Webb v Bird and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 332
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 335; 8 Jur. N. S. 521. Followed, Bryant v. Lefever, 1879, L. R. 4 C. P. D. 172. Distinguished, Sturyes v. Bridgman, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 855. See Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 750. Referred to, Hollins v. Verney, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 309. Followed, Harris v. De Pinna, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 251. Commented on, Bass v. Gregory, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 483. Discussed, Aldin v. Latimer, [1894] 2 Ch. 445; Chostey v. Ackland, [1895] 2 Ch. 399; [1897] A. C. 155. See Simpson v. Godmanchester Corporation, [1897] A. C. 709. Referred to, Davis v. Town Properties Investment Corporation, [1903] 1 Ch. 804.
in the exchequer chamber. [841] webb v. bird and others. 1863. [S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 335 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 621. Followed, Bryant v. Lefever, 1879, L. K. 4 C. P. D. 172. Distinguished, Stunjea v. Eridgman, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 855. See Daltou v. Angus, 1881, G App. Gas. 750. Referred to, Rollins v. Verney, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 309. Followed, Hants v. De Pinna, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 251. Commented on, Bass v. Gregory, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 483. Discussed, AUin v. Latiimr, [1894] 2 Ch. 445; Chastey v. AcUand, [1895] 2 Ch. 399 ; [1897] A. C. 155. See Simpson v. Godtmnchester Corporation, [1897] A. C. 709. Referred to, Davis v. Town Properties Investment Corporation, [1903] 1 Ch. 804.] The right to the passage of air is not a right to an easement within the meaning of the 2 & 3 W. 4, c, 71, s. 2.-The presumption of a grant from long continued enjoyment only arises where the person against whom the right is claimed might have interrupted or prevented the exercise of the subject of the supposed grant.- Held, therefore,-affirming the judgment of the court of Common Pluas,-that a grant of a right to the free and uninterrupted passage of the currents of wind and air to the plaintiff's mill from over the soil of another, cannot be presumed from au uninterrupted user of the mill for twenty years. This was a writ of error upon a case stated by an arbitrator for the opinion of the court of Common Pleas, upon the argument of which that court held that the owner of a windmill qannot claim, either by prescription, or by presumption of a grant arising from twenty years' acquiescence, to be entitled to the free and uninterrupted passage of the currents of wind and air to his mill; and that such a claim is not within the 2nd section of the 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71, which is confined to rights of way or other easements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Webb v Bird and Others
-
The Master, Wardens and Commonalty of the Art and Mystery of the Curriers of the City of London v Corbertt
...the Appellant. [768] The nature of the evidence in the case and the scope of the arguments on the appeal, during which Webb v. Bird (13 C. B. (N. S.), 841); Johnsm v.Wyati (2 De G. J. & S. 18); Isenberg v. The East India House Estate Company (Limited) (3 De G. J. & S. 263); Jackson v. The D......
-
The future of prescriptive easements in Australia and England.
...to the passage of air over an unlimited surface could not be acquired by prescription: Webb v Bird (1861) 10 CB NS 268; Webb v Bird (1862) 13 CB NS 841. (80) Ibid. See also Alison Clarke and Paul Kohler, Property Law: Commentary and Materials (2005) (81) Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC ......
-
What did Ronald Coase know about the law of tort?
...this case with the modern law of easements of light and air, and Coase briefly notes that a modern case--Webb v Bird (1863) 13 CB NS 841; 143 ER 332, cited in Gale on Easements at 238-9; Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, 855, 857 (Jessel MR), 864 (Thesiger LJ for the Court)--does not f......