Page images

before the parliamentary committee. Att.-Gen. | terms of arrangement he agreed that the corpov. Waterford Corporation, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 522. ration should pay the expenses of the bill if they By the 5 Geo. 4, c. 49, the corporation of resolved to take the tramways according to their Plymouth were empowered to make certain powers in the bill. The council consented to waterworks, and were required to supply a these terms, and after the act was passed resolved certain daily quantity of pure, wholesome, to take the tramways; they afterwards resolved fresh water for the use of her Majesty's naval to pay the expenses agreed to. The surplus of establishments, in consideration whereof they the borough funds in the year of these resolutions were to be entitled to an annuity. They failed was less than the amount of the expenses, but in in an application for an act to extend their the subsequent years the surplus was greater powers. They were restrained from applying than that amount:-Held, upon mandamus to any part of the borough fund in paying the the town council to pay these expenses, that expenses of the application to parliament. there was nothing in the Municipal Corporations Att.-Gen. v. Plymouth Corporation, 1 W. R. Act, 1835, to prevent the payment of this claim. Reg. v. Liverpool Corporation, 28 L. T. 500; 21 W. R. 674.


Municipal corporations having been reduced by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, from the position of owners of property to that of trustees, possess the ordinary right of trustees to defend their trust property and their rights as trustees from attack at the expense of the trust estate. Consequently, a municipal corporation has the right, either under s. 92 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, or under the general law applicable to trustees, to defray, out of the borough funds or rates, the expenses of any attack made by bill in parliament, whether against their existence as a corporation, or against their property, or only against their rights, powers, or privileges; and that right is not taken away by the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872. Att.-Gen. v. Brecon Corporation, 48 L. J., Ch. 153; 10 Ch. D. 204; 40 L. T. 52; 27 W. R. 332.

A waterworks company, established to supply water to a borough, was empowered by act of parliament to make rules and regulations, which before coming into force were to be approved of by two justices of the borough. Certain of such proposed rules and regulations having been brought before the justices for approval, it was thought by the corporation that they should be opposed. Expenses were incurred in so opposing them, and the opposition was, in great part, successful. The company also promoted a bill in parliament with the view of obtaining further powers. The corporation, conceiving that the bill was objectionable, opposed it in parliament, and eventually it was withdrawn. Orders were made for the payment, out of the borough fund, of the expenses incurred in opposing the rules and regulations, and the bill promoted by the company :-Held, that as the expenses above mentioned could not be expenses necessarily incurred in carrying into effect the provisions" of the Municipal Corporations Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76), within s. 92, and as they did not fall within any of the payments specified in the act, that they were not chargeable upon the borough fund, and that the orders were invalid. Reg. v. Sheffield Corporation, 40 L. J., Q. B. 247; L. R. 6 Q. B. 652; 24 L. T. 659; 19 W. R. 1159.

A corporation is justified, if acting bonâ fide, in applying its funds in opposing parliamentary bills which would affect its existence, and materially injure its powers as a corporation, though no such power is expressly given to it by its incorporating act. Bower v. Sligo Commissioners, 4 Ir. R., C. L. 489.

During the progress of the Liverpool Tramways Act, 1871, through parliament, the Liverpool town council authorised the town clerk to make terms for the purchase of tramways with the company promoting the bill. Amongst other

An application by a corporation of part of the surplus borough fund, arising from borough rates, in payment of the costs of a partially successful opposition to the passing through parliament of a bill for the construction of waterworks, containing powers so to interfere with the stream of a river passing through the town as to prevent its efficient action in the removal of the sewage of the town, and thereby indirectly affecting the value of the ratable houses in the borough, the tolls of the market and other property constituting the borough fund, is not so clearly contrary to the spirit of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, which provides for the application of such surplus fund, as to form the ground of an interlocutory injunction by the Court of Chancery restraining such application. Att.-Gen. v. Wigan Corporation, 5 De G. M. & G. 52; 23 L. J., Ch. 429; 18 Jur. 299; 2 W. R. 308.

