Company shall pay to the plaintiff, before they shall enter upon any part of the said land, the sum of 71007., as a landlord's compensation for the damage arising to his estate by the severance thereof, in respect of the lands, not exceeding fortythree acres, to be taken by them:" Held, First, that the Company never having entered upon any part of the plaintiff's land, he was not entitled to sue for either of those sums; Secondly, that an absolute covenant to pay the above sums within a reasonable time after the passing of the Act would have been ultra vires, and void. Sir T. R. Gage v. The Newmarket R. Co., 168

The time elapsed without the works having been done. The Company were about to declare a dividend when one of the shareholders filed a bill, on behalf of himself and other shareholders, against the managing directors and others, praying an injunction to restrain the payment of any dividend until the works specified in the Act of Parliament had been completed. A general demurrer to the bill was allowed, but without costs:-Held, that the Court has not jurisdiction, in a bill so framed, to interfere, on the mere ground that the managing directors are not discharging their duty to the public.

That the Court will not interfere to prevent the misapplication of the income of the Company, it being a subject for internal management and regulation.

Semble, that it is not settled by decision, to what extent or subject to what particular limitations the jurisdiction of the Court, to prevent or check the erroneous conduct of corporations created for public purposes, ought to be exercised. Browne v. The Monmouthshire R. and C. Co. -Ch. 682

DIVIDENDS.

See DIRECTORS.

SHAREHOLDERS.

EASEMENT.

By an Act of Parliament passed in 1846, and by a subsequent Act passed in 1850, the Great Northern Railway Company were empowered to make a junction with the East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway Company, and that Company were to afford facilities for effecting such junction; and the plans were to be submitted to, and to be approved by the engineer for the time being of

the said Company; and in case of difference between the engineers of the two Companies, it was provided that the same should be determined by an umpire, to be named by such engineers; or, in case no such umpire should be appointed for twentyone days after notice, then by an umpire to be appointed by the Railway Commissioners. Both the Companies were respectively incorporated by Acts of Parliament passed in 1846; the plaintiffs' Act receiving the Royal Assent a few days earlier than that of the defendants.

Each

of the Companies had power to purchase a long strip of land running parallel with the defendants' railway as afterwards constructed.

In the year 1852, and after the powers of the plaintiffs to take land compulsorily had ceased, they gave notice to the defendants of their intention to form a junction, and submitted plans for that purpose to the engineer of the defendants' Company.

The defendants, having purchased the strip of land over which it was necessary that the works of the plaintiffs should be constructed in order to form a junction, refused to approve the plans, alleging that the plaintiffs could not compel the defendants to give up their land to enable the plaintiffs to make a branch railway over it. It being impossible for the plaintiffs to effect a junction except by passing over this land, they thereupon filed their bill, and now moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in making a junction, and from withholding all proper facilities for effecting the same.

Held, that, upon the completion of their line, or within a reasonable time afterwards, the defendants were bound to allow the plaintiffs to tra

verse their land, and to afford facilities for the junction; and that the expiration of the plaintiffs' compulsory powers to take land did not affect their right to use so much of the defendants' land as they might require for the purposes of their Act, by way of easement, but not as actual

owners.

That the Court has jurisdiction to settle the plan of junction, if the mode of settling it provided by the Act cannot be carried into effect.

The injunction was granted accordingly. The Great Northern R. Co. v. The East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction R. Co.—Ch. 356

EXECUTION.

See COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT.

FENCES.

See ACTION, 4.

RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1.

FORFEITURE. See PLEADING.

INFANT. See CALLS, 2.

INFORMATION.

See NUISANCE.

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, on the grounds, that no injury was shewn to result to the public 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 Att.-Gen. v. The Birmingham and Oxford Junction R. Co., &c.—Ch. 972

ness under a deed of settlement, which empowered the board of directors to appoint a manager of the works to superintend the manufacturing business. The board were entitled to delegate such of their powers to the manager as would enable him to carry on the works. They had power to do all other acts necessary for the objects of the Company. The entire management of the affairs of the Company was given to the board of directors, who were empowered to delegate their power to any one or more of their body.

Orders for goods were given, severally, by their chairman, deputy chairman, manager, and secretary ; and the goods were delivered on the premises of the Company, and used in their business, with the knowledge of the directors:-Held, first, that it was consistent with the Jointstock Companies Act and the deed of settlement, that the manager had a delegated authority to order such goods; and, secondly, that, though the chairman and secretary might have no such power, and though their orders were never duly adopted, yet, as the goods were had with the knowledge of the directors, the Company were liable. Smith v. The Hull Glass Co., 287

3. A society was established for raising money by subscription, and lending it to their members at interest; premiums on the loans were payable monthly, and all the money received for interest, premiums, and fines went into a general fund of the society-Held, that the society was not a Company established for the purpose of profit within the Jointstock Companies Registration Act, and therefore did not require to be registered. Bear v. Bromley, 507

4. The holder of shares in a Jointstock Company, who has not exe

cuted the deed of settlement, is not entitled to a certificate of proprietorship under section 51 of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. Wilkinson v. The Anglo-Californian Gold Mining Co., 511

LACHES.

