William Aldred's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 816
King's Bench Division
See Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 11; Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 746, 780; Tod-Heatly v. Benham, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 98; Aldin v. Latimer, Clark & Company [1894], 2 Ch. 445; Chastey v. Ackland [1895], 2 Ch. 400; [1897], A. C. 155; Warren v. Brown [1900], 2 Q. B. 727; [1902], 1 K. B. 15; Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores [1904], A. C. 186.
[57 b] william aldred's case. Mich. 8 Jacobi Regis. [See Growhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 11; Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Gas. 746, 780; Tnd-Heatly v. Benham, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 98; Aldin v. Latimer, Clark & Company [1894], 2 Ch. 445 ; Chastey v. Ackland [1895], 2 Ch. 400 ; [1897], A. C. 155; Warren v. Brown [1900], 2 Q. B. 727; [1902], 1 K. B. 15; Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores [1904], A. C. 186.] An action on the case lies for erecting a hogstye so near the house of the plaintiff that the air thereof was corrupted. *So of a lime-kiln, if the smoke enters the plaintiffs house so that he cannot dwell there: so of a dye-house, &c. if the filth runs into his fish pond, &c.* *Where an easement or profit by prescription is pleaded, another prescription cannot be pleaded in destruction of such easement or profit.* *An action on the case liea for obstructing light and air, but not for obstructing a prospect.* per Wray, C.J. 2 Roll. 141. William Aldred brought an action on the case against Thomas Benton, which began Trin. 7 Jacobi, rot. 2802. in Banco, that whereas the plaintiff, 29 Septemb' anno 6 Jac. was seised (a) of a house, and a parcel of land in length 31 feet, and in breadth 2 feet and a half, next to the hall and parlour of the plaintiff of his house aforesaid in Harleston in the county of Norfolk in fee; and whereas the defendant was possessed of a small orchard on the east part of the said parcel of land, jirced' Thomas malitiose tnachinans et intendens ipsum Willielmum de easirnento et proficuo messuag' et parcell' terra suorum prced' impedire et deprivare, the said 29th day of September, anno 6 Jacobi quoddam magnum lignile in dicto harto ipsius Thomas construxit et erexit, ac illiul adeo etxaltavit, e&c. quod per ligne illud, &k. tarn omnia fenestr' et luminaria ipsius Willielmi aulce et camerarum suarum, quam ostium ipsius Willidmi aulce prcedict' penitus obstupat fuer', e&c. et prced' Thomas ulteriiis machinans et malitiose intendens ipsum Willielmuin multipliciter prcegravare, et ipsum de Mo commoda, easirnento et proficuo totius messuagii (a) The plaintiff in this as in all other possessory actions, may declare upon his possession without alledging the precise estate of which he is seised, or laying any title, either by grant or prescription, to the thing which he is disturbed in and hindered from enjoying, Vid. Serjeant Williams's note (i) Coryton v. Lithebye, 2 Saund. 113. post. note (b) Bishop of Sarum's ca-se, 10 Eep. 59 b. 9 CO. HEP. 88 a. WILLIAM ALDRED's CASE 817 siii prced penitus deprivare, prced' 29 die Sept' an' 6 suprad' quodd' cedificium pro suibus (a) et porcis suis in hm'to suo prced' tarn prope aulam et conclave ipsius Willielmi prcedid' erexit, ac sues et porcos suos in cedificio in horto illo pasuit, et ill' ibidem per magnum tempits custodivif, ita quod per [58 a] fcetidos et insalubres adores sardidorum pradict' suum et porcorum prced' Thomce in aulam et conclavo prced' ac alias paries prced' messuagii ipsiits Willielmi penetran' et influnent' idem Willielmus et famuli siii, ac alice personce in messuagio suo prced' conversantes existeri, absque periculo infectionis in aula et condevi prced' ac aliis locia messuagi prced' continuare seu remanere twn potuerunt: p^'cetextu cujus idem Willielmus totum commodum, usum, easiamentum, et proficuum maximce partis messuagii sui prced'per totum tempus prced' totaliter perdidit