Ebenezer Alston against John Grant and Daniel Grant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1854 |
| Date | 14 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 1089
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 933; 23 L. J. Q. B. 163; 18 Jur. 332.
ebenezee alston against john grant and daniel grant. Saturday, January 14th, 1854. If the owner of land, on which is a house, construct on the other part of the land a sewer, and let the house, and afterwards, by reason of the original faulty construction of the sewer, and the continued user of it by fche owner in such a faulty state, the house is injured, the owner is liable to his lessee for keeping and continuing the sewer so constructed. [S. C. 2 C. L. E. 933; 23 L. J. Q. B. 163; 18 Jur. 332.] The first count alleged that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances next mentioned, plaintiff was possessed of a house, with a cellar under the same, and thereto belonging, situate at &c., and in which said house and cellar plaintiff then carried on his trade of a grocer. And, whereas, before the time of the committing of the said grievances, defendants had, for their own accommodation and convenience, made and constructed, and at the time of the committing of the said grievances kept and continued, so made and constructed, a certain aewer or watercourse, in and under a certain street or highway near to the said house and cellar of plaintiff, and which said sewer or watercourse was, at the time of the committing &c., under the management and control of the defendants, and into which said sewer or watercourse defendants, from [129] time to time, before and at the time of the committing &c., caused and permitted large quantities of water to flow, which said water than flowed and passed in and along the said sewer or watercourse, and near to the said cellar of plaintiff, of all which defendants, before and at the time of the committing &c., had notice : yet defendants, not regarding their duty &c., so negligently, insufficiently and improperly made and constructed the said sewer or watercourse, and, at the time of the committing &c., kept and continued the same so negligently, insufficiently and improperly made and constructed, and in such an insufficient and improper state, and did also, at the said time, so negligently and improperly manage the said sewer or watercourse, and cause and permit such large and unreasonable quantities of water, to flow into the same, that, on 5th February 1851, divers large quantities of water penetrated and burst through, and flowed out of and from, the said sewer or watercourse of defendants into the said cellar of plaintiff, and then greatly damaged and injured the same, and also then damaged and destroyed divers large quantities of groceries and other goods of plaintiff then lawfully being in the said cellar, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rylands and Another v Fletcher
...the water was let loose." [Martin, B., referred to Hairison v. The Great Nom them Railway Company (3 H. & C. 231). In Alston. v. Grant (3 E & B. 128) the owner of land, on which there was a house, constructed on the other part of the land a sewer, and some years after let the house; afterwa......
-
Alfred Mcalpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration
...ten einde die kontrakteur in staat te stel om sy deel van die kontrak behoorlik na te kom (De Wet en Yeats, Kontraktereg, 3de uitg., A bl. 128; en vgl. Koenig v Johnson & Co. Ltd., 1935 AD 262 te bl. 274). Die aard van sodanige verpligting skep die moontlikheid van negatiewe wanprestasie; m......
-
Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt
...Parity Insurance Co. Ltd. v Van den Bergh, 1966 (4) SA op bl. 478H - 479A, en Corbett and B Buchanan, Quantum of Damages, 1ste band; sake op bl. 128, 585, 637, 748 en 754. D. A. Melamet, S.C. (bygestaan deur S. W. McCreath), namens die respondente: Hierdie Hof sal nie ligtelik teen die bevi......
-
Du Plessis v Joubert
...v Estate van Rhyn, 1925 AD 266. Die feit dat die permit later verkry is, is nie tersake nie. Sien York Estates Limited v Wareham, supra op bl. 128. Die kontrak, aanhangsel 'C', is nie onderhewig aan die verkryging van 'n permit gestel nie en G gevolglik selfs al resorteer hierdie kontrak on......