Baylis v Tyssen-Amhurst: 1877

In order to acquire by prescription a right of pasture appurtenant to land, there had to be some relation between the enjoyment of the right and the enjoyment of the land in question. The number of animals for the pasturing of which the right was claimed was not, however, a fixed and certain number nor a number limited by levancy and couchancy. It was said to be a number dependent on the value of the dominant land relative to the value of the other tenements in respect of which pasturage rights were being claimed ‘according to a scale fixed by the homage of the manor’.


Sir George Jessel MR


[1877] 6 Ch 500


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBettison and others v Langton and others HL 17-May-2001
A right to pasture animals on a common had been levant and couchant, and as such was inalienable as a separate asset from the land where the animals were kept. The right was registered under the Act, and was thereby transformed into a right to graze . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191146