CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(Monographs)
ICMH
Collection de
microfiches
(monographies)
Cn.di«i ln.titut. for Hi.tarie.1 Micrortproductioii. / InttHut e.n.di«n d. mlcror.production. htotonque.
Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographicatly unique, which may alter any of
the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming are
checked below.
□
U
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Coloured covers /
Couverture de couieur
Covers damaged /
Couverture endommagde
Covers restored and/or laminated /
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e
Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque
Coloured maps / Cartes g^ographiques en couieur
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) /
Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
Cotoured plates and/or illustrations /
Planches et/ou illustrattons en couieur
Bound with other material /
HeM avec d'autres documents
Only editk}n available /
Seule Mitton disponible
1/1 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along
'— ' interior margin / La reliure serr6e peut causer de
I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge
int^rieure.
I I Blank leaves added during restorattons may appear
— within the text. Whenever possible, these have been
omitted from filming / Use peut que certaines pages
blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration
apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait
possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 f ilmtes.
L'instltut a microflinn* le nrwilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a
6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem-
plaire qui sent peut-6tre uniques du point de vue bibli-
ographkiue, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite,
ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^tho-
de normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous.
I I CokMirsd pages/ Pages de couieur
I I Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^
□
Pages restored and/or laminated /
Pages restaur^ et/ou pellicula
Q Pages discoloured, stained or foxed /
Pages cMcotortes, tachet^es ou piqu^es
I I Pages detached / Pages d^tach^es
ly\ Showthrough /Transparence
Quality of print varies /
□
□
□
QualM Indgale de rimpresston
Includes supplementary material /
Comprend du materiel suppl^me ,^ ■> r j
Pages wholly or partially obscurtii ^^y ^rraia slips,
tissues, etc., have been refilmed to e _ the best
possible image / Les pages totalement ou
partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'enata, une
pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es k nouveau de fafon k
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
Opposing pages with varying colouration or
discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best
possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des
colorations variables ou des decolorations sont
film^es deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleure image
po8stt)le.
1^ Addittonal comments /
Commentaires suppMmentaires:
Various paglngs.
Triis Hem !• filmed at the reduction ratio checked below /
C« document est f Um4 au taux de rMuetien indiqui ei^soua.
lOx
14x
18x
22x
26x
30x
L.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
12x
1«X
20x
24x
28x
32x
Th« copy filmed h«r« hat bMii raproduMd thanka
to tha ganarosity of:
^mrwi Court of CMMla
OttaiM
Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality
poaaibia eenaidaring tha condition and lagibility
of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha
filming contract apacif icationa.
Original copias in printad papar covara ara fllmad
beginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha laat paga with a printad or iliuatratad impraa*
aion, or tha bacit covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad beginning on tha
first paga with a printad or iliuatratad Impraa-
aion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad
or Hluatratad impraaaien.
Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha
shall contain tha symbol (moaning "CON-
TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"),
whichavar appliaa.
Mapa, piataa, charts, ate., may ba fiimad at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to ba
entirely included in one exposure era filmad
beginning in the upper laft hand comar. left to
right and top to bottom, as many framaa as
raquirad. The following diagrama illuatrata tha
mathod:
L'axampiaira fiim4 fut raproduit grica A la
gAniroait* da:
Cour suprtas du Csmds
Ottawa
Las images suivantes cnt M reproduites svec le
plus grsnd soin, compte tenu de la condition st
de la nanet* de l exemplaire film*, et en
eonformit* avac laa conditiona du eontrat da
filmaga.
Las axemplairas originaux dont ia eouvarture en
papiar aat imprim^a aont fiimia an commandant
par la premier plet et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon la caa. Tous laa autraa axemplairas
originaux sont filmis an commandant par la
premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par
la dami*ra page qui comporta una taila
amprainta.
Un das symboles suivsnts apparaitra sur la
darniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
caa: la symbola signifia "A SUIVRE". le
symbola V aignifia "FIN".
Laa cartaa. planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent *tre
filmAs i des ttux de reduction diffarents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra
reproduit an un saul cHch*. 11 aat fllm« t partir
de I'engle supirieur gauche, de gauciie i droite,
et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre
d'images n*cessaire. Lea diagrammes suivants
illuatrant la mAthoda.
