said borough was not sufficient for the payment of such expenses, and that a considerable sum in addition to such fund would be necessary for that purpose ; and that it appeared to the said council so assembled, and they had estimated and did thereby estimate as correctly as might be, that the sum of 231(11. 2s. lid. was necessary and sufficient to be raised, in addition to the said borough fund, to satisfy and pay the expenses so incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the said act of Parliament; it was ordered by the said council, that a borough-rate in the nature of a county-rate should be made in the said borough, for the purpose of raising the said sum of 23161. 2s. l^d. so estimated, and for that purpose that there should be assessed, and the said council did thereby assess, upon every parish thereinafter named, (the same respectively lying and being within the borough aforesaid), the several and respective sums of money thereinafter mentioned to bo charged on every such parish respectively, that is to say- Upon the Parish of All-Saints .... .039 10 4^ Upon the Parish of Saint Mary .... 179 2 9" Upon the Parish of Saint Michael .... 502 2 9 Upon the Parish of Saint John .... '2KB 18 0 Upon the Parish of Saint U-eorge .... 397 13 8^ Upon the Parish of Saint Martin .... 342 2 4^ The same being and after the rate of 2s. lid. in the pound upon the full and fair annual value of the messuages, lands, tenements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Attorney-General (Victoria) v Geelong Corporation
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...B. Div. THE QUEEN (JOHN M'EVOY) and THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN. Woods v. ReedENR 2 M. & W. 777. Jones v. JohnsonENRENR 5 Ex. 862; 7 Ex. 452. Attorney-General v. Corporation of LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 120; 17 L. J. Ch. 472. The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 701. Attorney-Gene......
-
Waddington, Elliott, Wilcox, Webster, Sprague and Clarke against The Guardians of the Poor of the City of London Union
...may "estimate," under Article 81, appears from a decision on an analogous provision in stat. 5 & 6 VV. 4, c. 76, s. 92, Woods v. Reed (2 M. & W. 777), where it was held that the council of a municipal borough cannot, in estimating the sum required for carrying the Act into effect, include p......
-
The Queen (at the prosecution of John G. R Porter) v The Guardians of The Omagh Union Same v Pelly
...HaworthENR 12 East. 556. Farlar v. Chesterton 2 Moore's P. C. . 330. The King v. Justices of Flintshire 5 B.& Ald. 761. Woods v. ReedENR 2 M. & W. 777. The Queen (M'Evoy) v. Corporation of DublinUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 371. The Queen (Jephson) v. The Justice of the Co. of RoscommonUNK 12 L. R. Ir. ......