Vowles v Miller; 9 Jul 1810

References: [1810] 3 Taunt 137, [1810] EngR 416, (1810) 128 ER 54
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lawrence J
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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – The Earl of Craven -v- Pridmore & others CA ([1902] 18 Times LR 282)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd -v- Insley CA (Times 24-Nov-97, Gazette 26-Nov-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2698, [1998] 1 WLR 881, [1998] 2 All ER 82)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd -v- Insley HL (Times 30-Apr-99, Gazette 26-May-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] UKHL 15, [1999] 1 WLR 894, [1999] 24 EG 160, [1999] NPC 54, (1999) 78 P & CR D19, (1999) 78 P & CR 327, [1999] EG 66, [1999] 2 EGLR 89, [1999] 2 All ER 897)
    The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered.
    Held: The reference to boundaries on an Ordnance Survey plan in a conveyance showing the boundary along the hedge did not displace the . .
  • Cited – Parmar and Others -v- Upton CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 795)
    The parties disputed the application of the hedge and ditch rule in settling their boundary. . .