Bright v Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1057
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 502; 3 L. J. Ex. 250. Principle applied, Bass v. Gregory, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 481; Wheaton v. Maple, [1893] 3 Ch. 48. Followed, Hanna v. Pollock, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 664; Damper v. Bassett, [1901] 2 Ch. 350; Kilgour v. Gaddes, [1904] 1 K. B. 457. Not followed, Beggan v. M'Donald, 1878, 2 L. R. Ir. 560. Referred to, Only v. Gardiner, 1838, 4 M. & W. 501; 1 H. & H. 383; Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 A. C. 783; Hollins v. Verney, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 307; Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Breweries Company, [1900] 1 Ch. 596. See also, Perry v. Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. 658.
[211] bright v. walker. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-Where a way had been used adversely and under a claim of right, for more than twenty years, over land in the possession of a lessee who held under a lease for lives granted by the Bishop of Worcester:-Held that under the act '2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, this user gave no right as against the bishop, and did not affect the see.-Held, also, that, as the user could not give a title as 'against all persons having estates in the locus in quo, it gave no title as against the lessee and the persons claiming under him, and that no title was gained by an user which did not give a valid title as against the bishop, and permanently affect the see. The declaration for disturbance of the above-mentioned right of way alleged that the plaintiff' was possessed of a certain wharf, close, and premises, and by reason thereof ought to have had, and still of right ought to have, a certain way from this wharf, close, and premises into &c. (describing the way), as to the said wharf and premises belonging and appertaining:-Held, that the declaration was sufficient, and that the way might be claimed as appurtenant to the plaintiff's possession of the land at the time of the injury committed, [S. C. 4 Tyr. 502 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 250. Principle applied, Bass v. Gregory, 1890, 25 Q. B. D, 481; Wheaton v. Maple, [1893| 3 Ch. 48. Followed, Hnvmt v. Pollock, [1900j2lr. K. G64; Damper v. Bassdt, [1901] 2 Ch. SHO; Kilgmur v. GmUes, [1904] 1 K. B. 457. Not followed, Begqan v. M'Dmmlil, l78, '2 L. li. Ir. 560. Referred to, Onlyv. Gardiner, 1838, 4 M. & W. 501 ; 1 fi. & H. 3M3; Daltm v. Angus, 1881, ò 6 A. C, 783; Rollins v. Verney, 1884, 13 Q. B. I). 307; Gardner v. Hoi (gum's Kingston Brnveries Company, [1900] 1 Ch. 59(i. See also, Pern/ v. Earnex, [1891J 1 Ch. 658.] Case. The first count of the declaration stated, that whereas the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance by the defendant as hereinafter mentioned, was and from thence hitherto hath been and still is lawfully possessed of a certain wharf, close, and premises, with the appurtenances, situate, lying, and being in the county of Worcester, and by reason thereof the said plaintiff, during all the time aforesaid, ought to have had, and still of right ought to have, a certain way from the said wharf, close, and premises, into, through and along a certain close, and from thence into, through, and along a certain road or way unto and into a certain common king's highway, and so from thence back again from the said king's highway into, through, and along the said road or way, into through, and along the said close, unto and into the said wharf, close, and premises respectively, so in the possession of the said plaintiff, for himself and his servants on foot, and with horses, mares, and geldings, carts and waggons, and other carriages, to go, return, pass, and repass every year, and at till times of the year, at his and their free will and pleasure, as to the said wharf, close, and premises, with the appurtenances, of the said plaintiff belonging and appertaining; yet the said defendant, well knowing the premises, but wrongfully and unjustly contriving and intending to injure the said plaintiff in that behalf, and to deprive him of the use and benefit of his said way, whilst ha, the said plaintiff, was so possessed of his said wharf, close, and premises, with the appurtenances as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. and on divers [212] other days and times between that day and the commencement of this suit in the county aforesaid, wrongfully and injuriously placed and erected, arid caused to be erected and built, divers, to wit, five gates in and across the said way ; and put and placed, and caused and procured to be put and Ex. DlV. V.-34 1058 BRIGHT V. WALKER 1 C. M. & R. 213. placed, (livers large quantities of posts, planks, wood, and timber in the said wav, and kept and continued the said gates so put, placed, and erected in and across the said way as aforesaid, and also the said other posts, planks, wood, and timber, in the same way as aforesaid, for a long space of time, to wit, from thenceforth hitherto, and thereby, during all the time aforesaid, the said way was and still is greatly obstructed and stopped up. By means whereof, &c, the said plaintiff could not enjov, &e. &c. There were two other counts similar to the first. The defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial before Gurney, B., at the Worcester Summer Assizes, 1833, it appeared that the way claimed was from a wharf in a close called Cliff Meadow, which adjoined the river Severn, through a meadow called Eacham Meadow, over a close called the Acre, where the obstruction took place, into a public highway; that the Cliff and Eacham Meadow were, in the year 1805...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu
- Hanna v Pollock
-
Hanna v Pollock
...case. I am clearly of opinion that there is no sufficient evidence in fact to found the presumption of a lost grant. The presumption (1) 1 C. M. & R. 211. (2) 22 L. R. Ir. 627. The defendants appealed. Appeal. 1898. 666 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1900. (1) 6 App. Cas. 740. .inpeal. must always be ......
-
Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
... ... Walsh (1881) 6 App Cas 636; Stoney v Eastbourne Rural District Council [1927] 1 Ch 367; Williams-Ellis v Cobb [1935] 1 KB 310; Bright v Walker (1834) CM & R 211; R v Oxfordshire County Council, Ex P Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335; R (Beresford) v Sunderland City Council ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Re (1979) 39 P & CR 419, LT 325 Brierfield’s Application, Re (1976) 35 P & CR 124, LT 327 Bright v Walker (1834) 1 CM&R 211, 149 ER 1057 16 Brighton Borough Council v Peachy (Investments) [1957] JPL 585, DC 177 Britel Development (Thatcham) Ltd v Nightfreight (GB) Ltd [1998] 4 A......
-
Creation of Easements and Profits
...Rodger. 45 [2004] 1 AC 889 at [75], per Lord Walker. 46 Megarry & Wade at 28-079–28-080. 47 Bright v Walker (1834) 1 CM&R 211 at 221–222, 149 ER 1057 at 1061–1062. 48 Bosomworth v Faber (1992) 69 P & CR 288 at 292; Gayford v Moffatt (1868) 4 Ch App 133 at 135. another tenant of his landlord......
-
The future of prescriptive easements in Australia and England.
...W Ward Ltd v Alexander Bruce (Grays) Ltd [1959] 2 Lloyd's Rep 472, 477 (Harman LJ). (36) Bright v Walker (1834) 1 Cr M & R 211, 219; 149 ER 1057, 1060 (Parke B); Gray and Gray, Elements of Land Law, above n 2, 694; Gaunt and Morgan, above n 6, (37) Gaunt and Morgan, above n 6, 218-20. H......