Elmhirst v Spencer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1849 |
| Date | 06 December 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 18
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Distinguished, Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 355. See Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers Gas Company, 1868, L. R. 4 Ch. 86; Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 1883-84, 23 Ch. D. 573; 27 Ch. D. 122.
[45] elmhirst v. spencer. Dec. 5, 6, 1849. [Distinguished, Goldsmul v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners, 1866, L. E. 1 Ch. 355. See Attorney-General v. Ctimhritlge Consumers Gas Company, 1868, L. R. 4 Ch. 86; Kensit v. Ch-eat Eastern Railway Company, 1883-84, 23 Ch. D. 573; 27 Ch. D. 122.] A Court of Equity will not exercise its jurisdiction by injunction at the instance of an individual against an alleged nuisance, without a previous trial at law, or without its being clearly proved that the Plaintiff has sustained such substantial injury as would have entitled him to a verdict for damages in an action at law. The Defendant diverted a stream as it passed through his premises, but restored it undiminished as to the quantity of water to its former channel before it reached the premises of the Plaintiff: the Defendant also employed the stream, while on his premises, in a way which rendered the water unfit for ordinary use, but he alleged that the water, by the time it reached the Plaintiffs lands, was freed to the utmost possible extent from any noxious ingredients with which it had become impregnated ; and it did not appear that any actual damage was sustained by the Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor dissolved an injunction, which had. been granted by the Vice-Chancellor, restraining the Defendant from diverting and using the water. This was a motion, by special leave, on the part of the Defendants, to discharge an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England, made on the 4th December 1849, whereby the Defendants were restrained from interrupting or disturbing the Plaintiff in the free use of certain streams or watercourses flowing though the Plaintiff's lands, and from fouling such waters, and from continuing to divert, turn, or change the channels, beds, or courses of the said streams or watercourses from their ancient channels respectively, and from casting into the same streams or any of them any foul or [46] impure water, dirt, filth, or any other noxious or contaminating matters whereby to foul or render unfit for its ordinary use the waters of the said streams, and from otherwise damaging or injuring the Plaintiff in the rightful enjoyment of the flow and use of the said streams into, through, over, along, and across the Plaintiffs land. From the statements in the bill, which was filed on the 10th October 1849, it appeared that from time immemorial certain brooks or watercourses had flowed through the Plaintiff's lands, two of which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broadbent v The Imperial Gas Company
...or withholding an injunction ; The Attorney-General v. Nichol (16 Ves. 339); Wynstanley-v. Lee (2 Swans. 333); Elmhirst v. Spencer (2 Mac. & G. 45). It takes into consideration whether there has been any laches on the part of the Plaintiff, Wood v. Sutdiffe (2 Sim. N. S. 163), the extent an......
-
Biddulph v The Vestry of the Parish of St George, Hanover Square
...v. Baker (Ambl. 158); Squire v. [600] Campbell (1 Myl. & Or. 459); and Soltau v. De Held (2 Sim. (N. S.), 133) ; Elmhirst v. Spencer ('2 Mac. & G. 45). Mr. Malins, Mr. F. 0. Haynes and Mr. Martindale, for the Plaintiff, in support of the Vice-Chancellor's order. They referred to the 69th,: ......
-
Elwell v Crowther
...v. The Grand Junction Canal Company (15 Beav. 260); Patching v. Dubbins (Kay, 1); Haines v. Taylor (10 Beav. 75) ; Elmhirst v. Spencer (2 Mac. & G. 45); The Mayor, &c., of Liverpool v. The Charley Waterworks Company (2 De G. M. & G. 852). Mwy 12. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. ......
-
Jacomb v Knight
...Company v. East India Company (1 Dickens, 163); Attorney-General \. Nichol (16 Ves. 338 ; S! C. 3 Mer. 687); Elmhirstv. Spencfr (2 Mac. & G. 45); The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Liverpool v. Hie Charley Waterworks Company (2 De G. M. & G. 852); Clayton v. IlUngworth (10 Hare, 451); Bac......