1
2
3
4
5
6
53
A IBEATISE
OV TUB
LAW AND PRACTICE
or
INJUNCTIONS.
BY
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,
or umoui't uiii, (*MutinM*^w.
FtFTH EDITION.
BT
JOHN MELVIN PATERSON, M.A., LL.M.,
•V »■ MDou TBiru, ■tBaamni-4T-i.4W.
LONDON:
SWEET k MAXWELL, LIMITED,
S, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. L/BRAR
TORONTO, CANADA: CO(/>}r
THE CABSWEUi COMPANY, LIMITED.
law puMtsben.
1914.
PBEFACE.
ilLEVKK years have elapsed since the publiciition of the Fourth
Edition of this work, and during this period a larg.^ number of
cases hare been decided and Acts passed which have affected
statements in the text, necessitating considerable alterations and
additions to the present Edition, the te of which has be^
increased to the extent of over 90 pages. Th Index has also ham
enlarged, and references have been given to contemporary reports
(including liio Revised Reports up to vohimo 126), which, it is
Jioped, will add to the usefulness of the work. All material deci-
sions which have been reported to date will be found in the text,
or in the Addenda on page Iviii.
J. M. PATER80N.
9, Old SqoABK,
Lincoln's Inn,
2I>^ February, 1914.
\
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
IirjOKOTIOHt IK OnrBBAIt I
CHAPTEB II.
Tun NATCRB AVD UMITS Cf TUU JDimDICTmM OF TBI BIOR
COUBT or JUtTIOB BT UTJUNOTIOM $
CdXPTEB III.
iKjcjronoHi AoAixn run vioi^noB w oomiow la.w biobtr
16-47
Bwtitm 1.— The Protection of Legal Rights to Property
pending Litigation 15
Section 2.— Perpetual Injunctions. Mandatory Injimo-
tiona 32
CHAPTER IV.
ImJUNOTIOKS against WABTB 4g IQQ
S%eikm 1.— PHnciples on which the Court acts in
restraining Waste 48
Section 2.~Legal Waste 5O
Section 8.— Persons for and against whom Injunctions
are granted 71
Section 4.— Equitable Waste g3
Section 5.— Property in Timber t t by the Order of the
Court, waooidentally severed, ifee. Account 98
Sectitm 9.— Becmt Statotes affecting Waste ... 97
CHAPTER V.
Injunctions against tbismm .... 101—147
General Jurisdiction JOI
Trespasa by Crown ....... 112
'■AOS
TreBpiiitg by CompanieB and Public BodiM . . .112
Lsn^ CImum Ael, 1845
Railways Clauseg Act, 184B 181
Municipal Corporations 139
TraapaM in working Minos .146
iMVKonoKa
8«ction
Section
Kection
Section
Section
Section
Seetiim
Section
Section
CHAl'TJilt vr.
▲OAINBT NVI8AN0R .... 148—827
1. — Prineiplea en which th« Court acts in re
•^traininp Nuisancr's, public or piivufo
2. — Nuisances to Dwelling Houses and Houses
of Boainess
.*). -Nuisances to Support
4.— Nuisances relating ♦oWatnr .
8.— Purpreetures. Nuisances to Navigable Tidal
Waters
6. — Nuisances to Rights of Way
7. — Nuisances to Highways .
8. — Nuiaancea to Ferriea ....
9. — Nuisances to Market ....
10. — Nuisances connected with Trade Diaputea
148
176
209
229
267
275
295
811
816
820
Injunctions
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
CHAPTER VII.
AOAINHT THK IXFRIXORMKNT OK PATKNTS ,328—866
1. — Principles on which the Court restrains the
Infringement of Patents .... 828
2. — What is an Infringement . . . . 333
3. — interlocutory Relief 343
4. — Practice oa Interiocutory Injunctions . . 346
6.— Perpetual Injanctiona .... 849
CHAPTEB VIII.
Injunctions to restrain PAsaiiro off, aho piraot of tradb
MARKS AND NAMES ...... 357 Qgg
Principles on which the ( ourt acts in restraining the
Passing off of Qooda 887
Trade Marin and Trade Names 889
PAOI
(CHAPTER IX.
