Chadwick v Trower and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1839 |
| Date | 29 June 1839 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 1
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Scott, 1; 8 L. J. Ex. 286. Discussed, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 746. Referred to, Fairbrother v. Bury Rural Sanitary Authority, 1889, 37 W. R. 545. Explained, Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company v. Wandsworth District Board of Works, [1898] 2 Ch. 612.
NEW CASES in the COURT of COMMON PLEAS, and Other Courts. By PEREGRINE BINGHAM, of the Middle Temple, Esq. Barrister at Law. Vol. VI. From Trinity Vacation, 2 VICTORIA, 1839, to Michaelmas Term, 4 VICTORIA, 1840, both inclusive. London, 1841. [1] new cases in the court of common pleas, and other courts. trinity vacation (continued), in the second year of the eeign of victoria. .in the exchequer chamber. chadwick v. trower and others (a). June 29, 1839. [S. C. 8 Scott, 1; 8 L. J. Ex. 286. Discussed, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 746. Eeferred to, Fairbrother v. Bury Rural Sanitary Authority, 1889, 37 W. "R. 545. Explained, Southward and Fauxhall Water Company v. Wandsworth District Board of Works, [1898] 2 Ch. 612.] The mere circumstance of juxta-position does not render it necessary for a person who pulls down his wall to give notice of his intention to the owner of an adjoining wall.-Nor, if he be ignorant of the existence of the adjoining wall,-as where it is underground,-is he bound to use extraordinary caution in pulling down his own. Case. The declaration contained two counts: in the first, the Plaintiffs below alleged that they were possessed of a certain vault or cellar with certain wine therein, adjoining to certain other vaults and walls, and which in part rested upon, and was of right supported in part, by parts of the adjoining vaults [2] and walls; that the Plaintiffs were of right entitled that their vault or cellar should be so supported in part; and that there were certain foundations belonging to, and supporting the said vault or cellar, which the Plaintiffs ought to enjoy: yet that the Defendant below wrongfully took down and removed the said vaults and walls, so adjoining to the said vault or cellar of the Plaintiffs, without shoring or propping up, or taking other reasonable or proper precaution to support or secure it, so as to prevent its being weakened or destroyed;, and wrongfully dug the earth and disturbed the foundations, without taking due and proper precautions to prevent the said foundations from being weakened and giving way. The count then stated the injury which the Plaintiffs had sustained, and the special damage which followed thereon. The second count stated, that the Defendant was about to pull down the adjoining vaults and walls, and alleged it to have been the duty of the Defendant, in the event of his not shoring up the walls, to give notice to the Plaintiffs of his intention to pull down; and also that it was his duty to use due care and skill, and (a) The reporter, having been unavoidably absent from London when this case was decided, is indebted to the kindness of a gentleman at the bar for his note of the judgment. C. P. xi.-1 2 CHADWIOK V. TROWEB 6 BING. (N. C.) 3. to take due, reasonable, and proper precaution about the pulling down his vaults and walls, so that for want of such precaution the Plaintiffs vault should not be injured; and then alleged as a breach of such duty, that the Defendant pulled down his vaults and walls without giving the Plaintiffs notice of his intention, and without taking due care and precaution in the pulling down, whereby the Plaintiff's vault was injured, and the wine in it destroyed. The Defendant pleaded, first, not guilty. Secondly, that the vault or cellar of the Plaintiffs, in the first count mentioned, did not rest upon, nor was of right in part supported by, parts of the said adjoining vaults and of the said walls in that count mentioned, in manner and form as the Plaintiffs had in that count alleged: conclusion to the country. [3] Thirdly, that the Plaintiffs were not before, and at and during the times in the said first count in that behalf mentioned, or at any of those times, of right entitled that their said vault or cellar should be supported by the said parts of the said adjoining vaults and walls in that count mentioned, in manner and form as the Plaintiffs had in that count alleged : conclusion to the country. Ninthly,-as to so much of the second count as related to the Defendant not giving due and reasonable notice to the Plaintiffs of his intention to pull down, prostrate, and remove the said vaults and walls, adjoining the said vault of the Plaintiffs in that count mentioned,-that the Plaintiffs had notice of the Defendant's intention to pull down his vaults and walls, and witnessed the preparations and commencement of the work in time to have enabled themselves to have protected themselves. Verification. Tenthly,-as to so much of the second count as charged the Defendant with not having used due care and skill, or taken due, reasonable, and proper precaution in and about the pulling down, prostrating, and removing the vaults and walls adjoining the vault of the Plaintiffs in that count mentioned,-that the Defendant did take care, &c. Conclusion to the country. The Plaintiffs joined issue on the first, second, third, and tenth pleas; and to the ninth plea, replied, that the Plaintiffs had not notice of the Defendant's intention, and did not witness the said preparations and commencement of the work of pulling down, prostrating, and removing the said vaults and walls, in due and sufficient time, before any damage was done to their said vault and its contents in the second count mentioned, to have enabled themselves to have protected themselves in that behalf, as in the ninth plea alleged : conclusion to the country; whereupon issue was joined. To the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rylands and Another v Fletcher
-
Rylands and Another v Fletcher
...obligation of fencing the danger, in order that it shall not be injurious to those rights." [Martin, B. The case of Chadunck v. Trower (6 Bing. N. C. 1), seems in favour of the defendants.] In Chadwick v. Trowel (6 Bing. N. C. 1) the only decision was, that the mere circumstance of juxtapos......
-
Smith et Al v Martin
...if he had no notice of the existence of the adjoining structure, as in the instance of a vault or other building underground. 6 Bing. N. C. 1. 8 Scott, 1.- In cases of this class, where the neighbour has been held liable on the mere ground of negligence, the maxim "Sic utere tuo ut alienum ......
-
Hunt v Peake
...Massey v. Gfoyder (4 C. & P. 161), Peyton v. Mayor of London (9 B. & C. 725) Wyatt v. Harrison (3 B. & Ad. 871), Chadwick v. Trower (6 Bing. N. C. 1), Smith v. Kenrick (13 Jur. 362), Harris v. Ryding (5 M. & W. 60), Stansell v. Jottard (1 Sel. Nisi Prius, 441, 9th ed.), Hide v. Thornborough......