References: [1865] EngR 165, (1864) 3 H & C 486, (1865) 159 ER 621
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A claim by custom for the freemen and citizens of a town, on a particular day in the year, to enter upon a close for the purpose of holding horse races thereon, is not a claim to an ‘easement’ within the 2nd section of the Prescription Act 2 and 3 Wm, c 71. That section points to a right belonging to an individual in respect of his land, not to a class such as freemen or citizens claiming a right in gross wholly irrespective of land; and to bring the right within the term ‘easement’, in that section, it must be one analogous to that of a right of way or a right of watercourse, and must be a right of utility and benefit and not one of mere recreation and amusement. Semble, that an easement in gross is within the Prescription Act
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Mounsey v Ismay ((1863) 1 H & C 729, [1863] EngR 163, Commonlii, (1863) 1 H & C 729, (1863) 158 ER 1077)
The inhabitants of Carlisle claimed a custom of holding horse races in May over land at Kingsmoor. The landowner’s counsel protested that the fields were arable land.
Held: Martin B: ‘It must be assumed that the custom has existed since the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another ChD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 3564 (Ch), [2016] 1 P andCR DG19, [2015] WLR(D) 506, [2016] 4 WLR 61, WLRD)
Claim by time share owners for easements over neighbouring land. The easements were for various sporting rights and facilities.
Held: The Claimants were entitled to appropriate declaratory relief confirming that they have the rights they claim . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 06-Apr-17
Ref: 281077