Ward v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1852 |
| Date | 01 June 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1189
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 21 L J Ex 334 Considered, Crossley v. Lightowler, 1866, L R 3 Eq. 293 Adopted, Cook v. Bath Corporation, 1868, L R 6 Eq 179
[888] ward v ward June 1, 1852 - An immemorial right of way is rrot lost by uon user foi upwards of twenty years, the user having been discontinued merely eason of the arty's having had a mote convenient way ^*st-~-s by reason of the party's having had a mote convenient way [S C 21 L J Ex 334 Considered, Crotsley v Liqhtowlei, 18(56, L R A Eq. 29.i Adopted, (look v Hath Corporation, 1868, L R 6 Eq 179 ] Trespass foi bieaking and entering two closes of the plaintiff, with horses, carts, &c The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty Secondly, that he was seised of a close called the Stubbing Pits , and he then pi escribed for an immemorial right of way over the closes in question to arrd from the Stubbing Prts, and for the occupation thereof Thirdly and fourthly, forty and twenty years' user respectively of such right of way, uqder the Prescription Act, 2 & J Will 4, c 71 The plaintiff joined issue on the firet plea, and traversed the rights respectively set up in the other pleas, and he also navv assigned for trespasses committed extia viam , to which new assignment the defendant pleaded not guilty , and issue was joined thereon At the trial, before Jervis, C J , at the last Derbyshire Assizes, it appeared that the defendant was the owner of the close called the Stubbing Pits, and that in former tunes the owners of that close were entitled to use, and did use, the disputed way in question, but that, in point of fact, the usei had not been exercised fiom the year 18.14 up to the time of the alleged trespasses During this interval the plaintiff himself held the Stubbing Pits, with other land , and then a tenant named Brshop held it, arjd paid an acknowledgment to the plaintiff for using a different means of access, aiid then another tenant held it for twenty-six yeais, duiing all which time he made n ^ use of the way in question, because he had other lands of his own adjoruing the Stubbing Pits, which fut rushed him with a shorter and moie convenient way to and from the Stabbing Pits , but irr order to prevent any question arising as to a right bdmg acquired on his own laird, he regularly obtained an allowance of Is out of his (a) Pollock, C B , Alderson, B , Pktt, B , and Mai tin, B I IL9IO ROSKRUGE U CADDY 7 BX 839...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title No 938 and Others
... ... Other cases considered ... I should, however, deal with the other cases which Mr Wee cited. The first of these is Ward v Ward [1852] 7 Exch 838 (Unreported) where the right of way in question had not been used for about 26 years. The right of way was upheld. It was ... ...
-
Backhouse v Bonomi
...v. Wheeley, 13 L. J. N. S. Exch. 361; S. C. 2 D. & L. 203; Bosewell v. Prior, 2 Salk. 460; Sex v. Pedly, 1 A. & E. 822; Ward v. Ward, 7 Exch. 838; Howell v. Young, 5 B. & C. 259; Wordsworth v. Barley, 1 B. & Ad. 391; Lord Oakley v. The Kensington Canal Company, 5 B. & Ad. 138. EL. BL & EL. ......
-
Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corp. v. Piller Investments Ltd., 2018 ONSC 4607
...(1927), 62 O.L.R. 328 (C.A.); Crossley and Sons Limited v. Lightowler (1867), L.R. 3 Eq. 279, aff’d L.R. 2 Ch. 478; Ward v. Ward (1852), 155 E.R. 1189; Seaman v. Vawdrey (1810), 33 E.R. [67] Remicorp Industries Inc. v. Metrolinx, 2017 ONCA 4431; 2108133 Ontario Inc. v. Kabcan Foods Ltd. (20......
-
Williams and Another v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd
...intention on the part of the dominant owner to abandon the right. The principle is stated in the headnote to Ward v Ward (1852) 7 Ex 838, 155 ER 1189: "An immemorial right of way is not lost by non-user for upwards of twenty years, the user having been discontinued merely by reason of the p......
-
Extinguishment of Easements and Profits à Prendre
...(1981) 45 P & CR 235; Gotobed v Pridmore [1971] EG 759; Swan v Sinclair [1925] 1 Ch 254; James v Stevenson [1893] AC 162; Ward v Ward (1852) 7 Exch 838. 5 Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman 22 P & CR 371, CA; Re Yateley Common, Hampshire [1977] 1 All ER 505. 6 Cook v Mayor and Corporation of Bath......