covenanted to repair, &c., and at the end of his term to yield up the premises in good repair, with all fixtures and improvements; and not to let or assign without the landlord's consent in writing; and there was a power of re-entry in case of breach; that, at the expiration of the term, the company had demanded possession, which being refused, they brought ejectinent and obtained judgment, and a writ of possession issued. Wise's steward stated, that he had no recollection of having used the expressions stated by Gosling, but had told him, that Wise would sell the estate to the company. He added, that the renewal of leases on the estate was always upon a valuation, and with reference to the current annual value. Sections 17 & 19 of the act 11 G. 4, c. lxx were referred to (q).

Lord Denman, C. J.-This rule must be made absolute to summon a jury to assess compensation for the damage, if any, sustained by this party by reason of the act having passed, in respect of goodwill, or the chance of a beneficial renewal of his lease. Whatever difficulties arise under this section, are difficulties which the company have brought upon themselves. They have procured an act to be drawn containing a very obscure clause, and it is on condition of carrying that clause into effect that they enjoy the powers with which they are invested as a company. I do not see how the operation of the 19th section is to be carried beyond that of the 17th, except by the construction which was adopted in Ex parte Farlow (r), and Ex parte Still (s). The interest in question is certainly a most imperfect one, but the clause ought to receive a liberal construction. Parke, J.-There is a distinction as to the fixtures and improvements, because it appears that the party here had no legal interest in these; the inquiry, therefore, will be as to the compensation in respect of injury sustained "for good-will or otherwise;" the fixtures and improvements will not be a subject of assessment, though the jury may consider how far they added to the chance of a beneficial renewal. The other Judges concurred.-Rule absolute.

In re Palmer and the Hungerford Market Company, (9 A. & E. 463).—Mandamus, requiring the Hungerford Market Company to assess compensation to one Palmer. By a judge's order the matter was referred to an arbitrator, who set forth in his award the facts

(9) See these sections, Ex parte Farlow, ante, 224. (r) See ante, 224.

(8) See ante, 225.

Compensation
Cases.

possession to another, or make any alteration, without consent of his landlord, and was to leave for his landlord's benefit all improvements or additions made during his occupation. He made certain improvements, and was afterwards ejected upon due notice to quit:-Held, that he was not entitled to com

pensation for such

improvements under sect. 19 of the Hungerford Market Act.

mentioned in the judgment. The question turned on sect. 19 of the Improvement Act (t). Lord Denman, C. J.-This case arises upon a demand for compensation under the Hungerford Market Act, 11 G. 4, c. lxx, and the only question is, whether Palmer is entitled to be compensated for improvements made by him during his occupation of the premises which the company have purchased and used for the purposes of the market. The occupation commenced under an agreement made December 28th, 1824, between Palmer, and Wise, the then owner of the Hungerford Market Estate, of which the premises were parcel, for one year, commencing the 29th September preceding. The agreement contained the following stipulations :—that if Palmer, with Wise's consent, should hold beyond the year, he should quit, or be at liberty to quit, at any quarter day, on receiving or giving three months' notice; that he should not underlet or give up possession to any one, or make any alteration, without the written consent of Wise. He was to keep all the glass entire, and so leave the same, together with all the articles mentioned in a schedule, and all improvements or additions to the premises which he should make during his occupation, for the benefit of Wise. On the 31st July, 1824, Wise had offered the Hungerford Market Estate to Sir T. Tyrwhitt, on behalf of the intended Market Company; the offer was made on certain written terms, to which a decided answer was to be given in eight months. No answer was returned within that period; but, in December, 1830, the purchase was completed. Notice to quit at Michaelmas, 1830, was duly given by Wise on the 23rd June preceding, and Palmer finally gave up possession in April, 1831, after a verdict recovered in ejectment, wherein Wise and the Hungerford Market Company were severally lessors of the plaintiff. In 1826, Wise gave Palmer leave to extend his bar, and during his occupation, and before the passing of the act, Palmer made certain other improvements. These were given up with the rest of the premises, and are valued at 447. 10s. The question now to be decided is, whether the company are bound to indemnify him for these improvements. Upon the argument, the several decisions which are reported upon the 17th and 19th sections of the act were cited. These are Ex parte Farlow (u), Ex parte Wright, Ex parte Davies, Ex parte Still (1),

Ex parte Gosling (y). The principle upon which the court has proceeded in these cases, in the construction of the act, is clear and satisfactory: it has been thought that the compensation clauses, the 17th and 19th, should be construed most liberally in favour of those who are to receive benefit from them, and most strongly against the company who framed them; and it has further been considered, that the 19th clause must be extended to other than legal interests, which are provided for by the 17th. These principles, however, do not exclude an examination into the particular circumstances of each application; and where it has appeared that the party has, in reality, sustained no injury from the proceedings of the company, not merely in his legal or equitable interest, but not even according to any expectations which he may reasonably have entertained, the court has refused to interfere; therefore, in Ex parte Wright, the party was held entitled to no compensation. Two other rules were discharged at the same time, of parties applying under similar circumstances. This case is shortly reported, but it did not pass without consideration, coming on soon after Ex parte Farlow, when the act was fresh in the minds of the court and it has been treated as proceeding on a sound distinction in several cases that have followed. In one of these, Ex parte Gosling, the applicant had covenanted to yield up the premises, with all fixtures and improvements; upon which, although he was allowed compensation for the loss sustained in respect of goodwill, or the chance of a beneficial renewal of his lease, on the authority of Ex parte Farlow, he was held not entitled to any in respect of fixtures or improvements, though it was said the compensation jury might consider them, so far as they added to the chance of a beneficial renewal. In the present case they stand alone, and the applicant is in the same situation as Wright, in respect of his general interest, and Gosling, in respect of his improvements. It may fairly be collected, that the peculiar stipulations which the agreement contains were introduced by Wise, with a view to completing his sale on more favourable terms for himself, by having an estate to dispose of, less incumbered with valuable interest in the tenants. He must be taken, therefore, to have received his compensation from the companyin higher price; and they will have to pay twice over for the same thing, if we were to hold the present applicant entitled. It is probable that, in many cases where the facts left this matter doubtful, they

(y) Ante, 226.

