Hammond v Hall

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 February 1840
Date28 February 1840
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 729



S. C. 4 Jur. 694.

Water - Right. Well.

[551] hammond v. hall. Feb. 26, 28, 1840. [S. C. 4 Jur. 694] Water-Right. Well. Whether the owner of an old well can prevent his neighbour from sinking a well in his own land, on the ground that thereby the supply of water to the old well will be drawn off or diminished. Qu. The Plaintiffs were the trustees, appointed under a local Act of Parliament (2d & 3d W. 4, c. 66), for repairing and keeping in repair the iron railing round the centre or middle space of Queen's Square in the parish of St. George the Martyr, Middlesex, and for improving and regulating the use and enjoyment of the garden of the square, cleaning the foot-pavement, and repairing the pump and well in the square. The Defendants were the commissioners appointed, under the same Act, for paving, cleansing, lighting, &c., the squares, streets, &c., within the united parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn, above the Bars, and St. George the Martyr, and were^empowered to sink wells and erect pumps within the limits of the Act, for the purpose of watering the squares, streets, &c., within those limits. The Defendants having, under the Act, begun to sink a well at the distance of twenty-three yards from an old well and pump situate within and close to the iron railings round the garden of Queen's Square, the bill was filed alleging that the old well and pump had been always repaired at the expense of the inhabitants of the square, who at all times had had the control of the pump, and had been in the habit of having the handle of it [552] locked during the night, in order to prevent the water, with which it was but scantily supplied, being exhausted; and that the new well was intended to be sunk deeper than the old one, and would, when completed, draw off the water from it. The bill prayed for an injunction to restrain the Defen dants from further sinking their well, or doing any other act tending to diminish the supply of water to the old well. . (1) Affirmed by the Lord Chancellor on the 13th of May 1840. His Lordship relied particularly upon the injunction being confined to the sums in Sir W. Boothby's hands. 730 HAMMOND V. HALL 10 SIM. SIB. The injunction having been granted ex parte, the Defendants now moved to dissolve it. One of the affidavits in support of the motion stated that the water in the new-well stood five inches higher than the water in the old one.(l) Mr. Jacob, Mr...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Stainton v The Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Lewisham District Board of Works
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1857
    ...120, ss. 68, 69, 77, 86, 152 ; 21 Jac. 1, c. 16; The Caledonian Railway Company v. Ogel/vy (2 Maoq. H. of L. Gas. 229); Hammond v. Hall (10 Sim. 551); Beeston v. Weate (5 Ellis & B. 986). [226] Mr. Haynes, for the Defendants in the same interest. the attorney-general (Sir R. Bethell), Mr. L......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT