Global Web Outsorcing
Welcome!! Skype Me Welcome!! Yahoo Me Welcome!! Google Talk Me Welcome!! MSN Me
Live Chat

Blog

Globalweboutsourcing web design creates a great opportunity for you to post your blog if you are a registered user. You can also get more news from our blog. So keep on touch.

Saturday, 16 December 2017 Christian Louboutin Sale hat



the company required itfo a purpose which would authorise them to take it, sopposing their compulsory powers not at an end u regards the plaintiffs. That, moreover, the last two notice differed in quantity; and Christian Louboutin Sale hat the facts tended to she* that the company required the land for the purposes, not of the first or second act, but for the purposesof tl* third, under which they had no power to take plaintiffs' land. That the company should shew some net powers which they had not when they took the part which they had already taken; and that they cannot now repudiate their first contract, and take more land, unless they shew fresh powers.Bethell and FolleU, for the company .—All the powers in the two first acts are extended to the third act* The argument of the other side goes to this, that if the company once agrees to take a certa'n portion of laud under a power in their act, they cannot Tory Burch Outlet fterw&rdsalta their plan and take more, or, in other words, that the company cannot take land from time to time, but most take it at one time. The contrary was expressly^ir cided by the Lord Chancellor, in Breynton v. TktSrt* Western, (11 Jur. 28).Bolt, in reply.—The other side say, that the set does not require notice of the purposes for which the

 

land is required to be given to the owner. Supposintr this to be so, would this MBT Shoes Clearance ourt allow them to take land fe purposes not warranted by their act? because they nw not have told Ub beforehand the purposes for which they require it. It is stated in our affidavit, that put of the land is more than 100 yards from the fine of the railway, and that the company require more thai twenty-two yards width of land. Must not the landowner know for what this is required? for, except" certain cases, the company have no compulsory pows to take more than that width.The Vice-chancellor.—Now the first question is, whether this case has been brought within thepruW' of several cases which I have lately Tory Burch ecided upon tl* ground, that a notice having been given by a railway company, requiring a particular piece of land, descn»ing it, the company had no power afterwards to tttf that notice, by describing either that same piece ■ land, and other land, or some other piece of land «"" gether, in which I held, and the Lord Chanc* has not said to the contrary, that that would not do; for the effect of holding the contrary would be to fflMj every owner of land wholly uncertain, when one n*« had been served, how far he might deal with the * maining part of his land which might be convenient^*By the first section of this act, (9 & 10 Vict. e. S>W was enacted, "that all the

By: On Saturday, 14 May 2011 Comment Comments( 0 ) Hits Views(13977)
 

Global Outsourcing

Like us in Facebook