Liggins v Inge and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1831 |
| Date | 11 June 1831 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 263
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C 5 Moo. & P. 712; 9 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 202. Dieata disapproved, Chasemore v. Richards, 1859, 7 H, L. C. 384; Ormerod v. Todmarden Mill Compnay, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 159. 161. Applied Plimmer v. Wallington Corporation, 1884, 9 App, Cas, 714.
[682] liggins v. inge and another. June 11, 1831. [S. C. 5 Moo. & P. 712; 9 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 202. Dicta disapproved, Chasemore v. Richards, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 384; Ormerodv. Todmarden Mill Company, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 159, 161. Applied, Plimmer v. Wellington Corporation, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 714.] Plaintiff's father, by oral licence, permitted Defendants to lower the bank of a river, and make a weir above Plaintiff's mill, whereby less water than before flowed to Plaintiff's mill: Held, that Plaintiff could not sue Defendants for continuing the weir. This was an action on the case, and the declaration stated that the Plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing the grievances by the Defendants as thereinafter 264 LIGGHNS V. INGE 1 BINS. 683. next mentioned, was, and from thence hitherto had been, and still was lawfully possessed of and in a certain corn-mill, with the appurtenances, situate and being in the county of the city of Coventry; and by reason thereof, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances by the said Defendants as thereinafter mentioned, of right ought to have had and enjoyed, and still of right ought to have and enjoy, the benefit and advantage of the water of a certain stream or watercourse, which during all that time ought to have run and flowed in its usual and proper course, flow, and current, and until the obstructions and diversions thereof thereinafter next mentioned of right had run and flowed, and still of right ought to run and flow, in its usual and proper course, flow, and current unto the said corn-mill of the Plaintiff, for supplying the same with water for the working and more beneficial use and enjoyment thereof, to wit, at, &c.; yet the Defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure and prejudice the Plaintiff in that respect, and to deprive him of the use, benefit, and advantage of the water of the said stream or watercourse, and to hinder and prevent him the Plaintiff from working his mill in so ample and beneficial a manner as he had theretofore done, and of right ought to have done, and to injure him [683] in the way of his trade and business of a miller, which he during all the time aforesaid exercised and carried on, and still did exercise and carry on therein, and to put him to great charge, expense, trouble, and inconvenience, whilst he the Plaintiff was so possessed of the said mill, with the appurtenances as aforesaid, and so exercised and carried on his said trade or business therein, to wit, on, &c., and on divers other days and times between that day and the commencement of that suit, to wit, at, &c., wrongfully and injuriously cut down, pulled down, lowered, and made, and caused and procured to be cut down, pulled down, lowered, and made, a great part, to wit, fifty feet of one of the banks of the said stream or watercourse, divers, to wit, ten feet lower than the same had theretofore been, or of right ought to have been, or still of right ought to be, and then and there wrongfully and injuriously erected, put down, set down, placed, and deposited, and caused and procured to be erected, put down, set down, placed, and deposited, in and upon the said bank of the said stream or watercourse, at the said part thereof so lowered as aforesaid, and above the said corn-mill of the Plaintiff, divers, to wit, ten sluices, ten dams, ten weirs, ten fletchers, and ten boards, and wrongfully and injuriously kept and continued, and caused to be kept and continued, the said sluices, dams, weirs, fletchers, and boards so there respectively erected, set up, put down, set, placed, and deposited as aforesaid, for a long space of time, to wit, from thence hitherto, and thereby and therewith, and by means thereof, during all the time aforesaid wilfully and wrongfully diverted and turned, and let off, and caused to run and flow divers large quantities of the waters of the said stream or watercourse out of its proper course and channel, and away from the said corn-mill of the Plaintiff, and stopped, and prevented, and hindered divers [684] other large quantities of the water of the said stream or watercourse from running or flowing along in its usual and proper course, flow, and current, to the said cornmill, and from supplying the same with the usual, proper, and regular flow of water for the necessary and convenient working thereof, as the same of right ought to have done, and otherwise would have done, and by reason thereof caused and procured divers other large quantities of the water of the said stream or watercourse to run and flow to the said mill in unequal quantities and more irregularly than the same had theretofore done, or of right ought to nave done, or still of right ought to do: by means of which said several premises, and for want of a sufficient, regular, and proper supply of water, the Plaintiff on the several days and times...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...of the plaintiff's, (that of light and air through his window,) such grantee would have had a clear right to use it. Accordingly, in 7 Bing. 682, Liggins v. Inge. 5 M. & P. 712, S. C., where a man who was entitled to a flow of water to his mill had, by parol licence, authorised his neighbou......
-
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd
...to say that that is obviously a reference to another case, to which Mr. Machin drew our attention, of ( Liggins v. Inge 7 Bingham page 682: 131 English Reports page 262). In that case, a man approved a neighbour's so altering an embankment to a watercourse that the water which had formerly ......
-
Wood v Leadbitter
...& R. 16), Hetolim v. Sfiipjiam (5 B. & C. 222; 7 D. & R. 783), firj/aw v. tf'Ms'&r (8 B. & C. 288 ; 2 Man. fe R. 318), iijr^Ms v. /nflre (7 Bing. 682 ; 5 M. & P. 712), dicker v. C'owper (1 C. M. & R. 418), Gamngtm v. Jioo/s (2 M. & W. 248), Bridges v. Blandiard (1 Ad. & Ell. 536; 4 Ad. & El......
-
Gore v Gore
...to his detriment. The defendant is therefore entreating the court to determine the matter as per the principles laid down in Liggins v Inge 7 Bing 682. In that, “the agreement between the parties constitutes a licence and that the nature of the licence in and of itself is apparently intende......