Stainton v The Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Lewisham District Board of Works
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 88
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 300; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 257. See Milward v. Redditch Local Board of Health, 1873, 21 W. R. 431. For subsequent proceedings in 1863, see S. C. 11 W. R. 492.
[225] stainton v. woolrych. stainton v. the metropolitan board of works, and the lewisham district board of works. Dec. 15, 16, 17, 18, 1856 ; Jan. 22, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 300; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 257. See Milward v. Redditch Local Board of Health, 1873, 21 W. E. 431. For subsequent proceedings in 1863, see S. C. 11 W. R. 492.] The Metropolitan Board of Works constructed a sewer in the high road, and the Lewisham District Board made a branch sewer running into it. The combined effect of the two was to drain an ornamental pond and rivulet in the adjoining lands of the Plaintiff. In a suit to obtain an injunction: Held, first, that neither of the boards were, in respect to the diversion of the water, to he treated as clothed with the rights or obligations of adjoining landowners. Secondly, that they had not exceeded their statutory rights so as to be liable to be restrained by injunction ; but, thirdly, that if either of these boards were producing this injury to the Plaintiffs by the unskilful or improper construction of the sewer, this Court would interfere to prevent it; and, fourthly, that such not being the case, the rights of the Plaintiff's were limited to a claim for compensation under the 11 & 12 Viet. c. 112, s. 50, and the 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, s. 86. This case was argued by Mr. E. Palmer, Mr. Lewin and Mr. Kenyon, for the Plaintiffs. They cited Dawson v. Paver (5 Hare, 415); Leader v. Moxm (2 Wm. Blackst. 924); Jones v. Bird (5 Barn. & Aid. 837); The Grocers' Company v. Donne (3 Bing. N. C. 34); Button v. Clarke (6 Taunt. 29); Goafs v. The Clarence Railway Company (1 Euss. & M. 181); The Attorney-General v. Forbes (2 Myl. & Cr. 123); Tyler v. Wilkinson (4 Mason (Amer. Rep.), 397); Dickensm v. The Grand Junction Canal Company (7 Exch. 282, and 15 Beav. 260); Gale on Easements (p. 181); Acton v. Blundell (12 Mee. & W. 324, 346); Beaky v. Shaw (6 East, 208); Balston v. Bemsted (1 Campb. 463); Luttrel's ctise (4 Rep. 87) ; 1 Rolle's Ab. (p. 107, pi. 16) ; Saunders v. Newmm (1 Barn. & Aid. 258) ; II & 12 Viet. c. 63, ss. 32, 34, 38, 50, 59, 61, 66 and 69; 12 & 13 Viet. c. 93, s. 4 ; S3BBAY.M8. BTAINTON V. WOOLRYCH 89 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, ss. 68, 69, 77, 86, 152 ; 21 Jac. 1, c. 16; The Caledonian Railway Company v. Ogel/vy (2 Maoq. H. of L. Gas. 229); Hammond v. Hall (10 Sim. 551); Beeston v. Weate (5 Ellis & B. 986). [226] Mr. Haynes, for the Defendants in the same interest. the attorney-general (Sir R. Bethell), Mr. Lloyd and Mr. C. Hall, for the Metropolitan Board of Works, cited Uroadbent v. Ramsbotham (11 Exch. Rep. 602); Rawstrm v. Taylor (Ibid. 369); Acton v. Blundell (12 Mee. & W. 324); Arkwright v. Gell (5 Mee. & W. 203); Chasemore v. Wyke (April 1856, Exch.); Shwry v. Piggot (3 Bulst. 339); 11 & 12 Viet. c. 112, ss. 38, 50; 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, ss. 150, 151; Coats v. Clarence Railway Company (1 Russ. & Myl. 181); Greatrex v. Haywanl (8 Exch. Rep. 291); Embrey v. Owen (6 Exch. Rep. 353); Magor v. Chadwick (11 Ad. & Ell. 571); Wood v. Wood (3 Exch. 748); Rawstron v. Taylor (25 L. J. (Exch.) 33); 11 & 12 iVict c. 112; 12&13 Viet. c. 93; British Cast Plate, Manufacturers v. Meredith (4 T. R. 794); Priestley v. Manchester ami Leeds Railway Company (2 Railw. Cas. 134); London and Birmingham Railway Company v. Qrand Junction Canal Company (I Railw. Cas. 238). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Steere, for the Lewisham District Board of Works. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, ss. 50, 86; London and North-Western Railway Company v. Bradley (6 Railw. Cas. 556); Frewin v. Lewis (4 Myl. & Cr. 254); Thicknesse v. Lancaster Canal Company (4 Mee. & W. 472); Rawstrm v. Taylor (11 Exch. 369); Oklaker v. Hunt (19 Beav. 485). Mr. R. Palmer, in reply. The Caledonian Railway Company v. Ogelvy (2 Macqueen, H. of L. Cas. 229). [227] the master of the rolls reserved judgment. Jan. 22, 1857. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. This is a suit, originally instituted against the secretary of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and subsequently, by supplemental bill, against the Metropolitan Board and the District Board for Lewisham, seeking for an injunction to restrain both boards from causing or continuing the diversion of a stream of water which theretofore flowed through the grounds of Henry Stainton deceased. The facts of the case are shortly these : The testator had, for many years, and as early as May 1817, been possessed of a house and grounds at Lewisham, in Kent, which, in that year, on the occasion of his marriage, he had settled. In the year 1835 he purchased, at a very great expense, a field consisting of three acres, which contained a very copious spring of water, from whence a stream, after producing a marshy piece of ground, flowed from it in a continued stream in a northerly direction. The testator, having purchased this piece of land, collected the water arising from the spring into one spot, and converted it into a circular pond or piece of water, and diverted the original flow of the rivulet from this pond into another channel, which he considered to be highly ornamental to his house and grounds, and by which, after several involutions, it ultimately found its way into the Ravensbourne river or brook, which flows at no great distance from it, and falls into the Thames at Deptford. The testator took a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biddulph v The Vestry of the Parish of St George, Hanover Square
...or relied on Psalter v. Selfe (4 De G. & Sm. 315); Tinkler v. Wandswarth District Board of Works (2 De G. & J. 261); Staintm v. Woolrydi (23 Beav. 225); Austin v. The Vestry of St. Mary's, Lambeth (27 L. J. (N. S.), Ch. 388, 677); Coats v. The Clarence Railway Company (1 Russ. & M. 181); Th......
-
The Queen against The Metropolitan Board of Works
...is used to distinguish the cases intended from those in which the use of the water is only by licenca. In Stainton v. Woolrych, &c. (23 Beav. 225, 233), Sir John Rorailly M.R. dismissed a bill for an injunction to restrain the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Lewisham District Board of W......
-
The New River Company, Appellants against Sarah Johnson
...to a claimant, the words of the statute under which the powers have been exercised are, alone, to be considered ; Slainlon v. Woolrych (23 Beav. 225). In London and North Western Railway Company v. Bradley (6 Railway Cases, 551, 559), cited in Sir W. Hodges on the Law of Railways, p. 309 (3......
-
Catoh against The Board of works for the Lewisham Distriot
...this is at most a private nuisance, for it is not stated that what was done was injurious to health. [He cited Stainton v. Woolrych (23 Beav. 225), Reg. v. The Metropolitan Board of Works (3 B. & S. 710), and Chasemore v. Riduvrds (1 H. L. C. 349), and Blackburn J. referred to Com. Dig. Act......
-
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 53ER95-16 Replacement of Obsolete and Unnecessary Emergency Rules
...53ER87-2, 53ER87-3, 53ER87-6, 53ER87-7, 53ER87-9, 53ER87-15, 53ER87-17, 53ER87-22, 53ER87-27, 53ER87-28, 53ER87-29, 53ER87-30, 53ER87-39, 53ER88-3, 53ER88-4, 53ER88-5, 53ER88-6, 53ER88-7, 53ER88-8, 53ER88-9, 53ER88-10, 53ER88-11, 53ER88-12, 53ER88-15, 53ER88-17, 53ER88-18, 53ER88-19, 53ER88......
-
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 53ER92-48 [Superseded] Accountability
...5-29-92, Replaces 53ER88-1, Superseded by 53ER92-64.Source: Specific Authority 24.105(10), 24.112 FS. Law Implemented 24.112, 24.114, 24.115 ...
-
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 53ER92-51 [Superseded] Procedures For Awarding Prizes
...6-2-92, Replaces 53ER90-15, 53ER89-13, 53ER88-37, Superseded by 53ER92-66.Source: Specific Authority 24.112(1), 24.105(10)(a), (d), (e), 24.115(1) FS. Law Implemented 24.105(10)(a), (d), (e), 24.115(1) ...
-
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 53ER92-56 [Superseded] Accountability
...6-3-92, Replaces 53ER88-1, 53ER92-48, Superseded by 53ER92-64.Source: Specific Authority 24.105(10), 24.112 FS. Law Implemented 24.112, 24.114, 24.115 ...