Simpson v Savage
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1856 |
| Date | 02 December 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 143
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 50; 3 Jur. N. S. 161; 5 W. R. 147. Applied, Mott v. Shoolbred, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 24; Jones v. Chappell, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 543. Referred to, Cooper v. Crabtree, 1881-82, 19 Ch. D. 199; 20 Ch. D. 589. App; oed, Rust v. Victoria Graving Dock Company, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 135; Mayfair Property Company v. Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 517. Referred to, Jones v. Lanrwst Urban Council, [1911] 1 Ch. 404.
[347] simpson v. savage. Dec. 2, 1856. [S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 50; 3 Jur. N. S. 161; 5 W. E. 147. Applied, Mott v. Shoolbred, 1875, L. E. 20 Eq. 24; Jones v. Ghappell, 1875, L. E 20 Eq. 543. Eeferred to, Cooper v. Crabtree, 1881-82, 19 Ch. D. 199 ; 20 Ch. D. 589. Applied, Rustv. Vidwia Graving Dock Company, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 135 ; May fair Property Company v. Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 517. Eeferred to, Jones v. Lanrwst Urban Cmmcil, [1911] 1 Ch. 404.] In an action by a reversioner, for an injury to his reversion, by the erection of workshops and a forge and chimney on land adjoining his houses, in the occupation of his tenants, and causing smoke to issue from the chimney, and making loud noises, -the evidence was, that the chimney was built by the defendant's landlord, and that large quantities of smoke issued from it in consequence of fires lighted by the defendant for the purposes of his trade, and that the plaintiff's tenants gave notice to quit:-Held, that there was no evidence to go to the jury to prove injury to the reversion; for, that, to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action, the injury (a)1 See Gilbert on Executions, p. 40, citing Jenk. Cent. p. 207, where it is said that an elegit does not lie of the glebe land of a parson or vicar, no more than of a churchyard: est solum Deo consecratum,"-referring to M. 29 Ed. 3, fo. 44, and M. 21 Ed. 4, fo. 45 b. (a)2 Where it was held that a registered judgment against a clergyman does not create a charge upon his benefice entitling the judgment-creditor to the appointment of a receiver, under the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, s. 13. 144 SIMPSON V. SAVAGE .1 C.B. (N.S.)SM. complained of must be of a permanent character, and the only act chargeable to the defendant, the lighting the fires, not being in its nature permanent. This was an action for an injury to the plaintiff's reversion, by the erection of certain workshops and forges on land adjoining the plaintiff's houses, making fires therein, and causing smoke to issue therefrom, Ac. The declaration stated, that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, certain messuages and dwelling-houses, with the appurtenances, of the plaintiff, were respectively in the occupation of certain tenants thereof to the plaintiff, the reversion thereof respectively then and still belonging to the plaintiff: yet that the defendant, whilst the said messuages and dwelling-houses, with the appurtenances, were so in such occupation as aforesaid, wrongfully and unjustly, without the leave or license of the plaintiff and his said tenants, and against their will respectively, built and erected certain workshops, manufactory, and forges, and other permanent works, adjoining and close to the messuages and dwelling-houses aforesaid, for the purpose of working and permanently continuing to work the same in the. manner thereinafter mentioned, and then wrongfully and unjustly made and caused to be made and continued therein and thereon divers large and injurious fires against the will of the plaintiff and his said tenants, and made thereon wrongfully and injuriously and continuously loud, heavy, jarring, hammering, battering, and agitating sounds and noises; aadlby reason of the premises, and of the smoke, blacks, and other gaseous effluvia Sfising from the said fires and forges entering into and diffusing themselves in, upon, over, [348] and throughout the said messuages and dwelling-houses, the same had respectively become utterly and permanently uninhabitable, and the said tenants respectively had been and would be compelled to quit and leave the same respectively, and to cease to be the tenants thereof, and the plaintiff would be unable to let the same, or to turn the same to any beneficial or profitable account, and the same had become and were thereby greatly deteriorated in value, and the present market-price thereof was thereby greatly diminished, and the plaintiff had been and was and would be permanently injured, prejudiced, and aggrieved in his reversionary estate and interest in the said messuages and dwelling-houses by reason of the premises : And the plaintiff claimed 5001. Plea, not guilty; whereupon issue was joined. The cause was tried before Lord Campbell, C. J., at the last assizes for the county of Norfolk. The facts were as follows :- The plaintiff was the owner of a plot of ground in King's Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, upon which he built several houses in 1850, which were let to tenants at rents varying from 401. to 441. per annum. The defendant is an agricultural implement maker occupying premises consisting of workshops with a forge and chimney and yard closely adjoining the back yards of the plaintiff's houses. The workshops, forge, and chimney were erected (not by the defendant) in 1851, and were a few feet only from the back windows of the plaintiff's houses. The nuisance complained of consisted in the emission of smoke from the forge chimney, to such an extent that great quantities of soot entered the windows in the rear of the plaintiffs houses, dirtying and spoiling the furniture in the rooms, and of noises from the hammering, and offensive smells from the burning of old wood in the yard. It was proved, on the part of the plaintiff, that, in consequence of the nui-[349]-sance, which was of a serious character, some of the plaintiff's tenants had given him notice to quit (though it did not appear that any of them had actually quitted); and that, in consequence of the nuisance, the plaintiffs houses would not realize as much rent as they would otherwise have done. On the part of the defendant, it was submitted, on the authority of Mumford v. The Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhamtpton Railway Company, 1 Hurslt. & N. 34, and Dobson v. Black-more, 9 Q. B. 991, that, to entitle the plaintiff, as reversioner, to maintain this action, it was incumbent on him to shew that the wrong complained of was in its nature permanent; and that there was no evidence here that the nuisances complained of were otherwise than of a mere temporary description. For the plaintiff,-conceding that, according to the cases cited, the fires in the yard and the noises would not constitute a cause of action,-it was insisted that the smoke from the chimney was a nuisance of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (Formerly Railtrack Plc)
...unless stopped or otherwise remedied and thereby an easement for the flow of water may be acquired or a right of light defeated, see Simpson v Savage (1856) 1 CBNS 347, 361 per Cresswell J, sitting with Williams J and Crowder J (see page 325) and Metropolitan Association for Improving the D......
-
HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
...1 Ll Rep 465. Parry v CleaverELR [1970] AC 1. Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload LtdELR [1984] 1 QB 127. Simpson v SavageENR (1856) 1 CBNS 347; 140 ER 143. Tancred v AllgoodENR (1859) 4 H & N 438; 157 ER 910. Transcontainer Express Ltd v Custodian Security LtdUNK [1988] 1 Ll Rep 128. Winkfield,......
-
Dublin (South) City Market Company v McCabes Ltd
...1 H. & C. 676. (2) [1907] A. C. 476. (1) [1915] A. C. 634. (1) 2 Kay & Johns. 414. (1) 1 Sim. (N. S.) 517. (2) [1911] 1 Ch. 393. (3) 1 C. B. (N. S.) 347. (1) 3 App. Cas. 709, at pp. 719 and (1) 40 Ch. D. 80. (1) Law Rep. 11 Eq. 338. ...