Pinnington v Galland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1853 |
| Date | 06 July 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 1 C. L. R. 819; 22 L. J. Ex. 348. 348 Observed upon, White v. Bass, 1862, 7 H. & N. 722. Referred to, Richards v. Rose, 1853, 9 Ex. 218, Wheeldon v. Burrows, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 44; Midland Railway Company v. Miles, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 644.
The EXCHEQUER REPORTS. REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURTS of EXCHEQUER and EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Trinity Vacation, 17 VICT., to Easter Term, 17 VICT., both inclusive. By W. N. WELSBY, of the Middle Temple; E. T. HURLSTONE, of the Inner Temple, and J. GORDON, of the Middle Temple, Esquires, Barristers-at-Law. Vol. IX. London, 1854. [1] exchequer reports. trinity vacation, 17 vict. pinnington v galland. July 6, 1853.-In an action for a disturbance of a right of way, it appeared that, in the year 1839, A. being the owner of five closes, two of which, called the Holme closes, were separated by two of the others from the only available highway, sold the entire property in three lots M. purchased the Holme closes, N one of the other closes, and D. the remaining closes. Over the Utter, the tenants of A., from the year 1823, had used a way for the occupation of the Holme closes The deeds of conveyance to the three purchasers were all executed on the same day, but it could not be ascertained in what order of priority they were executed. No special grant or reservation of any particular way was contained in any oi them; but in the conveyance to M. weie the usual words, "together with all ways, roads, &e to the said closes belonging or appertaining." For several years after the execution of the conveyances, the plaintiff, who occupied the Holme closes as tenant of M., had used the way in question; but, in 1843, the defendant, who had purchased D 's closes, disputed the plaintiff's light and obstructed the way -Held, first, that, assuming that the conveyance ta M. was executed before that to D , the plaintiff was clearly entitled to the way, for where a person having a close surrounded by his land grants the close to another, the grantee has a way over the grantor's land as incident to the grant. Secondly, assuming that the conveyance to D was executed before that ta M , the plaintiff was nevertheless entitled to the way, for while the property in the Holme closes remained in A. he had that way of necessity, as being the most convenient mode of access to his premises, and it passed by his conveyance to M. under the words "all ways to the closes belonging or appertaining." [S. C. 1 C. L. K 819; 22 L. J. Ex. 348 Observed upon, White v Bast,, 1862, 7 H. & N 722. Referred to, Richards v Rose, 1853, 9 Ex. 218, Wkeddon v. Burrow*, 1879, 12 Ch D. 44 ; Midland Railway Company v Miles, 1886, 33 Ch. D 644.] This was an action on the case for the disturbance of a right of way, which came on to be tried before Colendge, J, at Nottingham Summer Assizes, 185J, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages 40s, subject to the following special case - The declaration claimed the right of way in question over the defendant's land in Ex. Div. xn - 1 P1NNINGTON V. GALLAND 9 EX 3 respect of two closes called the Near and Far Rye Holme closes, of which the plaintiff was the occupier. There was a plea in denial of the alleged right of way The subjoined plan shews the plaintiff's and defendant's lands, and the neighboming closes particularly referred to in the subsequent part of the case [3] The right of way claimed by the plaintiff was from the Town-street of Sutton Road To Carltoti upon-Trent. through the defendant's lands on the north side of his house, and through part of the Moat close, in the line marked A B. The defendant denied the plaintiff's right to proceed in that direction, and contended that, if the plaintiff was entitled to any way from the Town-street to his closes, it \vas not over the defendant's lands, but over the close called in the pl.in the Hall close, along the hedge bounding the south side of that close, in the line marked C B. The plaintiff's closes and the defendant's house and land, as well ;is the Moat close and the Hall close, Coney Grew close, Maples close No. 5, and Catliffe's close No. 6, 9 EX 4. PINNINGTON V. GALLAND " formeily all belonged to one owner, and the claim and dispute as to the way in question arose in consequence of the subdivision and sale of the estate as herein after: mentioned, the plaintiff claiming the way A B cis a way arising fiom necessity or by implied grant from Mr. Dickinson on such subdivision and sale Sometime before 1814, the whole property belonged to and was in the occupation of a Mr. Millus, and in his time the way actually used to get from the Town-street to the eloses now occupied by the plaintiff', and the closes No. 5 and No 6, was in the line A R In 181-4 Mr Dickinson, who had then become the owner of the whole estate, divided it into several lots with a view to a sale by auction, on which occasion the close No. 5 formed one lot, and the close...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adealon International Corporation Pty Ltd v Merton London Borough Council
...over land of a third party. However, that again was a right claimed by the grantee, not the grantor. 23 Of more direct relevance is Pinnington v Gallard (1853) 9 Ex 1. A Mr Dickinson had sold, on the same day in 1839, a piece of land in three separate lots, one to a Mr Dearle, and another t......
-
Maguire v Browne
...B. & S., at p. 767. (1) L. R. 2 C. P., at p. 581. (2) 27 Ch. D. 665. (3) 13 Ch. D. 798. (1) L. R. 4 Ch. 133. (2) 12 C. D. 31, at p. 49. (1) 9 Ex. 1, (2) L. R. 7 Eq. 427, 431. (3) 13 C. D. 798, at p. 807. (4) [1902] 2 Ch. 557, at p. 573. (5) 1st Peake, N. P. 26. (6) 1 B. & S. 583. (7) [1905]......
-
Geraghty v M'Cann
...B. & S. 571. Dodd v. BurchellENR 1 H. & C. 113. Hill v. Grange Dyer, 130, b. Ewart v. Cochrane 4 M'Queen's H. L. C. 123. Phene v. GarratENR 9 Ex. 1. Watts v. KelsonELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 166. Pyer v. CarterENR 1 H. & N. 916. Suffield v. Brown 12 W. R. 356; 33 L. J. Ch. 249. Pheysey v. VicaryE......
-
Pearson against Spencer
...Pom/ret v. Ricroft (1 \Vrns. Saund. 323, 6th ed.), which is recognised arid confirmed by the Court of Exchequer in Pinnington v. Gotland (9 Exch. 1, 12):-" Where a man, having a close surrounded with his owd land, grants the close to another in fee, for life or years, the grantee shall have......