Page images
PDF
EPUB

Sect. 1.

diately after the abandonment (In re Potteries, Shrewsbury and North Wales Railway Co. (1883), 25 Ch. D. 251; 53 L. J. Ch. 556 (C. A.)), and account may also be taken of the breach of a collateral obligation, if it is such that a breach of it is necessarily involved in the abandonment and indistinguishable from it. (In re Ruthin and Cerrig-y-Druidion Railway Act (1886), 32 Ch. D. 438; 56 L. J. Ch. 30 (C. A.).)

(d) "In consequence of any compulsory powers of taking property" means "in consequence of the exercise of the compulsory powers," and a mere service of a notice to treat, even if followed by a contract, is not such an exercise as to give a landowner priority in compensation. Even if it were, expenses incurred by the landowner to his solicitor and surveyor in consequence of the notice, whether followed or not by a subsequent contract, would not constitute "injury or loss in consequence of any compulsory powers of taking property." (In re Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway Co. (1890), 43 Ch. D. 536; 59 L. J. Ch. 409 (C. A.).) The three cases last cited were decided on private Acts couched in similar terms the present sub-section. Compare also Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 20), s. 5; Abandonment of Railways Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 83), s. 20; and Abandonment of Railways Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 114), ss. 5, 6, 7.

(e) The following provision should be applied by the Order, where a light railway is to be constructed in whole or in part along a road. (f) As in In re Colchester Tramways Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 309; 62 L. J. Ch. 243.

(g) The law and practice as to deposits under the old Board of Trade Rules before the passing of the present Act is discussed in note (g) to sect. 12 of Tramways Act, 1870. The most important change which is effected by the present Act is the grant of discretion to the Court to deal with the fund in spite of any provision as to forfeiture to the Crown. The result of this is that the Court may pay the balance of the fund to the depositors after all proper deductions have been made under the Act; and the decision in In re Lowestoft, Yarmouth and Southwold Tramways Co. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 484; 46 L. J. Ch. 393, that the promoters are not in any manner to recover the deposit money or any of it, is no longer law. The Crown, however, is still entitled to its costs out of the fund. (In re Colchester Tramways Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 309; 62 L. J. Ch. 243.)

(h) Sub-sect. 2 was held to have no application in In re Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway (1893), W. N. 83, where a company had completed and opened for traffic the whole of its undertaking except a small piece of line, the time for the completion of which had expired, though its abandonment had not been authorised by any Act.

(i) The deposit is not made part of the general assets of the company, but only assets for a particular purpose, namely, the

payment of the creditors. Thus, the liquidator is allowed out of the deposit the proper costs of proceedings taken by him in reference to the application of the deposit; but the Court cannot order his general costs of the liquidation to be paid out of the deposit. (In re Colchester Tramways Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 309; 62 L. J. Ch. 243; Turpin v. Somerton, &c. Tramway Co. (1900), W. N. 94.) In the report of the latter case it is stated that a contrary decision was given in Ex parte Bradford and District Tramways Co., [1893] 3 Ch. 463; 62 L. J. Ch. 668.

(k) Since the passing of this Act there is no longer any distinction between meritorious and non-meritorious creditors, a distinction laid down in In re Lowestoft, Yarmouth and Southwold Tramways Co. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 484; 46 L. J. Ch. 393 (see note (g) to sect. 12 of Tramways Act, 1870), in respect of sharing in the deposit. (In re Manchester, Middleton and District Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 638; 62 L. J. Ch. 752; In re Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway (1893), W. N. 83; Ex parte Bradford and District Tramways Co., [1893] 3 Ch. 463; 62 L. J. Ch. 668; Muir v. Forman's Trustees (1903), 40 S. L. R. 404.)

"Creditors" here is not limited to the creditors of the particular undertaking which has been abandoned, but includes the general creditors of the company. (In re Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway, ub. sup. ; Ex parte Bradford and District Tramways Co., ub. sup. ; but contrast In re West Donegal Railway Co. (1890), 24 Ir. L. T. R. 42, which was not decided under this Act.) Since the passing of this Act persons, who have lent the money to the promoters to enable them to make the deposit, are "creditors" under this sub-section, and entitled to share in the fund pari passu with the other creditors (Ex parte Bradford and District Tramways Co., ub. sup.); but they have no right to any preferential treatment. (Compare In re Waterford, Lismore and Fermoy Railway Co. (1870), I. R. 4 Eq. 490; In re Dublin, Rathmines and Rathcoole Railway Co. (1878), 1 L. R. I. 98.)

