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: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Rex v Bell (1822) 1 LJKB (OS) 42
1822


Nuisance
"that which is not a nuisance at the time it is done, cannot become so by length of time"
1 Citers



 
 The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson And Others; 14-Nov-1823 - [1823] EngR 745; (1823) 2 B & C 302; (1823) 107 ER 396
 
Rex v The Commissioners of Sewers for the Levels of Pagham (1828) 8 B & C 355
1828

Lord Tenterden CJ
Nuisance
The court considered responsibility for the inroads of the sea. The Commissioners erected groynes and other works to defend the stretch of coast for which they were responsible against the sea's encroachment. But the consequence was that the sea flowed with greater force upon adjoining land, whose owner brought proceedings. Held: "I am… of opinion that the only safe rule to lay down is this, that each land-owner for himself, or the commissioners acting for several land-owners, may erect such defences for the land under their care as the necessity of the case requires, leaving it to others, in like manner, to protect themselves against the common enemy."
1 Citers


 
Rex v Trafford (1831) 1 B & Ad 874
1831
KBD
Lord Tenterden
Nuisance
The river Mersey and an associated brook overflowed their banks in wet weather at the place in question, and the waters went north and west over adjoining lands, at length flowing back into the Mersey. The affected landowners raised banks (referred to as "fenders") to confine the flood waters to the river and the brook. A canal, carried over the Mersey on an aqueduct, was constructed by authority of Parliament. The aqueduct had three arches taking the canal across the land where the flood waters naturally went. Thereafter the flow of water in the Mersey was increased by improved drainage higher up the river. So the landowners raised the height of their fenders. This pushed up the height of the flood water so as to endanger the canal and its aqueduct. The canal owners prosecuted the landowners on indictment for a nuisance. The jury delivered a very complicated special verdict which, under the procedure of the time, was then referred to the Court of King's Bench. Held: In favour of the prosecutor: "Now, it has long been established, that the ordinary course of water cannot be lawfully changed or obstructed for the benefit of one class of persons, to the injury of another. Unless, therefore, a sound distinction can be made between the ordinary course of water flowing in a bounded channel at all usual seasons, and the extraordinary course which its superabundant quantity has been accustomed to take at particular seasons, the creation and continuance of these fenders cannot be justified."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Trafford v Rex (1832) 8 Bing 204
1832
CEC
Tindal CJ
Nuisance
Landowners next to the Mersey had raised the banks to prevent floodwaters coming on to their land. This raised the water level threatening a canal. The landowners appealed a conviction. Held: A guilty verdict of guilty would only be sustainable if (among other things): "… the course which the flood water is stated in the special verdict to have taken, and by which it was carried again into the river at a lower point, was the ancient and rightful course for it to take." The Exchequer Chamber held that this was not shown with sufficient clarity, and they ordered a venire de novo.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Elliotson v Feetham And Another [1835] EngR 798; (1835) 2 Bing NC 134; (1835) 132 ER 53
10 Jun 1835


Nuisance
The plaintiff complained of nuisance from smoke and noise generated by the defendant in adjacent workshops used for the making of iron. The defendant pleaded that he had been in occupation of his workshops for ten years before the plaintiff acquired his interest in the property he occupied, and had always in that period generated the smoke and noise of which complaint was made. Held: Judgment for the plaintiff. The defence could not succeed without pleading and proving that the smoke and noise had been generated for twenty years.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Vaughan v Menlove [1837] EngR 328; (1837) 7 Car & P 525; (1837) 173 ER 232 (A)
1837


Nuisance, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Vaughan v Menlove [1837] EngR 424; (1837) 3 Bing NC 468; (1837) 132 ER 490
1837


Negligence, Nuisance
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff's house. At trial Patteson J directed the jury to consider whether the fire had been occasioned by "gross negligence" on the part of Menlove. The argument for Menlove on appeal was that the jury should have been asked to consider whether Menlove had "acted bona fide to the best of his judgment". The defence that he acted to the best of his judgment was rejected as he did not take the precautionary measures that common foresight and precaution would suggest.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Bliss v Hall; 17-Jan-1838 - [1838] EngR 346; (1838) 4 Bing NC 183; (1838) 132 ER 758
 
