Moore against Rawson

[332] moore against eawson. 1824. The right to light is acquired by enjoyment, and may be lost by a discontinuance of the enjoyment, unless the party who ceases to enjoy at the same time does some act to shew an intention of resuming the enjoyment within a reasonable time. And, therefore, where in case by a 3B. & C. 333. MOORE V. RAWSON 757 reversioner for obstructing lights, it appeared that the plaintiff's messuage was an ancient house, and that adjoining to it there bad formerly been a building, in which there was an ancient window, next the lands of the defendant, and tbat the former owner of the plaintiff's premises, about seventeen years before, had pulled down this building, and erected on its site another with a blank wall, next adjoining the premises of the defendant; and this latter, about three years before the commencement of the action, erected a building next the blank wall of the plaintiff, who then opened a window in that wall in the same place where the ancient window had been in the old building: it was held, that he could not maintain any action against the defendant for obstructing the new window; because, by erecting the blank wall, he not only ceased to enjoy the light, but had evinced an intention never to resume the enjoyment. [S. C. 5 D. & E. 234 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 32. Eeferred to, Crossley v. Lightowler, 1867, L. E. 2 Ch. 483; 'Cook v. Mayor of Bath, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 179; Hall v. Lichfield Brewery Company, 1880, 49 L. J. Ch. 656; Daltonv. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 750; Cooper v. Straker, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 27 ; Wheaton v. Maple, [1893] 3 Ch. 63 ; Chastey v. AcEcmd, [1895] 2 Ch. 400; [1897] A. C. 155 ; Midland Eailway v. Gribble, [1895] 2 Ch. 831; Stileman-GiUard v. Wilkinson, [1897] 1 Q. B. 761; Young v. Star Omnibus Company, 1902, 86 L. T. 43.] Case for obstructing lights. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Hullock B., at the last Spring Assizes for the county of Derby, it appeared, that the plaintiff was seised in fee of a messuage and building, with a yard, garden, and appurtenances, situate at Eipley, in that county, in the occupation of a tenant from year to year. The defendant was the owner of other messuages and premises next adjoining the plaintiff's, on the northern side thereof. The plaintiff's messuage was an ancient house, and adjoining to it there had been a building formerly used as a weaver's shop. The old shop had ancient windows, for the convenience of light to the weavers who worked looms there. About seventeen years ago the then owner and occupier of the premises took down the old shop, and erected on the same site a stable, having a blank wall next adjoining to the premises of the present defendant. This building had latterly been used as a wheel-right's shop. About three years ago, and while the plaintiff's premises continued in this state, the defendant erected a building next to the blank wall, and the plaintiff then opened a window in that wall, in the same place where there had formerly been a window in the old wall, and the action was brought for the obstruction of this new window by the building so erected by the defendant. The learned Judge directed the jury to find [333] a verdict for the plaintiff, bufc reserved liberty to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. A rule nisi having been obtained accordingly, Vaughan Serjt. and N. E. Clarke shewed cause. Every man, prima facie, is entitled to enjoy all the light and air which come to his own land. The enjoyment...