BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Kirkcaldy and District Railway Co. v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1901] UKHL 579 (10 May 1901) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1901/38SLR0579.html Cite as: [1901] UKHL 579, 38 ScotLR 579 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 579↓
(Before the
( Ante, June 22, 1900, 37 S.L.R. 820.)
Subject_Contract — Construction — Agreement to Contribute to Expenses of Promoting Railway Bill — Relief or Primary Obligation — Railway.
The Caledonian Railway Company, being anxious to obtain direct access into the county of Fife, agreed with the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Company that the latter should promote a bill for the construction of four railways. it was agreed between the parties that, in the event of the bill authorising the construction of the railways not receiving the Royal Assent from any cause other than the withdrawal therefrom of the support of the Caledonian Railway Company, that company should “contribute towards the expense of the said bill (1) two-thirds of all outlays incurred in connection with the promotion of the bill; (2) one-third of the professional charges … in connection with such promotion.” the House of Lords held the preamble not to be proved so far as it related to the three railways Nos. one, two, and four included in the bill. These three were the only ones in which the Caledonian Railway Company was interested. The preamble was held to be proved as regards railway No. 3.
In an action at the instance of the Kirkcaldy Railway Company against the Caledonian Railway Company for payment of the proportionate amount of expenses connected with the bill, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, the defenders maintained—(1st) that the bill had in fact received the Royal Assent, and that on a sound construction of the agreement they were not liable for any portion of the sum claimed, and (2nd) that their obligation was one of relief only, and that as the whole expenses bad been paid by the North British Railway Company and not by the pursuers the claim of relief must fail.
Held ( aff. judgment of the First Division) that under the agreement the defenders were liable in the sum sued for.
This case is reported ante ut supra.
The defenders, the Caledonian Railway Company, appealed to the House of Lords.
At delivering judgment—
Page: 580↓
I take the words themselves, and I think they require no very long exposition. Everybody should approach the construction of an agreement with a knowledge of the circumstances in which it was made, in order to construe the words if there is any doubt about it. But what doubt is there here? The parties here have expressly pointed out that certain provisions are to come into effect in certain events. The events have not happened. Then what in the world have we to do with what might have happened in different circumstances? What does it matter whether it has been described as a “Bill” or an “Act”? We can only look at the words which we have got before us, and I must say to construe an Act by reference to something which the parties would be likely to do would be to unsettle the law with regard to the construction of written agreements. If a great deal has been omitted that might have been said, and that the parties would have been likely to have agreed upon, what have we to do with that? We cannot make the agreement for the parties. No Court can supply that which the parties have left unprovided for. It is burning daylight to suggest that these words are susceptible of any other construction than that which the Courts below have given to them.
For these reasons I move that the interlocutors appealed from be affirmed, and this appeal dismissed, with costs.
Appeal dismissed and interlocutors appealed from affirmed.
Counsel for the Pursuers and Respondents— Dean of Faculty (Asher, K.C.)— Ure, K.C. Agent— John Kennedy, W.S., for Dundas & Wilson, C.S.
Counsel for the Defenders and Appellants— Lord Advocate (Graham-Murray, K.C.)— Cripps, K.C. Agents— Grahames, Currey, & Spens, for Hope, Todd, & Kirk, W.S.
