INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. * The Cases in Chancery are distinguished by the letters Ch. ACCIDENT. See NEGLIGENCE. ACT OF PARLIAMENT. TION ACT. CONSTRUCTION OF ACT OF PAR- LIAMENT. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDA- Although a Court of equity has A Railway Company applied to railway, and were about to apply to Held, that a contract to make a ADMISSION. AGREEMENT. See CONTRACT. See COMPENSATION, 4. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION 1. A Railway Company, requiring cularly described in a schedule served therewith; that they claimed, as compensation for the purchase-money, and for damage that might be sustained by the execution of the works, 22801. 88.; and that, if that sum was not paid, they desired to have the amount settled by arbitration, they thereby appointing their arbitrator, and requiring the Company to appoint an arbitrator on their behalf. In the schedule annexed were included certain pieces of land severed by the railway, and respectively of less than half an acre, which the landowners, under the 93rd section, required the Company to purchase. The Company thereupon served the landowners with a notice appointing an arbitrator, to whom was to be referred the amount of compensation to be paid by the Company for the purchase of the said lands. At the reference, the landowners gave evidence of the value of the small pieces of land mentioned in the schedule, being respectively less than half an acre. The umpire awarded one entire sum for the purchase of the fee simple which the Company required, and for the small pieces mentioned in the schedule:-Held, that, as nothing had been submitted but the value of the land which the Company desired to purchase, and as one entire sum was awarded for that and the small pieces of land which the landowners required the Company to take, the award was bad; but the Court refused to set it aside. Whether the award could be supported by reference to the conduct of the parties-Quare. In the Matter of an Arbitration between the North Staffordshire Railway Company and Wood, 25 2. On a reference to arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 Vict. c. 18, the arbitrators or umpire have no power, in the first instance, to determine anything but the amount of compensation payable by the promoters; but, as soon as that is determined under sect. 34, the costs may be subsequently taxed and settled by a separate instrument, and they need not be incorporated in the award. The settlement of the costs need not be within three months after the time of the reference. The 34th section directs the arbitrators, not the umpire, to settle the costs:Held, that the term "the arbitrators" means the persons who make the award, either as arbitrators or umpires. In debt on the award for the recovery of the compensation awarded and costs, the declaration alleged that the umpire "was required by the plaintiff to settle and determine the costs to be paid to the plaintiff:”Held, on special demurrer, a sufficient averment that the umpire was required to adjudicate upon the costs, and that it was sufficient. Gould v. The Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Company, 568 ARREST. 1. The plaintiff became a passenger by the defendants' railway, and took his ticket from Monk's Ferry to Bangor and back. The defendants' line extends from Monk's Ferry to Chester, and the Chester and Holyhead Railway continues the line to Bangor. On the plaintiff's return at Chester, the ticket collector demanded 28. 6d. extra, which the plaintiff refused to pay; he was thereupon taken into custody by a railway servant, under the direction of a superintendent, to the police station, where he paid the money under protest, and was released. The Chester station is occupied by the defendants and by other Railway Companies; one of the witnesses stated, that he believed the person who took the plaintiff into custody was a servant of the defendants. The plaintiff's attorney having written to the secretary of the defendants for compensation, received a written answer from him, requesting that he might be furnished with the date of the transaction, and promising to make the necessary inquiries. He afterwards stated, that it was an awkward business, and that the blame would fall upon the station-clerk; he also offered to repay to the plaintiff's attorney the sum of 2s. 6d., which had been over-paid. This was refused, and he thereupon saw the plaintiff on the subject:-Held, in an action against the defendants for the arrest, that there was no evidence of authority for the arrest or of subsequent ratification by them, and that they were not liable in the action. Whether the letter of the secretary was admissible in evidence against the defendants-Quære. Roe v. The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway Company, 795 2. The plaintiff, a passenger by railway, on the arrival of the train at the terminus, was taken into custody by the Company's servant, and detained at the station upon a charge made by the servant of refusing to give up his ticket or pay his fare, and also of assaulting the servant in the execution of his duty; subsequently, upon the hearing of the charge before the magistrate, the attorney of the Company appeared in support of it-Held, that though the assault and false imprisonment was capable of being ratified by the Company without an instrument under seal, if committed on their behalf and for their benefit, the facts afforded no evidence of ratification. The Eastern Counties Railway Company and Richardson v. Broom, 743 ASSESSMENT. See LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION Аст. In the city of London, in lieu of tithes, the incumbents of several parishes were, by virtue of a decree made under the authority of an Act of Parliament, entitled to a money payment after the rate of 28. 