The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-10 00:00:00

of both the new comninedem sea that the expediency of such
amalgamation wouli-be discussed at a meett!'qt to be held in
October, 1846 ; and each meeting and discusaLZ tuck
plhottz
and it was resolved at a meeting of the Birmieg.'nol Ina
Oxford Railway Company "that, as an emalgasiatU."l of
this company with the Btrmingham, Wolverhampton, taw
Dudley Railway Company was deemed eepedient, the direc-
tors be authorised, in conjunction with the last mentioned
isa any, to apply to parliament fur en art to carry such
amalgamation into effect, providing in the said act fur pewee
to sell or lease the said line, when imalgantated, or any part
thereof, to the Great Western Railway Company, and that
the directors were authorised to negotiate with that
company for some arrangement for that purpose." A simi-
lar resolution was ponied at a me, tie" of the Birmingham,
Wolverhan pion, and Dudley Rail. :ay Company. And the
directors of both these companies ei:tered into negotiations
with the Great Western Railway Company ; and on the 12th
of November, 1845, the directors of the three companies
C/11110 to en agreement in writing lot, the capital of the two
companies t 3 be considered as amalgamated, and be taken at
the sums then mentioned; 2nd, the Great Western Railway
Company agreed to purchase, and the said two other com-
panies agreed to sell, the two undertakings, by payments as
there mentioned; the detail; of that tad article, and the :3rd,
4th, and sth articles, set forth in the bill, are not material
to be here mentioned ; by the 6th article, the Birmingham
and Oxford and Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley
Companies were to be amalgamated, and powers taken for
the broad gauge, in addition to the narrow gauge thereon.
and an arrangement to be made for bientung the Great West-
ern board of directors with the directors of the amalgamated
companies in such manner as to give the Great Western
Railway Company an effectual control over the expenditure
of the said companies. By the Bth article, the terms and
conditions of the agreement were to be submitted to epeeist
general meetings of the three companies, to be convened
without delay, and when ratified, all nee wary powers to be
sought from parliament to give effect to the agreement. At
meetings of the two companies proposed to be amalgamated.
the said agreement was ratified; and on the faith thereof,
the Great Western Railway Company entered into contracts
for the completion of the railway., and on the 9th of July,
1847, an act was passed authorising the vale of the amal-
gamated railways to the Great Western Railway
Company. The bill, after other statement' and cor-
responding charges, chaiged that notwithstanding the
before-recited agreements, a majority of the existing
shareholders in the Birmingham and Oxford Junction
Railway, consisting of persons who became shareholders
subsequent to the said agreement, and interested in the Lon-
don and North-Western Railway, took on themselves to re-
pudiate the agreement of the 12th Nov., 1846, && The bill
prayed that the agreement might be specifically performed
under a decree of the court, and for an injunction, &c. The
Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company demurred to
the bill for want of equity. The Vice-Chancellor, by his
orders, overruled the demurrer, and granted the injunction
as prayed for. The appeal against Lis Honour's orders was
argued before the Lord Chancellor several days in the last
Hilary term.
His Lordship new, in giving his judgment, said, the
amount of property involved in this lit:gatton, and the num-
ber of persons interested in it, gave importance to the dis-
cussions held on the demurrer, bat there was no diffi-
culty in dealing with the its: itself. His Lord-
ship then stated the material parts of the agree-
ment between the plaintiffs and the other two companies,
as stated in the bill, and that they Ind in consequence pro-
ceeded to the sale and purchase as state'. The question was
whether the agreement was binding on the defendant com-
pany, end whether the court will interfere by injunction. It
is quite clear that this court will interfere during litigation
to preserve property by injunction without coming to any
opinion on the respective rights of the parties. His lordship
referred to a case " Echliff r. Baldwin," we believe, in
16 Vesey, and another in 3 Vesey and Beanies, and said: the
court, it was true, would not no interfere when it found a
question of right disputed by the parties, except to preserve
the property. Upon the statements in this bill which must
be taken to be admitted, the injunction may be sustained and
should be continued, although the relief prayed for may not
be granted. The demurring parties say the plaintiffs show
no reasons in the case as stated in their bill to give them a
title to the performance of an agrcemet.t before the com-
panies were amalgamated. The aumlgamation act was
passed the 9th of July, 1847. By the appeal his lordship
was asked to treat the contract of Nov. 1816 as a
nullity. The effect of such a decision would be to nullify
many contracts, much u family arrangements and contracts
entered into by projectors before the acts to confirm them
are passed. In the case of " Edwards r. the Grand Junction
Railway Company " (1 Mylne and Craig, 650), his lordship
gave effect to a contract entered into by the projectors of
a company before the act incorporating it was pasted.
There were many cases to the lame effect. He was not
therefore prcpared to do what the defendants asked by
allowing the demurrer, and so treat the contract as a
nullity, because its provisions required an act of parlia-
ment to confirm them. The defendauts cannot be allowed
in this court to say we cannot have the benefit of such
parts of a contract as can be performed because the whole
of the contract cannot be performed without an act of par-
liament. His lordship cited some cases on that point—one
from 3 Swanston—Spiller v. Spitler, we believe—and another
from 1 Scholes and Lefroy, p. 13. He affirmed both orders,
one for the injunction, and the other over-ruling the de-
, mutter with costs.

Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Mice.
. NORTH BTAFEDILDSHIRE RAILWAY Coil.
FANT.—INJUNCTIO/L—WHETHER THE BONI/ UNDEU 8
VICT., c. 18, a. 85, MUST BE JOIST OR SEVERAL.—It may
be remembered that in this case the plaintiff is the owner of
land and saltworks at Sandb.ich, in Cheshire, and that the
company having given notice to take nine pieces of land be-
longing to him, and then having enterea upon the land,
tendering a bond for the value of seven pieces only, were
restrained by injunction from further entry upon the land,
or continuing in possession of or constructing their railway
works upon any part of it ; but that leave was given to the
company to apply for a dissolution of the injunction, when
they should have entitled themselves to make the application.
—Mr. Matins, on behalf of the company, moved that the in-
junction might be dissolved.—Mr. Russell and Mr. NV. T.
S. Daniell, for the plaintiff, opposed the motion
The Vice-Chancellor said, the only question war, whether
since the injunction issued the defendants had so fulfilled
the conditions, and complied with the requisitions of the
Lands Clause, Consolidation Act, as to entitle themselves,
under the 85th section of that act, to enter upon and use the
lands of the plaintiff ; and if there were ar.y doubt upon that
question, the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the
landed proprietor Viewing the case in this manner, his
Honour was not satisfied that the conditions of the
85th section had been fulfilled on the part of
the company. Perhaps it was reasonable to suppose
that Mr. Thompson was a proper person to value the land.
Perhaps it was reasonable to presume that it was before
entering upon the business of the valuation that be made the
declaration required by the 60th section of the act at parlia-
ment, and, perhaps, it might not be necessary for the
surveyor to show, on the face of his valuation, that in making
it he had had regard to the considerations specified by the
' 63rd section. But still, making all these suppositions, there
were circumstances in this cme, from which his lionour did
not feel satisfied that Mr. Thompson, in fixi 531. as the
value of the land, had paid regard to all the circumstances
pointed out in the G3rd section of the act, nor, looking at
the times and circumstances of the payment of the sums of
501. and 31. into the bank, was bls Honour satisfied that
the defendants had complied with the 86th section
of the act. The suoject also of Mr. Thompson's
valuation appeared to differ from that which be was directed
to value, and moreover his Honour thought it right to state,
that if the oefindants were assumed to have acted rightly in
everything but the bond, that instrument did not appear to
be clearly conformalio to the provisions of the statute. On
the whole, therefore, considering that the defendants put
their case entirely upon the 85th section of the act, and their
compliance with its requisitions, his Honour did not think
they had shown grounds for being relieved from the injunc-
tion, and the motion must be refused reserving the costs.
Although his Honour had not mentioned the 91st and 92d.
sections of the act, he had not forgotten them. and perhaps.
the 92d section weuld be alone fatal to the motion, for It pro-
vided that no party should be required to sell part of any
house, or other budding, or manufactory, when the party
was willing to convey the whole, and it might be said that
the brine pits, although not a building, were part of the
menu:sr-tory.

se.. v.,7,6:tancellor Wieraro.
ELLIor V. SOUTH 1311:AON RAILWAY CONII.LNY.—Iiv..
i tsc-rios.—This was an application by the defendants to
dissolve an injunction which had be en obtained in April last
by the plaintiff, restraining the dekndaats, their seIYI2I2S,,
agents, and workmen, from making or constructing, or era-
tinning upon the land, inthe bill mentioned, and required or
taken by them from plaintiff for the purposesof their brands
railway to bull Bay, near Plymouth, or any pert thereof, any
embankment, or any walls or wall supporting, or intending to
support an embankment, so at to cacaos a deviation or 'bus-
lion of the surface level of the railway, or any port thueof,
to an extent exceeding two feet above the level of the same
part of the said railway as refemd to the common datum line
described in the section approved by parliament and referred
to in the Solids Devon Railway Act (amendments-and
branches 1846), and as mark,si in the Lune section, and to
restrain the defendants/rem deviating from the mid level of the
said railways as marked in the said section, with reference
to the said common datum line (where the railway was or
might be serried over land required to be taken by the com-
pany from the plaintiff), or any port thereof, to any extant
exceeding in any place two feet above tba levels, as marked
in the said section, w About the previous consent of the
plaintiff in writing. The injunction aito restrained the de-
Fendants, their servants, &c,. from entering upon, Or using,
or from occupying for any temporary or otber purges: the
lands of the plaintiff adjoining to the land which bad bum
required or taken by the company of the plaintiff, or any
part thereof, and from depositing er laying, or continuing to
keep deposited or laid on such adjoining lands of the plain-
tiff or any part thereof any stones, earthwork, or materials,
without previously giving to the plaintiff arch notices an
i are required by the provisions of the South Devou
Railway Act, 18H, and the Railway Clauses Con-
solidation Act, ISi•Vrelper.lively.
His Honour now delivered judgment, observing that the
injunction, so far as it sought to compel the company to
undo what had already been done, must be dissolved. With
reference to the main point in the cue, namely, that re-
lating to the right of the company to deviate from the
level sanctioned in their act, and to which the injunction
ought properly to have been confined, he thought the eri-
dens* of the scientific men was conflicting ; but that upon
the whole the case was one of injury, which this court
would protect by injunctien, if the plaintiff in truth wu
right at law. He declined, however, giving any opinion as
to the legal right of the plaintiff, with referenee to the
matters complained of. These could only be determined
at law, and the court would direct a trial with that view,
unless the company would undertake to make any alters-
ion that might be tendered sitallol7 by the Malt of I