The Express.
London, England, 1850-12-03 00:00:00

JAW intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTEIDAL
Born's ono Loan CIIANCELLOL
His lordstip gave) udgnarnt is the lolioemili meet
SHRZWPIIIIILY AND DIMINO/lAN RAILWAY COM-
PANY V. Till LONDON AND NON= WESTNIIN RAILWAY

C . . i PLIONCTION DIIISOLTBD •ND ACTION M.

RICTSD ; MUTUAL ROCOUNTS TO BI RIFT OF TRAFFIC.

This was en appeal motion to discharge an injunction
pentad by the late Vies Chancellor of England, to restrain
the defendant company from carrying p seengers or goods
irons Shrewsbury or Wellington, or any point between thome
places to any point on the plaintiff.' railway on the Bir-
mingham, Wolverhampton end Stour Valley railway, or
wing the Shropshire Union railway by On• sal and Stafford,
co as to compete for traffic, which properly belongs to the
plaintiff noniron,. The motion was argued before his
lordship in July lut. The bill elated, among other things,
that the Shropfbire Union Railway Company poeleued
three brancbre, and before they obtained their act of incor-

potation in 1847, the defendant company, finding that ttew
lines would interfere with thew former pr.ispects, entered
into aanninten.s with the directors of the Shropshire Union

C .mpan y to lame these lines, and applied to parlemos.mt for an
sot for the purpose. The plaintiffs opposed that application
but withdrew their oppusithm upon an anrerment between
them and the defendants for a division of the profits of the

treifi:Vnrtain proportions, accordion to the 'Leone. That
wee in 11447. WWI% the plaintifle line of railway was opined
in 1849 from Borewabory to %Valet rhampton, the d-fentlants
re'elied to 111181 the said agreement, and carried on such

traffic on their Hors as was Mums to the pl”intitts, princi-
pally because they charged ene-halt less fares than the
plaintiffs. The Lad Cnaneellnr row stated the Wt.], and

said the question for his consideration arose ea the raid
agreement of 1847, and whether the saute was valid and
eluding, so as to justify this court in entering specific per-
foment* of it. The first question is, whether the ***** meat
was valid at law ; and it it wart then whether the acts tin.
puted to tie defendants amounted to a breach of it. The
plaintiffs insisted on its vaidity, and that it came into
operation. At it was his lordt.hip's intention logics them an
opportunity of estahl thing the act by bringing an action, he
would not go into the consideration of the question. It was
true the: when the use was before "old Contain= on

iideustthrer-,ih;defendanta asked to have the opinion
of a ooert of law. The but course f' r both parties
now was, that the plaintiffs should bring an action
for breach of the agreement. Toat would decide the
qaestion of its validity. His lordship dtd not see
any @efficient reason for continuing the injunction.
ft was granted in aid of a legal vain which is not yet
established by the plaintiffs. Until the melt of that action
be known the plaintiffs and defendants both should keep
sec( unt. of the traffic on the lines comprisi d in the agree-
ment. The injunction, instead of preventing mirebi• f, would
be injurious to both plaintiffs end defendants. His lordship,
after relating to the principle stated by Lord Brougham in
the ease of the "Earl of Ripon v. Hobart" (3 Myloe and
Keen, 174). said he would dissolve the injunction, and give
the plaintiffs liberty to bring an article, both they end the
defendants to keep accounts of the pawl:igen and goods traf-
fic in the mean time. He would make no ceder is to oosts,
becomes he had tome doubt whether the case came properly
before him, alter what passed in toe dtscu•sions before Lord
Co.tenhato. _ _

THR EAST AND WENT INDIA BOCCI AND BIRMINGHAM
JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY S. °ATMS -COMPENSA-
TION POLLINJURY TO A TRADISMAII.6 BUSINRB/1.-ROW TO
DR RICOYERID PROM • RAILWAY COMPANT.
. . .