Inji NCTION"* AOAINHC THK INKllIVOKMf XT OF oorTBIOBT 389—427
Section l.—t'opy right in Uener*! .... 889
80etion 2.— What it m Infringmnoit . . 899
Section .T — Hctnodics for Infringement , . . 410
Bsction 4. — International ( upyright . . . . 420
S««^ioa 5.— Copyright in Designs .... 421
CHAPTKH X.
InJI NCTIONM 1.\ RKbFKC -l' OK COVKNANTS OR 428—502
Section i — injunctims against Breach of Covenant or
Agreement -»28
Section 2.— injunctimu in Aid of Specific Performance 600
CHAPTER XI.
iNJl NCriOSH AOAINHT THK DIHCLOSURK OF OOKnOltTTUIi COM-
HUNICATION8, PAPBRB, BBCBBTS, kO. . . 608 — 508
CHAPTER XII.
Injunctions aoainst the publication of LIB8I slamdbr op
TITLE, AND THREATS OF PhOCKEDINGS . . 609 — 518
rHAPTER xin.
Injunctions aoainst exbcutorb 619
Ch.;'. TER XIV.
Imjukctionb aoaihst trcbtiu 621
CHAPXER XV.
iNjuMcmoirs bbtwum pabtkbu .628
CHAPTER XVI.
iNjuNcnoMB BKTWBBir momtokoon ahd xobtoaobb . 688
CHAPTER XVII.
Ikjvnotiohb aoainbt ooxrANns .... 546—688
viii COHTENTB.
PAQI
CHAPTER XVIII.
INJDK0TI0K8 AOAINBT OOBPOUnONB .... 684—699
CHAPTER XIX.
Injunctions against clubs, bocibtibs, tbadb onions, kc. 600
CHAPTER XX.
Orders rbstrainino procbrdinos gQg
CHAPTER XXI.
Injunctions to stat wrongful acts of a spbcial natdbb . 621
CHAPTER XXII.
P"**''''"^ 643-694
Section 1.— In what manner Injunctions sre obtMned;
Damages or Injunction .... 643
Section 2.— Dissolution of Injunctions . . . 675
Section 8.— Effect of Certain Proceedings on Injunc-
tions 679
Section 4.— Continuing or granting Injunctions at the
Hearing 680
Section 6.— Inquiry as to OMDages when Injunction
dissolved ..... 682
Section 6.— Consequences of the Breach of an Injunc-
tion or Restraining Order . . . 684
INDEX
696
TABLE OF CASES.
A COMPANT, Be, 13, 609, 620, 637
A & B InfaDte, B«, W
Aas V. Benham, 029
Abbey v. Gutteres, 485, 486
AbbotHford Hotel v. Kinghani, 576
Abbott V. Holloway, 183
Abergavenny Commit. ». Stnker,
315, 317
Aberaethy r. Hutchinson, 410
Abraham v. Bubb, 73, 84
r. Mayor of London, 1 19
Aoeident Insnranoe Co. v. Accident
Disease, &c., Co., M8, 581
Accountants (Edinbui^) «. Cor-
poration of Accountaats, 309
Accountants, lie, 8e«My *. Good-
way, 369
Acraman v. Bristol Dock Co., 649
Actiengesellschaft, &c. v. Hommel,
3A8.364.
Actien Gesellschaft v. Teniler, 330,
347
Acton V. Blundell, 281
V. Woodgate, 624
Adair v. Young, 18, 335, 685
V. Old Bushmills Distillery,
565
Adam v. Bank of England, 621, 623
Adams v. North British Rly., 330
V. London and Blackwall Rly.,
121—123
r. Scott, S38, 840
V. Ui»eU, 176, 177, 200, 201,
202,448
Aerators, Lim., f. ToUitt, 368, 5S0 —
883
Africa (Bank of) ». Cohen, 11, 12,
8M
Agar'aeaM, lis
Agar V. P. aad 0. Staam. to.. Co.,
392
Aiaaworth «. Bentley, 20, 415, 442
*. Wilding, 606, 606, 679
Airdria Magistrates v. Lanark
County Council, 265
Aktiebolaget Hjorth, Re, 363
Albert. Prmoe, v. Strange. 418. 676
Alcott ti. Millv's Forest Co., 612
Aldin f. Latimer, 185, 198
Aldis I'. Fraser, 103
V. London Corporation, 141
Aldred's case, 181, 197, 109, 201, 380
Aldridge v. Aldridge, 633
Alexander (Dickson & Sons) v.
