1843. The BARNSLEY Canal Company v. TWIBELL. THE HE case came twice before the Court: in the first instance, to obtain, and on the second to dissolve, an injunction to restrain the Defendant, his solicitor, &c., from appearing or producing any evidence before a jury which had been summoned, under a canal act, to assess the compensation for the coal which was required to be left unworked for the safety of the canal. By an act passed in the thirty-third year of the reign of George III. (a), the company were incorporated, for the purpose of making a canal from the river Calder to or near to the town of Barnsley, in Yorkshire, with the usual powers to take and hold land; and, in order to fix the price which was to be paid by the company for any lands which they should require, in case the company and the owners should not agree as to the amount of purchase-money, commissioners were appointed, who were to call a meeting and decide all such differences, (a) 33 G. 3. c. 110. May 11. Nov. 17, 18. 1844. Jan. 18. A canal company was authorised, by its Act, to purchase the coal, which the safety of the canal required to be left unworked. The purchase of part was delayed many years, and in the mean time a lease had been granted by the owner to a coal worker. The company purterest of the owner. Held, that the coal worker was chased the in also entitled upon to compensa tion. can be founded on an allegation that a court legally constituted is not properly com petent to decide questions within its jurisdiction; and where the legislature has given jurisdiction to a court provided by the act, and has made its decision final, if any inconvenience arises from the legal exercise of the jurisdiction, the legislature alone can supply a remedy. A canal act provided, that in case the company and the coal owner could not agree as to the amount of compensation for the coal taken for the purposes of the canal, it should be settled by a jury summoned by the commissioners, whose verdict was" to be conclusive, and should not be removed, by certiorari or other process whatever, into any of the courts of record at Westminster, or any other court." A bill was filed, praying an injunction to restrain proceedings before a jury, on the ground that the Defendant was entitled to no compensation, and that the special jurisdiction provided by the act was not so constituted as to be likely to come to a just conclusion. Held, that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction if the Defendant was entitled to any compensation, the amount of which had to be ascertained; but whether this Court had any jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, if it had clearly appeared that the Defendant was entitled to no compensation, quære. 1843. The BARNSLEY Canal Company v. TWIBELL. upon being requested to do so either by the company or by the owners of the land; and, if either of the parties refused to submit to the decision of the commissioners, they were empowered to issue a warrant to the sheriff of the county of York, commanding him to empannel a jury to assess the amount of compensation to be paid by the company; and it was declared that the verdict of the jury should be conclusive, and should not be removed, by certiorari or other process whatever, into any of the Courts of Record at Westminster, or any other Court. By the fortieth section it was declared, that the act was not to prejudice or affect the right of the lord of any manor, or any other owner, to the minerals under any of the land taken by the company; but that it should be lawful for them (subject to the restrictions thereinafter contained) to work and get the minerals, not thereby injuring, prejudicing, or obstructing the said canal. The Plaintiffs were to be at liberty to inspect the workings and it was further enacted, that "if the owner or worker, owners or workers of any coal or other mine or mines should, in pursuing such mine or mines, work so near, in the opinion of the said company of proprietors, to the said intended canal, as to endanger or damage the same, or, in the opinion of the said owner or worker, owners or workers of the said mine or mines, to endanger or damage the further working thereof, then, it should be lawful for the said company of proprietors to treat and agree with the owner or worker, owners or workers, for all such coal or other minerals as might be near or under the said intended canal, as should be thought proper to be left for the security or preservation of the said intended canal, or other works, or mine or mines as aforesaid." And in case the company and the worker of any such mine could not agree as to the amount of compensation, it was was to be settled by a jury, as before mentioned; and, upon payment of the money, the owner or worker of such mine was to be perpetually restrained from working such mine within those limits. The canal had been long completed, and passed