Aldridge v The Great Western Railway Company [1841] EngR 1095; (1841) 3 Man & G 515; (1841) 133 ER 1246
19 Nov 1841


Nuisance
Case against a railway company for so carelessly and improperly managing and directing an engine on their railway by their servants, that sparks flew from the engine upon a stack of beans standing in an adjoining field, belonging to the plaintiff, whereby the stack was destroyed. A case stated for the opinion of the court, under the statute, alleged that the engines used upon the railway were such as were usually employed on railways, for the purpose of propelling the trains and carriages thereon ; and that the engine, from which the sparks that set fire to the stack in question flew, was used at the time in the ordinary manner, and for purposes authorised by the act of parliament incorporating the company.-Held,that the facts stated were not sufficient to enable the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendants, so as to justify the directing of the entry of a verdict for the plaintiff; but that they did not shew such an absence of negligence as to warrant the directing of the entry of a nonsuit ; and the special case was withdrawn in order that the parties might go on to trial.
Tindal CJ said: "It is contended on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff should be nonsuited; but I am not prepared to say that the fact of the engine emitting sparks may not amount to negligence. On the other hand I cannot say that a verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff. I think that the special case should be withdrawn, and that the parties should go on to trial. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must either shew some carelessness by the defendants, or lay facts before the jury from which it may be inferred."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Viscount Canterbury v The Attorney-General [1843] EngR 359; (1842-1843) 1 Ph 306; (1843) 41 ER 648
11 Feb 1843


Nuisance
Whether the protection given by the statutes 6 Ann. c. 31, and 14 G 3, c, 78, toa party in whose house or on whose estate "a fire shall accidentally begin” extends to fires occasioned by the negligence of the owner or his servants, or, whether it is confined to fires arising from pure accident in the limited sense of the word.
Qaere?
A petition of right does not lie to recover compensation from the Crown for damage to the property of an individual, occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown.
The reigning Sovereign is not liable to make compesation for damage to the property of an individual occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown in a preceding reign ; nor, semble, even where such damage has been done in his own reign.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rich v Basterfield [1847] 4 CB 783; (1847) 136 ER 715; [1846] EngR 391; (1846) 2 Car & K 257; (1846) 175 ER 106
5 Feb 1846


Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: "If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to become a nuisance, and it is entirely at the option of the tenants so to use them or not, and the landlord receives the same benefit whether they are used or not, the landlord cannot be made responsible for the acts of the tenants."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Richards v Easto [1846] EngR 436; (1846) 15 M & W 244; (1846) 153 ER 840
21 Feb 1846


Nuisance
Section 86 of the 1774 Act applies to the whole country.
Fires Prevention Metropolis Act 1774
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Filliter v Phippard [1847] EngR 999; (1847) 11 QB 347; (1847) 116 ER 506
9 Dec 1847

Lord Denman CJ
Nuisance
Lord Denman CJ considered a 1707 Act restricting liability for fire damage: "The Act contemplates the probability of fires in cities and towns arising from three causes, the want of water, the imperfection of party walls, and the negligence of servants. The Act provided some means for supplying these material defects: but the third section was directed against the moral one, the carelessness or negligence of servants, which (it observes) often causes fires: and it imposes on the servant by whose negligence the fire may have been occasioned a fine of 100l., to be distributed among the sufferers at the discretion of the churchwardens, or imprisonment for eighteen months in case of nonpayment. . . The most usual cause of fires was assumed to be the negligence of servants: and the enactment might operate to induce habits of caution in that important class. The same statute, in the sixth section, enacts that, after a day named, no action shall be maintained against any person in whose house or chamber any fire shall accidentally begin, nor shall any recompence be made by such person for any damage suffered or occasioned thereby."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Smith v Kenrick; CCP 1849 - [1849] 7 CB 515; [1849] LJCP 172; [1849] 12 LTOS 556; [1849] 13 Jur 362; [1849] 137 ER 205
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.