Hunt v Peake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1860 |
| Date | 28 February 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 603
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 785; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1071. See Richards v. Jenkins, 1868, 18 L. T. 445; Llynvi Company v. Brogden, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 191; Angus v. Dalton, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. D. 97; 6 App. Cas. 763.
Lateral Support to Soil and Houses. Prescription. Injunction. Compensation.
[705] hunt v. peake. Jan. 24, 28, Feb. 9, 28, 1860. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 785; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1071. See Richards v. Jenkins, 1868, 18 L. T. 445; Llynvi Company v. Brogden, 1870, L. E. 11 Eq. 191; Angus v. Dalton, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. I). 97; 6 App. Gas. 763.] Lateral Support to Soil and Houses. Prescription. Injunction. Compensation. A landowner has a right independent of prescription to the lateral support of his neighbour's land, so far as that is necessary to sustain his soil in its natural state, and also to compensation for damage caused either to the land or to buildings upon it by the withdrawal of such support. Semble, also, that he may acquire by twenty years' enjoyment the right to lateral support for the additional weight of buildings erected on the land. Where houses of the Plaintiff's were injured by mining operations of the Defendant in adjoining land which would have caused the soil to subside without the additional weight of the houses-decree made for perpetual injunction and for compensation. The Plaintiff was the owner of certain house property in Sneyd Street and Wells Street, Tunstall, under the will of a Mr. Goodfellow, who died in 1858. Sneyd Street and Wells Street are at right angles to each other, and the Plaintiff's houses extended both ways from the corner on the inner side of the angle formed by the two streets, the corner being occupied by a shop. The Defendant, who was the owner of the land on the opposite side of each of these streets, was working coal and ironstone up to or nearly up to the middle line of Sneyd Street, and at one point had carried his workings beyond his boundary under the shop, in the soil which belonged to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's houses were also injured and endangered by the yielding of the soil, caused, as the bill alleged, by the Defendant's workings in his, the [706] Defendant's, own adjoining land. This bill was filed, praying for an injunction to restrain the Defendant's encroachment beyond his boundary, and also to restrain his workings in his own land, so far as they might deprive the Plaintiff of lateral support for the foundations of his houses. An account was also asked in respect of the minerals abstracted by the Defendant from the Plaintiff's land, and damages were claimed in respect of the injury already done to the houses. 604 HUNT V. PEAK.E JOHNS. 707. There was some contest as to whether the damage to the houses was caused by the Defendant's mining operations, and also as to the antiquity of the houses which the Plaintiff alleged to have been built more than twenty years before the Defendant's workings began to be injurious. There was also considerable evidence directed to the point whether the soil would have yielded if the additional weight of the houses had not been put upon it. Mr. Eolt, Q.C., and Mr. Southgate, for the Plaintiff. First, every owner of land is entitled independently of prescription to so much lateral support from his neighbour's land as is necessary to keep his soil in its natural state. If the adjoining owner withdraws this support, he is answerable for all the damage done, whether to the land itself or to buildings which may at any time have been placed upon it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearce v Lindsay
...observed upon, it is so settled and recognised, that no authority on taxation between solicitor and client can have any bearing on the case JOHNS. 705. HUNT V. PEAKE 603 before me. Then Lord Cottenham's observation in Attorney-General v. Munro, that the Master has less opportunity than the ......
-
Elwell v Crowther
...(1 Ell. & B. 665) ; Brown v. Best (1 G. Wilson, 174); The North-Eastern Railway Company v. Elliot (1 Johns. & H. 154); Hunt v. Peaks (Johns. 705); Dickenson v. The Grand Junction Canal Company (15 Beav. 260); Patching v. Dubbins (Kay, 1); Haines v. Taylor (10 Beav. 75) ; Elmhirst v. Spencer......
-
East London Municipality v South African Railways and Harbours
...can be claimed for buildings or artificial structures on the land, and such damages have been awarded and are claimable (Hunt v Peake, 70 E.R. 603; Love v Bell, 9 A.C. at D p. 295; Davis v Treharne, 6 A.C. 463 (£700 Indeed on principle itself the person removing the support damages by reaso......
-
East London Municipality v South African Railways and Harbours
...can be claimed for buildings or artificial structures on the land, and such damages have been awarded and are claimable (Hunt v Peake, 70 E.R. 603; Love v Bell, 9 A.C. at D p. 295; Davis v Treharne, 6 A.C. 463 (£700 Indeed on principle itself the person removing the support damages by reaso......