for 495 yards through the estate of Mr. Beaumont, in the township of Barugh. The land itself under which it passed was purchased by the Plaintiffs many years ago; but by the canal act above referred to, the coal mines and the coals under the canal were reserved to the owners, their heirs and assigns, who were to be at liberty to work the mines so as not to injure the canal. The Plaintiffs did not point out what quantity of coal they required to be left for the safety of the canal, nor did they take any steps to ascertain the compensation payable in respect thereof. In this state of things, in the year 1830, Mr. Beaumont, the then owner of the coal in this place, agreed to let to Frank Burton and the Defendant all the coal on the north and south sides of the canal, on the one side up to the canal, and on the other side up to the canal and towing-path, at a certain rent, and under an obligation, on the part of the lessees, to work a certain quantity annually. Burton and the Defendant thereby acquired an interest in the coal comprised in the lease, and which interest afterwards became vested in the Defendant alone. In consequence of the state of the workings in 1839, Mr. Brakenridge, the solicitor of Mr. Beaumont, requested the Plaintiffs to state what reservation of coal they desired to have made for the safety of their canal. This request was often repeated by Mr. Brakenridge, and in February C 3 1843. The BARNSLEY Canal Company v. TWIBELL. 1843. The BARNSLEY Canal Company v. TWIBELL. February 1840, the Defendant gave notice to the Plaintiffs, that he was willing to enter into an agreement for ⚫ such coal as they might require to be left for the security and preservation of the canal. Mr. Beaumont was entitled to the coal under the canal and towing-path absolutely, but he was not so entitled to the coal under the land on each side of the canal and towing-path; for as to that, the Defendant Mr. Twibell had, under his lease or agreement, a right to get it, upon paying Mr. Beaumont the due consideration. The Plaintiffs, on the 9th of March 1840, informed Mr. Brakenridge that they were advised to purchase from Mr. Beaumont, coal to the extent of eight yards in breadth, on each side of the canal and towing-path. At this time the Plaintiffs seemed to have supposed that all the coal which they might require to be left for the safety of the canal had been reserved out of the Defendant's lease; but this being explained, by a letter of Mr. Brakenridge, dated on the same 9th of March 1840, the Plaintiffs afterwards, on the 11th of March 1840, served the Defendant with a notice, not to work the coal within eight yards of either side of the canal and towingpath, and required him to state his claim, if he had any, to compensation. The Defendant, in August 1840, stated the sum of 5517., as the amount of his claim to compensation, and the Plaintiffs, with full knowledge of this claim of the Defendant, treated separately with Mr. Beaumont for a settlement of his claim, and, after long delay, the interest of Mr. Beaumont in the coal under the canal and towingpath, and under the eight yards on each side of them, was purchased by and conveyed to the Plaintiffs for the sum of 7561. It was in dispute, but, from the evidence, the Court was of opinion, that the sum of 756l. did not include any compensation to which the Defendant was entitled in respect of his claim; that it was not so intended by Mr. Beaumont, or Mr. Brakenridge who acted for him, and that there was nothing to shew that it was so understood by the Plaintiffs, or by Mr. Foljambe who acted for them. On the contrary, it appeared that the Plaintiffs made their bargain with Mr. Beaumont, with full knowledge that the Defendant's claim was outstanding and unaffected by their arrangement with Mr. Beaumont. The Plaintiffs, though fully aware of the Defendant's claim, made frequent attempts to postpone and evade the consideration of it; but at length the Defendant succeeded in bringing the matter before the commissioners under the act of parliament, with the view of procuring the proper steps to be taken to ascertain, in the manner directed by the act, the amount of the compensation which might be due to him. This bill was filed on the 8th of May 1843, praying a declaration that the Defendant was not entitled to any compensation, and that he might be restrained from proceeding to take any steps for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of such compensation. On the 11th of May 1843 the case was brought forward on an application for an injunction; but the evidence being then imperfect, and one of the parties refusing to consent to an arrangement which would leave the matter in statu quo until the case could be brought before the Court in a more perfect form The MASTER of the ROLLS granted the injunction, giving liberty to apply to dissolve it, and imposing on 1843. The BARNSLEY Canal Company v. TWIBELL. |