Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Nuisance - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Prior of Southwards [1498] YB Henry 7 26
1498


Land, Nuisance
The prior complained because the defendant, who was a glover, had made a lime pit for calf-skins so close to a stream as to pollute it. Held: If the glover had dug the lime pit in the prior's soil, the action ought to be in trespass: but if it was made in the glover's soil it should be in case.
1 Citers


 
1582 (Anon) (1582) Cro Eliz 10
1582


Nuisance
The defendant fired a gun at a fowl. In so doing he set fire to his own and his neighbour's house. The action was brought by way of action on the case. Held: If the plaintiff "had counted on the custom of the realm as in [Beaulieu v Finglam] the action had not been well brought". Although the court did not give reasons for this view, it was presumably because the fire was not deliberately kindled and was never within the defendant's control
1 Citers



 
 Leeds v Shakerley; 1599 - [1653] EngR 1212; (1599) Cro Eliz 751; (1653) 78 ER 983 (A)
 
Crogate v Morris [1675] EngR 433; (1675) 2 Br & Gold 146; (1675) 123 ER 864
1675


Nuisance
"if my friend come and lie in my house, and set my neighbour's house on fire, the action lieth against me."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Tenant v Goldwin (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1089; [1704] Holt KB 500; [1704] 2 Ld Raym 1089; [1704] 6 Mod Rep 311; [1704] 91 ER 20, 314
1704


Nuisance
He whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass. The defendant was liable where he failed to maintain the partition wall in his privy so that the filth ran into the plaintiff's cellar.
1 Citers


 
Farquharson v Farquharson (1811) vol XXIX-XXX, 12779.
1741


Scotland, Nuisance
"It was found lawful for one to build a fence upon his own ground, by the side of a river, to prevent damage to his ground by the overflow of the river, though thereby a damage should happen to his neighbour by throwing the whole overflow in time of flood upon his ground. But it was found not lawful to use any operation in the alveus." (Deans of Court of Session, William Maxwell Morison)
1 Citers


 
Dale v Hall (1750) 1 Wils 281
1750


Nuisance
Damage done by rats is not normally an act of God.
1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v Doughty (1752) 2 Ves Sen 453; [1752] 28 ER 290
1752

Lord Hardwicke LC
Nuisance, Land
As to any right of prospect, a building erected so as to spoil a view cannot at common law be a nuisance for that reason. "I know no general rule of common law, which warrants that, or says, that building so as to stop another's prospect is a nuisance. Was that the case, there could be no great towns; and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town . . ."
1 Citers


 
Turberville v Stamp (1792) 12 Mod 152
1792


Nuisance
The defendant's haystack spontaneously combusted and it was alleged that he had "wrongfully negligently and improperly kept his haystack so that it became liable to ignite" and so be a danger to the claimant's property. The jury were left to consider the question of negligence. Held: The direction was upheld as the "common custom of the realm". Tindal CJ said: "But there is a rule of law which says you must so employ your own property as not to injure that of another; and according to that rule the defendant is liable for the consequences of its own neglect; and though the defendant did not himself light the fire yet mediately, he is as much the cause of it as if he had himself put a candle to the rick; for it is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked."
1 Citers


 
Turberville v Stampe [1792] EngR 2684; (1792) 1 Ld Raym 264; (1792) 91 ER 1072 (B)
1792


Nuisance
Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. acc. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the Act of God. A master is responsible for all acts dons by his servant in the course of his employment, though without particular directions.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Turberville v Stamp [1796] EngR 2164; (1796) 12 Mod 152; (1796) 88 ER 1228
1796

Turton J, Holtby CJ
Nuisance
Action upon the case on the custom of the realm, for negligently keeping of his fire; declaring that the plaintiff was possessed of a close of heath ; that the defendant possessed of another close next adjoining ; and that the defendant tam improvide custodivit iqnem suum in his field, that it burnt the plaintiff’s heath in his field. After verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved in arrest of judgment hat such an action on the case lies only for a negligent keeping his fire in his house ; and that in this case he should have his action specially, if he be damaged, and not count on the general custom for negligence.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.