within the manor of Middleton, or elsewhere, to Casson Close, near Leeds Bridge; which said place, called Casson Close, was and is mentioned in a certain act of parliament, made and passed in the 31st Geo. 2, as a coal yard or depository for coals, to be brought from the said coal mines or coal works for the purposes in the said act mentioned; and also full and free liberty, power, and authority for him the said Charles Brandling, his executors, administrators and assigns, by and with workmen, servants, horses and carriages, to break, cut, dig and remove the soil of any part or parts of the said closes or parcels of ground, and to carry, convey, fix, lay and place wood, timber, bricks, stone, earth, gravel, iron rails, sleepers and other materials, unto, in and upon the said closes or parcels of ground, or any part or parts thereof; and also to cut, dig and make any trench or trenches, bridge or bridges, and to do all other acts and things requisite, necessary or convenient, as well for the making, laying and placing the said waggon way, or ways, and branches, as for the repairing and keeping the same in good order and repair from time to time, as occasion should require. And also full and free liberty, power and authority for him the said Charles Brandling, his executors, administrators and assigns, and his and their servants, agents and workmen, and other persons by him or them employed, to go, pass and repass in, upon and along the said waggon way or ways, and branches, so to be made as aforesaid, with horses or other beasts of burthen, or draught waggons or other carriages, loaden or unloaden. To have, hold, use and enjoy the same unto the said Charles Brandling, his executors, administrators and assigns, from the 1st May, 1758, for and during the term of sixty years, fully to be complete and ended, and for such further term or longer time as the said coal works, collieries or coal mines, then belonging to him the said Charles Brandling, or any other coal works, collieries or coal mines, whereof or wherein he, his executors or administrators should, during such term of years, be seised, possessed of or interested in, within. the said manor of Middleton, or elsewhere, in the West 1828. DOE v. BRANDLING. 1828. DOE v. BRANDLING. Riding of the county of York, should continue to be used and wrought; yielding and paying therefore, yearly and every year. during the term thereby granted, for the said waggon way or ways, the yearly rent of two pounds, and for the rent and residue of the closes, lands and grounds, the sum of eleven pounds. And the lease contained a proviso in the following terms: "Provided also, that in case the said Charles Brandling, his heirs or assigns, shall cease and leave off to work the said collieries or coal works, or the same shall by means of fire or water, or by any other inevitable accident, fail or become incapable to be wrought, or in case the said Charles Brandling, or any other owner or proprietor thereof for the time being, shall refuse or neglect in any one year to bring or cause to be brought to the depository or coal yard aforesaid, such quantity of coals (unless prevented by fire, water, or any other inevitable accident,) or to sell and dispose thereof at such rates and prices, or for such purposes, as in and by the said act of parliament is in that behalf mentioned, provided and appointed; then and in any of the said cases it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Elizabeth Bywater, her heirs and assigns, to enter into and upon the premises hereby leased, and then also all the estate, right, title, interest and privilege of him the said Charles Brandling, his executors, administrators and assigns, of and in the same, shall in that case and from thenceforth cease, determine and be void." Covenant by the lessee for the payment of the rents, and covenant by the lessor for quiet enjoyment. The lands demised consisted of four acres and two perches, the real quantity by admeasurement. The said Elizabeth Bywater died seised in fee of the reversion of the said demised premises in 1760, and by her will (after a devise of an estate for life to her uncle, John Bywater,) devised the said reversion to her cousin, Charles Bywater, in fee, who survived the testatrix, and died seised in fee of the said reversion, having by his will devised the reversion to his brother, John Bywater, for life, and from and after the decease of his said brother John, to the heirs of the body of his said brother John, 1828. DOE υ. lawfully to be begotten. John Bywater, the devisee, survived his brother Charles Bywater, and died in 1824; and the lessor of the plaintiff is his eldest son. Charles Brandling, the lessee, entered into and was possessed of the BRANDLING. demised premises, under the lease of 1758, and Charles John Brandling, one of the defendants, on the day of the demise laid in this ejectment, and also at the time of the commencement of this action, had succeeded his father as the owner and proprietor of the collieries or coal works mentioned in the lease above set forth, and together with the other defendants, as his under-tenants, was in possession of the premises demised by Elizabeth Bywater as aforesaid. The term of sixty years, mentioned in the lease, expired on the 1st May, in the year 1818. No coals whatever have been brought to the depository or coal yard called Casson Close, mentioned in the said proviso, for the last eleven years; and the said Casson Close ever since has been and now is wholly disused as a depository for coals. The said collieries have been ever since, and still are, regularly used and