Compensation

Cases.

Compensation
Cases,

Where, by a sta-
tute, compensa-
tion was to be
paid for land, &c.
taken for the pur-

poses of the act,
and also for da-
mage, loss, and
inconvenience
sustained by the

owners or occupiers," such damage to be settled separately from the value of the lands;" and the act also required tenants at will and

lessees for years to give up the pos

session, on notice,

but gave such

tenants and lessees

compensation for the value of their unexpired terms: -Held, that a lessee for seven years, who received due notice to quit at the expiration of the lease, was not entitled to receive compensation for the loss of his chance of a re

have done so; but we think we ought not to proceed further than the line laid down in Ex parte Farlow; and as this is precisely within Ex parte Wright, and the distinction taken in Ex parte Gosling, and we think those cases rightly decided, the rule will be discharged.

Rex v. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway Co., (4 A. & E. 650 ; 6 N. & M.186).—Mandamus, requiring the defendants to assess and pay compensation to Messrs. Bathe and Wraith, the lessees of premises taken for the purposes of the railway. The applicants were manufacturers of plaster of Paris, on premises held on lease under one Bromfield, which lease had been renewed several times. The last renewal was for seven years, from February 2, 1828. Bromfield at first agreed to grant a term of 14 years to the applicants, and a lease was engrossed; but he afterwards objected to grant a lease for more than seven years, but at the same time assured the parties, that they would not be turned out at the end of the term; and they, confiding in this assurance, took a renewal for seven years. In the same confidence they expended above £300 upon the premises after the renewal. In 1833, the company contracted with Bromfield for the purchase of his reversion. On the 19th of August, 1834, the company gave the applicants notice to deliver up the premises to them at the expiration of six calendar months, and refused to pay any compensation to them, inasmuch as the lease would expire on the 2nd February, 1835. Wraith, in his affidavit, stated his belief that, if the act had not passed, the premises the lease had been would not have been sold by Bromfield, and that the lease would have been renewed on advantageous terms. The following sections in the railway act (which passed in 1832) were referred to:-Section 45 ther renewal being enacts, that the owners and occupiers of any lands, &c., may accept and receive satisfaction for the value of such lands, and also compensation for the damages to be sustained in making or completing the said works, and for and on account of the detriment, injury, damage, loss, inconvenience, or prejudice which may be sustained.By section 47, in ascertaining the sums to be paid for the purchase of any lands, &c., the jury shall also ascertain the compensation to be made for any damages which shall be sustained by any person being owner or occupier of, or interested in such lands, by reason of the severing the same from other lands, &c., belonging to such persons, &c., and for or on account of the detriment, injury, loss, and damage, or prejudice which shall accrue to, or be sustained by, such owner, by reason of the making the said railway, or by reason of the

newal, although

several times re

newed by the

owner, and the tenant had made

improvements on the faith of a fur

made.

execution of any of the powers given to the said company; such damages and compensation to be settled separately from the value of the lands, &c.-By sect. 48, that the said juries shall settle what shares and proportions of the purchase-money or compensation for damages which shall be assessed as aforesaid, shall be allowed to any tenant or other person having a particular estate, term, or interest in the premises, for such his interest therein.-By sect. 56, that every tenant at will, lessee for a year, and other person in possession of lands, &c., not having any greater interest than as tenant at will, or lessee for a year, or from year to year, shall deliver up possession to the company at the expiration of six calendar months next after such notice as is there directed; and in case of a refusal, it shall be lawful for the company to issue their precept to the sheriff to deliver possession.— By sect. 57, that where any such tenant or lessee shall be required to deliver up the possession of any premises so occupied by him before the expiration of the term or interest of such tenant or lessee as aforesaid in the said premises, the said company shall make unto such tenant or lessee, before they shall issue their precept to the sheriff, satisfaction or compensation to the value of his unexpired term or interest in the said premises. Per Lord Denman, C. J.-It certainly requires very comprehensive words to include such an interest as this, if interest it be. It is merely a hope of renewal on the old terms, which, if there has been an improvement, were not likely to be granted where there would have been a competition. This is different from the case of a sale, and also from the case under the Hungerford Market Act (z), where the words antecedent to "good-will" had exhausted the legal interest. The other judges concurred. Rule discharged.

Reg. v. The Southampton Railway Company, (1 Railway Cases, 717, S. C., 10 A. & E. 3).—Mandamus, requiring the defendants to assess compensation to Messrs. Francis & Sons, for the purchase of their interest in certain premises taken by the company, under 4 & 5 W. 4, c. lxxxviii. It appeared that Francis & Sons had been tenants from year to year of the premises in question for nearly twenty years; that their tenancy commenced at Christmas; that they expected to be allowed to continue tenants, and, under such expectations, had expended money in improving the premises. On the 10th of January,

(z) See Ex parte Farlow, ante, 224.