Lukin and Another v Godsall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 178
LINCOLN'S INN
Referred to, Moss v Christchurch Raral Council, [1925] 2 K B. 750
178 LUKIN V. GODSALL PEAKS ADD. CAS. 18. Wednesday, May 27. lukin an d another v godsall (If by the negligence of A in building his house adjoining to that of B , the house of B. is thrown down, A is liable only to such sum in damages as was the value of the old house, and not the whole expense of building a new one ) [Referred to, Mot s v Chnttchurch Ratal Council, [1925J 2 K B. 750 ] Case for negligently pulling down and rebuilding the defendant's house in Long Ace, which was adjoining to that of the plaintiff, by reason whereof it fell down, and the plaintiffs house also fell with it It was clearly proved that the accident happened by the negligence or ignorance of the defendant's surveyor ; and the only question was, by what rule the damages were to be assessed 2 Garrow, for the plaintiffs, called witnesses to prove the expense the plaintiffs would be put to in building a new house, and contended that the jury ought to give that sum in damages. The plaintiffs were lessees under the Mercers' Company, and about twenty-three years of the lease were unexpired Lord Kenyon said that the jury ought not to give [16] as much in damages as would be sufficient to build a new house, but should make a reasonable and proper allowance for the benefit which the plaintiff \\ould receive by having a new house instead of an old one, otherwise the plaintift would be a gainer by the accident His Lordship compared this case to that of marine insurances, where an allowance of one-third new for old was always made (a) He observed that in strictness the plaintiffs could recover nothing more than the injury done to their possession , for that the reversioner might also maintain an action for the injury done to the inheritance, and the defendant would not be liable to rebuild, unless there was an express covenant to keep the premises m repair (b) Tim could not be considered as waste, for it was an accident where no blame v\as imputable to the plaintiff, and was like the case of a tire or destruction by the King'b enemies. In the case of a fire, Lord Northmgtoii had held that the lessee wa,s not hound to [ &y rent (c). had been committed, had executed a composition deed and received a dividend under it, might, notwithstanding such deed, become a petitioning creditor in respect of his original debt (a) See Da Cut ta v Neicnham, 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hollebone v Midhurst and Fernhurst Builders Ltd
-
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
...... case was concerned with the circumstances under which one person might come under a duty to another to take reasonable care to prevent a third party from committing a tort against that other. So the ......
-
Philips v Ward
...the house, the tortfeasor may well be bound to pay the cost of repair, less an allowance because new work takes the place of old: see Lukin v. Godsell, Peake's Additional Cases, 15; Hide v. Thornborough (1846) 2 Carrington & Kirwan, 250. In other oases, the tortfeasor may only have to pay t......
-
Ramsay (Winsome Patricia Crawford) v The Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd
...the house, the tortfeasor may well be bound to pay the cost of repair, less an allowance because new work takes the place of old: see Lukin v. Godsall (2) (1795) (Peake, Add. Cas. 15); Hide v. Thornborough (3) (1846) (2 Car. & Kir. 250). In other cases, the tortfeasor may only have to pay t......
-
The site
...of hurnscoe Ltd [1973] 1 Lloyd’s rep 345 at 348, per hhJ Stabb QC. 462 Westwood v Cordwell [1983] Qd r 276. 463 (1795) peake add Cas 15 [170 Er 178]. 464 See also Hide v hornborough (1846) 2 Car & K 250 at 255, per parke B [175 Er 103 at 106]; Moss v Christchurch Rural District Council [192......
-
Defects
...[262], per hodgson Ja; cf Anthoness v Bland Shire Council (1960) 60 Sr (NSW) 659 at 666. See also Lukin v Godsall (1795) peake add Cas 15 [170 Er 178]; Comyn Ching & Co Ltd v Oriental Tube Co Ltd (1979) 17 BLr 47 at 90, per Gof LJ. 380 his, in essence, is the logic of the sub-principle, dis......