able. 9. Commons, &c. gained with another to let him have a field of grass to cut, or the aftermath Fifthly, What of his meadows, such other might be rated whilst those subordinate interests property is rateexisted. But if one general rate were made upon the whole, including these particular profits and interests, it would be no injury to the appellant. So also where the owner of a house and garden let the profits of his garden. The principle is, that what has once paid shall not be made to pay again. And this agrees with the case of Lord Bute v. Grindall (1 T. R. 338.) And he said it would be a different case if a farmer derived profit from stock kept on his farm, but not connected with the management of it, as if he kept stock which he fed with oil cake for sale, there he would be rateable separately for that stock, not as stock of his farm, but as stock generally, from which he derived a distinct and separate profit. The present are properly the stock of the farm.-The other judges agreed. Rate confirmed. The mere fact of a party being found in the profitable occupation of land, is not sufficient to render him liable to the rate in respect of such land. This will appear by Rex v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Company, 4 B. & C. 57 ; 6 D. & R. 47, in which case the proprietors of certain limestone quarries agreed to deliver to a canal company, yearly, such quantities of good limestone as the latter should direct, at the rate of 7d. per ton, and if they should at any time neglect to deliver the quantities required, it should be lawful for the company to enter upon the lands, or limestone quarries, of any of the proprietors, and to take such quantities of limestone as they should think proper, paying 2d. per ton. The proprietors having failed to make the supply, the company entered, and worked the quarries for more than twenty years, according to the contract, and they were, therefore, rated as occupiers; and the sessions confirmed the rate on appeal.-Abbott, C. J., having adverted to the fact, that no one besides the company had got stone from the quarries, since they first entered to work them for themselves, proceeded;" But the_right of the company was merely to get there what stone they might think fit: there was nothing in the contract to prevent the owner from giving to others also the privilege of getting stone in the same quarry. The company, therefore, had not the sole and exclusive occupation, but a mere privilege, and consequently, were not liable to be rated to the relief of the poor." Order of sessions quashed. 10. Extra Profits from Land. from land. The words of the 43 Eliz. c. 2, s, 1, are "by taxation of every inhabitant, 10. Extra profits &c., and of every occupier of lands, &c., in such competent sum and sums of money as they shall think fit or convenient." There are other cases besides those enumerated under the preceding nine heads, in which lands, houses, and other tenements become of greater annual value, in consequence of particular circumstances attached to them; and it is determined that in such cases the assessment must be made upon the aggregate ralue, including the amount of these additional profits. (a) Rex v. Miller, 2 Cowp. 619; 1 Bott, 155; 1 Nol. P. L. 77. Certain lands with buildings thereon, and a certain well of mineral water thereout arising, called the Cheltenham Spa, were demised to W. M., at a yearly rent of 100l. The lands and buildings, independent of the well, were of the annual value of 201. And he was rated to the poor as for an entire estate of 1001. a year.-By Lord Mansfield, C. J. Nothing can be plainer than the present case. This is not a rate upon the profits of the well, but upon four acres of land, let to the defendant at 1001. a-year; and the value arises partly from the buildings, and partly from the spring that produces the mineral water. Therefore, the profits of the spring are part of the produce of the land. In Worcestershire and Cheshire, where there are salt springs, the rent of the land is increased considerably on that account. So here, the consideration of the well increases the rent. It is part of the produce of the land; and therefore, as such, ought to be rated. (a) If any of these are let, the rent, in the absence of fraud, is the criterion of annual value. 9 B. & C. 68, 162, 810. The profits of a mineral spring are part of the produce of the land, and therefore the occupier is rateable for the whole as one estate. Fifthly, What property is rateable. 10. Extra profits Land, the annual a spring of water, liable to be rated annual value of the land and spring together. Rex v. The Governor and Company of the New Rirer, 1 M. & S. 503; Bott, Cont. 96; 1 Nol. P. L. 77. In a rate for the liberty of Little Amwell, in the county of Hertford, the governor and company of the New River were rated as follows: Rental, 3001.-Governor and Company of the New £ S. d. 15 O 0 The governor and company of the New River were incorporated by charter, dated June 21, 1619, for the purpose of conveying water from a certain spring, rising in Chadwell-Mead, in the liberty of Little Amwell, to the cities of London and Westminster; and do supply a great part of the same with water, by means of a cut called the New River, leading from the spring, to a head or reservoir at Islington, whence it is distributed by means of engines and pipes to the different parts of the metropolis, and from which the company receive considerable profit beyond the sum at which the property in question is rated. The water of the New River is derived from two sources, part from the river Lea, from which there is a cut communicating with the New River, near Chadwell-Mead, and part from a spring arising and inclosed in a basin in Chadwell- Mead, which is the subject of the present rate, and is the freehold of the New River company, and in their occupation. The quantity of water derived from each of these sources is nearly equal. That part of Chadwell-Mead which is occupied by the company, and is the subject of the rate, contains