Vowles 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; and often, if he likes it, he plants a hedge on the top of it.’


Lawrence J


[1810] 3 Taunt 137, [1810] EngR 416, (1810) 128 ER 54



Cited by:

CitedThe 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 . .
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 . .
CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley HL 24-Mar-1999
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge . .
CitedParmar and Others v Upton CA 22-Jul-2015
The parties disputed the application of the hedge and ditch rule in settling their boundary. The appellant wished to have reliance placed upon evidence only discovered after trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The Judge was, notwithstanding the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183677