References: , [1832] EngR 642, (1832) 3 B & Ad 735, (1832) 110 ER 268
Links: Commonlii
In trespass for cutting lines of the plaintiff and throwing down linen thereon hanging ; defendant pleaded, that he was possessed of a close, and because the linen was wrongfully in and upon the close he removed it. Replication, that J. G. being seised in fee of the close and of a messuage with the appurtenances contiguous to it, by lease and release conveyed to W. H., the messuage and all the easements, liberties, privileges, &c. to the said messuage belonging, or therewith then or late used, &c. ; that before and at the time of such conveyance, the tenants and occupiers of the messuage used the easement, &c. of fastening ropes to the said messuage, and across the close, to a wall in the said close, in order to hang linen thereon, and of hanging linen thereon to dry, as often as they had occasion so to do, at their free will and pleasure, and that the plaintiff being tenant to W, H. of the said messuage, did put up the lines, &c. Rejoinder took issue on the right as alleged in the replication : Held, that proof of a privilege for the tenants to hang lines across the yard, for the purpose of drying the linen of their own families only, did not support the alleged right.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Bradley and Another -v- Heslin and Another ChD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch))
The parties were neighbours. One had a right of way over the other’s land. A gate existed over it. B wished to close the gate for security, but H wished it open in order to be able to drive through it without having to get out of his car, and so he . .