Alexander, 365
Alexander v. Automatic Teleplione
Co., 559, 575, 576, 580
f. Valentine, 644
Allan V. tiomme, 282, 283
Allard v. Jones, 640
Allm (Samuel) & Co., Be, 70
Allen V. Flood, 328
V. Martin, 102, 104. 105
1>. Oakey, 42
V. Onnond, 293
V. Seckham, 43, 188
V. Taylor, 186, 188, 464
Allied V. MerrybaBt, «»., Bly., 138,
Allhnaen v. Ealing and Soutli Bar-
row Rly. Co., 127
Allport r. Securities Co., 20, 48
Almada and Tirito Co., Be, 564
Alston V. Eastern Countiea BIt. Co..
125 '
Altmann v. Royal Aquarium, 476
Amalgamated Society Railway Ser-
vants V. Osborne, 327, 605, 606
Amalgamated Syndicates, Lim., 570
Amber Sise Co. v. Mensel, 603, 504,
607
Ambler v. Gordon, 176, 179—181
American Braided Wire Co. v Thom-
son, 42
American Tobacco Co. v. Guest, 39.
354, 382, 419, 664
Ames V. Birkenhead Dock, 641
Amhurst v. Dawling, 543
Amyott, Ex parte, 623
Andeiaen *. Andenon, 535
». Bank of British Columbia.
608
V. Francis, 43. 179, 189. 197.
200
f. .T.icnhst, 27.'5
i>. Midland Rly., 563
X
TABU OF CASKS.
Andemon v. Wallace, 536
Anderton r. Yates, 6.5i>
Andrew r. Hiidgnian, 449
I'. Kufharick, ;}6,3
V. Raoburn, 640
AndieWB r. Abprtillory U.D.C, ;)2
107, 141, 142, 155, 297,
304
V. G. E. Ely. Co., 137
f. Mitchell, 602
V. Waite, 177. 193, 195—197
Angerateiri r. Hunt, 57, 687
Aiigier c. May, 658
Anglo-Danubiap, &c, Co. v. Roeer-
Bon, 660
Anglo-Swiss Milk Co., v. Pearks, 375
Anglo-Universal Bank v, Baragnon,
S74
Ankersou v. Connelly. 179, 180, 196
Anon. (Frcem. (^h.), 85
(2 K. &. .J.). 528, 535
(6 Madd.), .521
(2 .Sim. N. S.), 634
(1 Ve*i.), 93
(12 Ves.), 519
Anthony Birrell, Pearoe St, Co., Be,
653
ApoUinaris Co. v. Wilson, 377
Aquaacutum Co. v. Cohen, 381
Arehbold r. Scully. 25, 37
Archer v. Marsh, 456
Architects (.Society of) v. Kendrick,
7, 33, 370
Ardley v. Guardians of St. Fancras,
102, 105
Arkwright v. Cell, 247
V. Gryles, 621
Amutrong v. Armstrong, 611
Armstrong Oiler Co. v. Patent Axle-
bar. &c.. Co., 377
Arnold r. Hlakfr, ;to3
I'. Morgan. 2!I8. .'i.'io
Arnot V. Brown, 206
Amott !•. Whitby District Cooncil,
27, 28, 298
Arthur v. Consolidated Kent Col-
lieries, 658
V. Lambe. 72
Arundel v. Bell. 535
Ash t'. Great N'ortheni, Piccadilly,
&c.. Rly., Co. 161
V. Invicta, &c., Co., 365, 381
Ashburton (Ivord) r. Pape, 603, 504
Ashbury v. Watson. 561
Railway Carriage Co. v. Riche,
547, 548, 661, 566. 568, 584
Ash by r. Hincks, 86
A:ihuvLT Fluor Spar Mines Co. v.
