Hudson v Nicholson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 185
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 71.
hudson v. nicholson. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.-When the declaration states a wrong which is the subject of an action of trespass, it is a good count in trespass after verdict, although it contains no allegation of vi et armis, and is, in point of form, framed in case for the consequential injury. &4uq3.5'j-l-i\ B [S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 71.] The declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance by the defendants, as hereinafter mentioned, was and from thence hitherto hath been and still is lawfully possessed of a certain close, situate in the city of London, and the defendants, during the time aforesaid, and at the time of the committing of the said grievance, were and still are possessed of a certain building and premises near to and adjoining thereto. Yet the defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure the plaintiff, and deprive him of the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the said close, and to annoy and incommode him in the use, possession, and enjoyment of the same, to wit, on &c,, and on divers other days and times afterwards and before the commencement of this suit, wrongfully and injuriously kept and continued, and caused to be kept and continued, for a long and unreasonable time, to wit, from thence hitherto, in .and upon and over the said close of the plaintiff, divers, to wit, nine shores and nine timbers, before then, and before the plaintiff became possessed of the said dose as aforesaid, by the defendants and others whose names to the plaintiff' are unknown, wrongfully and injuriously put, placed, fixed, and erected in, upon, and over the said close of the said plaintiff'; and the defendants so kept and continued the said shores and timbers in, upon, and over the said close, although they [438] were, to wit, on the day and year first aforesaid, requested by the plaintiff to remove, take, and carry 186 HUDSON V. NICHOLSON SM.&W.439. away the same from and ofF the said close. By means of which premises, and by reason also of the plaintiff being unable to remove and take away the said shores and timbers without causing the said building and premises of the defendants to tumble and fall, the plaintiff has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of his said close, and also thereby tbe plaintiff bath been and still is hindered and prevented from building arid erecting a certain dwelling-bouse, buildings, and premises on the said close, which he intended to do and otherwise would have done, and thereby the plaintiff hath lost and been deprived of all the benefits, rents, profits, and advantages he would have derived and acquired from the said dwelling-house and premises, had the same been built and erected as aforesaid. And also by means of the premises the plaintiff hath been hindered and prevented from perfecting, fulfilling, and carrying into force and effect a certain contract and agreement which he, to wit, on &c., made and entered into with one G. H. for the building atid erecting of the said dwelling-house, buildings, and erections so by him intended to have been built and erected as aforesaid, on his said close, at a certain time before the commencement of this suit elapsed, and whereby the plaintiff hath become liable in damages to the said G. H. for his the plaintiff's non-performance of that contract and agreement, and hath lost and been deprived of all the benefits and advantages he the plaintiff' would have derived and acquired from the completion and fulfilment of the same, and thereby also the plaintiff hath lost and been deprived of the use of divers plans and specifications for the building atid erecting of the said dwelling-house, buildings, and erections, and the expenses by him incurred thereon, amounting, to wit, to 501., have been lost and thrown away and rendered useless by reason of the premises aforesaid, and the plaintiff hath been and is, by [439] means of the premises, otherwise much injured and damnified. Pleas, first, not guilty; and two other special pleas of license...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holford v Bailey, in Error
...many instances in which a party pleading ambiguously escapes from the difficulty by the opponent's pleading over. In Hudson v. Nicholson (5 M. & W. 437), the declaration was in case, but the averments shewed a trespass: yet this was held good after verdict. In Brown v. Boorman(b)1 the House......
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...3 Ad. & El. 63 Doe v. TurnerENRENR 7 M. & W. 226; S. C., 9 M. & W. 643. Wright v. HaleENR 6 H. & N. 227. Hudson v. NicholsonENR 5 M. & W. 437. Holmes v. WilsonENR 10 Ad. & El. 503. Gilman v. ShuterENR 2 Lev. 227. Ashburner v. BradshawENR 2 Atk. 36. Attorney-Gen. v. LloydENR 3 Atk. 551. Moor......
-
Holford against Bailey
...318). If the record shews that the action is substantially in case, the count will be treated as so shaped. In Hudson v. Nicholson (5 M. & W. 437), it was held that, where a wrong was stated which was a cause of trespass, the declaration might, after verdict, be considered as shaped in tres......
-
Hambleton v Veere
...continued use of the buttresses for the support of the road, under the circumstances, was a fresh trespass. And in Hudson v. Nicholson, 5 M. & W. 437, where there was a decision to the same effect, the case aeems to have been likened to that of a defendant who persists iu holding oufc a pol......