venient use of the railway." That includes the stations erected at each end and along the line. But, then, Mr. Rolt says that your Lordships ought not to adopt this interlocutor, but that you ought to lay down some rule, or to give some definition of what you include in the word "station." I think that would be extremely dangerous, because what would be included would probably be different in the case of each railway. To take the illustration I alluded to before, a very different sort of station may fairly come within the definition of the word "station " at the Great Western Railway or at the Great Northern Railway, from what would be adapted to the case of a minor railway. It would be a much more expensive erection in the one case than in the other. There is no doubt that the word "station" ought not to be extended to include anything more, and I see nothing in the interlocutor which ought to lead to the inference that it was intended to include anything more than what is necessary for the convenient use of the railway as a railway. The word "station" is a perfectly well understood term, and any definition would be open to the observation that it was clarum per obscurius. Everybody knows what the word "station" means that it is a place to which every person using the railway may come on foot or in carriages, and bring their *luggage, and it probably has connected with it a room where persons may wait, if it is a railway for taking various descriptions of passengers -1st, 2nd, and 3rd class passengers, and all that description of accommodation, without which a railway cannot be conveniently used. It certainly will not include a hotel and other matters not necessary for the occupation and convenient use of the railway. I think it may properly include a directors' room; it is exceedingly important that there should be at a station a directors' room, to which persons having complaints to make may resort for that purpose. I do not think there can be any practical difficulty upon the subject. I think that that which Mr. Rolt invited your Lordships to do, namely, to insert some definition such as he went through, would be infinitely more likely to give rise to litigation than to lead to any good result. With respect to the cases that were relied upon, they were English cases, and have no application to this case, because what the respondent rests upon is the construction of this Scotch Poor Law Act. But there was no such Act in England, and the assessment in the English cases referred to having been made upon the land which was occupied by the railway in the particular parishes upon the best principle that the parties could arrive at, and they having done it very elaborately, and perhaps very reasonably (if you please, more reasonably than under the Scotch Poor Law Act, I am not interested in contesting that), the Court of Queen's Bench thought ADAMSON EDINBURGH it a very reasonable mode, and refused to interfere with the rate. That is wholly inapplicable to this case, which rests, not upon any abstract discussion as to what would be the more expedient or the more just or reasonable way of assessing a portion of a railway COMPANY. *which passes through a particular parish, but upon the construction of this special Act of Parliament. AND GLASGOW [ *340 ] [ *341 ] I therefore move your Lordships that the interlocutor of the COURT below be affirmed with costs. THE LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, both as to the result and as to the argument, I take exactly the same view of this case as that of my noble and learned friend. I therefore agree in his proposition, that the interlocutor of the COURT below be affirmed. It is a very great mistake to suppose, and I say this now once for all, that those noble and learned Lords who do not deliver their opinions and their reasons in detail, have not applied their minds during the argument closely and constantly to the case. I have from the beginning, for example, of this case taken most anxious care that every one part of the argument urged in the Court below and at your Lordships' Bar should receive, as far as I was able to give it, my fullest attention and most deliberate consideration; and if I do not repeat any of the arguments in joining in the judgment moved by my noble and learned friend, it is not because I have not attended to those arguments-quite the contrary, but because I feel it to be superfluous to go over the same ground again which has been so ably and distinctly gone over by my noble and learned friend. I have at different times had some little doubt upon this case, but in one particular alone; I mean as to whether or not we ought to attempt to lay down some definition of the word "station," so as to preclude the necessity of further litigation, ending, in all probability, in a further appeal to your Lordships' House. But, on further consideration, I am of opinion with my noble and learned friend, that it would be not only difficult, *to the extent of impossibility, for us to make any satisfactory definition in this respect; and I can hardly imagine our making any attempt at such a definition that would not be sure to lead to other questions not raised by the law as it stands at present. My Lords, some reference has been made to various provisions in the Act of Parliament, to the 37th and 42nd sections of the existing Scotch Poor Law Act, and to another Act to which my noble and learned friend's attention was drawn, and from which he read a passage; all of which provisions call to my mind very many cases before your Lordships, and in other courts of justice, illustrating the faulty manner in which our Acts of Parliament are drawn ; but I do not mean upon the present occasion, sitting in my judicial and not in my legislative capacity, to say more than this, that I heartily wish I could see a better system laid down and pursued for more fully, carefully, and accurately framing our legislative measures. Interlocutors affirmed with costs. CALEDONIAN AND DUMBARTONSHIRE JUNCTION ADAMSON v. EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY COMPANY 1855. Feb. 6, 9, 19, MAGISTRATES OF 20. 1856. June 19. (2 Macq. 391-423; S. C. 2 Jur. N. S. 695; 4 W. R. 691.) [Reported in 106 R. R. 965, from 2 Jur. N. S. 695.] CALEDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SPROT. (2 Macq. 449-462; S. C. 2 Jur. N. S. 623; 4 W. R. 659.) [Reported in 106 R. R. 955, from 2 Jur. N. S. 623.] EDINBURGH, PERTH, AND DUNDEE RAILWAY 1856. March 4, 6, 7, 8, 10. June 16. 