Hudson v Maddison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1841 |
| Date | 21 December 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 1192
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 55; 5 Jur. 1194.
Nuisance. Pleading. Parties. Misjoinder. Injunction.
[416] hudson v. maddison. Dec. 21, 1841. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 55; 5 Jur. 1194.] Nuisance. Pleading. Parties. Misjoinder. Injunction. A. bill was filed by five several occupiers of houses in a town, to restrain the erection of a steam-engine which would be a nuisance to each of them. Held, that each occupier had a distinct right of suit, and, therefore, that they could not sue us Co-plaintiffs. On a motion to dissolve an injunction the Defendant may rely on an objection, although it would have been a ground for demurring to the bill, The bill was filed by five persons occupying houses in the town of Louth in Lincolnshire, for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from proceeding to erect a steam-engine and chimney in the neighbourhood of the Plaintiffs' houses, on the ground that the steam-engine would prove a nuisance to the Plaintiffs. An injunction having been obtained, ex parte, Mr. Bethell and Mr. Anderdon, for the Defendant, now moved to dissolve it, on the ground that each of the Plaintiffs had a right of suit distinct from the other; and, consequently, a suit instituted by them as Co-plain-[417]-tiffs could not be maintained ; but an information ought to have been filed by the Attorney-G-eneral at their relation. Jones v. Del Bio (Turn. & Euss. 297), Cowley v. Cowley (ante, vol. ix. p. 299), Sampson v. Smith (ante, vol. viii. p. 272), The Attorney-General v. Forbes (2 Myl. & Cr. 123). Mr. G-. Eichards and Mr. Koe, for the Plaintiffs, said that the Plaintiffs had a common interest in restraining the nuisance: that the ground upon which creditors were allowed to sue on behalf of themselves and others was that they had a common interest; and that there was no doubt that the bill would have been sustainable if it had been filed by only one of the Plaintiffs. They referred to the following passage in the judgment in Attorney-General v. Forbes: " In informations and proceedings for the purpose of preventing public nuisances, the ordinary course is for the Attorney-General to take it on himself to sue, as representing the public: but it is equally certain that individuals who conceive themselves aggrieved may come forward and ask the assistance of the Court to prevent a public nuisance from which they have individually sustained damage." (2 My. & Cr. 129.) With respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v Reynal
...v. Haythorn (4 Russ. 244), Cowley v. Cowley (9 Sim. 299), Anderson v. Wallis (4 Y. & C. 336; S. C. 1 Phil. 202), Hudson v. Maddism (12 Sim. 416), Pad-wick v. Plait (11 Beav. 503), Denton v. Davy (1 Moore's P. C. Cases, 15). Applying this principle to the present case there is no evidence to......
-
Evans v Coventry
...The following cases were referred to, Sibson v. Edg-[$16]-worth (2 De G. & Sm. 73); King v. Malcott (9 Hare, 692); Hudson v. Maddism (12 Sim. 416); Maclaren v. Stainton (16 Beav. 279); Claitgh v. Ratdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164); Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 180); Richardson v. Larpent (2 ......
-
Sibson v Edgworth
...W(miner v. Shairp (4 Railw. Cas. 542), Nodcels v. Crosby (3 B. & C. 814), Walstab v. Spottiswoode (15 M. & W. 501), Hudson v. Maddison (12 Sim. 416; and see Cridland v. Lord de Mauley, ante, vol. 1, p. 459), Deeks v. Stanhope (14 Sim. 57), Green v. Barrett (1 Sim. 45), and Bromley v. Smith ......
-
Walker v Lord Lorton
...1. Nelson v. BridfortENR 6 Beav. 547. Waterhouse v. StansfieldENR 9 Hare, 234. Yates v. ThompsonENR 3 Cl. & Fin 544. Duncan v. CampbellENR 12 Sim. 416. Murray v. MurrayENR 7 Cl. & Fin 842. Munro v. DouglasUNK 5 Mad. 379. Ross v. Ross 4 Wills. & Sh. 189. Warrender v. WarrenderENR 1 Cl. & Fin......