Jackson, 140
Aahton t. Stock, 146
Ashton Vale Iran Co. v. Briato'
Corp., 121, 122, 126
Aahworth V. Hebden, &c., Loeal
Board. 476. 595, 641
— — - V. Knglisli C.ird Clothing Co.,
670
Aslatt V. Mayor of Southampton, 4,
5, 37, 661
Aspden v. Seddon, 213, 221
Astley t). Manchester, Sheffield and
Lincolnshire Rly., 567
V. Weldon, 467
Aston tf. Aston, 84, 89
V. Heron, 641
Atherton v. Cheshire Coonty Conneil,
Atkmson i>. <<rey, 520
Atkyns v. Kinneir, 457
Att.-Gen. v. Acton Local Board, ^71,
244, 260, 261
V. Albany Hotel Co.. 30, 31,
183. 659, 660, 661
1'. Anderson, 525
t». Andrews, 5«7, 591
t'. Antrobus, 296 — 299
t'. Appleton, 583
V. Ashbome Recreation
Ground,
V. Ashby, 306
e. Aspinall, 586, 587
(Australia) v. Adelaide Steam-
ship Co., 450, 458
I'. Avon, Portreeve of, 585, 586
— — V. Barker, 112, 141, 308, 309
■ r. Barnet Gas Co., 549, 589
V. Bamsley (;orp., 203
f.'. Barry Docks, &c., Co., 135
V. Basingstoke, 156, 263
V. Batley, 687, 690, 693
V. Bermondsey, 692
«. Biphosphated (iuano Co.,
299. 300, 302
V. Birmingham, Borough of,
23, 169, 244, 260
I-. Birmingham Drainage
Board, 13, 175
V. Birmingham, Tame, &c..
Drainage Board, 17, 26, 32
—37, 110, 156, 170. 176.
240. 261. 262, 661, 587,
669, 681, 682
f. Birmingham and Oxford
Rly., .552
r. Blackburn Corporation, 593
— ■ — f. Blackpool Corporatfam, 396
V. Boden, 373, 535
V. Bradford Canal Proprietois.
17,22, 35, 174,264
V. BntMnose College. 69«
p. Bnoon, 478, tm, 691
TABLB or 0A8B8.
Att.-Gen. v. BriggB, 22
V. Brighton Supply Abu., 150,
181.205.308,311
V. Bnrridge, 868
». CamberweU, 690
V. Cambridfje Conaumen' Gas
Co., 152
V. Cardiff. 591, 593
V. Castiel, Corporation of, 685
V. Chamberlain, 268
r. Chambflre, 267
r. Chandog Land, &»., Society,
296, 297, 300
V. Church, 694
V. Chnrchill'a Veterinary Sana-
torium, 683
V. Cleaver. 201
V. ('lerkenwoU Vostry, 262
V. Cock, 596
V. Cockermouth Local Board,
169, 550
p. Cole, 156, 200, 201, 205
V. Cohiey Hatch Asyltun, 47,
156, 168—171, 174. 261,
669
Compton, 597
V. Conduit Colliery Co., 210,
217
I'. Constable, 14
V. Connumers' (ias Co., 155
V. Croydon A. C, 306
V. Daniel. 593
t'. Dausarf . 524
V. Dedham School, 586
1». De Winton, 686, 588. 590,
594
V. Dorche«ter Corporation, 163
164, 168
V. Dorin, 18, 144
I'. Dorking, Uuardians of, 13,
170, 242, 244. 262, 263
«. Doughty, 181
V. DabUn, Mayor, tec., of. 686
V. DnbUn Steam Packet Co.,
439
I'. Dulwich College, 595
V. East Bamet U. D. C., 593,
594
I'. Eastern Countiea Bly., 29,
135
V. Eaatlake, 49, 694
V. Ely and Sutton Rlv., 134
V. Emerson, 267, 273*
r. Eshor, &c., Co., 293, 299
f. Etheridge, 526
V. Faversham Corporation, 35
t>. Finchley l(0<-al Board. 261
ti. Fleetwood U. D. C, 588,
690
V. Forbes, 18, 161
Att. -Gen. ('. Foundling Hospital, 569
1'. Fowler, 596
V. Frimley and Famborough
Water Co., 113, 116, 132,
649. 689
V. Gamer, 110, 309, 646
r. Gas Light and Coke Co., 168
V. Caunt, 595
r. (iibb, 7, 36, 47. 144, 170, 682
V. (iould, 525
V. Grand .lunctinn Canal Co.
21, 25, .3.3, .36, 37, 43, 110.
