Attorney General v Nichol
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 1809 |
| Date | 15 July 1809 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 263
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. with note, 16 Ves. 338.
attorney-geneual v. nichol. July 15, 1809, [See S. (!. with note, 10 Ves. 338.] Ex relatiune Mr. tUmpkmson.-Injunction against obstructing ancient lights granted on affidavit, before appearance, and without notice ; the Plaintiff having also commenced an action previous to filing the bill. Information and bill for injunction, to restrain. Defendant from proceeding in a building which obstructed the ancient lights of a house belonging to the Scottish corporation. The relators had commenced an action at law, and now moved upon affidavit, for an injunction, before appearance, and without notice. Injunction granted, till answer or further order ; the Lord Chancellor being of opinion, that the action commenced made no difference ; nor did lie order the relators to discontinue their action, although they offered to do so, if necessary in order to entitle them to the injunctiori.(l) (I) The Injunction was afterwaids dissolved, on Defendant undertaking, if the verdict at law should be against him, to remove the injury. Attorney-General v. Nickol, 10 Ves. 338. In The Attorney-General v. BtiiitkaiiL, 1 Dick. 277. (See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacomb v Knight
...Easements (page 514, ed. 3); Fishmongers' Company v. East India Company (1 Dickens, 163); Attorney-General \. Nichol (16 Ves. 338 ; S! C. 3 Mer. 687); Elmhirstv. Spencfr (2 Mac. & G. 45); The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Liverpool v. Hie Charley Waterworks Company (2 De G. M. & G. 852);......
-
Wynstanley v Lee
...277. Ryder v. Bentham, 1 Fes. 543. N orris v. Lord Berkeley, 2 Fs. 452. Attorney-General v. Doughty, 2 Fes. ^71, 453. Attorney-General v. ,3 Mer. 687 ; 16 Fes. 338. English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 643 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Wynstanley and Lee See Perry v. Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. G67. Custom ......
-
Blakemore v The Glamorganshire Canal Navigation
...state; and Lord Loughborough there said he could not order anything to be done. The Attorney-General v. Nichol (16 Ves., 338, and 3 Mer., 687) was an application to stop the raising of a wall higher than it then stood. Notice had been given not to raise; and the wall had, notwithstanding, b......
-
Hemphill v M'Kenna
...476. Churchman v. Tunstal 2 Ans. 608. Paine v. PartrichENR Carth. 191. Peter v. KendalENR 6 B. & C. 703. The Attorney-General v. NicolENR 3 Mer. 687. Howard's Equity Exchequer Vol. 1, p. 304; Vol. 2, p. 530. CASES IN EQUITY. 57 1S43. Chassoery. HEMPHILL v. M'KENNA. Nov. 19, 30. (Chancery.) ......