The Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Grocers v Donne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1836 |
| Date | 01 June 1836 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 322
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 3 Scott, 356; 2 Hodges, 120; 5 L. J. C. P. 307.
[34] the wardens and commonalty of the mystery of grocers v. donne. June 1, 1836. [S. C. 3 Scott, 356; 2 Hodges, 120; 5 L. J. C. P. 307.] An arbitrator found that commissioners of sewers had, by tunnelling, constructed a sewer fit and proper to be made, in a workmanlike, skilful, and proper manner in all respects; but that the probability of damage accruing would have been in some degree less if the sewer had been made by open cutting instead of tunnelling ;- Held, that the commissioners were not responsible for an injury to an adjoining building, occasioned by the tunnelling. This action was brought by the Grocers' Company against the Defendant, as clerk of the commissioners of sewers, under the forty-second section of 4 G. 4, c. 114, to recover damages for the injury occasioned to a house belonging to the Plaintiffs, and occupied by Mr. Bicknell, their clerk, bordering upon Princes Street. The house, as was alleged, settled and sank, and was cracked and damaged in various places, in consequence of the foundations being disturbed and drawn from under it by the works connected with the construction of a sewer along Princes Street. The mode of construction adopted was by a tunnel carried along the street at a depth of thirty feet from the surface, and contiguous to the foundation of the Plaintiffs' house; and it was alleged, that the excavation for the tunnel caused a subsidence of the soil, which affected the foundation. The declaration stated, that before and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiffs were lawfully possessed of and in a certain ancient messuage and premises situate and being in the parish of St. Mildred the Virgin, in the city of London, which said messuage was then used.by Plaintiffs for the occupation of a certain servant of Plaintiffs; yet said commissioners of sewers of the city of London and liberties thereof, well knowing the premises, but wrongfully and injuriously intending to injure Plaintiffs in respect of their said ancient messuage and premises with the appurtenances as aforesaid, to wit, on the 7th of August 1834, wrongfully and injuriously did make, cut, and dig a certain shaft, sewer, gutter, and ditch, [35] near unto said ancient messuage and premises so in possession of Plaintiffs as aforesaid, and did unskilfully, wrongfully, and improperly, make, cut, and dig said shaft, sewer, gutter, and ditch, so being near unto said ancient messuage and premises of Plaintiffs as aforesaid, and did also make, cut, and dig said shaft, gutter, sewer, and ditch without shoring up, propping, or duly securing said messuage and premises, or the earth and subsoil supporting the walls of said ancient messuage and premises of Plaintiffs as aforesaid, in order to prevent same from being injured by said making, cutting, and digging of said shaft, sewer, gutter, and ditch as aforesaid; and without giving due notice to Plaintiffs of the intention of them, the said commissioners, to dig, make, and cut said shaft, sewer, gutter, and ditch, so as to enable Plaintiffs to shore and prop up their said ancient messuage and premises: by means of which several premises, said ancient messuage and premises of Plaintiffs, became and were, and still are greatly injured and weakened, and the walls, partitions, ceilings, floors, and other parts of said ancient messuage and premises of Plaintiffs were damaged, so that said messuage of Plaintiffs had become and was dangerous to live and reside in; and Plaintiffs, from the time of committing the aforesaid grievances, hitherto, had been and were hindered and prevented from enjoying their said ancient messuage and premises in so ample and beneficial a manner as they might and otherwise would and ought to have done; and had been obliged to expend divers sums of money, amounting to the sum of 5001., in and about the obtaining another residence for said servant of Plaintiffs, and in and about removing divers articles of furniture, and other goods and chattels from and out of their said ancient messuage; and by means of the said several premises, said messuage and premises had been and were much injured and [36] lessened in value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stainton v The Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Lewisham District Board of Works
...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. 12......
-
Ware v Regent's Canal Company
...G. M. & G. 436);. Dawsan \. Paver (5 Hare, 415); Coats v. The Clarence Hallway Company (1 Russ. & Myl. 181); Grocers' Company v. Donne (3 Bing. N. C. 34) ; Lawrence v. Great Northern Eailway Company (16 Q. B. 643); Rochdale Canal Company v. King (2 Sim. N. S. 78); 3dbo.j.m ware v. regent's ......
-
CHARLES SHARPLEY, v EDWARD HORNSBY, Secretary to the Commissioners of Public Works n Ireland
...G. 421. Governor, &c., of Cast Plate Manufacturers v. Meredith Supra. Boulton v. CrowtherENR 2 B. & C. 703. Grocers' Company v. DonneENR 3 Bing. N. C. 34. Leader v. Moxton and others 3 Wil. 461; S. C. 2 Wm. Black. 924. Sutton v. ClarkeENR 6 Taunt. 42. Hall v. SmithENR 2 Bing. 158. Jones v. ......