mile, and they fixed that sum as the basis of the rateable value of the occupation of the land in the parish. Staveley Hill (McIntyre with him), for the appellants.The amount of profit earned by the appellants' canal in the parish of Lapley is the sole basis upon which, after making the usual deductions, the rateable value of the undertaking in that parish is to be calculated. The sum paid under the guarantie by The London and North Western Railway Company to make up any deficiency of earnings is not a profit earned in the parish of Lapley, and therefore is neither rateable itself nor to be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the undertaking. Gray (Beresford with him), for the respondents.-The sum which the appellants receive from The London and North Western Railway Company is rent, and therefore to be taken into account in arriving at the net annual value to the appellants of the canal in the parish of the respondents. In The Newmarket Railway Company v. The Overseers of St. Andrew the Less, Cambridge (a), Coleridge and Erle JJ., differing from Lord Campbell, held that a payment to one railway Company by another, under agreement, of such a sum as might be necessary to make up a certain dividend on the cost of the line in consideration of the making of a part of it and of working it for the benefit of the latter Company, was not rent nor money in the nature of rent paid for the use of the railway, and therefore was not to be taken into account in assessing the rateable value of the (a) 3 E. & B. 94. 1868. The QUEEN V. Overseers of VOL. IX. 2 Q B. & S. 1868. Overseers of LAPLEY. railway. But in Reg. v. Fletton (a) The Eastern Counties The QUEEN Railway Company, being the sole proprietors and occupiers of a railway station on their line, entered into an agreement with The London and North Western Railway Company, by which the latter were for a certain annual payment to have for 999 years the joint use of the station for their trattic, The Eastern Counties Railway Company continuing to be occupiers of the station subject to such use; the annual value of the station owing to a diversion of traffic having become worth much less to The London and North Western Railway Company, it was nevertheless held that The Eastern Counties Railway Company were properly rated on the full amount paid by The London and North Western Railway Company. If The London and North Western Railway Company had been joint occupiers of the station the question would have been different; Reg. v. Lord Sherard (b). [Lush J. referred to Allison v. The Overseers of Monkwearmouth Shore (c). Blackburn J. If the appellants are occupiers of the canal at all it must be as tenants at will to The London and North Western Railway Company.] Staveley Hill was not called upon to reply. BLACKBURN J. The Sessions were right. The appellants are owners of the undertaking and not liable to be rated as such. In pursuance of The Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Lease Act, 1847, they executed a (a) 3 E. & E. 450. (b) 33 L. J. M. C. 5. (c) 4 E. & B. 13. See The Overseers of Sunderland v. The Guardians of Sunderland Union, 18 C. B. N. S. 531. lease of the undertaking to The London and North Western Railway Company, under the provisions of which the canal is worked by that Company, who make up to the shareholders of the appellants the deficiency in the earnings of their undertaking in accordance with the guarantie in the lease. Mr. Gray argues that the appellants, being in occupation of the canal, are rateable not only for the profits of the undertaking but also for the sums received in the nature of rent under their bargain with The London and North Western Railway Company; that their interests are necessarily blended, and that the payment under the lease is annexed to the occupation as a payment of rent by a subtenant to a mesne tenant. But I cannot perceive that. In Reg. v. Fletton (a) The London and North Western Railway Company were not joint occupiers of the station, they had merely an easement in it, and I hesitated long before I agreed to the judgment because I doubted whether it was not a personal contract, only accidentally connected with the station and therefore not to be taken into account; but ultimately I agreed on the ground that The Eastern Counties Railway Company as occupiers of the station derived profit not only from their own use of it but also in respect of the sum annually paid by The London and North Western Railway Company for the use of it. The present case is different; it is as if a landlord let premises to a tenant and the tenant agreed with his landlord that he should manage the property and take the profits in discharge of the rent; in that case the landlord would not be rateable in respect of what he received as (a) 3 E. & E. 450. landlord and not as occupier. Again, suppose a ground landlord became tenant under his lessee, the rateable value would not be increased by the ground rent received. If the occupation and the interest were blended together the question would be different. MELLOR J. The effect of the lease is that this payment is not a profit derived from the occupation of the canal. LUSH J. The question depends upon the true position of the parties ascertained by The Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Lease Act, 1847, and the acts of the parties. Here the appellants demised the undertaking to The London and North Western Railway Company, and the annual sum paid by that Company is by way of rent; it is like the case put by my brother Blackburn of premises let by A. to B., which B. lets back to A. at a reduced rent; in which case, though A. is in occupation of his own property, he is not rateable in respect of the rent paid by B., because it is not the true measure of the rateable value. Order of Sessions confirmed. [1869.] IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. FLEET, administratrix of MARY ANN Ross, against Friday, PERRINS. In an action by the administratrix of a wife it appeared that the defendant had written letters to the wife promising to hold at her disposal a sum of money which he had received from a third person. The husband did not interfere either to allow her to have the controul of the money or to prevent her from dealing with it. He survived her, and then died. To prove the amount the plaintiff offered in evidence an examined copy of the defendant's answers to interrogatories in a previous action in which the plaintiff had sued the representative of the husband, but which was discontinued. Held, By the Court of Queen's Bench, 1. That the answers were admissible without proof of the interrogatories. 2. That an examined copy of the answers was admissible without proof of the defendant's handwriting to the original answers. By the Court of Queen's Bench, and affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber by Willes and Smith JJ. and Channell and Cleasby BB., and semble per Keating J., Kelly C. B. dissentiente, 3. That the gift of money was a chose in action conferred on the wife with which the husband did not during coverture interfere, and therefore the action was properly brought by the representative of the wife. ECLARATION by the plaintiff, as administratrix. DE of the personal estate and effects of Mary Ann Ross, deceased, for money received by the defendant for the use of Mary Ann Ross, and on accounts stated between them. Plea. Never indebted. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Lush J., at the Sittings in Middlesex after Trinity Term, 1867, it appeared that the plaintiff, as administratrix of her son, Thomas Ross, had commenced an action against the defendant for money had and received to the use of her son during his lifetime. In answer to interrogatories administered in that action the defendant stated that she had received a sum May 22nd, Baron and feme. Answers to |
