A prescriptive right to a watercourse was not lost by the dominant owner demolishing two ancient fulling mills and erecting in their place two new corn grinding mills. The Exchequer Chamber held that the dominant owner ‘might alter the mill into what nature of a mill he pleased, provided always that no prejudice should thereby arise, either by diverting or stopping of the water, as it was before ‘.
Citations:
(1601) 4 Co Rep 86a
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Cited – Ray v Fairway Motors (Barnstaple) Limited CA 1968
It was argued that an easement of support, obtained by prescription, could no longer be enjoyed where the owner of the dominant land had extended his building so as to increase, indeed virtually to double, the weight thrown onto a wall on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.194012