1857. Feb. 19, 20, 23. Lord L.C. Lord WENSLEY DALE. [ 514 ] (2 Macq. 514-528; S. C. 3 Jur. N. S. 249; 5 W. R. 377.) Railway Company-Liability to take land though line unexecuted- CRANWORTH, Release of Company-Railway Acts enabling, not obligatory. An incorporated Railway Company obtained an Act for making a branch within seven years. They gave the usual notices. While their bill was before Parliament they agreed to purchase the land of a certain owner. It was a term of this contract that it should not be enforced against the Company within the seven years, and the purchase-money was to be paid when the Company on obtaining their Act should have "begun to execute the branch." The Company obtained their Act, but never executed or began to execute the branch. The seven years expired. The Court of Session held that what was stipulated for as an accommodation to the Company ought not to be turned by them into an instrument of injustice, and they were bound to execute the agreement. This decision reversed; the House holding: 1. That permissive words in an Act of Parliament are not obligatory. 2. That the Company were not bound to execute or begin to execute the branch. 3. That as they had not executed or begun to execute the branch their obligation to pay the purchase-money did not arise. 4. That although this might appear hard on the vendor, inasmuch as he was kept for seven years in suspense without the power of dealing with his property, yet "how did their Lordships know that that very inconvenience had not formed an ingredient in the price contracted for ?" THE summons of Mr. Philip, dated 29th March, 1849, stated that towards the end of the year 1846 the appellants published notices to the effect that in the then ensuing Session of Parliament a bill would be introduced by them to make a branch railway; and that corresponding notices were served on the owners and occupiers on the intended line, and that the plans were deposited (1) Cited, Scottish N. E. Rail. Co. v. Stewart (1859) 115 R. R. 1014, 1021 (3 Macq. 382); R. v. French (1878) L. R. 3 Q. B. 187, 47 L. J, M. C. 74, 38 L. T. 385; R. v. G. W. [ *515 ] PERTH, AND V. PHILIP. EDINBURGH, in the usual way; the summons further stated, that in December 1846 an application was made to the respondent by the solicitors of the Company, intimating that the proposed branch would pass through his property, and that they wished to acquire the whole of it; and that upon this proposal a sale was concluded by a "minute of agreement" as follows: "Between Robert Philip and the Edinburgh, &c. Company, incorporated by Act of Parliament: First, Mr. Philip, in consideration of the obligation after written, assents to the bill presently in Parliament, and for which notices have been given, for enabling the said Company to execute a branch or extension line of railway diverging from or near to the bridge at Great Junction Street, and terminating at or near to the Upper Drawbridge, in the town of Leith. Second, the said Railway Company considering that the said line will pass through the ground and premises of Old Church Wharf, Leith, or some part thereof, belonging to Mr. Philip, whereby the remaining part of said ground and premises would be deteriorated, they agree to acquire the whole ground and premises of every description situated there, belonging to Mr. Philip, and to make payment of the sum of 11,500l. in full of the price thereof, and of all claims whatever competent to Mr. Philip on account of the same, and of the intended operations of the said Company relative thereto. Third, the said Company hereby become bound to pay the said sum of 11,500l. to Mr. Philip, his heirs, executors, or assignees, at the first Term of Martinmas or Whitsunday after the said Company, on obtaining their Act of Parliament, shall have begun to execute any part of the said railway under the powers of the said Act, and the price to bear legal interest thereafter until paid; and the Company, before taking possession of or entering on the premises, either paying or satisfying the said Robert Philip for the price thereof, and Mr. Philip to exhibit a clear title to the property, and search of incumbrances; but the expense of the conveyance in their favour, including revising fees, is to be defrayed by the said Railway Company." [ *516 ] The Act obtained was the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 151; sect. 8 of which authorized the construction of the branch. The 14th section enacted that the powers *for the compulsory purchase of lands should not be exercised after three years; and the 15th section enacted that the branch should be completed within seven years, and that on the expiration of such seven years the powers given. for executing the branch should cease. The summons sought performance of the agreement, which the Company by their defence resisted. The LORD ORDINARY (WOOD), on the ground that the agreement was conditional, and that the conditions had not been satisfied, v. gave judgment against Mr. Philip, and assoilzied the defenders; EDINBURGH, PERTH, AND but the First Division of the Court of Session recalled this interDUNDEE locutor, and decided that the Company were bound to make payRAILWAY COMPANY ment to the respondent of the 11,500l., the obligation having become absolute, the learned Judges unanimously holding that the limitation of seven years in the Act expressed was a stipulated accommodation to the Company, but was not to be used by them as a loophole of escape from their obligation. The Company appealed to the House. PHILIP. [519] The Attorney-General (1) and Mr. Anderson for the appellants : The obligation to take the property was conditional, and the conditions were, 1, that the bill contemplated should pass, and 2, that the appellants should within the seven years begin to execute the proposed line; 3, what was sought was beyond the scope and powers of the Company under their Act. And thus the case came within [the] principle of the decisions by this House in Hawkes v. The Eastern Counties Railway (2) and Caledonian and Dumbarton Railway v. Helensburgh (3). The contract in the present case would, if carried out, involve a misapplication of the Company's funds, [ *520 ] and, at all events, it was a case for damages, and not for specific performance. The Lord Advocate (4) and Mr. Rolt for the respondent. THE LORD CHANCELLOR (5): My Lords, this case has been very fully and ably argued; and, if it had been necessary, I certainly should not have shrunk from entertaining or investigating the question of a mere technical nature on the pleading which has been raised in the argument; but it is very satisfactory to my mind to feel that we are not driven to that necessity. It is extremely unfortunate when questions of a merely technical nature are carried through all the stages of the Courts of Scotland, and ultimately brought to your Lordships' House, and your Lordships feel yourselves bound to decide the matter, without settling that which is the real substantial question between the parties. At the same time, it has not been the babit of your Lordships' House, since I have been connected with the hearing of appeals, ever to warp the law for the purpose of doing what appears to be justice to the parties, by means of disregarding those rules of procedure which are essential in general to the administration of justice. (1) Sir R. Bethell. (4) Mr. Moncreiff. |