Viscount Haldane. -

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, delivered in favour of the respondent who was plaintiff in an action. The appellants were defendants and the question decided was raised by a special case.

Before 1924 the respondent was owner in fee simple of a piece of land in the city of Sydney. On 6th June 1924, the appellants, in accordance with the provisions of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1902, and the amending Acts, caused, for improvement purposes, a notice for the acquisition of the piece of land to be published in the Gazette and other proper newspapers and complied in all respects with the provisions necessary for the acquisition. Thereupon, by virtue of the publication of the notice, the land, under the existing statutory provision, became vested in the appellants for an estate in fee simple, and the respondent became entitled to receive compensation. Within due time from the publication the respondent served a notice of her claim to compensation. The appellants made a valuation, and the amount payable to the respondent was agreed at £60,828. The only question that arises is as to the rate of interest properly payable under the circumstances upon the amount so ascertained as due. At one time, under the Public Works Act, 1900, providing for the acquisition of land for public works, the interest payable on the amount of compensation for land resumed thereunder was 6 per cent. The provisions of this Act were incorporated by reference in the Sydney Corporation Acts, the interest rate being lowered to 4 per cent. Subsequently the interest rate under the Public Works Act was similarly reduced. The provisions as to resumption were altered in other respects in 1905 by an Act of that date, under which, in lieu of service of notice, publication in the Gazette and certain newspapers was substituted for it, and the land was to vest on the publication of the notice and description. There was another amending Act of 1916 into the provisions of which it is not necessary to enter. But in 1924 the Sydney Corporation Act of that year enacted that the 1924 Act and the 1902 Act and the Acts amending it should be construed along with the 1924 Act as the principal Act.

The 1924 Act as thus defined also enabled the appellants to acquire land subject to certain reservations in favour of the owner and to effect re-alignments for the purposes of widening. On these provisions, in the opinion of their Lordships, nothing turns for the purpose of the present question. The only material provision is that contained in S. 17, which is in these terms :

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act the rate of interest payable upon compensation for land acquired by the Council by resumption or by the re-alignment method, or by any compulsory purchase, shall be 6 per centum per annum.

The Act of 1924 came into operation on 17th September in that year, and, as already stated, the acquisition (called resumption) had taken place under the existing statute on 6th June.

The respondent claims that on the proper construction of S. 17 of the Act of 1924 interest at 4 per cent, was payable on the agreed amount of compensation as from 6th June in that year, the date of the publication of the notice and of consequent vesting in the Corporation, upto 17th September, and thereafter at 6 per cent., notwithstanding that the Act did not become operative until 17th September, when it received the Royal Assent. The appellants contend, on the other hand, that the title to interest, at 6 per cent, under S. 17 could not arise in regard to an acquisition before the Act became operative. One reason for this contention is that the Act of 1924 for the first time enabled the "re-alignment method "to be adopted and that accordingly S. 17, which extends to interest accruing under that method, must be treated as limited to land acquired after the Royal Assent was given to the Act, inasmuch as the re-alignment method wan established by th