The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

'WILSON V. EDEN.
The further arguments in this part-heard cause occu-
pied the Court the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) -
LAW V. WELWIN.
, The further arguments in this case, which came be-
'Ore his Honour upon exceptions, occupied the Court
the whole morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT Baum)
DAVIS V. KINGSFORD.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
this morning, and occupied the Court the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
24Ixcql v. THE TAFF RAILWAY COMPANY.—CONTRACT

FOR. EXTRA WORK.
The arguments in this part-heard case, which came
before his Honour upon exceptions to the Master's report,
were resumed this morning, and occupied the Court the
whole day. As the case is of some interest to parties
employed under railway contracts, and to contractors,
we give a short synopsis of the case:—The
Nixon, was an engineer in South W ales, who had con-
tracted with the company for the purpose of making
certain works on the railway. Various proceedings had
arisen out of the contract in question, which was dated
the 6th of April, 1838, and was called " Contract No.
10." It related to two branches of work-Ist, Those which
Were specified therein; and 2dly, extra works, which were
to be paid for according to a scale of prices mentioned in
the schedule of the contract. For the extra works,
Nixon claimed a sum of 5001. beyond 7,3991., which
had been paid by the company for the specified
works. The contract contained the following passage,
upon which much reliance was placed in the argument:—
" Provided always, and it is hereby agreed, that all such
works as in the said specification are described, or re-
ferred to, as ' extra' works, which the said company, or
their principal engineer, or assistant resident engineer
for the time being, shall, by any writing under their or
his hand, require to be made and executed, shall be, and
the same is hereby considered as included in the cove-
nants .and agreements hereinbefore mentioned, on the
part of the said William Nixon, and that such extra
work shall be paid for at the time, and at the rate,
and in the manner afterwards mentioned." The
company resisting the claim of Nixon, he filed his
bill. Various questions were raised before the Vice-
Chancellor of England as to the plaintiff's equity. His
Honour made a decree, against which an appeal was
taken to the Rouse of Lords, by whom the Vice-Chan-
cellor's decision was affirmed, ho having held that the
plaintiff's
claim was not one for a court of law, but to be
in equity. The decree, which was made in
November, 1845, directed the Master to tak an account
of the extra works done and performed. The Master
reported that by the contract, written orders were re-
quired to sbe given for the extra works, whereas
none bad been given in this case ; that by custom such
written orders were not usually given, though they were
required by the contract, that all the works done for
the company by Nixon, as well the specified works as
the others, had been done with the privity and know-
ledge of the company and their engineer ; but the
Master submitted to the judgment of the Court whether
the work so done by Nixon for the company other than
that which had been specified, could be considered as
baying been done under and by virtue of the contract No.
10. On a former day the Solicitor- General, Mr. Wood, and
Mr. Hinton, on the behalf of Nixon, who had taken the
exceptions to the Master's report, argued that if the
Master's finding were to stand, it would, in substance,
overrule the decree pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor,
and affirmed by the House of Lords, the hill eleitnieg nn
R'"nent of the extra works, and proper plyment for
answer of the 4•4lnpally nn‘i &spat Inv the amount
ell
Claimed by Nixon, and alleging that they aleounted only
065/. 7s. 9d. The work for which a claim was made
asbeing extra, consisted in part of removing, fences and
erecting stone walls. The Master's finding clearly indi-
ct that he considered the works which had been done
Were extra works, although in form he had not ventured
gcall ;? them by that term, or to admit Nixon's claim.
arould not be held that orders in writing were neces-
nn to render the company liable. In fact, although
e__er orders had not been given, the engineer gave in
van% y case a certificate when the works had been done,
'4
of the price proper to be paid for them. It was ar-