The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 92, enables the surplus of the borough fund to be applied for the public benefit of the inhabitants and improvement of the borough. By an act subsequently passed, the corporation of a city was authorised to levy certain tonnage dues to be applied in a specified manner, and after they were satisfied, the remainder to be applied to certain purposes, some of which were the same as those to which the surplus of the borough fund was made applicable; and distinct accounts were directed to be kept of the tonnage dues and borough fund. The treasurer mixed the two funds at his banker's. The corporation proposed to obtain an act of parliament for improving a river flowing through the city, and applied money from the funds at the banker's in paying certain expenses. An information was filed by the Attorney-General, at the relation of ratepayers, praying an injunction to restrain this applica tion to parliament at the expense of the borough fund, and the same was granted. Att.-Gen. v. Norwich Corporation, 21 L. J., Ch. 139—L.JJ.

Where the promotion of a bill in parliament had been consented to in accordance with s. 4 of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, in consideration of certain benefits being conferred upon the owners of property in a borough by such bill upon its becoming an act of parliament; and the promoters of the bill caused the coming into operation of the act at a later date than that at which the bill, as drawn at the time such consent thereto was given, intended:-Held, that the court could not allow advantage to be taken by the owners of the benefits under the act previous to its coming into operation, upon grounds of equity, and that no breach of faith had been committed by the promoters of_the bill. Birkenhead Corporation v. Crowe, 46 J. P. 551.

Costs of Solicitor.]-A municipal corporation is not liable for the costs of an attorney conducting on their behalf an opposition to a bill in parliament affecting their privileges, unless the retainer is under the common seal. Sutton v. Spectaclemakers' Co., 10 L. T. 411; 12 W. R. 742.

Costs of Legal Proceedings.]—The costs of defending quo warranto informations against an alderman of a borough, and of prosecuting a criminal information against a person for assaulting a justice, are not payable out of the borough fund. Reg. v. Bridgewater Council, 2 P. & D. 558.

But a municipal corporation is justified in discharging out of the corporate funds the expenses of defending quo warranto informations against individual members, if the object of such informations is to impeach the title or destroy the legal existence of the corporation as a body. Holdsworth v. Dartmouth Corporation, 11 A. & E. 490; 9 L. J., Q. B. 121; 4 Jur. 605. S. P., Att.-Gen. v. Norwich Corporation, 2 Mylne & C. 406; 1 Jur. 398. See also Clifton, Dartmouth, and Hardness Corporation v. Holdsworth, 13 L. J., Ch. 178; 8 Jur. 741.

Expenses of resisting an application for a mandamus, directed to a corporation, in order to try a question, which of two councillors was legally elected, cannot be legally defrayed out of the borough fund, it not appearing that the rights of the corporation were in any way affected by the issue in question. Reg. v. Leeds Corporation, 4 Q. B. 796; D. & M. 143; 12 L. J., Q. B. 369; 7 Jur. 669.

Expenses of a prosecution by a mayor for a riot and assault upon him whilst engaged in the revision of the burgess list, will not be allowed to be charged upon the borough fund, unless there is an order or a resolution of the town council previously to the prosecution, authorising the expenses. Reg. v. Lichfield Council, D. & M. 491; 4 Q. B. 900: 12 L. J., Q. B. 308; 7 Jur. 670. S. P., Reg. v. Stamford Council, 13 L. J., Q. B. 177 8 Jur. 558.

The costs of litigation undertaken by a corporation malâ fide and from improper motives, or in respect of a matter in which the corporation is only collaterally interested, cannot be charged upon the borough fund. If, however, the litigation is undertaken in the bonâ fide assertion of the rights of the corporation, the costs incurred may properly be charged upon the fund, although the litigation has not resulted in favour of the corporation. Reg. v. Tamworth Corporation, 19 L. T. 433; 17 W. R. 231.