et amisit ad damnum ipsius Willielmi 401. t&c. And the defendant pleaded not guilty, and at the assises in Norfolk he was found guilty of both the said nusances, and damages assessed. And now it was moved in arrest of judgment, that the building of the house for hogs was necessary for the sustenance of man: and one ought not to have so delicate a nose, that he cannot bear the smell of hogs; for lex non favet delieatorum volis: but it was resolved that the action for it is (as this case is) well maintainable; for in a house four things are desired habitatio hominis, delectatio inhabitantis, necessitas luminis, et salubritas aeris, and for nusance done to three of them an action lies, sc. 1. To the habitation of a man, for that is the principal end of a house. 2. For hinderance of the light, for the ancient form of an action on the case was significant, se. quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum fuit, therewith agree 7 E. 3. 50. b. 22 H. 6. 14. (a) by Markham, 11 H. 4. 47. and as to this there was a case adjudged in the King's Bench, Trin. 29 El. Tho. (b) Bland brought an action on the case against Thomas Moseley, and declared how that James Bland was seised in fee of an ancient house in Netherousegate in the parish of St. Michael in the county of the City of York; and that the said James, and all those whose estate he had in the said house, from time whereof, &c. (b) have (a) Hutt. 136. 2 Roll. 141. (a.) 22 H. 6. 15. a. 2 Roll. 140. (b) Hutt. 136. 1 Roll. 107, 558. Yelv. 216. 1 Bulstr. 115, 116. Godb. 183. (b) It was formerly held, that a party could not maintain an action for a nuisance in stopping the lights of his house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v London Docklands Development Corporation
...the receipt of television signals by the erection of a building between the point of receipt and the source is not in law a nuisance. 18In Aldred's case (1611 9 Coke Rep 57) Wray CJ cited what he had said in Bland v Moseley (Trin 29 Eliz): "for prospect, which is a matter only of delight an......
-
Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment
...Company (1816) 171 ER 442 Wellesley v Duke of Beaufort (1827) 38 ER 236 Wellesley v Wellesley (1828) 4 ER 1078 William Aldred’s Case (1610) 77 ER 816 Wollongong City Council v Fregnan [1982] 1 NSWLR 244 Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 Wyong Shire Council......
-
Bone v Seale
... ... That was in February 1961 ... 9 The plaintiffs' case is that since those abortive proceedings in 1961, things have not got any better and that although ... ...
-
Walsh (Philomena) v Lester (Hector) and Lester (Claire)
...We are grateful to all counsel for their well-researched submissions. 7 [29] It has been established since Aldred’s Case [1610] 9 CK 57(b) 77 ER 816 that our law does not recognise any easement of prospect. This has been confirmed in a number of subsequent cases including Butt v Imperial Ga......
-
CHAPTER 1 AIR QUALITY REGULATION BASICS
...injury. [Page 1-67] • Negligent Endangerment CAA § 113(c)(4). • Primarily used as a plea bargain tool. [Page 2-1] --------Notes:[1] 77 Eng. Rep.816 (K.B. 1611). [2] Restatement of Torts 2d §§ 821D, 821E. [3] Prosser § 89. [4] See generally William Prosser, Private Actions for Public Nuisanc......
-
Sources of Authority: Common Law
...49. 99 For a focused overview, see Gregory Pun et al, The Law of Nuisance in Canada , 2d ed (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2015). 100 (1610), 77 ER 816, [1558–1774] All ER Rep 622. 101 See, for example, Newmarket (Town) v Halton Recycling Ltd (2006), 25 MPLR (4th) 249 (Ont SCJ), where a m......
-
Nuisance Law and the Industrial Revolution: A Reinterpretation of Doctrine and Institutional Competence
...the exclusion of interference with delectatio inhabitantis (pleasure, delight,comfort) in William Aldred’s Case (1611) 9 Coke 57b, 77 ER 816 (Aldred’s Case).See n 66 belowand associated text.7 McLaren, n 1 above, 156. For a more general critique of the institutional competence of thecommon ......