Davies v Marshall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1861 |
| Date | 28 June 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 491
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. at law, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 697.
Ancient Lights.
[557] davies . marshall. (No. 1.) Feb. 16, 18/1861. - [S. C. at law, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 697.] Ancient Lights. Where a landlord, who had granted a lease of certain premises, including ancient lights and appurtenances, to A., in consideration of certain improvements which had been made by A. in the premises leased (which improvements included new lights), granted a lease of the adjoining premises to B., and B. was building so as to block up the lights of A. Upon bill by A. for injunction, Held, that the landlord could not have blocked,, up such lights, and that his lessee B. could stand in no better position, and the Court granted an injunction as against B. If a person having ancient lights, which he is entitled to have protected, puts in new lights on the same side of the building, he has no right to any protection in respect of such new lights, and the owner of the contiguous premises may build up any structure obstructing the light to such new lights, even though in so doing he necessarily interferes with the ancient lights. Betts v. Clifford (1 John. & Hem. 74) commented on. Motion for a decree. The suit was instituted to restrain the Defendant by injunction from interfering with the Plaintiff's ancient lights. . It appeared that, by an indenture of lease, dated in June 1845, Earl Fitzhardinge, in consideration of the costs and charges which the Plaintiff, Sir David Davies, had incurred in repairing and improving the messuage and buildings erected on the piece of land thereby demised, and in consideration of the rents and covenants therein contained, demised to the Plaintiff a piece of ground with the buildings thereon, being No. 2 Berkeley Street, adjoining the Gloucester Coffee-House in Piccadilly, together with all the ancient lights and areas and appurtenances to the same, except a certain cellar, for twenty-nine years. For many years before the granting of this lease the house No. 2 Berkeley Street had ancient windows on the east and south sides, and particularly two on the ground and first floor. In contemplation of the lease above stated, the Plaintiff, under an agreement with Earl Fitzhardinge, had expended considerable sums of money in repairs, &c., and among other improvements had opened two additional windows on the east side. [558] Earl Fitzhardinge was also the owner of the adjoining land on which the Gloucester Coffee-House stood. Earl Fitzhardinge having died, Sir Maurice Berkeley, under his will, became entitled to the reversion in the pieces of land on which the Plaintiff's house and the Gloucester Coffee-House stood, and in 1859, a former lease of the Gloucester Coffee-House having been surrendered to him, Sir Maurice Berkeley granted a new. lease of those premises to the Defendant, Mary Marshall, in consideration of her rebuilding the Gloucester Coffee-House. Accordingly, the Defendant pulled down the old buildings, which, at the date of the lease to the Plaintiff in 1845, were low and did 492 DAVIES V. MARSHALL 1 DR. & SM. 559. nofc interfere with the Plaintiffs lights, and was proceeding to build up new and higher buildings, which the Plaintiff alleged would seriously interfere with his ancient lights, and he accordingly filed his bill to restrain the Defendant from proceeding with such buildings. Mr. Baily and Mr. Freeling, for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Greene and Mr. C. Hall, for Defendants. The following cases were cited :-Gordon v. Cheltenham Railway Company (5 Beav. 229); Patching v. DubUns (Kay, 1); Bacon v. Jones (1 Beav. 389 ; '4 My. & Or. 433); The Rochdale Canal Company v. King (2 Sim. (N. S.) 78); Setts v. Clifford (1 Johns. & H. 74). . the vice-chancellor [Sir E. T. Kindersley] (without calling for a reply, said :)-Notwithstanding the able arguments for the Defendant, I think that justice requires that the injunction which Plaintiff now asks for should be granted. [559] For the Defendant it is contended, in the first place, that the Plaintiff has . disentitled himself to any relief by acquiescence, that he has stood by and, knowing what the Defendant was from time to time doing, has, by remaining passive...
To continue reading
Request your trial