wrought, and no accident either from fire or water, nor any other inevitable accident, has prevented the coals procured from the said collieries from being brought to the said depository or coal yard in Casson Close. But Mr. Brandling determined his contract with the proprietors of Casson Close by a sale of his interest therein, and erected a new coal staith, which is nearer to the collieries, but which as well as Casson Close is beyond the premises in question, in the line from the collieries. Mr. Brandling, before the expiration of the sixty years, discontinued the old railway, which was laid on the surface, and was on the level of the ground for waggons drawn by horses, and made an embankment ten feet high and twenty feet wide at the base, along which embankment the coals have since been and still are brought by steam waggons to the new staith, which was a mode of conveyance not made use of or known in the county of Durham, or that of Northumberland, at the time of the granting of the lease in 1758. The lessor of the plaintiff made an entry to avoid the lease, and notice to 1828. DOE v. quit was regularly given by the lessor of the plaintiff to the defendants, which expired before the commencement of this ejectment; but the defendants continue to hold, claimBRANDLING. ing under the lease of 1758 as a valid and continuing lease. Four acts of parliament, bearing upon this subject, have been passed, namely, the $1 Geo. 2, c. 22; 19 Geo. 3, c. 11; 33 Geo. 3, c. 86; and 43 Geo. 3, c. 12; copies of which are annexed to, and are to be referred to as forming part of, this case. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the plaintiff is, under the circumstances, entitled to recover, on the ground either of the lease having been forfeited, or of its having determined at the expiration of the sixty years. If the Court shall think that he is entitled to recover upon either of those grounds, the verdict is to stand; if not, a nonsuit is to be entered (a). This case was twice argued: first, at the sittings in banc after last Trinity term, before the three puisne Judges, by Preston for the plaintiff, and Blackburn for the defendant; and afterwards, at the desire of those three learned Judges, in this term, before the full Court, by Brougham for the plaintiff, and Tindal, S. G., for the defendant. The ques (a) The points intended to be insisted upon in argument, as stated in the margins of the Paper Books, were as follows: The lessor of the plaintiff will contend, First, that the lease determined when the sixty years expired. Secondly, that if it could have had continuance beyond the sixty years, it determined when the Casson Ciose ceased to be a place of deposit for coals. The defendants will contend, First, that the lease of 1st August, 1758, to C. Brandling, for sixty years, and for such further or longer time as the coal mines should continue to be wrought, is sufficiently certain as to its duration. Second, that the lease was not avoided by coals being deposited at a place adjoining Casson Close, and not in Casson Close itself; inasmuch as the supply of coals to the inhabitants of Leeds, at the prices mentioned in the 31 Geo. 2, c. 22, was the main object of the provision; and that the appointment of Casson Close as a depository, was merely directory. Third, that by the 43 Geo. 3, c. 12, the legislature authorized Mr. Brandling to form another depository for coals, at any place near to Casson Close. 1828. tion in issue depended entirely upon the construction of the local acts of parliament mentioned in the case; and as the acts themselves, and the arguments advanced with reference to them, are fully noticed in the judgment of the Court, BRANDLING. it is deemed unnecessary to detail them here. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-This case depends entirely on the construction to be given to these local acts of parliament, or rather to the last of them, the 43d of George the 3d. In construing such acts of parliament, we are to look not at the preamble, or at the words of any one particular clause, alone, but at the language of the whole; and if in the preamble, or in any one clause, we find expressions less large and extensive than we find in other parts, and upon a view of the whole we can see that the larger and more extensive expressions used in other parts best shew what the intention of the legislature was; then it is our duty to give effect to the larger expressions, notwithstanding the more limited phrases which may be found in other places. We must look at the whole act, and form our judgment upon it as a whole. Now the last of these acts, the 43 Geo. 3, was made for the purpose of introducing certain alterations in the former acts. The lease in question was, as it has been well expressed by Mr. Brougham, entirely the creature of the legislature. Looking at the first act of parliament, we find that the legislature, at the time of passing that act, had for their object, the supplying the inhabitants of Leeds with an adequate quantity of coals at a moderate price. The inhabitants of Leeds were anxious to obtain an adequate supply of coals at a moderate price. Mr. Brandling, who was the owner of certain coal mines in the neighbourhood, was willing to furnish that supply on those terms. He could not, however, afford to supply the coals at the price stipulated for, unless he could have a particular line of road, by which he might convey them from the mines to the town of Leeds. These were the principal parties before the legislature at the time of the passing of the first act, namely, the inhabitants of Leeds DOE บ. |