Backhouse v Bonomi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1861 |
| Date | 28 June 1861 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 825
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. i. 179; v. 1178; ix. 1213, 1216; x. 56. S.C. 34 L.J. Q.B. 181; 7 Jur. N.S. 809; 4 L.T. 754; 9 W.R. 769; and, below, E. B. and E. 622; 28 L.J. Q.B. 378. Discussed and applied in numerous cases, e.g. Smith v. Thackerah, 1866, L.K. 1 C.P. 566; Spoor v. Green, 1874, L.R. 9 Ex. 99; Bower v. Peate, 1876, 1 Q.B.D. 325; Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, 1886, 11 A.C. 127; and see note to Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H.L.C. 348.
Right of Property - Easement - Mines - Statute of Limitations.
[503] EDMUND BACKHOUSE,-Plaintiff in Error; 'IGNATIUS BONOMI WIFE,-Defendants in Error [June 28, 1861]. [Mews' Dig. i. 179; v. 1178; ix. 1213, 1216; x. 56. S.C. 34 L.J. Q.B. 181; 7 Jur. N.S. 809 ; 4 L.T. 754; 9 W.R. 769; and, below, E. B. and E. 622; 28 L.J. Q.B. 378. Discussed and applied in numerous cases, e.g. Smith v. Thackerah, 1866, L.K. 1 C.P. 566; Spoor v. Green, 1874, L.R. 9 Ex. 99; Bower v. Peate, 1876, 1 Q.B.D. 325; Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, 1886, 11 A.C. 127 ; and see note to Eowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H.L.C. 348.] Right of Property-Easement-Mines-Statute of I/imitations. The right of a person to the support of the land immediately around his house is not in the nature of an easement, but is the ordinary right of enjoyment of property; and till that is interfered with he has no legal ground of complaint, although, in fact, something may have been done which (without his knowledge), has occasioned results that will afterwards affect his property. A. was the owner of certain houses standing on land which was surrounded by the lands of B. C. and D. E. was the owner of mines running underneath the lands of all these persons. He worked the mines in such a manner (without actual negligence) that the lands of B. C. and D. sank in; and after more than six years' interval their sinking occasioned an injury to the houses of A.: Held, that a right of action accrued to A. when this injury actually occurred, and that his right was not barred by the Statute of Limitations. This was an action commenced by a writ of summons, dated 20th May 1856, and brought by Bonomi and his wife to recover damages, for an injury occasioned to certain houses of theirs, in the occupation of tenants. The declaration alleged that the Plaintiffs " were entitled to have the said messuages and buildings supported ; to wit, by the mines, earth, and soil underground, contiguous and near to and under the said messuages and buildings: yet the Defendant, well knowing the premises, wrongfully, carelessly, negligently, and improperly, and without leaving any proper or sufficient support in that behalf, worked certain coal mines underground, contiguous and near to, and under the said messuages and buildings, and dug for, and got, and took away coals, earth, and soil out of the mines, and wrongfully and unjustly kept and continued the said messuages and buildings, and caused them to be and remain, without any proper or reasonable or [504] sufficient support for a long space of time, whereby the foundations of the said messuages, etc. became and were greatly weakened and injured; and the walls of the said messuages became and were cracked and injured; and the ground on which the said messuages, etc. stood, subsided, cracked, swayed, and gave way. That by means of the premises Plaintiffs have been and are injured in their reversionary estate and interest in the said messuages and buildings, etc." The Defendant, who was the owner of the mines situated underneath the houses, pleaded, 1st, not guilty; 2nd, a denial of the occupancy; 3rd, denial of Plaintiff's reversion; 4th, denial of the alleged right to support; and 5th, that the alleged 825 IX H.L.C., 505 BACKHOUSE f. BONOMI [1861] causes of action did not accrue within six years before this suit. Issue was taken on each of these pleas. When the cause came on for trial at Durham, it was referred to Mr. Hindmarch to find the facts, and state the cause of the damage, with dates. Mr. Hindmarch stated a special case, in which it was, among other things, set forth that the Defendant in 1849 " worked and removed the pillars of coal which he had previously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v Kildare County Council
...at pp. 163, 169. (2) 67 J. P. 111, 447. (3) [1905] 1 Ch. 205. (4) 3 App. Cas. 430. (5) [1939] 3 All E. R. 882. (6) [1930] A. C. 171. (1) 9 H. L. Cas. 503. (2) 67 J. P. 111, 447. (3) [1926] 1 K. B. 146. (4) [1926] 1 K. B. 160. (5) [1920] 1 K. B. 155. (6) 11 App. Cas. 127. (7) [1921] 2 K. B. ......
-
Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd
...- but a wrong of this sort I think is only actionableften it actually causes damage. Authority for this proposition to be found in Backhouse v. Bonomi (9 House of Lords Cases, page 503). In that case the damage to the plaintiff's house Pas caused by the working of a mine by the defendant on......
-
Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd
...land itself." 80 Lord Blackburn in his speech at page 805 said: "It is, I think, conclusively settled by the decision in this House in Backhouse v Bonomi(1) that the owner of land has a right to support from the adjoining soil; not a right to have the adjoining soil remain in its natural st......
-
Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd
...cases where the cause of action accrues not when the support is withdrawn but when the actual damage is caused by its withdrawal ( Backhouse v. Bonomi, E.B. & E., 622 and 11 H.L.C.503). If the result of the withdrawal of support is that one damage is done today and another subsequently, the......
-
THE PRIMACY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY IN THE SINGAPORE LAND REGIME
...v Ayson [1975] 2 NZLR 586 at page 590. 12 These include Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. 13 See also Backhouse v Bonomi (1861) 9 HL Cas 503, Humphries v Brogden (1850) 12 QB 739, Rowbotham v Wilson (1857) 8 E&B 123, Ex Ch, Corporation of Birmingham v Allen (1877) 6 ChD 284, Greenwe......