Winter v Brockwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1807 |
| Date | 18 April 1807 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 359
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Plimmer v. Mayor of Wellington, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 714; Aldin v. Latimer, Clarke & Company [1894], 2 Ch. 448.
winter against brockwell. Saturday, April 18th, 1807. A parol licence to put a sky light over the defendant's area, (which impeded the light and air from coming to the plaintiff's dwelling house through a window,) cannot be recalled at pleasure after it has been executed at the defendant's expence; at least not without tendering the expences he had been put to: and therefore no action lies as for a private nusance, in stopping the light and air, &c., and communicating a stench from the defendant's premises to the plaintiff's house by means of such sky light. [See Plimmer v. Mayor-of Wellington, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 714; Aldin v. Latimer, Clarice & Company [1894], 2 Ch. 448..] This was an action on the case for a nusance, wherein the plaintiff complained, (a) 8 Term Rep. 162. Vi. also Shepherd v. Johnson, 2 East, 211. 360 BOOT V. WILSON 8EAST.30*. that being lawfully possessed of a dwelling house with the appurte-[309]-nanees in Long Acre, &c. (Westminster,) into which the light and air entered by means of a window from a certain open area between the said window and an adjoining house; by means of which open area also noisome smells which came from the adjoining house evaporated, without occasioning any nusanee to the occupier of the plaintiff's house; the defendant wrongfully placed a skylight over the area above the plaintiff's window, by means of which the light and air were prevented from entering the plaintiff's window into his house, and noisome smells arising from the adjoining house were prevented from evaporating, and entered the plaintiff's dwelling-house, &e. Plea the general issue. At the trial before Lord Ellenborough C.J. at the last sittings at Westminster, the defence set up was that the area which belonged to the defendant's house had been inclosed and covered by a sky light in the manner stated, with the express consent and approbation of the plaintiff, obtained before the inclosure was made, who also gave leave to have part of the frame-work nailed against his wall. But some time after it was finished the plaintiff objected to it, and gave notice to have it removed. But his Lordship was of opinion, that the licence given by the plaintiff to erect the sky-light, having been acted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...Tayler v. Waters. 2 Marsh. 551, S. C.: a licence to put a sky-light over the defendant's area, by which the plaintiffs window is darkened. 8 East, 308, Winter v. Brockwell. See also 4 M. & S. 562, Rex, v. Horndon on the Hill, and 1 Barn. & Cress. 634, Rex v. Hagworthingham. An action will l......
-
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd
...later cases which I will just mention: ( Wood v. Lake Sayer, page 3: 96 English Reports page 783): ( Winter v. Brockwell 8 East page 308: 103 English Reports page 359); ( Tayler v. Waters 7 Taunton page 374: 129 English Reports page 150); ( Hewlins v. Shippam 5 Barnewall and Cresswell page ......
-
Perry against Fitzhowe
...which is not to be enjoyed on the licensor's land, the grant need not be by deed. This distinction is borne out by Winter v. Brockwell (8 East, 308), Liggins v. Inge (1 Bing. 682), and the cases, generally, on the subject of such grants ; it seems to be recognized on both sides in argument ......
-
Stanley v Riky
...151. Wood v. LeadbitterENR 13 M. & W. 838. Hewlins v. ShppamENR 5 B. & C. 221. Atkinson v. KingUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 320. Winter v. BrockwellENR 8 East, 308. Haigh v. JaggerENR 16 M. & W. 525. White v. JamesonELR L. R. 18 Eq. 303. In re StroudENR 8 C. B. 502. Sutherland v. HeathcoteELR [1891] E C......