Site icon swarb.co.uk

The Earl of Craven v Pridmore and others: CA 1902

The well established presumption that the boundary of plots of land separated by a hedge and ditch, that the boundary is the hedge on the far side of the ditch is a rebuttable presumption. The question was ‘how far the presumption had been displaced by evidence of acts of ownership on the part of the defendants.’

Judges:

Collins MR

Citations:

[1902] 18 Times LR 282

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedVowles v Miller 9-Jul-1810
Lawrence J said: ‘The rule about ditching is this. No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour’s soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; . .

Cited by:

CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183678

Exit mobile version