170, 240, 499, 550, 587
V. Gray's Chalk Qnanies Co.,
308
1'. Great Eastern Bly., 131,
168, 232, .548, 568, 671
I'. Groat N'orthcm Bly., 135,
240, 243, 2.50, 648, 549,
556, 559, 690
I'. Great AVestem Rly.. 134,
552
V. Grocers' Co., 656
V. Guildford Hospital Board,
202
r. Haokney Local Board, 172
V. Halifax, Corporation of, 23,
24
r. Hanwell II. D. C, 689
V. Hardy, 542
V. Hatch, 143 ' ■
V. Homer, 303, 304, 315, 316.
317
V. Johnson, 174, 268
V. Keymer Brick Co., 156, 201.
206
V. Kingston. Ma3rDr, &e., of
157, 271
V. Leeds, Corporation of, 23,
169, 174, 239, 260, 261,
263, 265
». Leicester Corp., 549, 589,
690
V. Lewes Corporation, 36, 47.
110, I'l, 151. 162, 163,
171, 172, 249, 682
• I'. Lichfield, Corporation of,
594
V. Lindsay-Hogg, ,300, 306
V. Liverpool, ('orporation of,
521. 651, 676
V. Lock, 596
v. Logan, 111. 150. 161
f. London and North-Western
Rly., 112. 113, 169, 170.
550, 551
f. Irf>ndon jHul y..T.:th-WeBtarB
RIt., 136, 208, 666
V. Lonttm Conaty Conaei].
118, 690
TABLE ^
Att.-G«n. V. J»ndonderry Bridge
Commiaaionen, 311
V. Lord LoDRdale, 151, 268, 272
t'. Luton Boud of Health.
23, 242. 244
r. Majtdalen Coll., Oxford, 595,
596
I'. Manchester and Leeds Ely.,
28, 472
V. Manolipster Corporation, 18,
31,202.207. 047.M».fi84,
588, 590
V. Hwlborongb, Duke of, 74,
02
t?. Mayo County Conneil, 308
V. Mersey Ry., Co. 647, 648,
.'>62
V. Merthyr Tydfll, 594
V. Motoalf and (Jreijt. 2.5. 3"
V. Metropolitan Board of
Works, 151, 168
V. MetropoUtui Rly., 135, lei,
IM
V. Mid-Kent Rly„ 113, 496
■ V. Middletons, 683
■ t'. Munro, 525
V. 7.i irdoch, 525
V. Newbury. .597
V. Newcastle, 587, 590
V. Newcoi'ibe. 586
». Nicho' 148
V. Norwich, 473, 591
f. Nottingham Conwration,
18, 167, 202
V. N. E. Rlv. Co., .548
f. Parish, 39. 41. 43, 143
V. Parmentcr, 268
r. Perry, 306
i". Playhouse Co., 445
e. Plymouth, Mayor, &c., of,
250, 591
V. Plymouth Pkh Gnano Co.,
200, 201
V. Pontypridd Trban Council.
584, 588
— I'. Pontypridd Waterworks. 9,
87, .550. «45
r. Powis, Karl of, 524, 598
V. Preston (Mayor), 156
f. Price, 596
V. Queen Anne Garden Co., 189
t'. Rathminea and Pembroke
Hospital, 18, 167. 202
f. Reynolds. 60
f. Hichniond, 206
I'. RickuLinsworth, 473, 592
t'. .'^cott. 2.5, 37, 150, 151. 164,
•im,
f. sharpness New Docks Co.,
CASES.
Att.-Gen. v. Sheffield Corporation.
589, 590
r. .Sheffield Gas Co., 8. J 9, 29,
24, 78, 148, 149, 150, 152,
154, 155, 174, 679
r. Sherborne tichool, 597
V. Shrewsbury Bridge Co., 112,
169, 309, 660
V. Simpson, 303, 312. 313
I'. Smith (George), 583
I'. Smith & .Sons, 311
V. Smythies, 595, 596
r. Southampton, (iuardians of
Poor of. 591
V. South Staffordshire Water-
works. 24, 25, 36, 37, 549,
568, 589, 504, 682
V. Spalding Rural Council, 87
V. S(iuire. 201, 206, 681
r. Staffordshire t;ounty Coun-
cil, 0. 43, 65, 197,310,431.
