The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-29 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YunzDAY.

COVIETON V. IeNANAILA.-11.721111E0 DOWN CASE.
Thls Cu an action to recover eompensations in damages
for an injury done to the plairairs osthiage, by the negli-
gence of the defendant's servant. The plaintiff was en
attorney living on the north side of London, and the c;s-
fendent an omnibus proprietor. On the Bth September last
the plaintiff's wife and another lady were on their way to
the Brighton Railway when they met the defendant's
omnibus, near the Sturt Arms, in the New North-mad, on
the wrong side of the road. The omnibus, having reached
its destination, was turning round when it came in contact
with the plaintiff's vehicle, and knocked in a panel. It had
cost six or seven pounds to repair the carriage, but the ia-
jury had greatly reduced it in value.
The defendant's ease was that the plaintiff's man was
driving very fast, and that there was sufficient room for
him to have kept on hls own side. If he had done so the
accident would not have happened, and the horses of the
omnibus were walking and quietly turning round when
the collision took place.
The evidence, as usual in such cases, was of a conflicting
ehsracter.
_ . .

The jury, at the close of the me, mid they need nut
trouble his lordship to sum up, for they had made up their
salads.

.They found for the defendant

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-YESTERDAY.

5111114111, DI

IVOTICEI (oLiaMot. . RIGILYX43I,

WILUOSI, CIE/WILL, Etl.t, TAIJOVID, AND ClOllllOll.
THE ORRAT NORTRIIIIN RAILWAY COHPAYY, PLAY-
TIFFS IX IRIIOI, V. TEE 110CTII TORRARIZI RAILWAY

AND RIVER DUN COXPANT,

VALIDITY OP A CONTRACT.

IN ZRIIOI.-

Mr. Bramwell, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Dennison ap-
peared for the plaintiffs in error; Sir Fitzroy Kelly and
4r. Manisty for the defendants.
This was a writ of error from the Court of ll:chequer.
The declaration alleged that the two companies had en.
tared int, en agreement for twenty-one years, from the Ist
of July, 1851, by which the Great Northern Ctmpany was
to have the power of running over and carrying coals on
the South Yorkshire hae fee a stipulated sum, which it was
alleged had not been paid in accordance with the terms of
the deed. The defendants in the court below pleaded by
setting out the deed. It appeared that the Great
Northern Company was to have the power of carrying
coals over the Yorkshire lines on the payment of
tolls, fluctuating according to the quantity carried.
For instance, if the coals carried did not amount to more
than 12.5,000 tons in six months then the Great Northern
Company we to pay to the South Yorkshire such toll as,
with the clear profits of the latter, would be sufficient to
pay the interest on its guaranteed shares and a net divi-
dend of 31. per cent. on its ordinary capital, and so en until I
tons,
the amount reached 400,000 to, when for that or a greater
quantity the Great Northern was to pay such tolls as
would, after payment of outgoings and the dividends on
preference stack, insure a dividend of 6 per cent. It was I
submitted in the court below that the agreement was illegal,
and therefore null and void. Mr. Dims Parke and Mr.
Baron Platt gave judgment in favour of the then plaintiffi
—the South Yorkshire Company ; end Mr. Baron Martin
for the defendants—the Great Northern Company. The
Lord Chief Bum did not give judgment, in order that it
might be entered for the plaintiffs and brought by a writ
of error to this court.

Mr. Bramwell, on the part of the plaintiffs in error, now
submitted that the agreement was illegal, and therefore
void. These:corporations were endowed by parliament
with limited powers, and any agreement they entered into
beyond the @cope of those powers wee void. They had no
authority to affix the common seal of the company to such
a document. Parties subscribed to an undertaking for a
certain purpose, but they were not to be made by the
managers parties to a speculation to which they had not
originally' subscribed, and an a matter of public policy such
a state of things should not be permitted. Here was a
I partnership forced upon the Great Northern shareholders
in which the other company had all the advantage, for
they were absolutely guaranteed at least 3 per cent. even it
they lay quite idle, and did not develop their own traffic.
Having cited the cases of the East Anglian and Eastern
Compeniet Railways, M'Gregor and the Dover and Deal
Railway, the Ambergate Railway case (Simpson v. Den-
nison), and the Shrewsbury and Birmingham v. the
London and North Western, and the Shropshire Union
Companies, the learned counsel submitted that this con-
tract was ultra vine, and opposed to the 87th section of the
act 8 Vie., c. 20, and was therefore void.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly supported the judgment of the court
below, without disputing the legality of the decisions in
the cases cited, they did not in his opinion at all apply to
this. He admitted that no contract which violated an act
of parliament could be enforced in a court of law, but con-
tended that on • careful consideration of the contract in
this cam, it would be found to be reasonable, fair, and just,
and hadjmn deliberately entered into, not by way of spe-
culation asto the future, but after experience of the past,
for the benefit of the two companies and the public. By
means of this agreement large profits had already accrued
to the Great Northern Company, by enabling them to com-
pete with the whole body of coal merchants in the metro-
polis ; but they now desired to set it aside, in the hope of
being able to fall back on an earlier one, containing terms
somewhat more advantageous to themselves. He submitted
that the terms were perfectly fair, and not opposed to the
policy of the law. The whole question for their lordships
consideration was, whether it was a fatal objection to a con-
trast that the remuneration was not to be a fixed, hut •
fluctuating sum, depending on contingencies which the
parties had taken into consideration. lie submitted the
contract was perfectly valid, and that the judgment of the
court below should be affirmed.
The learned gentleman having concluded,
The court adjourned to this day.
COURT OF BANKRUFICY.—YESTEILDAY.

IIErARATE lIATE.—QUESTION UNDER THE 98TH BEL] lON.
This was the first sitting for proof of debts and choice of
assignees, in the case of Hugh Williams, jun., describes as
• tailor and commission agent, of West Smithfield, trading
in partnership with Hugh Williams, men., and J. Williams.
Mr. Shard stated that since the adjudication in this case,
ea adjudication had been taken out against the other two
partnen in the hem, but they had not yet surrendered, and
no day had been appointid for the choice of assignees. He
therefore proposed to proceed to the choice of assignees
under this bankruptcy, and then, when the other ease
cam, before the court, to ask for an order under the beth
section, for anneriog the proceedings to those already
taken.
His Honour referred to the With section, which provides,
"That after • fiat issued, or a petition for adjudication of
bankruptcy filed, against or by one or more member
or members of a firm, any petition or petitions for adjudi-
cation of bankruptcy against or by any other member or
members of such firm, shall be filed and prosecuted in the
court in which the first fiat or petition was prosecuted; and
immediately after the adjudication under such other peti-
tion or petitions, all the estate real and personal of such
bankrupt or bankrupts shall vest in the official awigeee,
sad the creditors' ansignee (if any) ander the first fiat or
petition ; and thereafter all the separate proceedings under
such petition or petitions shall be stayed, and such petition
or petitions shall, without afficting the validity of the firer
flat or petition, be annexed to and form part of the same."
This being in he thought the best come would be to ad-
journ the choice of assignees until the other partite came
before the court, and then all the creditors, joint as well as
I Could cone in sad prove.
V:award rensisdnd big Honour that the joint creditors
had the right to prove ander this petition. In het, all the
cseditors 'be had proved were joint creditors. The words