about two acres: it consists solely of the basin in which the spring rises, and so much of the cut from thence called the New River, as lies in the liberty of Little Amwell, where it joins the water taken from the river Lea, and from thence it continues to run with the said water so taken from the river Lea, in one joint course to Islington. The said land alone, without the spring, and if it were not covered with water, is of the annual value of 5l. The whole profits of the company arise from the sale of the water, no part of which is distributed, nor is any of the money received for it by the company, nor does any become due in the liberty of Little Amwell. If the advantage which the company derive from the use of the spring, may by law be included in the rate upon the land, the land and spring of water together, are of the annual value at which they are rated. The sessions confirmed the rate.-Bourchier supported the order of sessions; and Berens, Trollope, and Walford, contrà.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. This is a rate imposed on land, including a spring of water, as being of the aggregate annual value of 300l. The case finds" that the land alone, without the spring, and if not covered with water, is of the annual value of 51. ; but if the advantage which the company derive from the use of the spring may by law be included in the rate upon the land, the land and spring together are of the annual value at which they are rated." Much of the argument against this rate seems to be built on a perversion of the terms of this finding. I am at a loss to discover between this case and Rex v. Miller, (ante, 89), any other distinction than that which has been alluded to, viz, that the quality of the two waters is different, the one being a mineral, and the other plain water. It has been assumed, indeed, that in that case all the profits were received in the parish where the land lay: but the case does not warrant any such conclusion; and we know perfectly well that the mineral water in question, in that case, is disposed of in great quantities at distant places. It may be said also, that in this case the owners of the property are also the occupiers, but there the property was in the occupation of a tenant; to which the answer has already been given, viz. that the circumstance is no otherwise material than as it affords a more easy criterion for ascertaining the annual value. Here, then, is land and water inclosed in a basin upon the land, which falls within the legal description of land; and although a considerable portion of the profits of such water is derived from pipes, through which it is distributed to other places, yet it is found that the water has a certain ascertained value at the fountain-head and in cases of this kind it is enough to ascertain the local value of the property, without enquiring whether it yields a return on the spot. A degree of confusion has arisen : Fifthly, What property is rate from comparing this to the case of tolls upon canals: whereas they are essentially different; for tolls are an incorporeal hereditament, and have no local corporeal existence, so as to be the subject of rate until they become due. Then we have been pressed with the case of Rex v. Sculcoates, 10. Extra profits able. where it was holden that the commissioners in whom a drainage was vested from land. were not rateable; but that was so holden upon the principle that where Tolls upon canals. there is not a scintilla of benefit derived from the occupation, the property is not rateable: there the commissioners were merely servants of the public, having no divisible fund in their hands either as trustees or to their own benefit, and deriving no advantage from the drainage; and the only persons benefitted by it were the owners of lands in other parishes. In Rez v. Bath it was assumed in the decision, that the water was the subject of rate in the parish where it was impounded in the reservoirs; the only question there being, whether the corporation were rateable in that parish to the extent of all the profits received by them, or whether the rate ought not to have been framed with reference to the contributory profits derived to the company in other parishes. Without going farther into the several cases upon this subject, and feeling no disposition to overrule the case of Rex v. Miller, I think there is no doubt that the sessions have come to a right decision. The property is locally valuable in the parish where it is rated, although that value is derived from extrinsic circumstances, and although the profits are actually received elsewhere.-Grose, J. I cannot distinguish this case from the common case of land on which corn grows. In such case the land is assessed according to its value, and that value is estimated according to that which it produces: so here the land produces a spring, and the value of it is to be computed according to the benefit which the spring produces to the company.-Le Blanc, J. The question is, whether in estimating the value of land, something which is peculiar to the land, and makes it more profitable to the occupier than if it were away, can be taken into consideration: and that question has already been determined in Rex v. Miller, which, as it seems to me, cannot be distinguished from the present case; does it make any difference to the occupier whether he takes the profits of his land by selling the produce on the land itself, or by disposing of it elsewhere? Suppose a man occupying land out of which he digs brick-earth, and converts it into bricks in an adjacent parish; would he not be liable to be rated as for brick land, in the parish where the land lies, in the same manner as if he had sold the bricks in that parish?