Notice by railway companies to take part of a house.

Effect of counter-notice by landowner.

(t) Re Arnold, (1863) 32 Beav. 591.

(u) Harding v. Met. R. Co., (1872) 7 Ch. 154; 41 L. J. Ch. 371.

(x) Watts v. W., (1873) 17 Eq. 217; 43 L. J. Ch. 77.

(y) See the judgment in Haynes v. H., (1861) 1 Dr. & S. 426; 30 L. J. Ch. 578.

(z) See Re Cary Elwes, 1906, 2 Ch. 143; Re Manchester and Southport R. Co., 19 Beav. 365.

(a) See s. 119: Slipper v. Tottenham R. Co., (1867) 4 Eq. 112; 36 L. J. Ch. 841.

(b) Binney v. Hammersmith R. Co., (1863) 9 Jur. N. S. 773.

(c) R. v. L. & S. W. R. Co., (1848) 12 Q. B. 775; 17 L. J. Q. B. 326. And see as to the meaning of "a part only of any house or other building or manufactory " in a. 92, Richards v. Swansea Improvement Co., (1878) 9 Ch. D. 425. Cf. Regent's Canal, etc. Co. v. L. C. 0., 1912, 1 Ch. 583.

(d) Sparrow v. O. W. &. W. R. Co., (1852) 2 D. M. & G. 94; 21 L. J. Ch. 731; as to the effect of tunnels and arches, see S. C. 108; Pinchin v. Black-wall R. Co., (1854) 1 K. & J. at pp. 46, 47, 66; 5 D. M. & G. 851; 24 L. J. Ch. 417; Furniss v. M. R. Co., (1868) 6 Eq. 473. Easements are not generally included under s. 85, and the company cannot take an easement alone; Re Met. Dist. R. Co. and Cosh, (1886) 13 Ch. D. 607; 49 L. J. Ch. 277; Re Barrow-in-furness Corp. and Rawlinson, 1903, 1 Ch. at p. 350; 72 L. J. Ch. 233; Re London School Board and Foster, (1903) 87 L. T. 700; but the defect may be remedied by obtaining express powers to take easements; Hill v. M. R. Co., (1882) 21 Ch. D. 143; 51 L. J. Ch. 774.

Although the landowner can compel the company, when they require only a part, to take the whole (if they take anything) of the premises comprised in the word "house," he cannot, it seems, compel them to take any portion beyond what they require less than the whole (g). Where a company gives notice of their intention to take a house and part only of the adjoining house, both of which belong to the same owner, and, on the receipt of a counter-notice to take the whole of the second house, withdraw the notice as to both, such withdrawal is effectual. The owner cannot compel the company to take the first house without the part of the second which was included in the original notice (h). The right of giving a counter-notice is not lost, if the company, having served a notice to take part of the property, refuse to pay the price demanded for it, and may be exercised at any time before the original notice matures into a contract ,(i). Where the company give notice to take a part, and are served by the landowner with a counter-notice to take the whole, the amount to be secured by deposit and bond under the eighty-fifth section, before possession can be taken, is the value of the entire property (k), including compensation for severance (l), but not for minerals which the owner is prevented from working (m). The acceptance by the company of a counter-notice which is bad, will not compel the company to take that which they are not otherwise bound to take (n).

(e) See 1 K. & J. 68. If the company desires a part only, and the owner will not sell that part alone, s. 92 does not compel the company to take the whole, but leaves them free to abandon their original notice. R. v. L. & S. W. R. Co., (1848) 12 Q. B. 775; 17 L. J. Q. B. 326; Ashton Vale Co. v. Bristol Corp., 1901, 1 Ch. 591; 70 L. J. Ch. 230.

(f) Regent's Canal, etc. Co. v. L. C. C, 1912, 1 Ch. 583. '

(g) Pulling v. L. C. & D. R. Co., (1864) 3 D. J. & S. 661; 33 L. J. Ch. 505.

(h) Thompson v. Tottenham, etc. R. Co., (1892) 67 L. T. 416; 8 T. L. R. 602.

(i) Gardner v. Charing Cross R. Co., (1861) 2 J. & H. 248; 30 L. J, Ch. 505; Schwinge v. L. & Blackwall R. Co., (1855) 3 S. & G. 30; 24 L. J. Ch. 405; Lovers v. L. C. C, (1905) 93 L. T. 233; Pollard v. L.c. C. (1907) 95 L. T. 870.

Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, 1817 (o), does not contain provisions equivalent to 8. 92 of the Lands Clauses Act. But "a notice to treat under Michael Angele Taylor's Act does not in substance differ from a notice to treat under the Lands Clauses Act" (p); and where notice is given under the earlier Act of intention to take part of a house for the purpose of widening a street, the local authority may be compelled to take the whole as a condition of taking the part, if the removal of the part will substantially interfere with the enjoyment of the house as a house (q). On the pther hand, where only part of the site of a house is required for the purpose of widening a street, a local authority cannot insist, against the will of the owner, in taking the whole house (r).

Purchase under Michael Angelo Tavlor's Act.

The word 'house" in the ninety-second section is construed liberally; and includes everything which will

The meaning of the word "house" under the L. C. C. Act.

(k) Underwood v. Bedford R. Co., (1861) 7 Jur. N. S. 941; 31 L. J. Ch. 215; Dadson v. East Kent R. Co., (1859) 7 Jur. N. S. 941; Giles v. L. C. & D. R. Co., (1861) 1 Dr. & S. 406; 30 L. J. Ch., 603; Gardner v. Charing Cross R. Co., sup. And the value of trade fixtures is included; Gibson v. Hammersmith R. Co., (1863) 11 W. E. 299; 32 L. J. Ch. 337.

(I) Field v. Carnarvon & Llanberis R. Co., (1867) 5 Eq. 190; 37 L. J. Ch. 176.

(m) Ex p. Neath & Brecon R. Co., (1876) 2 Ch. D. 201; 45 L. J. Ch. 196.

(n) Treadwell v. L. & 8. W. R. Co., (1865) 33 W. R. 272; 54 L. J. Ch. 565. (o) 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.

(p) Per Cozens-hardy, M. R., in Wild v. Woolwich Borough Council, 1910, 1 Ch. p. 38.

(q) Gibbon v. Paddington Vettry, 1900, 2 Ch. 794; Wild v. Woolwich Borough Council, 1909, 2 Ch. 287; 1910, 1 Ch. 35; Green v. Hackney Corp., 1910, 2 Ch. 105; Davies v. City of London Corp., 1913, 1 Ch. 415; Beyfus v. Westminster Corp., (1914) 112 L. T. 119; and see Pescod v. Westminster Corp., 1905, 2 Ch. 475.

(r) Lenman v. Westminster Corp., 1906, 1 Ch. 464.