Hall v Lund
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1863 |
| Date | 16 January 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 1055
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 113; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 205; 11 W. R. 271; 7 L. T. 692. Referred to, Thomas v. Owen, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 232, Birmingham Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, 58 Ch. D. 301. Explained and distinguished, Pwllbach Colliery Company, Limited v. Woodman, [1915] A. C. 634. Referred to, Schwann v Cotton, [1916] 2 Ch. 130.
[676] hall v. lund. Jan 16, 1863. - In 1855 S, the owner in fee of two mills, leased one to P., who carried on therein the business of a bleacher. The refuse from his works was discharged through a drain, partly open and partly covered, into a natural stream or watercourse, 300 or 400 yards distant, and upon which the other mill was situate. This discharge of the refuse took place about seven times a fortnight and polluted the stream In 1858 P surrendered his lease, and S, granted a new lease to the defendant. In this lease the defendant was described 1056 HAJ.L V. LUND 1 H * C 677. as a "bleacher," and the demise was of the premises "late in the occupation of P." There was a clause that all buildings erected by the defendant for the purpose of bleaching should, at the end of the term, become the property of S. In 1858 the plaintiff purchased both mills The defendant discharged the refuse from his works through the drain into the stream in the same manner that P. had formeily done. The plaintiff, who carried on in the other mill the business of a paper maker, brought an action against the defendant for polluting the stream. Held, that the lease might be explained by the state of the premises at the time it was granted, and the mode in which they had been previously enjoyed , and that, thus explained, there was an implied grant by S. to the defendant to use the stream for the purpose of his business of bleaching, and therefore the plaintiff, who was in the position of S., could maintain no action against the defendant. [S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 113 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 205 ; 11 W. R. 271 ò 7 L. T. 692. Referred to, Thomas v. Owen, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 232 , Bit~mingham Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, .58 Ch. D. 301. Explained and distinguished, Pwllbach Colliery Company, Limited v. Woodman, [1915] A. C. 634. Referred to, Sehwaiw v Cotton, [1916] 2 Ch. 130.] The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was possessed of a mill and premises, called " Yew Tree Mill," situate at Diggle, in the county of York, and therein carried on the trade and business of a paper manufactuier, and by reason of his possession thereof the plaintiff was entitled to the flow of a stream or watercourse to, into and through his said mill and premises, for the use and enjoyment of the same, and for the carrying on of his said tiade and business thereon, without such fouling and pollution of the said stream or watercourse as hereinafter mentioned ò. Yet the defendant on divers days and times wrongfully and injuriously caused the said stream or watercourse to be fouled and polluted with fibious matters, pulp, refuse, drugs, and other noxious materials, liquids and fluids; and by reason thereof the said stream or watercourse ran and flowed to, into and through the said mill and premises of the plaintiff in such foul and polluted state as aforesaid, whereby the plaintiff was grently damaged in the use and enjoyment of his said mill and premises, &c Sixth plea. That long before any of the said times, when, &c , and before the plaintiff had any estate, right or title to the said mill and premises or any part thereof, to wit, on the 28th day of September, 1858, one Hugh Shaw, then being seised or possessed of the land whereon the said mill and [677] premises have since been erected, with the appurtenances, for an estate not yet determined but still in force and existence, and being also then seised or possessed of a certain other mill, situate higher up the said stream or watercourse (hereinafter called the mill of the defendant), with the appurtenances, for an estate not yet determined but still in full force and òexistence, by deed demised and granted to the defendant the said mill of the defendant with the appurtenances, including a right to use the said stream or watercourse for the purposes of the said mill of the defendant and for carrying on there tis, the defendant's, trade and business of a bleacher, for a certain term of years which has not yet elapsed, but which is still in full force and existence. And the defendant under and by virtue of that deed, before any of the said times, when, &c., -entered and became and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dublin (South) City Market Company v McCabes Ltd
...damages. (1) [1915] A. C. 634. (1) [1921] 1 A. C. 521. (2) [1915] A. C. 634. (3) [1916] 2 K. B. 308, at p. 319. (1) [1915] A. C. 634. (2) 1 H. & C. 676. (1) 1 H. & C. (1) 1 H. & C. 676. (2) [1907] A. C. 476. (1) [1915] A. C. 634. (1) 2 Kay & Johns. 414. (1) 1 Sim. (N. S.) 517. (2) [1911] 1 ......
-
Roopnarinesingh v Sookram et Al
...like any other question of fact. It may appear from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, as in Hall and Lund 1 H & C 676 or as in Lyttleton Times Co. v. Varners [1907] A.C. 476 where both parties agreed that the very thing which was done should be done, though neith......
-
Polden v Bastard
...has been called the principle of disposition of the owner of two tenements would apply. [265] But (c) 1 H. & N. 916. See Hall v. Lund, 1 H. & C. 676; Smart v. Cochrane, 4 Maeq. 117. Also note (a) to Pearson v. Spencer, 3 B. & S. 763, and the case of Suffield v. Brown, there referred to. 4B.......
-
Middleton and Another v Clarence
...AND ANOTHER and CLARENCE. De Vesci v. O'KellyUNK Ir. R. 4 C. L. 269. Earl of Cardigan v. ArmitageENR 2 B. & C. 197. Hall v. LundENR 1 H. & C. 676. Rochfort v. EnnisUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 324. Errington v. RorkeUNK 6 Ir. C. L. R. 279. Booth v. DalyUNK 6 Ir. C. L. R. 460. O'Donnell v. RyanUNK 4 ......