Williams against Morland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 620
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 D. & R 583; 2 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 191. Not followed, Mason v. Hill, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 19. Dicta disapproved, Chasemore v. Richards, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 384. Applied, Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway, 1883-1884, 23 Ch. D. 574; 27 Ch. D. 122. Dictum adopted, Brunsden v. Humphrey, 1884, 14 Q. B. D. 150.
williams against morland. 1824. Where, in case a plaintiff alleged in his declaration that he was possessed of a messuage and premises, and by reason thereof entitled to the use of a stream of water running through the premises for supplying the same with water; and that defendant erected a certain dam higher up the stream, and thereby prevented the water from running in its usual course, in its usual calm and smooth manner, and thereby the water ran in a different channel, and with greater violence, and injured the banks and premises of the plaintiff; and on issue joined on a plea of not guilty, the jury found that the plaintiff's banks and premises were not injured by the dam erected by the defendant; but added, that defendant had no right to stop the water in the-summer-time; the Judge ordered the verdict to be entered for the defendant: Held, that the verdict was right, for flowing water is publici juris, and an individual can only acquire a right to it by appropriating so much of it as he requires for a beneficial purpose, and therefore, the plaintiff could not recover damages for the mere erection of a dam, but, was bound to allege and prove that he had sustained an injury from the want of a sufficient quantity of water. [S. C. 4 D. & R 583; 2 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 191. Not followed, Mason v. Hill, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 19. Dicta disapproved, Chasemore v. Richards, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 384. Applied, Kensit v. Great Eastern Railway, 1883-1884, 23 Ch. D. 574; 27 Ch. D. 122. Dictum adopted, Brunsden v. Humphrey, 1884, 14 Q. B. D. 150.] Declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, was lawfully possessed of a messuage or dwelling-house,, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, and by reason thereof of right ought to have had and enjoyed, and still of right ought to have and enjoy, the benefit and advantage of the water of a stream, called the Lee Eiver, and which during all that time of right ought to have run and flowed, and until the committing of the-grievances thereinafter mentioned, of right had [911] run and flowed, and still of right ought to run and flow, unto and past the lands and premises of the plaintiff, for supplying the same with water; yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, but contriving, &c., heretofore, and whilst the plaintiff was possessed of the tenements,, with the appurtenances, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., wrongfully and injuriously erected and made a certain pent-stock, dam, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tabet v Gett
...Foundations of the Law of Tort, 2nd ed (1984) at 60. 92 (1884) 14 QBD 141 at 150. 93 Williams v Morland (1824) 2 B & C 910 at 916 [ 107 ER 620 at 622], referred to in Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 at 150 per Bowen 94 Hay or Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 at 116 per Lord Porter; H......
-
M'Glone v Smith
...99 Bickett v. Morris L. R. 1 Sco. App. 47. Wood v. WaudENR 3 Ex. 748. Mason v. HillENR 3 B. & Ad. 304; 5B. & Ad. 1. William v. MorlandENR 2 B. & C. 910. Embrey v. OwenENR 6 Ex. 353. Routledge v. HislopENR 2 E. & E. 549. Wright v. HowardENR 1 Sim. & St. 190. Chasemore v. Richards 7 H. L. Cas......
-
Rich v Basterfield
...plaintiff stands, therefore, simply in the position of a pre-occupier. Air, like flowing water, is publici juris. In Williams v. Morland (2 B. & C. 910, 4 D. & li. 583), it was held that an individual can only acquire a right to the latter, by appropriating so much of-it as he requires for ......
-
Fay v Prentice and Another
...for the obstruction of a watercourse, or a right of common, or the like, though no actual damage could be shewn. In Williams v. Norland (2 B. & C. 910), Littledale, J., says : "In trespass for a wrongful entry into the land of another, a damage is presumed to have been sustained, though no ......