Finch v Resbridger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1700 |
| Date | 24 November 1700 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 850
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 359.-finch versus resbridger. not. 24 [1700]. After a long enjoyment of a water-course running to a house and garden, through the ground of another, it shall be presumed the owner of the house has a right to the water-course; unless the other party can shew a special license, or an agreement to restrain it in point of time. A long quiet enjoyment is the best evidence of a right. The bill was to quiet the plaintiff in the enjoyment of a water-course to his house and garden, through the ground of the defendant. It appeared upon the proof, that 2 VEEN. 391. MITCHELL V. EDES 851 there had been a long enjoyment of this water-course, particularly by the Earl of Arundel, and after him by the Duke of Norfolk, and that the plaintiff had scoured and repaired it, when there was occasion, and that the Duke was in the quiet enjoyment of it, when he sold it to the plaintiff. For the defendant it was insisted, that the Earl of Arundel in 1662, took a long lease of the lands, now the defendant's, and that whilst he held those lands as lessee, he made the water-course in question ; and that after the expiration of the lease, he was many times denied liberty to scour or amend [391] the water-course, and several witnesses deposed to that effect; and the defendant insisted it was only upon sufferance, and not founded upon any agreement or consideration. This cause being first heard before the Lord Chancellor Somers, he directed an issue to be tried at law, whether there was any agreement made between any of the owners of the plaintiff's and defendant's estates respectively, for the making or continuing of the water-course in question. Upon a rehearing before the Lord Keeper Wright, he decreed for the plaintiffs, declaring a quiet enjoyment was the best evidence of right, and would presume an agreement, and the proof ought to come on the other side to shew the special license, or that it was to be restrained or limited in point of time.(l) (1) The decree was so, but no reason stated, Reg. Lib. 1700, A. fol. 67, and affirmed by Lord Keeper on another rehearing. 7th July following, Reg. Lib. 1700, A. fol. 390. So possession for sixty years of a water-course will sustain a bill against a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Letchmere against Thorowgood and Another, Sheriff of London
...seizure and before any venditioni exponas.-S. C. 2 Vent. 169. S. C. 1 Show. 12, 146. S. C. Comb. 123. 1 Jones, 203. Hard. 27. 2 Keb. 372. 2 Vern. 390, 426. 1 Ch. Gas. 71. 2 Ch. Cas. 191. 8 Mod. 189, 225, 310, 348. Gilb. E. R. 220. 10 Mod. 432. 11 Mod. 107. 12 Mod. 146, 494, 506, 541. Stra. ......
-
Jones against Done
...a Decree was made, whereby it was decreed That an Office was extendible in Law or Equity. What is extendible, £c., 1 Vern. 59, 468, 9 ; 2 Vern. 390, 426. ...
-
Deeble v Linehan
...Wright v. HowardENR 1 Sim. & Stu. 203. Mason v. HillENR 3 B. & Ad. 311. Jenkins v. HarveyENR 1 C., M. & R. 877. Finch v. ResbridgerENR 2 Vern. 390. Daniel v. North 11 E. 372. Rugby Charity v. Mereweather 11 E. 375, n. Rex v. BarrENR 4 Camp. 16. Wood v. VealeENR 5 B. & Al. 456. Davis v. Step......
-
William Dewhirst the Elder, William Dewhirst the Younger, and Joseph Dewhirst v Watts Wrigley and Thomas Wrigley
...which most resemble it in the subject-matter are selected. The first is given at length as found in Vernon. [3281 In Finch v. Eesbridger, 2 Vernon, 390; S. C., Lord Guernsey v. Pialbridges [Gilbert], Cases in Equity, 3, the bill was to quiet the Plaintiff in the enjoyment of a watercourse t......