Hill v Tupper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1863 |
| Date | 01 May 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 51
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 32 L. J. Ex. 217, 9 Jur. (N S) 725, 11 W. R. 784; 8 L. T 792 Referred to, Stockport Waterworks Company v Potter, 1864, 3 H & C 322, Nuttall v Bracewell, 1866, L. R 2 Ex 11
2H.&C122. HILL V. TUPPER 51 HiLL v. TUPPER. May 1, 1863.-An incorporated caiutl Company by deed gianted to the plaintiff the sole and exclusive right or liberty of putting or using pleasure boats for hire on their canal Held, that the giant did not create such an estate 01 interest in the plaintiff as to enable him to maintain an action in his own name against a person who disturbed his light by putting and using pleasure boats for hire on the canal [S. C 32 L. J. Ex. 217, 9 Jur. (N S ) 725, 11 W. K. 784; 8 L. T 72 Keferred to, Storkfioit WatKiiwib, Company v Pottei, 1804, 3 H &C 322 , NMill v Biacewell, 1866, L. R 2 Ex 11] 1 eclaration For that, before and at the time of the committing by the defendant of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was entitled to, and had and was possessed of, the sole and exclusive right or liberty to put or use boats on a certain canal, called the Basmgstoke Canal, for the purposes of pleasure and to let the same boats for hire on the said canal for the purposes of pleasure Yet the plaintiff says that, whilst he was so entitled and possessed as afoiesaid, the defendant, well knowing tbe premises, wrongfully and unjustly disturbed the plaintiff in the possession, use and enjoyment of his said right or liberty, by wrongfully and unjustly putting and using, and causing to be put and used, divers boats on the said canal for the purposes of pleasure, and by letting boats on the said canal for hire, and otherwise for the purposes of pleasure. By means of which said premises the plamtirt was not only greatly disturbed in the use, enjoyment and possession of his said right and liberty, bat has also lost great gains and profits which he ought and otherwise would have acquired from the sole and exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of his said right of liberty, and was otherwise greatly aggrieved and prejudiced Pleas First riot guilty. Secondly that the plaintiff [122] was not entitled to, nor had he, nor was he possessed of, the sole and exclusive right or liberty to put or use lx)ats on the said canal for the purposes of pleasure, nor to let the said boats for hire on the said canal for the purposes of pleasure as alleged Issues thereuu At the trial, before Bramwell, B, at the London Sittings, after last Hilary Term, the following facts appeared :-Under the 18 Geo 3, c 7o, the Company of Proprietor a of the Basmgstoke Canal Navigation were incorporated with perpetual succession and a common seal, for the purpose of making and maintaining a navigable canal from the town of Basingstoke, in the county of Southampton, to communicate with the river Wey in the parish of Chertsey, in the county of Surrey. The lands purchased by the company of proprietors, under therr parliamentary powers, were by the Act vested in the Company. By the 100th section of the Act it is enacted- "That it shall and may be lawful for tie owners and occupiers of any lands or grounds adjoining to the said canal, to use upon the said canal any pleasure boat or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J &O Operators Ltd, Beverley Wong, Eloise Mulligan and Grace Wong v Kingston & St. Andrew Corporation
...the easement "does not accommodate the dominant tenement" However, in my view, the case cited in support of that proposition. Hill v Tupper 1862–73 All E.R. 696 is, with respect not helpful in determining that question As is apparent from the comment of Evershed, M R. on Hill v Tupper in Re......
-
Re Ellenborough Park; Re Davies, deceased; Powell v Maddison
...the enjoyment is expressed to belong. 28Mr. Cross referred us to, and to some extent relied upon, the case of ( Hill v. Tupper 2 Hurlstone & Coltman, page 121), but in our opinion there is nothing in that case contrary to the view which we have expressed. In that case the owner of land adj......
- Julaika Bivi v Mydin
-
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
...ground. The trespass issue 32 The traditional view is that a licensee cannot maintain an action for trespass. In the well known case of Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121 Mr Hill was the tenant of land adjoining the Basingstoke Canal. His lease granted him "the sole and exclusive right or li......
-
Table of Cases
...216 Hill v Reglon Pty Ltd, [2007] NSWCA 295 ........................................................288 Hill v Tupper (1863), 2 H & C 121, 159 ER 51 .....................................131–32, 235 Hilliard v Lostchuk, [1993] OJ No 2204, 42 ACWS (3d) 1097 .......................... 206 Hobs......
-
Other Interests in Land
...operates as a licence or covenant on the part of the grantors, and is binding on them as between themselves and the 7 Ibid at 535–36. 8 (1863) 2 H & C 121, 159 ER 51 [cited to H & C]. 9 Ibid at 123. THE LAW OF PROPERTY 132 grantee, but gives him no right of action in his own name for any in......
-
Competing Rights
...or the authorities who took it away from the boy 6 The law provides priority rules to answer questions like these. 1 Hill v Tupper (1863), 2 H & C 121, 159 ER 51 (see Chapter 7). 2 Rhone v Stephens , [1994] UKHL 3, [1994] 2 AC 310 (see Chapter 7). 3 Butt v Humber (1976), 46 APR 92, 17 Nld &......
-
Easements
...S and Dixon, M, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property (Sweet & Maxwell, 8th edn, 2012) ( Megarry & Wade ) at 27-008. 6 Hill v Tuper (1863) 2 H & C 121; Clapman v Edwards [1938] 2 All ER 507. over the various plots while the developer still owns the dominant and servient tenements otherwi......