RAILWAY COMPANY TO TAKE WHOLE ESTATE. 539 



the 125 til section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849 {Ex 

 parte Vidler and A?iother re Terry). 



Railway dividing one jMi't of farm from another. — A railway passed 

 through a farm, and divided it, so that the buildings could not be con- 

 veniently used for one part of the farm. This was held by Romilly M.R. 

 to be an injury within the meaning of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 69, which 

 required the substitution of other buildings, and that the compensation 

 paid for the damage might be applied in the erection of new buildings 

 upon that part of the farm which required them. It was also held on 

 the authority of In re Buclcingham Railway Company (14 Jur. 1065), 

 that the application for the sanction of the Court was not within 8 & 9 

 Vict. c. 18, s. 80, and that the railway company was not liable to pay 

 the costs, but that the costs, exclusive of those of the railway company, 

 must be paid out of the fund in Court {In re Oxford, Worcester, and 

 Wolverliampton Railway Company ex parte the Devisees of Milivard). 



When railway company obliged to take house and premises. — A railway 

 company under the compulsory powers of the Land Clauses Consolida- 

 tion Act cannot take a portion of a garden and orchard essential to the 

 enjoyment of a mansion and premises ; they must take the entire house 

 and curtilage ; and therefore where a mansion and premises were sur- 

 rounded by a brick wall, and a railway company took a portion of the 

 garden and orchard, and divided one part of the premises from another, 

 and destroyed all the internal communication, it was held that the com- 

 pany were bound to take the whole estate. And a company may 

 abandon a notice given with the intention of taking lands under the 

 compulsory powers conferred upon them : such notice, without some act 

 to obtain possessson, is not a contract binding on the company : i^er 

 Romilly M.R. {Reg. v. Wycombe Railivay Company). 



Requiring company to take all the premises they cut through. — A land 

 owner having received notice from a railway company to treat for the 

 sale of a part of his premises, does not by offering to sell that part at a 

 price named by him preclude himself, if the company decline the off'er, 

 from requiring them to take the whole under the 92ud section of the 

 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act : per Wood V.C. {Gardner v. Charing 

 Cross Railway Company). 



Mortgage on living sold no ground for rescinding contract. — An advow- 

 son was sold, and after the sale the purchaser found that there was a 

 mortgage on the living for money advanced to build a new parsonage- 

 house. It was held by the House of Lords on appeal from Stuart V.C. 

 and the Lord Justices that this did not form a groimd for resci?iding the 

 sale of the advowson, or for alloiving to the purchaser a deduction from the 

 amount of the pu^rchase money. And j;^r Lord Campbell: " No misrepre- 