"Creditors" here will also include solicitors and Parliamentary agents, and other persons who expended labour or money in the promotion of the Bill for the undertaking in question; though, under particular circumstances, where the company never had any existence beyond statutory incorporation, the claim of such persons to rank as "creditors" under this sub-section has been disallowed. (In re Manchester, Middleton and District Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 638; 62 L. J. Ch. 752; Muir v. Forman's Trustees, ub. sup.) In In re Coventry and Nuneaton Tramways Co. (1888), 4 T. L. R. 458, a case before the passing of this Act, an order was made, on payment out of the deposit, for payment to a Parliamentary agent of money incurred by him for expenses, without which the deposit could not have been made.

(1) Thus, where only a small portion of a company's undertaking,

Sect. 1.

Sect. 1.

Power to cancel bonds.

Application to Scotland.

the rest of which was a going concern, had been abandoned, the Court required public notice to be given to landowners only and not to all the creditors of the company. (In re Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway (1893), W. N. 83.)

(m) Where a part only of the undertaking has been completed within the prescribed time (Rule XXIII.), or where only a portion of the proposed tramway is authorised (Rule XXIV.), the Court orders a proportionate part of the deposit, as certified by the Board of Trade, to be paid or transferred to the depositors (Rule XXIII.).

(n) Apparently, on the principle of In re Bradford Tramways Co. (1876), 4 Ch. D. 18; 46 L. J. Ch. 89 (C. A.), which for this purpose still applies, where there was uncalled capital, the depositors would be entitled, subject to the Court's discretion, to have the creditors paid as far as possible out of such uncalled capital, and to receive the balance of the deposit, less only the amount of the debts which such uncalled capital was insufficient to meet.

See further as to Parliamentary deposits, cases in note (ƒ), parts (iii.) and (iv.), to Tramways Act, 1870, s. 24.

2. Where in pursuance of any general or special Act of Parliament (0) any bond has been given to secure the completion of any undertaking authorised by Parliament, or by any certificate issued under the authority of an Act of Parliament, and the undertaking has not been completed within the time limited in that behalf, the money thereby secured shall be applicable to the same purposes as the deposit fund herein-before mentioned, and the Treasury may, if they think fit, cancel the bond on proof to their satisfaction that the money thereby secured has been applied or is not required for those purposes.

(0) There is no provision in Tramways Act, 1870, or the Rules under it, or in Light Railways Act, 1896, or the clauses usually inserted in Light Railway Orders, for the giving of bonds in lieu of deposits.

3. In the application of this Act to Scotland

The expression "Paymaster General" shall mean the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer (p):

The expression "High Court" shall mean the Court of Session in either division thereof.

(p) Compare Rule XX. of the Tramways Rules.

4. In the application of this Act to Ireland

The expression "Paymaster General" shall mean the Accountant General of the Supreme Court: The expression "tramway" shall include railway.

Sect. 3.

Application

to Ireland.

5. This Act may be cited as the Parliamentary Short title. Deposits and Bonds Act, 1892.

Differences as to remuneration for conveyance of mails.

45 & 46 Vict. c. 74.

Carriage of mails on tramways.

THE

CONVEYANCE OF MAILS ACT, 1893.

(56 & 57 Vict. c. 38.)

An Act to make further provision for the Conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails.

[24th August, 1893.]

BE it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Where under any Act relating to the conveyance of mails or under the Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882, it is provided that any matter of difference relating to any remuneration or compensation to be paid by the Postmaster-General to any railway company shall be referred to arbitration, that matter of difference shall at the instance of any party thereto be referred to the Railway and Canal Commission instead of to arbitration, and that Commission shall determine the same, and this provision shall apply to any matter of difference referred to in section eight of the Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882, where such railway companies as therein mentioned, or any company or person owning a steam vessel, are or is one party to the arbitration in like manner as it applies to a difference where a single railway company is a party to the arbitration.

2. (1.) Every tramway company, that is to say, every company, body, or person owning or working (a) any tramway (6) authorised (b) by any Act (b) passed

« EelmineJätka »