Bankart v Houghton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1859
Date01 January 1859
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 167



S. C. For other proceedings see 3 De G. F. & J. 16; 45 E. R. 783; 3 L. T. 606; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 57; 9 W. R. 215.

[425] bankart v. houghton. Dec. 2, 3, 4, 1859; Jan. 13, 1860. [S. C. For other proceedings see 3 De G. F. & J. 16 ; 45 E. R. 783; 3 L. T. 606 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.)57; 9 W. R. 215.] Though A. may be disentitled by acquiescence to an injunction to stop B.'s manufactory, which is noxious to the neighbourhood, yet it does not consequently follow that B. is entitled to an injunction to prevent A.'s recovering damages at law. Equity may leave both parties to their legal rights. Acquiescence in the erection of noxious works, while they produce little injury, does not warrant the subsequent extension of them to an extent productive of great damage. Injunction to prevent, on the ground of acquiescence, a party injured by copper works from enforcing a judgment recovered by him for damages at law refused with costs. In 1849 the Plaintiff became the under-lessee of some spelter and zinc works called " The Red Jacket Works," in the county of Glamorgan, and he thereupon adapted them to the manufacture of copper, which he commenced in that year. In 1853 the Defendant became the occupier of two farms in the neighbourhood of the works called "Coed-y-Arl CJchaf" and "Coed-y-Arl Ishaf." The first nearly adjoined the works. In the reduction of copper ore noxious vapours are liberated, and these exhalations and the deposit it produces are highly injurious to vegetation and to animals that feed on the pastures within the influence of them. The evidence in the cause shewed that it was not until 1853 that any material injury waa done by the works to the Defendant's farm. Up to that time the roasting furnaces (which principally produced the injury) were but three, but they were afterwards increased to seven. Neither the Defendant nor his predecessor Jacob Williams, took any legal steps to prevent the nuisance arising from the noxious vapours produced from smelting the copper or to stop them. The nuisance went on increasing, and in 1856 the Defendant brought an action at law against the Plaintiff for the injury done to his farms. The action was tried iu July 1858, and the jury awarded the Defendant damages to the extent of 450. The Plaintiff thereupon filed this present bill against [426] the Defendant, alleging that he had expended large sums of money on the enlargement and improvement of the works, with the full knowledge, privity and approbation of the Defendant's lessors, who, as the Plaintiff alleged, had acquiesced in and encouraged it. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant, before he became the occupier of the farms, inspected the works with a view of estimating the injury likely to be occasioned thereby to the farms, and that before he acquired any interest in the farms, he had full notice of all the Plaintiffs rights in respect of the carrying on the works, and was well aware that the Plaintiff claimed such rights. The bill alleged that the Defendant had not interfered or complained until shortly before the action. It prayed that the Defendant might be restrained from taking out execution in the action, and from all further proceedings therein, and from commencing any other action at law against the Plaintiff, for any injury alleged by the Defendaut to be occasioned 168 BANKAET V. HOUGHTON 27 BEAV. 427. to his lands or any of them, by the carrying on of the Plaintiffs works. And if the Defendant should in the meantime have taken out execution in the action, that be might be decreed to repay to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cotching v Bassett
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 9 December 1862 them; The East India Company v. F mm/(2 Atk. 82); Lewes v. Suttm(5 Ves. 687); Shoii v. Taylor (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 522); Bankart v. Haughton (27 Beav. 425); The Duke of Devonshire v. Eglin (14 Beav. 532); Rochdale Canal Company v. King (16 Beav. 630) ; Somersetshire Canal Company v. Harcourt (......
  • Smith v Hayes
    • Ireland
    • Exchequer (Ireland)
    • 9 May 1867
    ...v. CookeENR 2 Exch. 654, 663. Jorden v. Money 5 H. L. 185, 214. Williams v. The Earl of JerseyENR 1 Cr. & Ph. 91. Barkart v. HaughtonENR 27 Beav. 425. Tipping v. St. Helen's Smelting Company L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 66. Dann v. Spurrier 7 Ves. 230. Williams v. The Earl of Jersey 1 Cr. & Phil. 91. Co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT