Sampson v Hoddinott

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 November 1857
Date28 November 1857
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 242

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

Sampson
and
Hoddinott

S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 148; 3 Jur. N. S. 243; 5 W. R. 230: affirmed by consent, 3 C. B. N. S. 596. See Crossley v. Lightowler, 1866-67, L. R. 3 Eq. 296; L. R. 2 Ch. 478; Roberts v. Richards, 1881, 50 L. J. Ch. 302; 51 L. J. Ch. 944. Distinguished, Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway, 1883-84, 23 Ch. D. 566; 27 Ch. D. 122. Macartney v. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, [1904] A. C. 311. Principle applied, Sharp v. Wilson, 1905, 93 L. T. 155.

sampson v. hoddinott. Jan. 20, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 148; 3 Jur. N. S. 243; 5 W. E. 230 : affirmed by consent, 3 C. B. N. S. 596. See Crossley v. Lightowler, 1866-67, L. E. 3 Eq. 296; L. E. 2 Ch. 478; Roberts v. Richards, 1881, 50 L. J. Ch. 302; 51 L. J. Ch. 944. Distinguished, Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway, 1883-84, 23 Ch. D. 566 ; 27 Ch. D. 122. Macartney v. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, [1904] A. C. 311. ò Principle applied, Sharp v. Wilson, 1905, 93 L. T. 155.] Every proprietor of lands on the banks of a natural stream has a right to use the water, provided he so uses it as not to work any material injury to the rights of the proprietors above or below him on the stream, and may begin to exercise that right whenever he will. By usage, he may acquire a right to use the water in a manner not justified by his natural right: but such acquired right has no operation against the natural rights of a land-owner higher up the stream, unless the user by which it was acquired affects the use that he himself has made of the stream, or his power to use it, so as to raise the presumption of a grant, and so render the tenement above a servient tenement.-The plaintiff had immemorially enjoyed the benefit of irrigating certain meadows with the water of the Yeo, subject to the right of the oecupier of a mill to detain the water for the use of his mill; and, although the natural flow of the river was prevented by the exercise of the miller's right, the water came down at such times that the plaintiff was enabled to irrigate his meadows effectually. But, of late, the defendant had, for the purpose of irrigating his own adjacent land, from time to time diverted the water after it had passed the mill, and before it reached the plaintiff's meadows : and, although it did not appear that the quantity of water which ultimately reached the plaintiff's meadows was thereby sensibly diminished, yet the effect was that the water was detained by the process of irrigation, and did not arrive till so late in the day that the plaintiff was deprived of the power to use it fully :-Held, that this detention of the water by the defendant was a use of it which was in its character necessarily injurious to the natural rights of the plaintiff as a riparian proprietor, and a ground of action.-In such a case, it is not necessary to shew actual damage to the plaintiff's reversionary interest: it is enough to shew an obstruction of his right, and, such obstruction of his right being shewn, the law will infer damage.-The right of the riparian proprietor is principal, he was not to have it, interest being accessory to and following the principal ; and, consequently, that he disentitled himself to the interest, by indorsing away the bill, and never could become entitled to interest afterward, as the satisfaction of the bill while outstanding, and when it was overdue, prevented him from ever again becoming entitled to the principal: and that the written agreement as set out does not agree with and negatives the agreement as stated in the declaration." 1 a B. (N. S.) 591. SAMPSON V. HODDINOTT 243 limited to natural streams, and does not attach in the case of artificial cuts or drains. This was an action for an injury to the plaintiffs reversion, by diverting a stream of water. The declaration stated that certain tenants of the plaintiff were possessed of certain water-meadows, the reversion thereof being in the plaintiff, into which meadows a portion of the water of certain streams of right ought to have run, for watering the same; and the defendant, by obstructing and diverting the said streams, deprived the said meadows of the use of the said por-[591]-tion, and injured the plaintiff's reversionary interest: and the plaintiff claimed 2001. Pleas,-first, except as to part of the grievances in the declaration mentioned, not guilty,-secondly, except as above in the first plea was excepted, that he did what was complained of, so far as related to the causes of action to which that plea was pleaded, by the plaintiff's leave,-thirdly, as to certain alleged grievances in respect of one of the said streams, being part of the alleged grievances to which the first plea was pleaded, that the defendant, before and at the said times when, &c., was possessed of land the occupiers whereof for twenty years before the suit enjoyed, as of right, and without interruption, the privilege of using one of the streams in the declaration mentioned for agricultural purposes, and of obstructing and diverting the said stream for those purposes, for the better use and enjoyment of the said land; and that the alleged grievances to which that plea was pleaded, were uses by the defendant of the said privilege or easement,-fourthly, as to certain grievances in respect of one of the said streams, being part of the alleged grievances to which the first plea was pleaded, that the defendant, before and at the said times when, &c., was possessed of land the occupiers whereof for forty years before the suit enjoyed, as of right and without interruption, the privilege of using one of the streams in the declaration mentioned, for agricultural purposes, and