Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20). Decision of King's Bench Division affirmed. Re the North-Eastern Railway Co., and Todd Birleston & Co. (C. A., 9 Feb., 1903), 67 J. P. 105; 19 T. L. R. 249. Compensation-Notice to Treat-Interest in other Lands subsequently Created by Owner-Right to Compensation-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss, 18, 68. When land is acquired under powers of compulsory purchase the service of a notice to treat prevents the owner of the land to which the notice relates from creating any interest not only in that land but also in any adjoining lands belonging to him which would entitle the persons who acquire the interest to claim any compensation from the promoters. A person who has, after the service upon the owner of a notice to treat, acquired an interest in adjoining land belonging to the same owner is therefore not entitled to compensation in respect of any injurious affection of the adjoining land by subsequently executed works of the promoters. Decision of King's Bench Division ([1901] 2 K. B. 753) reversed. Mercer v. Liverpool, St. Helen's and South Lancashire Railway Co. (C. A., 31 Jan., 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 652; 72 L. J. K. B. 128; 88 L. T. 374; 51 W. R. 308; 67 J. P. 77; 19 T. L. R. 210. Notice to Treat--Transfer of Owner's Interest-Lands Clausez Although no new interest in land can be created by an owner upon whom notice to treat for the land had been served under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18) the owner may transfer his interest in toto2. Sewell v. Harrow and Uxbridge Railway Co. (K. B. D., 17 Dec., 1902) 19 T. L. R. 130. Purchase-money and Compensation-Notice of intention to Summon Jury--Offer by Promoters-Acceptance before Verdict of Jury --Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 38, 51. Where promoters have given notice under section 38 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), of their intention to summon a jury for settling a case of disputed compensation, and in the notice have stated the sum they are willing to give for the interest in the lands to be purchased and for the damage to be sustained by the execution of the works, and the offer not having been accepted, a jury is summoned, the vendor is entitled at any time before the verdict of the jury is given to accept the offer of the promoters, and the proper course is for the jury to be directed to return See Law and Legislation, 1901, p. 115. On appeal this case was settled without the Court of Appeal giving any lecision (C. A. Nov. 1903), 20 T. L. R. 21. Compulsory Acquisition of Land-continued. a verdict for the amount of the offer. Rex v. High Bailiff of Westminster; ex parte London County Council (K. B. D., 20 May, 1903), [1903] 2 K. B. 189; 72 L. J. K. B. 600; 88 L. T. 834; 52 W. R. 10, 109; 67 J. P. 302; 1 L. G. R. 569 ; 19 T. L. R. 506. Contracts: Arrangement with Tramway Co.-ultra vires. A municipal corporation entered into a contract with a tramway company that if certain circumstances arose the company should use their best endeavours to obtain powers to work tramways along certain routes and if the powers were obtained pay royalties and wayleaves to the corporation and that the corporation should not as a road and local authority apply for powers to construct or give their consent to the construction of such tramways by others without first calling upon the company to apply for powers. Held that the contract was not ultra vires. Attorney-General v. Hastings Corporation (Ch. D., 30 Oct., 1902), 67 J. P. 165; 1 L. G. R. 41; 19 T. L. R. 9. Acceptance of Tender under Seal-No Execution of Formal Contract-Bond with Sureties-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 174A person tendered to an urban district council to carry out certain sewerage works. One of the conditions was that the person tendering should undertake to execute a contract for the due performance of the works and enter into a bond with two responsible sureties for the due and satisfactory completion of the works, and another that the works should be completed within 12 months from the signing of the contract. The urban district council by resolution directed their clerk to write accepting the tender and to affix the seal of the council to the letter. Held that having regard to section 174 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) and the terms of the tender, the acceptance of the tender did not constitute a contract by which the council were bound. Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council (C. A., 20 Feb., 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 547; 51 W. R. 337 ; 67 J. P. 397; 1 L. G. R. 639; 19 T. L. R. 266. Work done by Engineer-Plans, Specifications, &c.—No Contract under Seal of Rural District Council-Recovery of Remuneration. An engineer was instructed by a rural district council to prepare plans, specifications, &c., for a sewerage scheme and to superintend its execution. There was no contract under seal of the district council, but the engineer did the work. Held that as the work done was necessary for the purposes for which the district council was created and the benefit of it was accepted by them, there was an mplied contract that the council should pay for the work, which was, enforceable although no contract under seal had been entered into by the district council. CLARKE V. CUCKFIELD UNION (1852) (21 L. J. Q. B. 349) followed. Decision of King's Bench Division1 (18 T. L. R. 507) reversed. Lawford v. Billericay Rural District Council (C. A., 13 March, 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 772; 72 L. J. K. B. 554; 88 L. T. 317; 51 W. R. 630; 67 J. P. 245; 1 L. G. R. 535; 19 T. L. R. 322. Interest of Members of Corporation in Contract Prohibited- By section 41 of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii.) no member of the court of aldermen or of the common council is to be directly or indirectly interested or concerned in any contract made or entered into by or on hehalf of the Commissioners of Sewers for the purposes of the Act upon pain that every such contract shall be null and void. Held that the section makes null and void any contract made at a time when any member is interested or concerned but the section does not invalidate a contract originally valid which is assigned to another company of which aldermen or common councillors are shareholders. Decision of Court of Appeal (65 J. P. 563) affirmed. City of London Electric Lighting Co. v. City of London Corporation (H. L., 7 Aug., 1903), [1903] A. C. 434; 72 L. J. Ch. 737; 89 L. T. 310; 52 W. R. 158; 67 J. P. 437; 2 L. G. R. 93; 19 T, L. R. 694. Corporation Stock: Authorized Investment-Stock of Municipal Borough-Limit of Population-Added Area-Returns of last Census--Trustee Act 1893, ss. 1 (m), 2 (1). In the returns of the census taken on the 31st March, 1901, the population of the borough of Bournemouth is given as 47,003; but in a note at the foot of the page it is stated that by an Order of the Local Government Board, which came into operation on November 9, 1901, the borough was extended so as to include two specified urban districts and parts of two other parishes, and that the figures at the date of the census were as follows: "Bournemouth, C.B.; 59,762." Held that under section 1 (m) of the Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), trustees were authorised to invest in stock issued by the corporation; as the population of the borough was above 50,000 and it was not necessary to go outside the census returns to prove that. Decision of King's Bench Division reversed. In re Druitt; Druitt v. Dehler (C. A., 2 Feb., 1903), [1903], I Ch. 446; 72 L.. J. Ch. 441; 88 L. T. 483; 67 J. P. 99; 1 L. G. R. 353 ; 19 T. L. R. 269. 1 See Law and Legislation, 1902, p. 161. Corporation Stock-continued. Forged Transfer-Innocent Transferee—Implied Contract of Indemnity Companies Act, 1862; Sheffield Corporation Act, 1883, ss. 27-32. The The plaintiffs claimed indemnity from the defendants against the loss which they had suffered by reason of their having acted upon a forged transfer of some corporation stock which had in 1893 been presented to them by the defendants for registration in ignorance of the forgery. The transfer was registered, and the stock was transferred by the plaintiffs into the name of a nominee of the defendants, by whom it was afterwards transferred to a purchaser. In 1900 the forgery was discovered, and the corporation were then compelled to replace the stock in the name of the survivor of two trustees. duties of the corporation in respect of the transfer of their stock were regulated by sections 27 to 32 of the Sheffield Corporation Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. lvii.), the provisions of which were in substance the same as those of the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), in relation to the transfer of the stock of a company subject to that Act. Held that the defendants in sending the transfer to the corporation did not give any warranty to the corporation, or make any material representation that the transferee was the registered holder of the stock. Upon the authorities, the court thought it perfectly clear that a distinction must be drawn between cases where a request was made to some one who has no duty in the matter independently of the request, and a case where the request is made to one who has a duty in the matter independently of the request. In the former case, where that which is requested to be done does not appear to be illegal, and an act is done in accordance with the request, the implication of a contract of indemnity by the person making the request will generally be made. In the latter case, something more than a mere request would be required to raise the contract of indemnity. Decision of the King's Bench Division ([1903] 1 K, B. 1) reversed. Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay & Co. (C A., 11 Aug., 1903), [1903], 2 K. B. 580; 72 L. J. K. B. 777; 89, 1. T. 227; 52 W. R. 54; 68 J. P. 17; 1 L. G. R. 794. Costs:—see also " Arbitration," "Rates and Rating :—(1) Appeals." Inquiry under Lands Clauses Act-Taxation-Jurisdiction of Chancery Taxing Masters - Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 52; Lands Clauses (Taxation of Costs) Act, 1895. The Chancery taxing masters, have now jurisdiction to tax the costs of an inquiry before a jury or of an arbitration to assess compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), Covington v. Metropolitan District Railway Co. (K. B. D., 18 Dec., 1902), [1903] 1 K. B. 231 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 93; 87 L. T. 649; 51 W. R. 428; 19 T. L. R. 142. Parliamentary Agent--Costs as Such-Taxation-Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37; House of Commons Costs Taxation Act, 1847 (10 & II Vict. c. 69); House of Lords Costs Taxation Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 78). A bill of costs delivered by a parliamentary agent, who is likewise a solicitor, which relates exclusively to business done by him in the capacity of a parliamentary agent, and not in that of a solicitor, cannot be referred for taxation in the High Court under section 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73). Decision of King's Bench Division reversed. Re Baker Lees & Co. (C. A., 15 Dec., 1902) [1903] 1 K. B. 189; 72 L. J. K. B. 136; 87 L. T. 662; 51 W. R. 246: 19 T. L. R. 113. Crown-see" Byelaws," Locomotives on Highways." Delegation: -see also "Public Libraries." Closet Accommodation—Sub-committee of Sanitary CommitteeConfirmation without discussion by Sanitary Committee and Corporation of proceedings of Sub-committee-Local Act. A sub-committee having taken into consideration certain premises, recommended that under the provisions of a local act, the owners be required to provide therefor privies or water closets or to make certain specified alterations of existing privies and water closets, and that notices be served by the town clerk upon the owners to execute such works within 28 days. This recommendation was approved and adopted by the sanitary committee without discussion and the proceedings and resolution of that committee were subsequently approved by the town council without discussion. Held that the proceedings of the sub-committee became in pursuance of the confirmation by the sanitary committee and the council the proceedings of the corporation. WOOD 7. WIDNES CORPORATION (1898) (1 Q. B. 463) and Cook v. WARD (1877) (2 C. P. D. 255; 41 J. P. 439), distinguished. Agnew v. Manchester Corporation (K. B. D. 28 Oct., 1902), 67 J. P. 174 ; 1 L. G. R. 9. Disqualifications: Corporate Office - Bankruptcy - Quo Warranto--Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 32; Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, s. 87. Section 32 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) which disqualifies a bankrupt from being elected to or holding or exercising the office of mayor, alderman, or councillor, applies to persons who become bankrupt whether before or after their election to a corporate office. If a bankrupt is elected to the office of municipal councillor the remedy of mandamus to hold a fresh election is not available; but his right to hold the office may be |