-Bayley, J. I think it is clear, that the company are liable to be rated for the spring, which is part of the produce of the land. The company have the means of carrying this produce to market, where it affords a beneficial return; and it can make no difference whether they convey it along a canal, or in carts and waggons, or by any other mode. Perhaps it may be fair that in fixing the quantum of rate on this property, respect should be had to the benefit which results to the company in the different parishes through which the water is conveyed. But this observation applies only to the quantum, with which we have nothing to do. Order of sessions confirmed. Rex v. Regent's Canal Company, 6 B. & C. 720. By the act under which the company was established, it was provided, that lands, whether covered with water or not, and dwellings, wharfs, &c., belonging to the company, should be rateable to the poor, the lands according to their quality, and the dwelling houses, wharfs, &c., according to the nature and respective uses thereof, in like manner, as lands, houses, wharfs, &c., of a similar kind in the several parishes where they were respectively situated. The company had, on the margin of a large basin, a piece of land adjoining the private yard of a timber merchant. This piece of land next the basin consisted of natural ground; it was not faced with brick or timber, and the ground below the water gradually sloped down to the bottom of the basin. The timber merchant landed his timber upon this piece of land, and it was there marked and measured by the revenue officers. No acknowledgment or rent was paid to the company for this privilege of landing the goods there, but their rates and duties were increased, a greater number of ships Land adjoining has not been converted into a wharf, cannot be though timber is permitted to be the canal, which rated as such, al landed there. Fifthly, What property is rate able. 10. Extra profits from land. Where an act of parliament empowered a company to lay under ground through the streets of a for the convey ance of water, and the inhabitants with the company's consent to lay pipes communicating with such main pipes to their houses, paying to the company a rate for such privilege: Held, that entering the basin in consequence of this privilege. Held that this piece of land was not a wharf within the meaning of the act of Parliament, and was not liable to be rated as such to the relief of the poor. Rex v. Rochdale Waterwork Company, 1 M. § S. 634; Bott, Cont. 106; 1 Nol. P. L. 80, 210. The company of proprietors of Rochdale waterworks were rated to the relief of the poor of the township of Spotland, in the county of Lancaster, for and in respect of the trunks and pipes, and other apparatus for the conveyance of water, belonging to the company, situate and being fixed in the ground, in the township of Spotland, and the profits arising therefrom within the township. The sessions, upon appeal by the town main pipes company, confirmed this rate, subject to the opinion of the Court of K. B. on the following case: "By an act passed in the 49 Geo. III. intituled, an act for the better supplying the inhabitants of the town of Rochdale and the neighbourhood with water,' the appellants are incorporated and empowered, among other things, to lay under ground, in, through, and along the public streets, and common highways, in the township of Spotland, main pipes for the conveyance of water therein; and the act authorises the inhabitants of the said township, with the consent of the company, to lay down leaden or other pipes, communicating with such main pipes, to their respective houses, paying to the company such rate or rates for such privilege, and water, as shall be mutually agreed upon between them. In pursuance of this act, divers such main pipes and branches are laid and used in the township, and divers of the inhabitants thereof pay such rates as aforesaid to the said company. The overseers of the poor of the said township have made the said assessment for the relief of the poor, pursuant rates paid thereon. to the statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, and have assessed the company for the said pipes and rates. The appellants allege that they are not occupiers of lands' in the township within the intent and meaning of the statute." After argument, Ld. Ellenborough, C. J., said, whether the occupiers of the houses are or are not rateable in respect of the advantages derived to them from the use of these collateral pipes, does not affect the present question. The question here is, Whether the company, as occupiers of the main pipes, are rateable? What difference does it make whether it be a reservoir of so many feet square, or a pipe of so many inches in diameter? I own I cannot distinguish this case from Rex v. The Corporation of Bath.-Le Blanc, J. If this rate on the company had been simply on the leaders which carry the water to each house, the argument might have been of weight; but the rate is imposed in respect of the main pipes and the profits arising from them. Order of sessions confirmed. the company were rateable to the poor in the parish where the main pipes lay, in respect of those pipes and the By an act of parliament the Birmingham Gaslight and Coke Company had Rex v. The Birmingham Gas-light and Coke Company, 1 B. & C. 506; Dowl. & Ryl. Mag. Ca. 385. By a rate, for the relief of the poor of the parish of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, the Birmingham Gas-light and Coke Company were assessed in respect of certain dwelling-houses, shops, buildings, power given them land, and premises, and the trunks, pipes, and other apparatus, for the convey to supply the town of B. with gas, and to lay down pipes for the conveyance of gas from the manufactory to the houses of the consumers. Under this act the company purchased lands and buildings, and there placed retorts, &c., necessary for the manufacture of gas and coke, and fixed in the streets trunks, pipes, &c., for the conveyance of gas. The ance of gas belonging to the company, situate and being fixed in the ground, in the parish of Birmingham, and the profits therefrom within the parish; the annual value being stated at 800l. and the assessment 201. Upon appeal against this rate, the sessions confirmed the same, subject