Iveson v Moor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1724 |
| Date | 01 January 1724 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 603
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See S. C. 12 Mod. 262; 88 E. R. 1309 (with note).
[480] de term. sanctve then. anno 10 willielmi III. regis. in B. R. iveson versus moor. [See S. C. 12 Mod. 262 ; 88 E. R. 1309 (with note).] 1 Salk. 15, 16, 17. Case for stopping a way leading to his colliery, per quod he lost his customers, is ill, riot shewing a special damage. Action upon the case. The plaintiff declares, that he was seised in fee of a certain colliery, and the defendant fraudulently intending to deprive the plaintiff of the sale of his coal, and to seduce his customers from buying the said coal, did stop up a certain highway leading to the said colliery, per quod the plaintiff lost divers customers. And now, after verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that this action lies not, for this is a publick nusatice presentable in the leet. lust. 56. 5 Co. 73. Williams's case, 9 Co. 113. 27 H. 8, 27. 2 Cro. 446, 491. Mo. 180, and here, if the action lay for one, it would lie for every one, which would be inconvenient; and they cited the case of Pain and Partridge, Pasch, 2 Will. & Mar. Rot. 43, where a custom was laid in a vill to be free of toll in passing over a ferry, and an action brought by one of the inhabitants against the defendant for not keeping the ferry-boat: the defendant pleaded, that he had erected a bridge, which was more convenient; and it was held, that the custom was good, and the justification ill; but because the injury was publick, adjudg'd not actionable. (But Holt Ch. J. said, if the ferry had been up, and the defendant had exacted toll of an inhabitant, an action would have lain). For the plaintiff it was urged, that where there is a particular damage to one more than another, the action well lies, whether the damage be personal to himself, or by the loss of his [481] horse, &c. (for as to that the books make no distinction). And here the plaintiff hath alledged special damages in the loss of the sale of his coal. W. Jones 156. The stopping a highway, whereby the plaintiff was forced to carry his tithes a further way about, adjudg'd actionable, tho' the damages were but consequential (which seem'd a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Richard Dobson, Knt., and John Sutton against Blackmore
...C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Wightman Js. (d) 1 Ld. Eaym. 486; S. C. 1 Salk. 15; Holt, 10; Garth. 451; 12 Mod. 262; 1 Com. Rep. 58; Comb. 480 ; note (a) to Chichester v. Lethbridge, Willes, 74. 1558 DOBSON V. BLACKMORE 9 Q. B, 999. It is contended that no damage was found in this case by t......
-
Bourhill v Same
...agreed that the action would lie. The case (Iveson v. Moon, 1 Sulk. 15, 1 Lord. Raym. 486, Holt, 10, Com. 58, 1'2 Mod. 262, Carth. 451, Comb. 480, Willes, 74, n.) is so explained in Uhainlmiaiii v. The. IVest End of London ami Crystal Palac?, Riiiluvy Conijnny, 'J Best & Hmith, 605, where t......
-
Robins v Robins
...the profit, &c. and hia coals were spoiled for want of buyers. Court divided whether action lies or not. Garth. 451. Mod. Cases, &c. 353. Comb. 480, S. C. Holt 10. Case, and declared that he was possessed of a colliery, and that there waa a highway near, by which he used to carry his coals,......
-
Iveson v Moor
...case is more fully reported in 1 Ld. Raym. 486. 3 Ld. Raym. 291. 1 Salk. 15, S. C. Garth. 451, S. C. Holt 10, S. C. 12 Mod. 262, S. C. Comb. 480, S. C.] 1 Com. Dig. 216. 3 Bac. Abr. 688. Harg. Co. Litt. 56 a. 1 Mod. Ent. 133. Action upon the case. The plaintiff declares that he was possesse......