INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. The Cases in Chancery are distinguished by the letters Ch. ABANDONMENT OF PART OF RAILWAY. 1. A bill was filed by a shareholder That the plaintiff could properly 932 2. On the 4th of May, 1850, a pany, to restrain the directors from The Lord Chancellor admitted the principle of the decision of the Mas- 3. By three several Acts of Par- to form the three lines of railway, was declared to be one Company. The directors determined to abandon two out of the three lines, and were enforcing calls in order to complete the third, when the plaintiff filed his bill, praying an injunction to restrain the completion of one line only, and from enforcing calls for that purpose. To this bill the defendants demurred for want of equity, and for want of parties. The Master of the Rolls expressed his opinion in favour of the bill, but ultimately allowed the demurrer, on the ground that the bill contained no allegation that the directors were about to apply the funds of the Company to the construction of the one line only, with liberty to amend. The plaintiff amended accordingly, and applied for an injunction, which the Master of the Rolls granted. The Lords Justices dissolved the injunction; the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, on the grounds, that the railway being in actual operation, the terms of the injunction were too stringent, that the L. & N. Company ought to be parties to the bill, and that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the expenditure; and the Lord Justice Lord Cranworth, on the ground, that, although the three lines formed, in his opinion, one undertaking, which the Company were bound to complete, the Court would rightly exercise its discretion as to granting an injunction, on an interlocutory application, in the present case, by discharging the order. Hodgson v. Earl Powis-Ch. 956 4. An information was filed at the relation of the corporation of S., praying that a Railway Company might be restrained from proceeding with the construction of or opening a railway from A. to B., without proceeding with and opening a diverging line to S., or until they had given notice to the landowners of the S. line to treat for and purchase the land required for the S. line. No specific relief was prayed. A general demurrer to the information was allowed by The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce holding, on the grounds, that no injury was shewn to result to the pub lic by the partial opening of the line, that the proceeding by writ of mandamus was open to the public, and that the probability of no writ of mandamus issuing before the expiration of the Company's powers, did not constitute an equity. And by The Lord Chancellor, on the ground, that no sufficient cause had been shewn for the interference of the Court on the application of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-C -General v. The Birmingham, &c. R. Cos.-Ch. ACQUIESCENCE. See ABANDONMENT, 2, 3. ACTION. 972 See RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 1. The plaintiff, an engineer, was employed by the provisional committee of a projected Railway Company; and, at a meeting of that committee, the plaintiff being present, a resolution was passed 66 "That the provisional committee disclaim the intention of taking on themselves any personal responsibility as regards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in or about the Company, and that no such responsibility shall sttach to them."-" That it be a recommendation to the committee of management to endeavour to secure the services of J. L. and Col. L. (the plaintiff), it being clearly understood that neither of those gentlemen shall have any personal claim against any member of the provisional committee." Subsequently, at another meeting, the plaintiff being also present, it was resolved that Messrs. L. be requested to forward the survey, "Col. L. (the plaintiff) stating that he would make no claim for his personal services until there should be sufficient funds of the Company to meet any demand he might be entitled to make." In answer to a letter from the secretary, the plaintiff wrote:- I never understood, that, unless the project were successful, the engineers were to abandon all claim; but I did understand that the individuals comprising the committee were not to be held personally liable." Afterwards, at a meeting of the committee, it was resolved, "that the committee bind themselves to be answerable to the extent of 1000l., to be applied to engineering and surveying purposes." Deposits to the amount of 4168/. were received by the committee, but were returned to the shareholders, the scheme having been abandoned in consequence of an arrangement with another Company. In an action by the plaintiff against one of the provisional committee for services performed in promoting the undertaking:-Held, that he was not liable, the plaintiff having undertaken to do the work not upon a contract with the provisional committee, but on the chance of the scheme succeeding and there being funds available for the payment of his claim, which there were not. Landman v. Entwistle, 472 2. A corporation agreed by parol to take, and occupied, premises for a year; they did so occupy and also for another year, at the end of which period they removed their goods without any previous notice, having paid a quarter of the current year's rent:-Held, that they were not liable for the remainder of the year's rent, not having occupied the premises, and the contract arising by payment of rent not being binding on the corporation.-Semble, that, if the plaintiff had, by deed, demised the premises to the defendants as tenants from year to year, and they had accepted the tenancy, that would have created such an interest as would have rendered the defendants liable. Finlay v. The Bristol and Exeter R. Co. 449 3. An action of assumpsit for use and occupation lies against a corporation, where there has been an actual occupation by the corporation, though they have not contracted under seal; and where a Railway Company have occupied, in the absence of any negative evidence, the Court will presume that they occupied under such a parol contract as the directors are by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 97, empowered to enter into. Lowe v. The London and North Western R. Co., 524 4. The plaintiff was the owner of a close adjoining a close which was the property of the Great Northern Railway Company, and by a defect in his fences his sheep strayed on their close, and by a defect in the defendants' fences they got on the defendants' Railway, and were there killed-Held, that, although the Great Northern Railway Company would be entitled, in such a case, to maintain an action for an injury done to their cattle straying from their close, yet, that the plaintiff was not so entitled, either at common law or under 8 Vict. c. 20, s. 68. Ricketts v. The East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction R. Co. 295 AGENT. See AGREEMENT, 7. CARRIER, 3. CONTRACT, 4. AGREEMENT. See COMPANY. 