The court explained the Act: ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, – that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.’
Judges:
Lord Tenterden LCJ
Citations:
(1831) 2 B and Ad 792, [1831] EngR 276, (1831) 109 ER 1336
Links:
Statutes:
Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 79
Cited by:
Cited – Swan Hill Developments Limited, Lloyd-Thomas etc v British Waterways Board CA 25-Feb-1997
The issue was whether the rights given under the section could only be exercised by owners of land on either side of the canal.
Held: The Act took rights over land and was to be construed in the case of any ambiguity against its proposers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200658