Tail WM a mown opened lest Saturday to discharge ea
injunction granted by VicieCheneellor Wiring to restrain
the defendant from r. quiring the plaintiffs to take proceed-
iugs as prescribed b" the 68th section of the Lands Claims
Consolidation Act (8 Vict., c. 18) for summoning a iury to
struts the amount of compensation to be paid to the de-
fendant in respect of the injury dons, to his business by the
plaintiffs' railway. The defendant is a draper mad furrier,
having his house of business in Kingsland, on the line
of the railway, which has stopped up one of two entrances,
to his shop, in cone, quence of which he all Fed that his loss
in his setts amounted to 1001 per month. lie use willing,
however, to accep 4501. altogether as commits ion, and as
the company did not agree to pay him he „reed them with
notice to summon a jury according to the 68th clause of the
said act. The said clause enacts that "if ray par ybe en-
titled to any cempeneation in respect of any lands or any
',tweet therein, which shall have been taken for or juju-
. riou-ly affected by the If stcutioo of the works, and for which
the promoters of the undertaking shall not have made retie-
faction, Itc., and if the compensation claimed shall exceed
601. such part) may have the same settled be arbirra ion or
by the verdict of a jury, as he shall think fit." Then follows
the mode of proceeding by arbitration : " Or if the party so
entitled desire to Dare much question of c ,mpeneation settled
by a jury, it shall be lawful fur him to give notice in writing
of such hie desire to the promoters of the undertaking," Ac„
and unless they pay the amount claimed they shall within
21 days after the notice untie their warrant to the sheriff to
summon • jery for settling the game, " aced in default
thereof the et all be liable to pay the party so entitled as
aforesaid the amount of evaspeneation so claimed," and the
same may be recovered by action at law. The plaintiffs,
en receiving the said notice from the defendant, flied their
bill for an injunction, which the Vice-Chancellor granted, on
Ws ground among others, that the defendant had ont shown
that he was entitled, In respect to injury done to his trade, to
have a jury to stares compensatioa ; that he 'build first
establish his tit:. at law.
The Attorney General and Mr. Grove, in support of the
motion to discharge the Viva Chancellor'. order, said hit
Honour had made it on the authority of the decision of Lord
Cottenham, in the case of "The Loudon and North Western
Railway Company v. `Smith" (reported in 1 hlacneghten
and Gordon, and 5 Hall and Twills.; Tim construction
there put on the clause was, that u the party war not owner
of any land required for the purpose. of the railway, he wee
not entitled to the remedy of the 68th section en the alle-
gation that his property was ii.jurtonaly affected by the
proximity of the railway ; that in such case his proper course
was first to bring an action to establish his right to compen-
sation They contended that that was not a tenable argu-
ment, and that • party ought not to be put to tire delay and
impetus of two juries. in two different f 111% when the jury
in the form preauthed by the act was inefficient to settle not
only the am mot, but also the right to cninpensetion.
Mr. P. Wood and Mr. Hetherington supported the Vice-
Chentellor's order, and relied on the derision of Lord
Cuttenham in the case above referred to. They also cited
" Ea parte Shadbuld, is re the Eastern Counties Railway
Company" (12 Jurist, p. 1,0234 to show that the jury to be
summoned under the 68th notion have no right to go into
the question of the party right to compenettion. They wets
only to settle the amount; the right must be otherwise
shown. Both these eases would be reversed by granting the
motion now mode, th cause the circumstances of the three
cues were precisely the same. The bill in this case was, in
fact, drawn after the precedent in the " London aid North
Western Railway Company v. Smith." Thu party (Garth.)
had • tight to a mandamus to be bawd to the company,
and that was the pr,per course for him. That remedy was
not taken away by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Aet, and
in that way he migot establieh his title to compensation. He
should, at all events, establish his right before be put the
company to the expense of summoning a jury under the 68th
section of the act.
The Attorney-General replied.
Judgment porponed.

Bowe zee Meerea Of Tin Roux_

IN THI MAST= OF TIM WINDING VP ACM AND THI
NORWICH YANN CoMPANT.—PARTNIRSHIP DINT.
Mr. Bluetit (with whom were Mr. R. Palmer and Mr.
Cole) supp seed en appeal in this case on Mist( of the East
England ►nking C..nipany against the decision of Master
Blunt, who had disallowed a claim of the banking company
as creditors of the yarn company for a sum d 3.51651 , with
interest from May, 1849 The yarn company was formed in
1833, with a capital of 30,0001„ in 300 shares of 1001. each.
Nearly the whole of this capital was consumed in erecting
buildings in which to carry on the trade of the coin-
, piny, end in 1831 the direetors, with the concurrence
of the shareholders borrowed 8,0001. on mortgage, in 10-
' Oedemas with the deed of partnership, which was dated 2nd
August, 1834. This sum was iaeuf•ient to carry out the
objects of the undert. king, and endeavours were made to
raise further capital by the issue of new shares, but without
enccere, and in 1830 an account was °reed with the East
England Banking Company, which was soon overdrawn,
and the balance due te the back from the Yarn Company
gentinued to increase till May, 1849, when i: amounted to
the sum of 36,7651., and the account was then clotted.
It appeared that In the first Sternum the opera-
tions of the Yarn Company were attended with
lease pewee, but afterwards the trade became unprofitable
maim 1847 a general meeting of the sharshoiders was held
far the purpose of considering the propriety of dbeolving the
impels,. A committee was then appointed to report on
the affairs, and in o,tober of 1847 that committee reported
In favour of a diseolution. The directors, bower• r, were de-
grate that a dissolution should not take place, and contrived
to postpone that step until 1849, when the executors of a
deceased abareholder obtained en o der to wind up the corn-
”ay under the Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts.
T►e grounds on which the claim of the Banking Company
was opposed were that the debt to them had been
contracted by the directors of the Yarn Company, in in-
! hingement of the provisions of the deed of sealant. nt, of
which the bank had notice, and that the cheques by which
the money had been drawn out were signed by the
manager of the Yarn Company aline, and not by the ditto-
tors, although the manager signed them with their salm-
i Son. It was urged on the other hand for the bink, that the
debt was an ordinary partnerthip debt, which the directors
had full power to contract se between themselves end their
eopartnere. And that the provisions of the de, d of settle•
moot were only binding as between the partners themselves.
had that even if the neglect on the part of the directors to
observe the provisfoas of the deed of settlement wee an. ob-
jeetion to the claim of the bank, the shareholders bad waived
sit sash objections by acquiescing in
Inc
proceedings of the
dirtiness which were fully disclosed the annual reports
made te the shareholders.
Mr. Bouvetl bad not concluded his arguments for the
°Medal manager, in opposition to the appeal, when the
-"It COW.