of obstructing and diverting the said stream for those purpose, for the better use and enjoyment of the said land; and that the alleged grievances to which that plea was pleaded, were uses by the defendant of the said privilege or easement,-fifthly, as to certain alleged grievances in respect of one of the said streams, being part of the alleged grievances to which the first plea was pleaded, that, long before the said time when, &c., the plaintiff, or a person by, from, or under [592] whom the plaintiff and his said tenants, subsequently to the grant hereinafter mentioned, derived all his and their estate, right, and title to the said water-meadows, and the -said right of irrigating the same in the declaration mentioned, then being seised or possessed of the said water-meadows for an estate not yet determined, but still in full force and existence, by deed granted to a person then seised in his demesne as of fee of and in certain land near the said stream, the privilege of using the waters of the said stream for agricultural purposes, and of diverting and obstructing the said stream for those purposes, for the better use and enjoyment of the said land for and during the whole of the said estate of the said grantor, which said land, with the said privilege so granted as aforesaid, before the said times when, &c. became legally vested in the defendant for and during a term of years not yet expired ; and the defendant before and at the said times when, &e. was and still is lawfully possessed of the-said land, together with the said privilege, for the said term of years not yet expired; and that the grievances to which that plea was pleaded were uses by the defendant of the said privilege,-sixthly, except as above in the first plea was excepted, that the streams in the declaration mentioned, except as above was excepted, ought not to have run into the meadows in the declaration mentioned, for watering the same,'as in the declaration alleged,-seventhly, as to the grievances above in the first plea excepted, payment into court of one shilling. The plaintiff joined and took issue on all the pleas except the last; and, as to that, traversed the sufficiency of the money paid into court. Joinder. The following particulars of claim and defence respectively were delivered pursuant to judge's order:- " This action is brought to recover damages for infringing the plaintiff's reversionary interest in certain [593] water-meadows belonging to Sherborne Wyke Farm, in the parish of Sherborne, in the county of Dorset, and now in the possession of his tenants, William Sampson, Walter Sampson, and Thomas Sampson, by obstructing and diverting water of a certain river or stream running from and beyond a mill called 244 SAMPSON V. HODDINOTT 1 C. B. (N. S.) 594. Edmund's Mill, or West Mill, in the said parish of Sherborne, to and adjoining certain lands in the possession of the defendant, also situate in the said parish of Sherborne, and also to and adjoining the plaintiff's said water-meadows, by cutting certain channels from the said river or stream to the defendant's said lands adjoining, and placing certain hatches in such channels, and occasionally placing a temporary bay across such river or stream, and also by obstructing and diverting water of another stream called the back-water cut running through the defendant's said lands, by placing a hatch in such stream, and also by obstructing and diverting water of another stream called Silver Lake Spring, which rises on certain land in the defendant's occupation, also situate in the said parish of Sherborne, by penning back the same water, and forming it into a large pond, and using such water for the purpose of driving a water-wheel attached to a grist-mill and a threshing-machine, thereby impeding the proper and usual flow of the water of the said streams to the plaintiff's said water-meadows, and permanently detaining and depriving the plaintiffs said water-meadows of a great portion of such water." "The third, fourth, and fifth pleas relate to a branch of the.river Yeo, and to a stream running into it called Silver Lake, respectively, and to land in the occupation of the defendant near the said river and stream respectively. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Devery v The Grand Canal Company
    • Ireland
    • Common Pleas Division (Ireland)
    • 7 May 1875
    ...489. Short v. M'CarthyENR 3 B. & Al. 626. Violett v. SympsonENR 8 E. & B. 344. Embrey v. OwneENR 6 Ex. 353. Sampson v. HoddinottENRUNK 1 C. B. N. S. 590; 5 W. R. 230; 26 L. J. C. P. 148. Harrop v. HirstELR L. R. 4 Ex. 43. Claxton v. ClaxtonUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 23. Oakley v. The Kensington Can......
  • O'Brien v Enright
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 18 February 1867
    ...237. Flight v. Thomas 10 A. & E. 590. Murgatroyd v. RobinsonENR 7 E. & B. 391. Carlyon v. Lovering 1 H. & 784. Sampson v. HoddinottENR 1 C. B. N. S. 590. Cooper v. BarberENR 3 Taunt. 98. Daniel v. NorthENR 11 East, 372. Ward v. RobinsENR 15 M. & W. 237. Moore v. WebbENR 1 C. B. N. S. 673. S......
  • The Stockport Waterworks Company v Potter
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 11 June 1864
    ...be presumed by the defendants because no user ever existed adverse to their full enjoyment of the water. And Sampan, v Hoticlinott (1 C. B. N. S 590, 611) was cited as an express author ity for this proposition. We have thus recapitulated these arguments of the defendants because they appea......
  • Belfast Ropeworks Company, Ltd v Boyd
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 1 February 1888
    ...(N. S.) 501; W. N., (2) 18 L. T. R. (N. S.) 15. 1686, 147, 366. (3) 3 F. & F. 292. (8) 7 H. L. Cas. 349. (4) L. It. 7 H. L. 697. (9) 1 C. B. (N. S.) 590, 612. (5) L. R. 1 Sc. App. 47. (10) 3 Exch. 748, 772. (6) L. R. 7 Eq. 377, 386. (11) L. R. 20 Eq. 500. VOL. XXI. 2II BELFAST RopEwORKS pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT