Roberts against Read and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1812 |
| Date | 10 November 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 1070
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Observed upon, Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Company, 1829-31, 3 Y. & J. 73; 1 Cl. & F. 262; S. C. 1 Myl. & K. 154. Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 746. Distinguished, Mitchell v. Darley Main Colliery Company, 1884-86, 14 Q. B. D. 136; 11 App. Cas. 127.
roberts against read and others. Tuesday, Nov. 10th, 1812. Though the general Highway Act, 13 G. 3, s. 78, c. 81, directs that actions against any persons for any thing done or acted in pursuance thereof, shall be commenced within three calendar months after the fact committed, and not afterwards; yet if surveyors of highways, in the execution of their office, undermine a wall adjoining to the highway, which does not fall till more than three months afterwards, they are subject to an action on the case, for the consequential injury within three months after the falling of the wall. [Observed upon, Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Company, 1829-31, 3 Y. & J. 73; 1 Cl. & F. 262; S. C. 1 Myl. & K. 154. Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 746. Distinguished, Mitchell v. Darley Main Colliery Company, 1884-86, 14 Q. B. D. 136; 11 App. Cas. 127.] In an action on the case, the plaintiff declared that on the 1st of December 1809, (a) 7 East, 38. 16 EAST, 216. EYRE V. GLOVER 1071 at Penzance, in Cornwall, she was and still is seised for her life, of a garden, with the appurtenances, in which, until the grievance after mentioned, there was a wall 200 feet long, &c. abutting on a public street in Penzance; and that the defendants, [216] on the 1st of May 1810, and on other days, wrongfully and injuriously dug up so much of the soil adjoining and near to the wall, on the side next the street for 200 feet, and removed the same, and thereby not only exposed and laid open the foundation of the wall to the rain and flowing of waters thereto, and to the frost and inclemency of the weather, but greatly weakened the wall; by reason whereof-100 feet afterwards, on the 1st of September 1810, fell down, and the remainder was greatly injured. At the trial before Graham, B., at Bodmin, the case opened on the part of the plaintiff was, that she sought to recover damages against the defendants for a wrong done by them in their capacity of surveyors of the highways for the town of Penzanee, in undermining her wall; and it appeared in evidence that the act done by their order for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...years of the act done, or of the consequences of that act, which latter constitutes the cause of action. 3 B. & A. 448, Oyster v. Battye. 16 East, 215, Roberts v. Read. But in assumpsit, the breach of contract is the cause of action and not the consequential damages; 3 B. & A. 288, Battley ......
-
Backhouse v Bonomi
...an action quia timet. This doctrine would in fact lead directly to consequences inconsistent with the decision of Roberts v. Head (16 East, 215), where it was held that an action might be brought for the undermining of a wall which had fallen within the time of the limitation, though the ac......
-
Devery v The Grand Canal Company
...643. Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Company 26 L. J. Ch. 276, 280, 282. Smith v. ThackerahELR L. R. 1 C. P. 564. Roberts v. Read and othersENR 16 East, 215. Thompson v. GibsonENR 7 M. & W. 456. Whitehouse v. FellowesENR 10 C. B. N. S. 765. — Fresh damage — Fresh cause of action — Statute of Limi......
-
Watson v Fram Reinforced Concrete Company (Scotland) Ltd and Winget Ltd
...of cases in which other statutes have fallen to be construed. Reference has been (or will be) made to such cases as Roberts v. Read, 16 East. 215, and Nicklin v. Williams, 10 Ex. 259 at page 268. Before any conclusion could safety be drawn from them it would, I think, be necessary to consid......