Jeffries and Others v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1850 |
| Date | 13 November 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 347
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 20 L J Ex 14 Referred to, Richards v Jenkins, 1868, 18 L T 443
jeffries AND llTHEKK ; Wn i.iAMS Nov 15, IS50 A decimation in case stated that cettain messuages and closes wete in the occupation of the tenants of the plamtifls, the teveision theteof bolotigiug to them, and that the defendant so wrongfully, carelessly, negligently, atid improperly, and without leaving any propei oi sufficient suppoit, woiked ceitain mines, and dug and got the minetals out of the mines neat to the said messuages and closes , that theteby the foundations of the messuages were injured, and, in consequence thoieof, Luge portions of tho buildings fell down, and the ground on which the buildings stood swaggecl and gave way Held, hist, on motion in auest of judgment, that the declaration was good, although it contained no averment that the plaintiff had a light to have the messuages suppoited by the .soil nuclei which the defendant got the mines' , for, as it was neither alleged not could be infericd, that the soil ill which the mines weie, was- the defendant's, or that tho defendant had .ill the light to get the urines which the owner of the adjoining soil had, the defendant was prirna facie a wiong doei , and theiefoie, as against him, the declaration disclosed a sufficient title-Secondly, that, as the defendant did work the mines without leaving sufficient suppoit to the plaintiff's buildings and land, they were entitled to a \erdict on the plea of not guilty, for, if any eitcumstanco justified the defendant in getting the minerals without leaving sufficient suppoit, that should have been pleaded h way of confession and avoidance [H C 20 L J Ex: 14 Referred to, Rtcha,di, v JetiLu*, 1868, 18 L T 44J.J Case by the plaintiffs as reveisioneis The declaration stated, that, befoie and at the time of committing the grievances &c , certain messuageb, buildings, and closes of land, situate &u, wete in the occupation of one James i*\iri, John IVIooie, &c, as (tenants thereof respectively to the plaintiff's, the reveision thereof then and still belonging to the plaintiffs , yet the defendant, well knowing &c , so wrongfully, carelessly, negligently and improperly, and without leaving any piopei or sufficient suppoit ib that behalf, worked certain mines under ground near to and contiguous to and uridei the said premises, the reversion whereof then belonged to the plaintiffs, and dug for and got out and moved the mines and minerals and produce theieof from and out of the said mines near to and coii-[793]-tignous to and under the said messuages, buildings, and closes of land, and by reason of the ptemrses tho foundations of the said messuages and buildings were then gteatly weakened and injured, and in consequence thereof Luge portions of the said rnes&uages and buildings bei ame prostrate, cracked, injured, and wholly uninhabitable, and the ground on which the said messuages and buildings stood, and the said closes, gioatly swagged and gave way, and the said messuages and buildings: and closes became uttei ly useless and of i no use ot benefit to the plaintiffs The defendant pleaded hist, " not guilty ," secondly, a denial that the leveision belonged to the plaintiffs , thitdly, a special plea not material to the present question (a) Pollock, C B , Aider-son, B , and Platt, B 348 JEFFRIES V WILLIAMS 5 EX 794 At the trial before Loid Campbell, C ,T, at the last Warwickshite Sputig Assizes, it appeared that the building in question consisted of six oottages, which were in the occupation of the plaintiffs' tenants , and that, previously to the accruing of the plaintiff's title, the defendant, who had a right to the mines nuclei the cottages and fand^ had excavated the soil underneath the cottages, but that no damage had been thereby done eithei to the cottages 01 to the suiface land Subsequently, however, and whilst the plaintiffs had the ieversion, the defendant had worked one of the yeine of coal far ten yards, and another lower one, one yard from the plaintiffs' land, which excavations, in consequence of the support of the plaintiHs' land having been previously weakened by the defendant's former exca\ation, occasioned the houses to crack, and the surrounding land to sink The jmy found that the defendant had not excavated under the land since the plaintiffs had become entitled to the reversion , but they found that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kempston v Butler
...Ven. & Pur. 79. Regina v. WattsENR 1 Salk. 35f. Brown v. WindsorENR 1 Cr. & J. 20. Richards v. RoseENR 9 Ex. 218. Jeffries v. WilliamsENR 5 Ex. 792. Bibby v. CarterENR 4 H. & N. 153. Sloloman v. Vintners CompanyENR 4 H. & N. 585. Wilson v. WillesENR 7 East, 69. Wilks v. Brosdbent Willes' Re......
-
Rogers v Taylor
...the plaintiff has a light to support foi his messuages, &c , without shewing how he has it [Watson, B , lefeired to Jeflne* v William* (5 Exch. 792).] In that case it appealed upon the declaration that the defendant was a wiong doer. That is not so here. In Hilton v JHutehead (12 Q. B 734) ......
-
Elizabeth Bibby v Carter
...therefore be taken to be a mere stranger depriving the plaintiff of the actual support of her messuage and land. Jeffiies v. Williams (5 Exch. 792) is an authority in point There the declaration stated that certain messuages and closes were in the occupation of the tenants of the plaintiff,......
-
The Stockport Waterworks Company v Potter
...ground The defendants being wrongdoers, it is riot necessary as against them to shew the existence of any easement Jelittes v. Williams (5 Exch. 792). (He then proceeded to discuss the award of 1883 and the deed of 1853. As to the award he contended that the recital negativing the existence......