to the opinion of the court of K. B. on the following case:-By a private act of the 59 Geo. III. certain persons therein named, and their successors, were declared to be a body corporate, by the name of the Birmingham Gas-light and Coke Company, and powers were given them "to supply the town with gas, to enter into contracts for the lighting of houses, &c., and with the consent of the commissioners for lighting and paving the town, to break up the soil and pavements of the streets, &c., for the purpose of laying down pipes and other necessary apparatus, for the conveyance of gas from the manufactory to the houses, &c., of the consumers." In pursuance of the provisions of this act, the company purchased the dwelling-houses, shops, buildings, land, and premises mentioned in the assessment, and erected and placed therein company derived retorts, gasometers, purifiers, and other apparatus necessary for the manufacture of gas and coke (part of which apparatus is affixed to the freehold and part is not), and also by the consent of the aforesaid commissioners, broke a considerable profit from the manufacture and able. 10. Extra profits from land. sale of coke and gas. The stock in trade, and the manufactories in the parish of B. were not rated to the poor: Held, profits of other that the company were not rateable to the amount of the profits of their amount to that up the soil and pavements in the streets, and fixed therein the trunks, pipes, Fifthly, What and other apparatus for the conveyance of gas, mentioned in the assessment, property is ruteand which communicate with the house and manufactory. The company carry on a considerable manufacture of coke and gas upon these premises, and derive a profit from the sale of each of these articles. The coke is conveyed from the premises of the company to those of the purchasers, by means of carts and waggons, and the gas by means of the trunks, pipes, and other apparatus for the conveyance of gas, mentioned in the assessment; gas and coke are both manufactured from coal at a great expence of fuel, and the machinery and apparatus necessary for the manufacture of these articles are also very expensive, and require frequent renewal. Stock in trade, and the profits of the manufactories in the parish of Birmingham are not rated to the poor in this rate. The premises, trunks, pipes, &c., mentioned in the assessment as belonging to the company, if rated to the poor as other lands within the parish, that is to say, if the profits arising from the sale of gas are not included, are worth 2007. per annum; but are worth 8007., if the profits arising from the sale of gas are included. If the Court of K. B. should be of opinion that the profits accruing to the company from the sale of gas are not rateable, or that they can only be rated as the profits of a manufactory, the rate ought to be amended, by inserting the sum of 2001. therein, in lieu of the sum of 800l., and the sum of 5l. in lieu of the sum of 201. The case having been argued.—Abbott, C. J. The question proposed to us is not, whether the company be rateable for their buildings above ground, or their pipes under ground, but to what amount they are rateable. I am of opinion, that the amount in respect of which they are rateable, is the sum for which the buildings, trunks, and pipes would let to a person who is willing to carry on the business there. It appears from the statement in the case, that the premises, trunks, and pipes, if rated to the poor as other lands in the parish, that is, if the profits arising from the sale of gas are not included, are worth 2001. per annum, but if the profits are included, then they are worth 800l. per annum. I am of opinion that the profits are not in this case rateable. If they were, a blacksmith's forge might be rated, not at what it would be let for, but at the sum which the blacksmith acquires by it. The distinction between the cases cited and the present, is, that here the profits rated are those of a manufactory which are obtained by applying the skill and industry of man to capital brought from a distance for that purpose. They are very different from the profits of canals or of mineral waters, which are natural products arising within the parish, and rendering the land in which they are situate the more valuable. For these reasons I am of opinion that the rate must be amended by inserting 2001. as the value of the buildings and pipes, and 57. as the sum to be paid.—Bayley, J. I am of opinion that the company ought to be assessed, not at a sum equal to the annual profits of their trade, but at that sum which the buildings, trunks, and pipes would produce to them if let at an annual rent to persons willing to carry on the trade, or that rent which the company would be forced to pay if the premises were not their own property.-Holroyd, J. I am of opinion that the rate ought to be amended, as it is stated that in this parish the profits of other manufactories are not rated. In the case of a canal, the land and the water are rated; and here an attempt is made to rate the pipes and the gas; but that cannot be done. The proper criterion for the rate to be imposed upon these lands and buildings is the rent at which they could be let to a person willing to carry on the business.-Best, J. I think that such a construction ought to be put upon the statute of Eliz. as to include the largest portion of productive property, because I feel that the poor rate, and various other burdens, press heavily upon the landed interest. This rate, however, cannot be supported: it is an assessment upon the profits of trade. Now that is not a correct mode of assessment. Besides, a rate even upon the net profits of any undertaking must be unjust and unequal, in a place where similar profits and stock in trade of others are not generally rated. The profits of this company are very different from the tolls of a canal. When a canal is once formed and filled with water, it produces to the proprietor, without any thing further being done, a permanent profit in |