Cotching v Bassett

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date09 December 1862
Date09 December 1862
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 40

ROLLS COURT

Cotching
and
Bassett

S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 286; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 590; 11 W. R. 197. See Russell v. Watts, 1883-1885, 25 Ch. D. 579; 10 App. Cas. 613; M'Manus v. Cook, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 696.

[101] cotching a. bassett. Dec. 3, 4, 9, 1862. [S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 286 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 590 ; 11 W. R. 197. See Russell v. Watts, 1883-1885, 25 Ch. D. 579 ; 10 App. Gas. 613 ; M'Mtmus v. Cook, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 696.] Any alteration of ancient lights, although not prejudicial to the owner of the servient tenant, gives him a right to obstruct them. The owner of a dominant tenement, in the course of rebuilding, materially altered his ancient lights ; this was done after communication with the owner of the servient tenement, and with the knowledge and under the inspection of his surveyor, but without any express agreement. Held that, in equity, the lights, as altered, could not be interfered with, and a perpetual injunction was granted. The Plaintiffs were the lessees of a house and premises, being No. 32, on the east side of Wood Street, Cheapside. The Defendant was the owner of the adjoining house and premises on the north, being No. 33 in the same street. The Plaintiffs' and Defendant's premises both consisted of houses abutting on the street, with a yard at the back separated by a wall some twelve or fifteen feet high. On the Plaintiffs' yard there were buildings about ten feet high at a distance of six and a half feet [102] from the party-wall. And on the Defendant's yard there were buildings whose heights varied from thirteen feet to twenty-three feet. The open apace above these buildings in the yards afforded light and air to the backs of the two houses and to the back premises. The Plaintiffs' lights derived from the Defendant's premises were admitted to be ancient lights. It is also necessary to state that the Plaintiffs' yard was shut in on the south and east by walls about forty-seven feet high. In 1861 the Plaintiffs were desirous of rebuilding their premises and of altering their ancient lights, and plans were prepared by Mr. Laws their architect, which were submitted to Messrs. Tillott & Chamberlain, the Defendant's architects, but they did not concur and no final agreement was come to on the subject. In addition to this, the Plaintiffs, who were also tenants of No. 33, were desirous of extending their occupation to Lady Day 1862, in order to enable them to make the contemplated alterations in No. 32. After some negotiation the Plaintiffs and Defendant signed an agreement, dated the 4th of October 1861, by which it was agreed as follows :-" That the Plaintiffs, in consideration of the Defendant allowing the Plaintiffs to continue tenants of the premises, No. 33 Wood Street, from the 29th day of September 1861, to the 24th day of March 1862, would forthwith pull down and rebuild the party-wall between Nos. 32 and 33 Wood Street, in accordance with the plan and section thereto annexed, on a good, solid and sufficient concrete foundation, it being at the same time understood, that the east end of such party-wall should be of the same thickness in extent as the portion of the party-wall adjacent to it westward And further that they would build up all flues," &c., &c. [103] And further, " that they (the Plaintiffs) would riot encroach upon or attempt to interfere with any legal or other rights of the Defendant; and that they would not interfere with the Defendant's rights (if any) to raise the eastern portion of the party-wall between the then present lead flats." The Plaintiffs agreed to pay 150 for rent; and also that they would complete the whole of the work thereinbefore specified, or referred or incident thereto, before the 24th day of March 1862, to the entire satisfaction of Messrs. Tillott & Chamberlain and Mr. Laws. tt BEAV. lot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sandom v Webb
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 May 1951
    ... ... Watts L.R. 10 Appeal Cases at page 613: "Lord Justice Lindloy refers to Dann v. Spurrier and Cotching v. Bassett, and he might have referred to Freeman v. Cooke at law, as exemplifying the principle that where one man Induces another to alter his ... ...
  • Dunball v Walters
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 24 June 1865
    ...in the cause. note.-The following are some of the modern authorities on the subject:- Cooper v. Hubbuck, 30 Beav. 160; Catching v. Basset, 32 Beav. 101; Jacomb v. Knight, 32 L. J. (Chanc.) 601; Isenherg v. The, India House Company, 33 L. J. (Chanc.) 392 ; Johnson v. Wyatt, 33 L. J. (Chanc.)......
  • Crosskill v Bower Bower v Turner
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 11 February 1863
    ...in establishing any knowledge in the Plaintiff that the accounts were so kept, and as the burthen of proof lies 40 COTCHING V. BASSETT 32BEAV.101. on the Defendants to establish this fact, I should, even in the absence of any express denial on the part of the Plaintiff, be unable to come to......
  • Mulville v Fallon
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 28 May 1872
    ...Guardians of St. Pancras 39 L. J. Ch. 871. Hervey v. SmithENR 1 K. & J. 389. Fisher v. MooreUNK 11 L. T. N. S. 623. Cotching v. BassettENR 32 Beav. 101. Ward v. WardENR 7 Ex. 838. Moore v. RawsonENR 3 B. & C. 332. Wood v. LeadbitterENR 13 M. & W. 838. Lovell v. SmithENR 3 C. B. N. S. 125. L......

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