9d. in the pound upon the houses and buildings in their respective parishes. In August, 1839, a Railway Company obtained an Act of Parliament, and took thirty-three of the houses in the parish of St. Olave; and, by the 33rd section of one of their Acts, the Company were bound, for the purpose of indemnifying the rector, to pay such yearly sums in respect of such houses, "according to the last assessments thereof, to the 25th of March last," as would be equal to the loss in tithes which the rector might sustain for want of occupiers by reason of such taking. No assessment had been made at the date mentioned in the Act, but the rector had received, in some cases, 28. in the pound upon an agreed sum (being less than the actual rental) from all inhabitants except public Companies, from whom he received 2s. 9d. upon the full annual value. The rector now claimed 2s. 9d. in the pound upon the full annual value of the houses taken by the Company during the period the ground remained unoccupied-Held, by the House of Lords, reversing the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wigram That the measure of indemnity to which the rector was entitled, was the rate and computation which had been adopted by him and the tithe payer previously to the establishment of the Company. That no actual assessment having been made, the amount claimed by the rector, and paid by the occupiers to the 25th March, 1839, constituted the "assessment" referred to in the Act. That, in computing the amount of compensation to be paid by the Company to the rector, the Company should be allowed credit not only for such tithe-rent as should have been received, but also for such tithe-rent as should have become payable in respect of new buildings erected on the site of these houses taken by the ComThe London and Blackpany. Letts v. wall Railway Company-Ch. BANKRUPTCY. See SHARES, 4. BOND. 687 See COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDA- A Railway Company, requiring a certain piece of land held by plaintiff for a term of thirteen years unexpired, gave him the usual notice to treat; and ineffectual attempts were made to settle the price by agreement. Nothing further was done until two years after, when the Company gave a bond and deposited the estimated value, and entered into possession. These proceedings were clearly informal; and the Company afterwards deposited the sum claimed by the plaintiff, and delivered a bond for that amount, which recited the quantity of land required, and was conditioned for the payment to him, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or into the Bank for his or their benefit, of such purchase-money or compensation as might be determined to be payable. The plaintiff filed his bill for an injunction:-Held, that the summary powers given by the 85th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act are not confined to cases of pressure, and are not af fected by the fact that sufficient time has been allowed to elapse for the Company to have ascertained the price by award or verdict. That, where the party dealing with the Company represents the entirety of a certain interest, it is sufficient that the condition of the bond be for payment to him, his executors, administrators, and assigns; and it is not necessary that the bond should contain the alternative, "for the parties interested in such lands." That a recital in the bond, of the quantity of land required out of a certain larger piece, is sufficient description to satisfy the terms of the 85th section. That an entry into the possession of land begun wrongfully does not preclude a Company continuing in possession when they have done all that was originally required to render their entry rightful. From what date, whether from the date of the trespass or from the date of the rightful possession, interest on the purchase-money would be payable by the Company-Quare. Willey v. The South Eastern Railway Com pany-Ch. 100 CALLS. See CAPITAL OF COMPANY, 1. EVIDENCE, 4. INFANT. PLEADING, 1, 3, 4. SHARES, 2, 4. 1. The capital of a Company was divided into three classes of shares, viz. 31., 277. 10s., and 221. each. A call of 10s. per share was made on the holders of the 317. shares alone; whereupon the plaintiff filed his bill on behalf of himself and all other holders of 317. shares, except such defendants as were holders of such shares, against the Company and the directors, alleging undue partiality to the holders of other shares; that the call was not required for the purposes of the Act; and that the real motive of the call was to compel the 317. shareholders to enter into an agreement injurious to their rights. The bill prayed an inquiry whether any and what part of the call was necessary, and an injunction. The defendants demurred for want of equity and parties. Demurrer allowed, on the ground that the bill contemplated a continuance of the Company; and that the Court could not entertain jurisdiction without assuming authority to interfere with the internal management of continuing partnerships and companies:-Held, that plaintiff could not sue on behalf of the shareholders who had paid, and those who had not paid the calls; and that the bill was defective in not alleging that the holders of the other shares were duly and fully represented by the defendants. Leave to amend bill refused. In an argument on demurrer, sections of Railway Acts, though declared to be public Acts, cannot be referred to unless they are stated in the bill. Bailey v. The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway Company-Ch. 256 2. The resolution of the Board of Directors of a Railway Company, that a call be made, is the call within the 8 Vict. c. 16, s. 16. Ex parte Tooke, In re The Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Company, 1 3. Where it was enacted, that, "so soon as the sum of 1,500,000l. shall have been subscribed &c., it shall be lawful for the Company to put in force all the powers of the said Act authorising the construction of the said Railway, and of the Acts therein recited," viz. the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, as regards a portion of the Railway :-Held, that the raising of the capital was not a condition precedent to the power of the Company to make calls, but only to 6. There is no legal objection to a call being made payable by instalments. London and North Western Railway Company v. M'Michael, 495 Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway Company v. Webster, 498 Ambergate, Nottingham, and Boston, and Eastern Junction Railway Company v. Norcliffe, 500 7. Debt for calls.-The declaration stated, that the defendant, at the time of the making of the calls, was and still is the holder of thirty-nine shares, &c., and was and still is indebted to the Company &c. :-Held good on special demurrer, though not conformable with 8 Vict. c. 16, s. 26. East Lancashire Railway Company v. Croxton, 214 8. The executors of a shareholder are not liable in an action for calls in the statutory form under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, when the call is made in the lifetime of the testator. The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway Company v. Cotesworth, 211 |