Hilton v The Earl of Granville
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1841 |
| Date | 18 June 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 498
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 4 Beav. 130; 10 L. J. Ch. 398; and at Law, 5 Q. B. Rep. 701. See Hall v. Byron, 1877, 4 Ch. D. 676.
hilton v. the earl of granville. June 16, 18, 1841. [S. C. 4 Beav. 130; 10 L. J. Ch. 398; and at Law, 5 Q. B. Rep. 701. See Hall v. Byron, 1877, 4 Ch. D. 676.] An injunction to restrain the working of valuable mines refused, under the circumstances, on condition of the Defendant's making certain admissions for the purpose-of enabling the Plaintiff to bring an action, although there was reason to appre- CR. A PH. 2M. HILTON V. THE EARL OF GRANVILLE 49!j hend that if the working was continued, the Plaintiff's houses upon the surface would be totally destroyed or irreparably damaged before the legal right could be decided. A motion had been made, by the Plaintiff in this cause, before the Master of the Bolls, that the Defendant might be restrained by injunction from mining beneath the Plaintiff's two messuages and lands mentioned in the bill, or in the vicinity thereof, in such [284] a manner as in any way to damage or endanger them or their foundations. Th Master of the Rolls having simply refused the motion, it was now renewed, by way of appeal, before the Lord Chancellor. The Plaintiffs case, as stated upon the bill, and supported by affidavits, was that the houses in question were copyhold of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which belonged to the Crown in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that they had been built upwards of thirty years: that the manor extended over the township of Hanley, and tie adjoining township of Shelton, and that the greater part of the property in those townships was also of copyhold tenure; that it had been the practice of the Crown, from time to time, to grant leases of the coal-mines lying beneath the copyhold parts of the manor; and that although it had been long known that ironstone of an inferior description, and in small quantities could be obtained in the manor, and certain portions had been from time to time brought to field together with, and generally as incidental to, the getting of the coal, yet that it was, in or about the year 1832, for the first time, discovered that there were, beneath the surface of those townships, large and valuable seams or veins of ironstone, lying1 for the most part above the beds of coal, and much nearer to the surface, in consequence of which discovery the Defendant, who had, for some years past, been lessee from the Crown of all the mines of coal and ironstone beneath the manor, shortly afterwards began to mine for ironstone under the copyhold parts of the manor; such operations, however, being for a considerable time carried on to a comparatively small extent, and with some regard to the stability of the surface and the buildings, upon it, by means of old coal shafts; but that in the month of October 1839, the Defendant's agents had sunk a new shaft in a copyhold field adjacent to [285] the town of Hanley, from which they had carried a level under ground across the line of Union Street, in which the houses in question were situated, and two other streets parallel to it, at a depth of sixty-two yards from the surface, and at a distance of sixty-sefen yards from the Plaintiffs houses; and that the mine formed by such level had ever since been worked for ironstone exclusively : that during the last few months it had been given out by the Defendant's agents and workmen that his mining-operations for ironstone would be carried on to a far greater extent than formerly, and beneath the mast populous parts of the said townships, and wholly without regard to the property of the copyholders : that such actual and threatened operations having-created great alarm and anxiety amongst the copyhold proprietors within those townships, a large body of them, in the month of February 1841, caused notices, signed by them to be served on the auditor and on the mining agent of the Defendant, who was then resident in Paris, intimating that if any of the mining operations should be attended with injury to their property, an application would be made to the Court of Chancery for an injunction: that the operations had, however, been continued, notwithstanding such notice, and that the Plaintiff, having reason to apprehend from the injuries from time to time happening to various houses in his neighbourhood, which were situated nearer to the level than his own, that the workings of the mine were progressively advancing towards his houses, had, on the llth of March 1841, caused written noticea to be served on the Defendant's auditor and his mining agent to the effect that, unless they forthwith desisted from mining operations, by which his premises might be injured or endangered, and unless, within seven days from the loth of March instant, they informed the Plaintiff that they had so desisted, he ahoulcU immediately apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction : [286] that after such notice the Plaintiff had trusted that the mining operations would be carried on so as riot to endanger his houses, and that his legal advisers had considered that the damage to his property was not then so certain as to justify an application to the Court; but that, from the circumstances after stated, he had discovered that the workings of the mine had ever since been carried on as near to the surface, and in the same direction 500 HILTON V. THE EAHL OF GRANVILLE CR. & PH. 2S7. towards his houses as theretofore, and that in consequence thereof, and since the expiration of the period mentioned in the notice, many other houses in the three streets before mentioned, situated farther from the level and nearer to the Plaintiffs houses than those previously injured, had been greatly and irreparably damaged, some of them having been rendered wholly uninhabitable, and having in fact been deserted by tfce occupiers, from an apprehension of their falling in. That until the last fourteen days, however, the injury occasioned by the working of the mines had not advanced nearer to the Plaintiff's houses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kettle (B.) Ltd v Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council
- Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke [ChD]
-
William Hilton against The Right Honourable Granville, Earl Granville
...William Hilton against The Right Honourable Granville, Earl Granville S. C. D. & M. 614; 13 L. J. Q. B. 193; 8 Jur. 311: in Chancery, Cr. & Ph. 283. Discussed, Humphries v. Brogden, 1850, 12 Q. B. 753. Commented on, but held binding, Blackett v. Bradley, 1862, 1 B. & S. 954. Referred to, Ta......
-
Bray v Fogarty
...Electric Telegraoh Company v. Nott 2 Pur. Coop. C. C. 41. Brandell v. HalcombENR 3 My. & Cr. 737. Hilton v. The Earl of GranvileENR 1 Cr. & Ph. 283. Woodward v. Gyles 2 Ver. 119. Rolfe v. PetersonENR 2 Bro. P. C. 436. French v. Macabe 4 Ir. Eq. R. 568. Rolfe v. Peterson 3 y. & Jer. 304. Ger......
-
Cases referred to in 1963
...255 Hickman v. Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders' Association (1920) 37 T.L.R. 163. 115 Hilton v. Earl of Granvill (1841) Cr. & Ph. 283 (41 E.R. 498, 504): 316 Hilton v. Thomas Burton (Rhodes)Limited and Anor. (1961) 1 All E.R. 74. 145 Holman v. Johnson (1775) Cowp. 341 (98 Eng. R. 1120). ......
-
General Words
...27 Long v Heminge (1587) Cro Eliz 209, 78 ER 466. 28 Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 Bl H 254, 126 ER 536. 29 Hilton v The Earl of Granville 41 ER 498, (1841) Cr & Ph 283. 30 Bruce v Helliwell (1860) 5 H & N 609, 157 ER 1323. 31 Neill v Duke of Devonshire (1882–83) LR 8 App Cas 135. 32 For exa......
-
Minerals and Timber
...confer full rights of working subject to a notice procedure. 36 (1844) 5 QB 701, 114 ER 1414, 5 Ad & El NS 701; 5 Beav 263, 49 ER 579, Cr & Ph 283, 41 ER 498, d & Mer 614, 10 LJ Ch 398. 37 [1940] AC 850. 38 See Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35, [2011] 1 AC 380. 21......
-
Table of Cases
...Ch 379, [2005] 3 All ER 677, [2006] 1 P&CR 273, [2005] 2 EGLR 1, [2005] 30 EG 90 7.7 Hilton v Granville (The Earl of) (1841) Cr & Ph 283, 41 ER 498 11.7, 27.4 Hilton v Granville (1844) 5 QB 701, 114 ER 1414, 5 Ad & El NS 701, 4 Beav 130, 49 ER 288, 5 Beav 263, 49 ER 579, Cr & Ph 283, 41 ER ......