478, 662
V. Staines, D. C, 157
V. Standard Trust Co., New
York, 561
' V. StaweU, 66
■ V. St. Cross Hospital, 596, 597
V. St. Helens, 591
V. St. .lohn's Hospital. 586
t'. Stone, 205
r. Strong, 636
V. Swansea, 473, 567, 590, 592
f. Terry, 268, 269
V. Tewkesbury and Malvern
Rly.. 132
t>. Thanles, Conservators of.
161, 204
t . Thetford, 693
V. Thomson, 567, 591, 592
r. Tp '-Heatley, 154, 201, 205
V. T. mime, 42, 61, 147, 267,
268. 273, 274
V. Tottenham Local Board,
501
V. Tottenham U. D. C, 590
f. Tynemouth, 600, 602
t'. United Kingdom Electric
Telegraph Co., 151
I'. Vyner. 665
f. Walthamstow U. D. C, 10.
33. 35, 44, 441, 403. 493,
672, 692
». Watford U. D. C, 299. 301.
302
r. Welsh, 521. 626
V. Wemyss, 273
V. West Gloucesterahire Water
Co., 547, 548, 549, 687,
688, 680
V. Weft Um Corponition, 580
TJMM Of cuuun.
Att.-Gen. ». We«t Hartlepool, ke.,
CommiMionen, 591
V. Widnes Kly.. 108
V. Wigan, Mayor, &c.. of, 17,
473, 567, 589, 5B1
V. Willesden DUtriet Cooncil,
So, 47, 261
V. WiiKon, 586
». Wimbledon Houae Estate,
9, 25, 38, 37, 144, I'O,
551, 687
V. Wright, 271—650
V. Yarmouth, 588
V. Yorkshire (W. R.) Rivers
Board, 473
Auckland, Lord v. Westminster
Board of Works, 143
Austen v. Boys, 535
Anaterbeny «. Corporation of Old-
ham, 303, 483, 492
Austria (Emperor of) v. Day, 8, 10,
48
Automatic Self-Cleaning Filter Co.
V. Cuningham, 535, 577
Automobile Carriage Builders v.
Sayers, 465, 635
Avery t>. Langford, 437, 4'^0, 452,
456
Avory v. Andrews, 523, 686, 691
Ayhrin v. Evana, 688
Ayr Harbour TrurtoM v. Oswald,
564
BACERonax «. Bonoaal. M9, tlO,
212
BaeoB Jonaa, M, 27, 37, 328, 648
Badische Anilin Fabrik v. Basle, 334
1'. Hickson, 334
V. Isler, 337. 338, 4S3
V. Johnson, .1, 331, 387. 358
V. Levinstein, 342, 640. M9
V. Schott, 450, 461
«. Spirey, 349
B agnail v. London and North
Western Rly., 88<l
p. Villar, 77, 643
Bagot «. Baget, 49^ 57, 97
Bagriiaw «. Buxton Local Board.
308
r. Fastern Union Rly., 5'i3
Bailey v. Birkenhead, Lancaahire,
and Cheshire Jonetion
Rly., 574
V. Hobson, 72
Baily v. Clark, 234, ?36, 247, 260
V. De Crespigny. 492
— Taylor, 413, 414, 417, 426
BaiDbtUgo V. PoateaatM-OoBcraL
lis
Banbridge v. Smith, 668, 673
Baines o. Baker, 202
V. Geary, 460
Baird Wells, 600. 601
V. Williamson, 264
Baker (Albert) & Co.. Se, 363
Baker i'. HtJt'<'< ock, 438, 454, 460
V. Scbnn r. 83, 88, 92, 93
Balaghat Gold Mining Co., Re, 667
Ball V. BaU. 635
V. Bay, 204, 206, 207
BaUaohnliali Slate OoaiTiea v. Onrat.
452
Ballard v. Dyson, 286
V. Tomlii kon, 262, 858
Balls V. Strutt. 1,21
Baltic Company v. Simpson, i**"*
Bamford v. Turoley, 200
Bankart v. Hoofl^n, 88, 83, 37,
173
Bankea «. Le Deapenser, 92
Banks v. Gibson, 636
Bannister v. Bigge, 206
Banwen Iron Co., Be, 658
Barber v. Penley, 160, 157,704.808.
