The Master, Wardens and Commonalty of the Art and Mystery of the Curriers of the City of London v Corbertt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 1865 |
| Date | 03 August 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 1119
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 Dr. & Sm. 355; 13 L. T. 154; 13 W. R. 1056. Se Robson v. Whittingham, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 444; Senior v. Pawson, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 335; Bucknall, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 5; Aynsley v. Glover, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 553; Lady Stanley of Alderley v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 620; Smith v. Smith, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 502; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Company, 1876, 2 C. P. D. 16; Warner v. Macbryde, 1877, 36 L. T. 362; Kind v. Rudkin, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 164; National Provincial Plate Glass Insurance Company v. Prudential Assurance Company, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 761; Wheeldon v. Burrows, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 43; Holland v. Worley, 1884, 26 Ch. 6. 584; Birmingham and District Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 312.
[764] the master, wardens and commonalty of the art and mystery of the curriers of the city of london v. corbett. Before the Lords Justices. June 12, 13, August 3, 1865. [S. C. 2 Dr. & Sm. 355; 13 L. T. 154; 13 W. R. 1056. See Eobson v. WhUKngham, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 444; Senior v. Pawson, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 335 ; Heath v. Bucknall, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 5 ; Aynshy v. Glover, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 553; Lady Stanley of Alderley v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 620 ; Smith v. Smith, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 502; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Company, 1876, 2 C. P. D. 16 ; Warner v. Macbryde, 1877, 36 L. T. 362 ; Kind v. Sudkin, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 164 ; National Provincial Plate Gla.su Insurance Company v. Piiulential Assurance Company, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 761 ; WTieeldon v. Burrows, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 43 ; Holland v. Worley, 1884, 2(5 Ch. D. 584; Birmingham and District Banking Company v. Ross, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 312.] The reversioners in fee of houses on both sides of a court in the City of London sold 1120 the curriers' company v. corbett 4DBo.j.as.76j. their reversion of a house on one side of the court to a person who at the same time obtained from the termor an assignment of his interest. The purchaser cleared the site so obtained by him, and on it and on adjoining land commenced building in such a way as to interfere with .the access of light and air to the vendors' houses on the opposite side of the court, and the latter filed a bill for an injunction to restrain him from proceeding with or completing his buildings, and for a preventive and mandatory injunction against any building to a greater height than that of the buildings pulled down, or so as to obstruct the light and air to a greater extent than had been the case prior to the clearance of the site. Held, upon the evidence, that there was no such material injury clone or occasioned, or likely to be done or occasioned, to the vendors by the acts of the purchaser as would warrant the interference of a Court of Equity, and the bill was dismissed without costs, but without prejudice to any remedy at law. Per the Lord Justice Turner : The Court of Chancery has never assumed or exercised jurisdiction to order a building, which so far as it can impede the progress of light and air has been actually completed, to be pulled down. Whether where before a bill seeking an injunction by way of preventive remedy is filed the buildings complained of have been carried to the full height to which it was intended to carry them, the Court would interfere by injunction or give damages under Mr. Rolt's Act (stat. 25 & 26 Viet. c. 42), queers. As to how far the custom of the City of London as to the access of air remains unaffected by the Prescription Act (stat. 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, s. 3), qufere. It is not every...
To continue reading
Request your trial