Burgesses having been omitted from the list of voters obtained a rule nisi in the queen's bench, calling on the mayor to show cause why he should not hold a court to revise the list. The mayor instructed an attorney to show cause. The court made the rule absolute. The attorney brought an action against the corporation for his costs-Held, that, the litigation on the part of the mayor having been justifiable, the costs were payable out of the borough fund. Lewis v. Rochester Corporation, 9 C. B. (N.S.) 401; 30 L. J., C. P. 169; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 680; 3 L. T. 300: 9 W. R. 100.

chargeable to the borough fund, although the jury found the issues ultimately raised on the mandamus for the late town clerk, it not being shown that the town council acted otherwise than bonâ fide in the removal. Reg. v. Lichfield Town Council, 10 Q. B. 534; 16 L. J., Q. B. 333; 11 Jur. 888.

The attorney having been retained generally by a resolution of the town council, and having also been authorised and retained by resolution of the town council to take proceedings in opposition to the rule nisi for the mandamus :-Held, that this was a sufficient retainer to warrant the payment to him of the costs of defending the issues. Ib.

Held, also, that it was no objection to the order for payment on account, the attorney not having delivered a bill, and it not appearing that the sum ordered to be paid exceeded the sum due to the attorney. Ib.

Where money had been bonâ fide paid upon an order of the council, to a town clerk, for professional business done by him as a solicitor, upon instructions given by the corporation, the mere fact of his having had no retainer under the seal of the corporation is no sufficient ground why the court should, under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 44, quash the order of the council, as for a misapplication of the borough funds. Reg. v. Prest, 16 Q. B. 33; 20 L. J., Q. B. 17; 15 Jur. 554.

Costs incurred by a town council in taking legal advice as to the validity of a borough rate, which they intended to enforce, but concerning which they were threatened with litigation, if they should persevere in their intention, are costs chargeable upon the borough fund. Ib.

A corporation held trust estates for charitable uses, and the surplus of the proceeds was to be applied for the benefit of the borough. After the passing of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, the town council presented a petition to the lord chan cellor for leave to attend before the master and propose a list of persons, being members of the corporation, as trustees for those estates :-Held, that an order for payment out of the borough fund of the costs of those proceedings was illegal, the management of the trust estates being taken away from the corporation by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 71. Reg. v. Warwick Corporation, 15 L. J., Q. B. 306; 10 Jur. 962.

Licensing Appeals.]-On August 13 the watch committee resolved to authorise the chief constable to obtain legal assistance at the licensing sessions. On August 21 the council passed a like resolution. The chief constable successfully opposed some licensees, five of whom appealed to quarter sessions. On October 10 the watch committee, having taken the opinion of counsel, refused to authorise the chief constable to act as respondent. On October 15 the council resolved to allow him to so act, and to pay his costs. When the appeals came on he appeared and opposed them, and they were dismissed with costs. The amount recovered on taxation was 1327. 58. less than he had to pay. On November 19 the watch committee resolved to pay these costs. This action was brought by the Where a town council removed a town clerk plaintiffs as ratepayers to restrain this payment : from his office by resolution for misconduct, and-Held, that, under these circumstances, there was refused his claim of compensation :-Held, that the costs of an attorney employed in opposing a mandamus to assess compensation were properly


no right to use the borough funds for this purpose, for one watch committee has no power to apply to the council to pay certain moneys


which a former watch committee has said ought not to be paid. Semble, that in certain cases a watch committee may have power to incur legal expenses in connection with the opposition to licences either at brewster or quarter sessions. Att.-Gen. v. Tynemouth Corporation, 76 L. T. 566.

Actions against Constables.]-The chief constable of a borough, having, by the direction of borough magistrates, laid an information against a person for conspiracy, an action for malicious prosecution was brought by such person against him and a verdict recovered for 2001. :— Held, that it was not competent to the town council to order payment of the chief constable's costs out of the borough fund or rate under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 82. Reg. v. Ereter Corporation, 6 Q. B. D. 135; 44 L. T. 101; 29 W. R. 441; 45 J. P. 158.

the policy of the Public Health Act, consider it to be of substance, and quash the order as of course; and if an action be brought against the officer to recover the penalty provided by s. 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for being concerned in such contract, and the penalty be recovered, the court will also quash an order of the council for the payment of the officer's costs of defending the action. Reg. v. Ramsgate Corporation, 58 L. J., Q. B. 352; 23 Q. B. D. 66; 61 L. T. 333; 37 W. R. 781; 53 J. P. 740.

Compensation to Officers.]—Under 5 & 6 Will 4, c. 76, ss. 66, 67, a corporation executed a bond for payment of an annuity to a person removed from office; and also for payment, on demand, of arrears due before the date. The obligee consenting not to press for the arrears, the council passed a resolution to pay him interest thereon:

council for payment of the interest were unsanctioned by s. 92. Reg. v. Warwick Council, 8 Q. B. 926; 15 L. J., Q. B. 306; 10 Jur. 962.

A bond payable out of a borough fund, given by the town council to an officer to secure to him compensation for offices, some of which he continued to hold, and a rate levied for the purpose of discharging the bond, is illegal, and the rate being on that account illegal also, the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over both matters. Att.-Gen. v. Parr, 8 Cl. & F. 409; 6 Jur. 245.

A member of the constabulary force of the-Held, that such resolution and orders of the borough of Liverpool was made the subject of a libellous article in a newspaper, in reference to his conduct as inspector of public-houses, in giving a good character to an applicant for a licence, at the meeting of the magistrates of the borough in licensing session, whom he knew to have been the keeper of a house of ill-fame. Upon an intimation from, though without the official sanction of, his superior authorities, he took criminal proceedings by way of summons before a magistrate against the publisher of the libel, and incurred expenses thereon. The watch cominittee, with the subsequent approbation of the town council, made an order on the borough treasurer for the payment of a sum of money on account of such expenses. The Liverpool borough fund has a surplus-Held, that such order was not in respect of an allowance, nor a charge nor an expense for the purposes of the constabulary force within the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 82, nor an application of the fund for the public benefit of the inhabitants of the borough within s. 92, and that a rule must go for a certiorari to bring up the order for the purpose of being quashed. Reg. v. Liverpool Corporation and Town Council, 41 L. J., Q. B. 175; 26 L. T. 101; 20 W. R. 389. See Att.-Gen. v. Compton, 1 Y. & Coll. C. C. 417.

Under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 82, a council of a borough cannot make an order that the treasurer shall pay costs of defending borough constables on a prosecution incurred by them in the discharge of their duty. Reg. v. Thomson, 5 Q. B. 477; D. & M. 497. S. P., Reg. v. Stamford Town Council, 13 L. J., Q. B. 177; 8 Jur. 558.

Such order must be made by the watch committee, with the approbation of the council. Ib.

Payment of Money under Illegal Contract-Action against Officer for Penalty-Order of Council for payment of Officer's Costs.] Where an officer employed by a borough council, acting as the local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, makes with the council a contract in which he is interested, in violation of s. 193 of that Act, the court when called upon under s. 141 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to remove into the queen's bench division, and quash an order for payment of money to the officer under such contract, will not exercise the discretion given by the section so as to inquire whether the illegality of the contract is in substance or in form, but will, in pursuance of

Chain for Mayor.]-The purchase of a gold chain for the mayor of a borough, out of the borough fund, is illegal. Att.-Gen. v. Batley Corporation, 26 L. T. 392.

Jubilee Festivities.]-A municipal corporation passed resolutions to the effect that pursuant to s. 15. sub-s. 4, of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, a certain sum should be paid to the mayor by way of remuneration, and that the mayor should be requested to take such steps as he might deem proper for the due celebration of her majesty's jubilee. Some of the burgesses moved to restrain the corporation from applying any part of the borough fund for this purpose :Held, that the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, had not been contravened, and that an interlocutory injunction would not be granted. Att.-Gen. v. Blackburn Corporation, 57 L. T. 385. See Att.-Gen. v. Cardiff Corporation, cols. 583 and 613.

Power to take Lands compulsorily for Public Improvement Agreement to sell part of Land to be so taken.]-A municipal corporation was empowered by act of parliament to take compulsorily, for the purpose of a public improvement, the lands comprised in the book of reference to the act, wherein were included the lands of A. The lands so comprised were more than were actually required for the purpose of the improvement, and the act empowered the corporation to raise money upon the lands authorised to be acquired, and to pay off the debt thus incurred out of the proceeds of superfluous lands. Before the act received the royal assent, the corporation agreed to sell to a railway company a portion of the lands of A., and, after the passing of the act, gave notice to A. of their intention to take all his lands. A. then filed a bill to restrain them from taking more than they actually required for the

purpose of the improvement :-Held, that the corporation was entitled to take all the lands of A., including that portion which they only required for the purpose of the re-sale. Galloway v. London Corporation, 35 L. J., Ch. 477; L. R. 1 H. L. 34; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 747; 14 L. T. 865.

Held, also, that the agreement entered into in anticipation of the act did not incapacitate them from doing so. 1b.

Mortgage of Surplus Land.]-An act gave a corporation compulsory powers of purchasing land to make a market. The 29th section required it to sell the surplus not wanted, and to give certain parties a right of pre-emption, the produce to be applied" to the purposes of the act." The 30th section gave the corporation power to borrow on debenture, the 32nd section power to mortgage or sell any of its lands "for the purposes of the act," and the 83rd section provided that the act should not empower the corporation to sell without the approbation of the lords of the treasury-Held, that the 32nd section did not authorise a mortgage of the surplus land for the purposes of the act, but that it must be sold as directed by the 29th section. De Winton v. Brecon Corporation, 26 Bcav. 533; 5 Jur. (N.S.)


Held, also, that a mortgage only of the lands of the corporation required the assent of the lords of the treasury. Ib.

Purchase of Site for and Erection of Corn Market.]-When a local authority was empowered by act of parliament to "enlarge and improve the market place" in a borough "with all proper works and conveniences connected therewith or belonging thereto," and, for the purposes of the act, to borrow money on the credit of the borough fund and to purchase lands-Held, that the purchase of a site near the place where the principal market of the borough was usually held, and the erection thereon of a new corn exchange, was a lawful exercise of the powers conferred by the act, for which money might be borrowed on the credit of the borough fund. Att.-Gen. v. Cambridge Corporation, L. R. 6 H. L. 303; 22 W. R. 37.

Power under Private Act to contribute Capital -Interest before Payment-Public Benefit.] A corporation of a borough, who are authorised by a special act to contribute 10,000l. to the funds of a college, and have resolved that the sum shall be paid at a time not yet arrived, are not entitled to pay interest on the sum in the meantime. Att.-Gen. v. Cardiff Corporation, 63 L. J., Ch. 557; [1894] 2 Ch. 337; 8 R. 268; 70 L. T.


Payments by a corporation of a borough to a university college established within the borough are not "for the public benefit of the inhabitants and improvement of the borough within section 143 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. Ib.

Borrowing Money.]-By an act passed in 1851, certain property before vested in commisioners, was vested in a corporation. Powers were given to the council of purchasing land for the purposes of the act, and of executing improvement works specified in a schedule; the expenses of the works for making new approaches to the town hall, and for enlarging and altering the existing streets to be defrayed by a street im

provement rate, not exceeding 6d. in the 17., and mortgageable to the extent of 100,0007.; and all other expenses of carrying the act into execution to be defrayed by a borough improvement rate not exceeding 2s. in the 17., and mortgageable to the extent of 150,000l. From the street improvement rate certain classes of persons were wholly exempted, and canal and railway companies were in part exempted. Nothing therein contained was to alter any of the powers, privileges and authorities vested in the corporation by any past or future acts in relation to municipal corporations. By another local act, passed in 1861, other specified improvements were provided for, and it was declared that the expenses of widening and improving certain specified streets were to be defrayed out of the street improvement rate. The 23 & 24 Vict. c. 16 (Corporation Mortgages Act, 1860), empowers corporations generally, with the approbation of the treasury, upon application made after due notice given, to make purchases of land for public purposes; but nothing therein contained is to repeal, abridge or affect any power or authority of any body corporate or council under any local act. The corporation having contracted for the purchase of land for the widening of a street (not comprised in the works specified in the local acts of 1851 and 1861), and having (after due notice given, and after all parties interested in the scheme had been heard before a commissioner deputed by the treasury) obtained the sanction of the treasury to the purchase of the land, and the charging of the borough fund with the purchase-money :Held, that the corporation was lawfully empowered to raise the purchase-money out of the borough fund. Att.-Gen. v. Birmingham Corporation, L. R. 3 Eq. 552.

A covenant by a corporation to repay money borrowed after the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, is valid, although the money was not borrowed for any of the purposes to which the borough fund is applicable by s. 92, and although the covenant is contained in a mortgage deed, made without the approbation of the lords of the treasury. Payne v. Brecon Corporation, 3 H. & N. 572; 27 L. J., Ex. 495; 6 W. R. 801.

A bond given by a corporation, after the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, but before the passing of the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 104, to secure a sum of money borrowed for the purpose of paying debts contracted by the corporation before the passing of the first-mentioned act, is valid, notwithstanding the 92nd section of the former act might interpose a difficulty in the way of the obligee's obtaining satisfaction of a judgment thereon. Pallister v. Gravesend Corporation, 9 C. B. 774; and Arnold v. Gravesend Corporation, 2 Kay & J. 574; 25 L. J., Ch. 776; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 703; 4 W. R. 478.

Judgment upon a bond given by a corporation before the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 13, operates as a charge upon all lands and hereditaments of the corporation, whether acquired before or after the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, the court being of opinion that even if the latter statute, standing alone, would have prevented the judgment creditor from charging after acquired lands, which, semble, it would not, that objection was removed by 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 104, s. 1; and that the power by that section given to corporations of charging their lands and hereditaments for securing repayment and

satisfaction of any debt contracted by them | contrary to establish a trust. Eran v. Avon before the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, is a Corporation, 29 Beav. 144; 30 L. J., Ch. 165; 6 power which they might exercise for their own Jur. 1361; 9 W. R. 84. benefit, within the meaning of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 13, the words "for his own benefit" meaning no more than for his own use, not as a trustee. Tb.

A judgment entered up against a corporation for a debt contracted subsequently to the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, is no charge upon any part of the corporate property not authorised to be charged therewith in the manner pointed out by s. 94. Ib.

A corporation borrowed 2007. of M., to enable them to pay L., their treasurer, sums which he had paid to creditors of the old corporation, and gave M. their promissory note for the amount. They did not, however, pay over the sum to L., but suffered him to receive their accruing income in reduction of what was due to him, and applied the amount to purposes to which the income would otherwise have been applicable-Held, that the corporation had no authority to give the note, as it was not given to secure a debt due prior to the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76.` Att.-Gen. v. Lichfield Corporation, 13 Sim. 547.

Payment of Debts.] Where money, the produce of the sale of corporation lands, has been paid into court under an act of parliament authorising the court to make such order concerning it for the benefit of the parties interested as the court shall think fit, it is not competent for the court, since the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 92 (the Municipal Corporation Act), to order the principal money to be paid in discharge of corporation debts accruing since the passing of that act; the dividends only can be applied for that purpose. The trusts of the Municipal Corporation Act are applicable to personal as well as real estates. Hythe Corporation, Ex parte, 4 Y. & Coll. 55.

