Hide v Thornborough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 1846 |
| Date | 27 May 1846 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 103
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 740. Attornies-T. & F. R. W. Jones, and T. H. Smith
[250] court of exchequer. First Sitting at Westminster, in Trinity Term, 1846, before Baron Parke. May 27th, 1846. hide v. thornborough. (A. and B. were the owners of adjoining lands, and the house of A had for more than twenty years been supported by the adjoining land of B., who dug a foundation for some intended buildings so near the house of A. that it fell :-Held, that, if A.'s house had been so supported, and both parties knew it, the plaintiff had a right to such support as an easement, and that the defendant could not withdraw that support without being liable in damages for any injury that the plaintiff might sustain thereby, which damages should be such as to put the plaintiff in the same state in which he was before, but the jury ought not to give him a new house for an old one.) [Referred to, Dation v Angus, 1881, 6 App Gas. 740 ] Case.-The declaration stated (a) that the plaintiff was possessed of a house or (a) The declaration, and the 3rd, 4th, and 5th pleas, were m the following form :- Declaration.-" That the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, was, and from thence hitherto hath been, and still is, lawfully possessed of a certain messuage or building, with the appurtenances, situate and being in the county of Middlesex, and which said messuage or building had been and was erected and built a long time, to wit, twenty years and upwards, before the committing of the said grievances, and part of which said messuage or building, before and at the times of the committing of the said grievances respectively, had been and was built, placed, and standing on land next adjoining to certain other land by which the said first-mentioned land was supported and prevented from moving or giving way, which said other land is hereinafter described and referred to as ' the said other land,' and which said land, on which the said part of the said messuage or building was built, placed, and standing as aforesaid, is hereinafter described and referred to as ' the said first-mentioned land ' ; and in which said messuage or building the plaintiff, before and at the times of the said grievances, inhabited and dwelt, and exercised and carried ou the trades and businesses of a farrier and blacksmith And the plaintiff further saith, that the said first-mentioned land, to wit, the said land upon which the said part of the said messuage or building was built as aforesaid, before and at the several times of the committing of the said gnevances, of right ought to have been, and still of right ought to be supported and prevented from moving or giving way by the said other land Yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, but contriving, and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure the plaintiff, heretofore, to wit, on the 7th day of January, A d. 1845, and on divers other days and times before the commencement of this suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Murphy v Brentwood District Council
- Hollebone v Midhurst and Fernhurst Builders Ltd
-
Philips v Ward
...pay the cost of repair, less an allowance because new work takes the place of old: see Lukin v. Godsell, Peake's Additional Cases, 15; Hide v. Thornborough (1846) 2 Carrington & Kirwan, 250. In other oases, the tortfeasor may only have to pay the value of the house: see Moss v. Christchurch......
-
Harry et Al v Texaco Trinidad Incorporated et Al
...which I have referred and to Lukin and Another v. Godsall (1975) Peake Ad. C. 15,170 E.R. 1789Hide v. Thornborough (1846) 2 Car and K 250; 175 E.R. 103. In most of these cases where “betterment” was allowed, the question of whether it was right so to do was not argued and in Hide's case (su......
-
The site
...Lord Neuberger pSC. 281 Dodd v Holme (1834) 1 ad & E 493 [110 Er 1296]; Hide v hornborough (1846) 2 Car & K 250 at 254–255, per parke B [175 Er 103 at 105]. See also Crowley v Rushmoor Borough Council [2009] EWhC 2237 (TCC) at [119], per hhJ hornton QC. 282 See, eg, Property Law Act 1974 (Q......