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.
Citations:
[1498] YB Henry 7 26
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Routledge v McKay and others CA 10-Mar-1954
In considering whether a statement amounts to a warranty in a contract, the court may have regard to the time which has elapsed between the time of making the statement and the final implementation of the agreement; if the interval is a long one, . .
Cited – Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd CA 3-Jun-1954
The defendant’s tanker came aground, spilling fuel, for which the corporation claimed damages. The corporation appealed against rejection of that claim.
Held: In order to support an action for private nuisance the defendant must have used his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Nuisance
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581031