The compensation for lands of a corporation allowed to be applied in the redemption of an incumbrance upon other lands of the same corporation, under the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 92. Cambridge Corporation, Ex parte, Eastern Counties Ry., In re, 6 Hare, 30.

Power of Alienation.]-The stat. of the 27 Eliz. c. 20, authorised the corporation of Plymouth to construct a watercourse or conduit for bringing a supply of fresh water from a distance to Plymouth, for public objects, as, for the supply of the ships and town, and to scour the haven. Mills were erected on the watercourse, and the corporation afterwards conveyed away a portion of their interest in the leat :-Held, that the corporation had undertaken the performance of a public trust, and could not divest themselves of the means of fully executing it; that the primary duty of the corporation was to provide for the public objects contemplated by the act; and that the surplus water only, after satisfying the public purposes, could be applied to the use of the mills. The court also considered it to be doubtful whether the corporation could alienate the watercourse, or any part, for satisfying their own debt. Att.-Gen. v. Plymouth Corporation, 9 Beav. 67; 15 L. J., Ch. 109.

Primâ facie a municipal corporation has full power to dispose of all its property, like a private individual, and it lies on the person alleging the

The attorney-general has power to restrain, or afterwards impeach, the alienation of corpo rate property made pending the granting of the charter. S. C., 33 Beav. 67; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 1117; 8 L. T. 594; 11 W. R. 709. Affirmed, 9 L. T. 187.

General right of corporations, of whatever nature at law, to alienate their lands, held in fee, subject as to ecclesiastical corporations to the restraining statutes; and no instance of a trust attached upon the ground of misapplication, as not to corporate purposes, except the case of corporations holding to charitable uses. Colchester Corporation v. Lowten, 1 Ves. & B. 226; 12 R. R. 216.

Consent of Commissioners.]-The consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to the alienation of the property of a corporation required by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 94, is sufficiently signified by a letter signed by their secretary. Such consent can authorise no alienation or charge of the corporate property, further than is specified in the memorial on which it is founded. Arnold v. Gravesend Corporation, 2 Kay & J. 574; 25 L. J., Ch. 776; 2 Jur. (N.S.) 703; 4 W. R. 478.

Taking in Execution.]—Execution cannot by virtue of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 92, be had against the property of a corporation, acquired since the passing of that statute, in satisfaction of a debt contracted by the old corporation. Arnold v. Rigge, 13 C. B. 745; 1 C. L. R. 309; 22 L. J., C. P. 235; 17 Jur. 896; 1 W. R. 389.

Vesting of Property on Incorporation— Transfer of Stock.]-The words "council of such borough" in s. 310 of the Public Health Act, 1875, mean the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses acting by the council. The effect of the section, therefore, is that, when the district of a local board is incorporated as a borough, all the property of the board (including property acquired by them by purchase after the passing of the act) vests at once in the corporation, without the necessity of any conveyance or transfer. In such a case the Bank of England are bound, on the request of the corporation, to register in their corporate name government stock previously standing in the books of the bank in the name of the local board, without requiring any transfer to be executed. Hyde Corporation v. Bank of England, 51 L. J., Ch. 747; 21 Ch. D. 176; 46 L. T. 910; 30 W. R. 790.

Repairs to Pew.]-A corporation had, during all the time of living memory, repaired from the corporation funds a pew in a parish church, to which the members of the corporation had been used, in their character of corporators, to resort for worship. It did not appear that the corporation possessed any hall or other building within the parish :—Held, that such repairs might be defrayed, from time to time, under s. 92 of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. Reg. v. Warwick Corporation, 15 L. J., Q. B. 306; 10 Jur. 962.

Fees.]-Fees, which a justices' clerk in a borough is authorised to take, by a table regularly allowed and confirmed, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 124, in respect of charges against per

« EelmineJätka »