See ABANDONMENT, 2. NUISANCE.

LANDOWNER.

See AGREEMENT, 3, 4, 5, 6. COMPULSORY POWERS.

COSTS. COVENANT.

EASEMENT.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION
Аст.
REVERSIONER.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT.

See ARBITRATION, 2.

COMPENSATION.

LUNATIC.

MANUFACTORY.

PURCHASE-MONEY, 2.

1. A landowner, alleging that his land was injuriously affected by the making of a railway, gave notice to the Company, under the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, to summon a jury to assess the amount of compensation. The Company filed their bill, and obtained an injunction to restrain the landowner from proceeding under his notice. The injunction was granted by the Vice-Chancellor ; but, in consequence of a decision of the then Lord Chancellor, the injunction was afterwards dissolved. In the interval, the twenty-one days, within which the Company were to summon the jury or in default to pay the full amount claimed, expired, but no mention was made of this fact on the motion to dissolve. The Com

pany then applied to the Lord Chancellor to alter the order, by imposing terms on the landowner, so that he should not avail himself of the lapse of time, such lapse having been occasioned by the decision of the Court. The Court refused to accede to the application. The South Staffordshire R. Co. v. Hall-Ch. 983

2. A notice by a Company to a landowner, requiring to take his land for the purpose of the undertaking, is an exercise of the powers for the compulsory purchase of land within the 123rd section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; and if, within the prescribed period, such notice be given, the steps necessary to complete the purchase may be taken after that period.

An entry on land is not the exercise of any of the powers of compulsory purchase, but the exercise of a power for carrying the compulsory purchase into effect. The Marquis of Salisbury v. The Great Northern R. Co., 175

LEASE.

See ACTION, 2. AGREEMENT, 10. COMPANY. CONTRACT, 2.

LUNATIC.

Where the committee of a lunatic's estate contracts, under the power of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, with a Railway Company, for the sale of a piece of the lunatic's land, the costs of the attendance of the heir-at-law before the Master and on the petitions come within the 80th section of that Act, and must be borne by the Company. Re Walker, a Lunatic, Ex parte The Manchester and Leeds R. Co.-Ch.

129

MAJORITY AND MINORITY. See AGREEMENT, 2.

PARLIAMENT (APPLICATION TO).

MANDAMUS.

1. The writ stated that the defendants had obtained an Act of Parliament in 1846, reciting that it would be of public advantage if a Railway were formed from York to Beverley by Market Weighton, and that they were willing to execute the same, and that it was enacted that it should be lawful for the defendants to make and maintain the same. That the Company made and opened to the public this branch from York to Market Weighton. That in 1849 they obtained another Act, to enable them to divert this line between Market Weighton and Cherry Burton, a place three miles from Beverley which recited that it would be an advantage if such diversion were made; that the defendants were willing to make such diversion; and that it enacted that it should be lawful for the defendants to make such deviation. That Burton and Leaing were owners of a portion of the land required by the defendants; and that part thereof had been conveyed to the defendants for the purpose of the line as originally authorised.

:

The

writ then commanded the defendants to complete the line between Market Weighton and Cherry Burton.

Held, by Lord Campbell, C. J., Crompton, J., concurring, that the mandamus was good, and that the Company were bound to complete the line.

Whether a Company, incorporated by Act of Parliament, which says that "it shall be lawful for them" to make a certain Railway, are bound to make it, if they have never avail

ed themselves of the extraordinary powers conferred upon them, and they have come to a resolution to abandon the undertaking before they had begun to execute it-Quære. Though, down to the time when the Company in fact exercise the extraordinary powers conferred upon them over the property and rights of others, the power to do so may be only permissive, a different state of things arises when they begin the exercise of those powers, and have taken land under the Act, and when they purchase it under their compulsory powers, which they do when they serve a notice requiring the land, they enter into a contract to construct the Railway with the termini specified in the Act. The engagement of such a Company is part of the compensation given to the landowner.

The defendants returned, that, of the line from York to Beverley, the part between Cherry Burton and Beverley had not been begun to be made, and that the compulsory powers of purchasing land for making it expired in July, 1851 :-Held, that there was no allegation of impossibility or want of power to purchase lands to complete the line between Market Weighton and Cherry Burton, and that the return was bad.

It further alleged, that Cherry Burton was a small village, that a convenient station could not be made there for the inhabitants of Beverley, and that the district between Market Weighton and Cherry Burton was thinly peopled, and that there were means of convenient communication from that to other places in England irrespective of this railway to Beverley :-Held, bad.

It also alleged that the portion of the line described in the mandamus could not be remunerative:-Held,