A dispute had arisen as to the ownership of a wall between two houses: ‘… it seems very clear that, where a number of houses are built upon a spot of ground, all belonging to the same person, being all built together, and obviously requiring the mutual support of each of the others for the purpose of their common protection and security whether the owner first parts with one and then another or parts with two together, which he afterwards subdivides, either by mortgage or sale or divise or any other way, still the mutual support would seem necessary – it is a matter of common sense; and the circumstances whether the houses were separated by one act at one time or at different times, never could make any difference as to what ought to be the result in as much the houses were originally built depending on each other and each require the assistance of the others. As I said before, it seems a matter of plain common sense that that support must continue and that no man who should become possessed of any one of the houses should be in a situation to say, ‘You are not entitled to protection of my house and I will pull the house down and let the houses on each side collapse and fall into ruin.’ It seems impossible not to come to the conclusion that the law must be in strictness in accordance with what is so plain and sensible.’
Judges:
Pollock CB
Citations:
[1853] 9 Exch Rep 218
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dean v Walker CA 10-May-1996
The appellant sought to challenge an order granting his neighbour access across his land in order to maintain a gable end wall.
Held: The judge was plainly correct to make the order. The appellant’s fear that this would prejudice any future . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.219079