Fishmongers' Company v East India Company
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 18 March 1752 |
Date | 18 March 1752 |
Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 232
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Mews' Dig. Easements and Prescription, C, 2, c, iii. See Soltau v. Du Held, 1851, 2 Sim. N. S. 149; Jackson v. Duke of Newcastle, 1864, 10 L. T. 635; 10 Jur. N. S. 688.
232 fishmongers' company v. east india company dickens, fishmongers' company v. east india company. 18 March 1752. Application for an injunction to restrain building, so as to stop up lights, not being ancient lights, refused. The plaintiffs moved the Court this day, that the brick wall built by the defendants close to the wall of the yard or terrace belonging to the plaintiffs' house in Fenchurch Street, so far as the same obstructed, [164] darkened, or obscured the plaintiffs' ancient window lights, might be taken down, and removed, and for an injunction. The Counsel for the plaintiffs proposed a trial, what damage it would be to have the intended erection carried higher than their house. But the defendants' Counsel declined it, and insisted, that as there was a space of seventeen feet between the plaintiffs' house and their buildings, it could not be considered as a nuisance, there being many streets and lanes in London not so wide; though they admitted it might in some measure obscure the plaintiffs' lights: And they also contended for a right to build on their own ground. Lord Hardwicke, C.-With respect to granting trials, it is never done but by consent of parties, or with their acquiescence; and here the defendants decline a trial, therefore the question is, whether the plaintiffs' case is such as entitles them to an injunction. As to the necessity of this case there is no ground for an injunction, there being no immediate mischief likely to ensue. And as to the question whether the plaintiffs' messuage is an ancient building, so as to entitle them to the right of the lights, and whether the plaintiffs' lights will be darkened, I will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunter v London Docklands Development Corporation
...Was that the case, there could be no great towns and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town". 20In Fishmongers' Company v East India Company (1752) 1 Dick 163, Lord Hardwicke stated that rendering the prospect from a house less pleasant was no reason to hinder a man ......
-
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
...enjoyment of his land. The building may spoil his neighbour's view (see Attorney-General v. Doughty (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 453, and Fishmongers' Co. v. East India Co. (1752) 1 Dick 163); in the absence of an easement, it may restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour's land ( Bland v. Mosely (......