Isenberg v The East India House Estate Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1863 |
| Date | 19 December 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 637
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD WESTBURY.
S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 392; 9 L. T. 625; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 221; 12 W. R. 450. See Senior v. Pawson, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 334; Stretton v. Great Western and Brentford Railway, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 761; Lady Stanley of Alderley v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 619.
[263] isenbero v. the east india house estate company (limited), i-Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury. Dec. 9, 19, 1863. [S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 392 ; 9 L. T. 625; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 221; 12 W. R. 450. See Senior v. Pawsrni, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 334; Stretton v. Great Western and Brentford Railway, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 761; Lady Stanley of AUerley v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 619.] The exercise of the power to grant mandatory injunctions is one that must be attended with the greatest possible caution, and, semble, that it is confined to cases where the injury done to the Plaintiff cannot be estimated, and sufficiently compensated by a pecuniary sum. Where such injury admits of being so estimated, and where the evil sustained by the Plaintiff may be abundantly compensated in money, semble, that the exercise of the power should not be superadded. Therefore, in a suit for relief from obstruction of ancient lights, praying a prohibitory injunction as to future acts of injury, and a mandatory injunction as to those already done, the Court, thinking that it was a matter of very doubtful result whether any damage had been sustained, but that the whole of the injury sustained, or likely to be sustained, by the Plaintiff by the erection of the Defendants' buildings might be abundantly compensated in money, refused to exercise the power of granting the mandatory injunction sought, notwithstanding that the Defendants had purposely, and after notice to desist given them by the Plaintiff, pushed forward their works so as to get them completed before the Plaintiff could apply for his prohibitory injunction. In such a case the Court substituted for the mandatory injunction an inquiry under the 21 & 22 Viet. c. 27 before itself to ascertain what damage had been sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of the buildings erected by the Defendants, and what would be a sufficient compensation to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff as 638 ISENBERG V. EAST INDIA HOUSE ESTATE CO., LTD. 3DEO. J.&S.t a satisfaction for such damage, including therein the power to direct any works to be executed by the Defendants for the benefit of the Plaintiff as part of the compensation to be bo made to him. The position in which the Plaintiff's lights are'at the time of filing the bill, and not that in which they might be by improvement, is the ground of his complaint. Where the Plaintiff, in such a case aa is stated above, caused a letter of inquiry to be written on his behalf to the Defendants, stating that if he was injured he should resort to legal proceedings, and received a reply, assuring him he need have no apprehensions, and offering him an inspection of the Defendant's plans, an offer of which advantage was not taken, and he took no further steps to assert his rights for upwards of three months afterwards, during which time the Defendant's buildings were continually progressing towards completion, the Court thought him not disentitled by reason of acquiescence to any relief to which he might otherwise establish a right. This was an appeal on the part of the sole Defendants, the East India House Estate Company, Limited, from a decree of the Master of the Rolls, granting with costs an injunction against them in the terms of the prayer of the Plaintiff's bill hereinafter stated, with a provision that the execution of such decree was to be stayed until the second seal in Michaelmas [264] term, 1863, a provision inserted with the object of giving time for some arrangement of the dispute between the parties, so as to obviate the necessity of enforcing the mandatory part of His Honour's decree. The Plaintiff, the Respondent, Louis Isenberg, carried on business as a wholesale leather merchant in premises of which he was lessee, and which were known as 21 Leadenhall Street, and 54 Lime Street, in the city of London. The west wall of the premises abutted upon Lime Street, and had a frontage towards that street of sixty-eight feet or thereabouts. The case made by the bill was to the following effect:- Lime Street is a narrow street meeting Leadenhall Street at right angles, and at the end of the street, where it abuta on the Plaintiff's premises, the width between the walls of those premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Niino & Company Ltd v Kow Lup Kai
-
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd
... ... John Larking Verbatim Reporters, Chancery House, Chancery Lane London WC2 Tel: 0171 404 7464 ... But where a responsible and substantial company such as the respondents have undertaken to keep ... In Isenberg v East India Estate Co. (1863), 3 De G.J.&S. 263 ... ...
-
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd
...performance and will approach the cost to the defendant to complete." 35This was the reason given by Lord Westbury L.C. in Isenberg v. East India House Estate Co. Ltd. (1863) 3 De G.J. & S. 263, 273 for refusing a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to pull down part of a new build......
-
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police
...2, §862 at 155 (footnote omitted). See also Isenberg v East India House Estate Co Ltd (1863) 3 De G J & S 263 at 272 per Lord Westbury LC [ 46 ER 637 at 641]; Smith v Smith (1875) LR 20 Eq 500 at 504 per Jessel MR. But see Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol 5, 3rd ed (1945) at 205 Se......
-
Perpetual Injunctions: General Principles
...1 WLR 269 (CA). 68 Ibid at 288, citing Lord Westbury LC in Isenberg v East India Housing Estate Co Ltd (1863), 3 De GJ & Sm 263 at 273, 46 ER 637 at 641. See also Rivard Ultracuts Ltd v Unicity Mall Ltd (1999), 142 Man R (2d) 63 at para 28 (CA). 69 Vaz v Jong (2000), 32 RPR (3d) 271 (Ont SC......
-
INJUNCTIONS AND DAMAGES Michael BRYAN
...per Lindley LJ. 51Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack[1924] AC 851 at 872, per Lord Sumner. 52(1863) 3 DeGJ & S 263; (1863) 46 ER 637. 53Isenberg v East India House Estate Co Ltd(1863) 3 DeGJ & S 263 at 273; (1863) 46 ER 637 at 641. 54 The power to bargain around the discharge......