1. A Railway Company agreed with a landowner to purchase so much of his land as they required for their railway at a certain sum, "subject to the making of such roads, ways, and slips for cattle as might be necessary.” The railway severed a portion of the plaintiff's land, and the Company made a crossing on the level, and a cattle creep under their line. The plaintiff, not content with these communications, filed his bill, contending that he was entitled to a bridge over the railway, and to another crossing also. On the hearing of the cause, held, by the Master of the Rolls, and decree confirmed by Lord Chancellor, that the Court had jurisdiction to provide for the specific performance of such an agreement under the direction of the Court, and directed a reference to the Master. Sanderson v. The Cockermouth &c. R. Co.—Ch. 613 2. The Oxford Railway Company, previously to obtaining their Act, entered into a provisional agreement with the Great Western Railway Company, under which it was agreed (among other things) that that Company should assist the Oxford Company in obtaining an Act; and that such Act should contain a power to lease their proposed line to the Great Western Railway Company. The bill passed into an Act, containing powers to lease and sell the new line to the Great Western Railway Company, and under it the Railway was to be made in all respects to the satisfaction of the engineer of that Company, and to be formed of such gauge as to admit of its being worked continuously with the Great Western line. No agreement was finally concluded between the Companies; but, pending negotiations, some of the directors of the new Company entered into an agree ment with the London and North Western Railway Company (which received the sanction of the majority of the shareholders, and was executed under the corporate seals of both Companies), a term in which was as follows:-"The whole concern, without incumbrance, when completed, to be worked by the London and North Western and Midland Counties Railway Companies, who shall have perfect control and exercise all the rights of the Oxford Railway Company;" and another term was, that the Oxford Railway was to be completed as a narrow gauge double line between certain places therein specified. Some of the shareholders of the Oxford Railway Company being dissatisfied with the agreement entered into with the London and North Western Railway Company, filed a bill to restrain that Company, by injunction, from acting under that agreement, or using the funds of the Company in applying to Parliament to sanction it:-Held, that the Oxford Railway Company be injoined from carrying into effect so much of the agreement as bound them to lay down any part of the line on the narrow gauge. Held, that the Court will interfere by injunction to restrain Companies from applying any portion of their funds in a way not authorised by their Acts. That, although the Oxford Railway was to be made so as to be traversed continuously by the Great Western Railway Company, the Oxford Railway Company were not thereby prevented from making a line of a mixed gauge or narrow gauge beside it independent ly; but that they could not do so under the terms of an illegal agreement. That an agreement by one Company to delegate its powers to another Company is illegal. That one dissentient shareholder may file a bill to restrain an illegal proceeding by the Company, although such proceeding may have been sanctioned by a large majority of the shareholders. Semble, that a Court of equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain the execution of an agreement involving a question of law, unless it appear that irreparable injury would result from non-interference. Beman v. Rufford-Ch. 48 3. In order to induce the plaintiff to withdraw his opposition to a bill in Parliament, H. and Y., on behalf of a projected Railway Company, entered into an agreement with him that he should assent to the Railway being made through his property in the manner laid down in the deposited plans, and that the Company should, in case they obtained an Act of incorporation in the then present or any subsequent session, pay to the plaintiff 10007. for all lands required by the Company for the making of the Railway, and a further sum of 4000l. for residential injury. That the Company should construct a tunnel in manner therein mentioned; and that the Company should cause a station to be made at the village F., with all proper approaches, the land required for such station and approaches to be furnished by the plaintiff. The agreement was signed by H. and Y., and the plaintiff withdrew his opposition. The Company were duly incorporated, but, having abandoned the undertaking, the plaintiff'filed his bill for specific performance of the contract. To this bill, the defendants demurred. The defendants having exercised an option given to them by the Court, of taking a case for the opinion of a Court of law, the order of the Court was suspended until that opinion had been obtained. Preston v. The Liverpool &c. R. Co.-Ch. 1 Held, on the hearing, that the incorporated Company had not adopted or taken the benefit of the agreement, so as to bind themselves equitably to perform it. That, although a Company cannot legally bind itself except by deed under the corporate seal, yet it may equitably bind itself by adoption, or by perception of a benefit under a contract. S. C.-Ch. 704 4. The promoters of a projected Railway Company, previously to obtaining their Act, entered into an agreement with A. to pay him 45007. for a portion of his land, not exceeding eight acres, and for consequential damage; and A. agreed to withdraw his opposition to the bill. The projected Company, having been incorporated by Act of Parliament, confirmed the agreement by indenture under their seal. The Railway was afterwards abandoned, and the powers of the Company to take land compulsorily ceased. No part of A.'s land having been taken or being required for the Railway, he filed his claim for specific performance of the agreement:-Held, by the Lords Justices, overruling the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Turner, that, the claimant having the ready means of obtaining complete redress at law, his claim be dismissed, without prejudice to his rights in an action at law. Webb v. The Direct London and Portsmouth R. Co.-Ch. 9 5. An incorporated Railway Company applied to Parliament for an Act to enable them to make a branch line. A landowner, A., through whose property the proposed Rail |