HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0313 and id is 1 raw text is: ferries must be construed to mean an authority to acquire them for the purpose of
preventing competition, and at once satisfying the claims of the proprietors for
compensation.
There is one section only which has a different aspect. The 18th section provides,
that on payment or tender of the purchase-money, not merely the land, but the ferry
or ferries, together with the yearly profits thereof, and all the estate, &c., shall thence-
forth be vested in the company, for the purposes of the act, for ever. This expression,
as to the yearly profits, which is not confined to lands, affords an argument that the
ferry, or ferries, were intended to be kept up. The words, however, may be explained
as meant to apply to the intermediate profits, after the purchase, and before the ferry
which the company were to set up was completed, until which time the old ferry
would not cease. At any rate, this expression does not appear to us to avail against
the very strong inference to be derived from the other clauses of the act, and its general
scope, that only one ferry was to belong to the plaintiffs at one time. We therefore
think, that the issue on the last count, on the plea denying the plaintiff's possession of
the ancient ferry, must be found for the defendants.
The question of variance on this plea it is therefore [152] unnecessary to consider;
on the authority of the case of The Bailiff of Tewkesbury v. Bicknell (2 Taunt. 120), we
should probably hold the count to be proved.
The rule must therefore be discharged as to the first count, and absolute to enter a
verdict for the defendants on the issue on not possessed to the second count.
Rule accordingly.
BATES V. TOWNLEY AND ANOTHER. Feb. 9, 1848.-An award is not evidence of an
account stated between the parties to the submission.-By articles of agreement
between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendants of the other part, certain
differences between them were referred to arbitration, the costs of the reference
and award to be in the discretion of the arbitrators. The arbitrators, after finding
a sum due from the defendants to the plaintiff, awarded that the costs of the
reference and award, including compensation to the arbitrators, should be borne
as follows; that is to say, one moiety thereof by the plaintiff, and the other
moiety by the defendants. The plaintiff took up the award, and paid the whole
costs of it :-Held, that he could not recover a moiety of the costs as money paid
for the use of the defendants.
[S. C. 19 L. J. Ex. 399: 12 Jur. 606: on demurrer, 1 Ex. 572. Referred to,
Cr'ampton and Holt v. R~idley and Company, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 54.]
Assumpsit for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendants, and for
money due on an account stated between them. Plea, non assumpsit.
At the trial, before Coltman, J., at the Chester Spring Assizes, 1847, it appeared
that the plaintiff and defendants were stockbrokers, the former residing at Leeds, the
latter at Liverpool; and that the plaintiff having claims against the defendants for
money due in respect of dealings in railway shares, it was agreed that the matter
should be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, on the 5th February, 1847, articles of
agreement were entered into between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendants
of the other part, whereby, after reciting that differences and disputes had arisen
and were pending between the parties thereto, touching, or concerning, or arising out
of certain dealings or transactions in railway shares, &c., it was witnessed [153]
that the parties thereto respectively agreed to refer the same to, and abide by, the
award, arbitrament, final end and determination of J. Head, of &c., a person chosen
by or on behalf of the plaintiff, and J. Mills, of &c., a person chosen by or on behalf
of defendants, and of such third person as should, before they should proceed on the
said reference, be chosen by them, and appointed by writing under their hands, to be
indorsed on those presents, &c. And it was further agreed, that the costs of the
reference and of the award to be made in pursuance thereof, including a reasonable
compensation to the said arbitrators for their trouble, should be in the discretion of
the said arbitrators, or any two of them, who should by their said award order and
direct by whom, and to whom, and in what proportions and manner, the same should
be paid ; and, for the better enforcing performance of the award, either party should
be at liberty to make the submission a rule of the Court of Common Pleas. The
444
BATES V. TOWNLEY
2 EX. 152.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0313&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)