Palmer against Fletcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 329
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Tenant v. Goldwin, 1703-04, 2 Ld. Raym. 1093; Robinson v. Grave, 1872, 27 L. T. 650; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Company, 1876, 2 C. P. D. 16; Angus v. Dalton, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. D. 114; 4 Q. B. D. 178; 6 App. Cas. 743; Wheeldon v. Burrows, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 41; Allen v. Taylor, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 357; Russell v. Watts, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 603; Birmingham, etc., District Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 300; Phillips v. Low (1892), 1 Ch. 47; Smith v. Hancock (1894), 2 Ch. 388; Broomfield v. Williams (1897), 1 Ch. 612.
1 LEV. 123. MICH. 15 CAR. II. IN B. R. 329 palmer against fletcher. [See Tenant v. Goldwin, 1703-4, 2 Ld. Raym. 1093; Robinson \. Grave, 1872, 27 L. T. 650; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Company, 1876, 2 C. P. D. 16; Angus v. Dalton, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. D. 114; 4 Q. B. D. 178; 6 App. Gas. 743; Wheeldon v. Bur-rows, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 41 ; Allen v. Taylor, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 357 ; Russell v. Watts, 1885, 10 App. Gas. 603 ; Birmingham, etc., District Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 300; Phillips v. Low [1892], 1 Ch. 47 ; Smith v. Hancock [1894], 2 Ch. 388; Brotmjield v. Williams [1897], 1 Ch. 612.] A man builds a new house on part of his lauds, and after sells the house to one, and the lands to another, he cannot obstruct the lights. S. C. 1 Sid. 167, 227. Raym. 87. 1 Keb. 553, 625, 794. Case was brought for stopping of his lights. The case was, a man erected a house on his own lands, and after sells the house to one, and the lands adjoining to another, who by putting piles of timber on the land, obstructed the lights of the house : and it was resolved, that although it be a new messuage, yet no person who claims the land by purchase under the builder, can obstruct the lights any more than the builder himself could, who cannot derogate from his own grant, by Twysden and Wyndham Justices, Hyde being absent, and Kelynge doubting. For the lights are a necessary and essential part of the house. And Kelynge said, Suppose the land had been sold first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wheeldon v Burrows
-
Pomfret v Ricroft
...under me, can obstruct any of the lights by building on the land ; for by selling the house I sell the easement in the lights also. 1 Lev. 122, Palmer v. Fktcher. 2 Cr. & J. 128, Canham v. Fisk, per Bayley B. 1 Price, 27, Compton v. Richards. M. & Malk. 397, Coutts v. Gorhamr 9 Bing. 305, S......
-
Rosewell v Prior
...Mod. 116. S. C. vide jirox. pay. In case for stopping lights, it must appear that the lights were ancient. See 6 Mod. 116, 314. 1 Mod. 55. 1 Lev. 122, &c. & infra. 2 Lev. 194. 9 Co. 58. Cro. El. 402. Consuevit after verdict in such action, imports usage time out mind. 6 Mod. 20, 313, 314. C......
-
Hunt v Peake
...distinct from lateral support, and depends on original unity of title : [708] Wilde v. Minsterly (2 Eol. Ab. 564), Palmer v. Fletcher (1 Lev. 122), Rogers v. Taylor (6 W. E. 249), Massey v. Gfoyder (4 C. & P. 161), Peyton v. Mayor of London (9 B. & C. 725) Wyatt v. Harrison (3 B. & Ad. 871)......