?94. 3U8
I'. Monico, 384
Barfl t. Probyn, 68
Barfield v. Nicholson, 442. 691
Banrate v. Shortiidge, 557
Barham v. Hodg.<w, 206
Baring v. Abingdon, 276
V. Uruguay Rly., 667
Barker v. Barker, 104
V. Faulkner, 236
V. Herbert, 154, 266
V. North StaSordahire Bly.,
23, 124,6:5 '
Barkshiro v. Grubb. 276
Barlovi v. Bailey, 200
Zhodm, 891
Bamard ». Grart Weatam Rly.
Co., 145
StcaioB OQ Co. ». Farquhar-
sou, 59
Barnes v. Dowling^ 63
V. Sonthsea Bly., 127
Bamett t>. WoohriA Boioadi Cobb-
oil, 1/2 ^
Bamey «. United T^plume Co.,
517
Baron v. Portslade U. D. C, 171
Barr v. Craven, 460
Baiiaclough v. Johnstm, 898, 800
B.^rrett v. Associated NewNaaaen
Co., 511, 612
f. Baiictt, 53
Barrington, He, 93, 94
Banow v. Isaaca, 449
Paringa Mines, 563
xiv
TABLE OF CASES.
Barrow-in-Fumeu Corporation and
Hawlinsun'a Contraet, B$, 182,
123
Harry r. Barrv. 48—50, 83, 88
Bartlett v. PhUlipg, 81
Baiehat «. London lUnatrated, Sue.,
413. 419. 421
Baakerville. Be, 68
Ban V. Dawber, 387, 388
V. Gregory, 198, 205
V. Liidlaw, 383
Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas
Co., 157, 200
Bat«niaii v. Black, 206
V. Poplar Digtriot Board, 172
Bates V. Donaldson, 449
Bathurst v. Burden, 57
Batson and Jovner v. London School
Board, 116,'ll9
Batt V. Duniittt, ^64
Batten ti. (iedye, 82 83
Batten-Poole r. Kennedy, 59
Battersea Lord v. ConiniiosionerH of
Sewers, 192
Battersea Vestry v. County of Lon-
don, See., Co., 105
Batty V. Hill, 376
Baxendale r. M Murray, 242, 244,
245
V. N. Lambeth Club, 281
Baxter v. Bower, 46, 179, 197, 204,
690
r. West, 535, 537
Bayer's Design, Be, 422, 426
Bayley v. Edmunds, 518
V. Great Western Riy., 276.
276, 277, 278, 285, 556
Bayly v. Went, 542, 642
Beale v. SaundeiH, 63
Bealey v. Shaw, 236, 240, 243
Beard v. Turner, 385
Beardnier f. London and North
Western Kly., 130
Beatdr 9i« v. Treadwell, 200
Beaucham;- Earl of, v. Darby, 610
Beaufort (I)nke) v. Aird, 273
ISeauniaii v. Kinsella, 241
Beek v. Rebow, 67
Becker r. Earl's ("ourt, Lim., 204
Beckett r. Corporation of Leeds,
304
Beckford r. Kemble, 613
Beddingtou v. Atlee 186, 187
Beddow v. Beddow, 631
Bedford (Duke) v. British Museum,
434. 494
1'. Dawson. 145
V. Ellis, 320
Bedoy^ v. Nugent, 87
Beer v. Ward. 603, 60«
Beeston v. Ford, 344
Beeaton v. Weate, 242, 243, 249
Beetham v. Fraser, 451, 460
BehrenK v. Richards, 7, 32, 34, 104,
155, 274, 299, 300, 681
Belfast Co. v. Boyd, 236
Bell V. Financial Times, 186
V. Hull and Selby Rly., 649,
678
1'. Joel, 108
«>. Love, 212, 218, 221
V. Midland Rly., 110, 153, 293
V. Quebec, Corporation of, 269
r. Whitehead, 404, 414
V. Wilson, 656
Bellamy t>. Wells, 204
Bellerby v. Hepworth, 583
r. Rowland, &c., Co., 664
Belmore r. Kent County ConneiL
306, 306
Bem)m v. Ruftord, 562
Bendelow r. Wortley I'nion, .02
Benediitus v. .Sullivan, 381
Benjamin v. Storr, 150, 294, 309
Bennett v. Whitehouse, 670
Beano Jatte, &e., v. Richardson, 342
Bentinck v. Norfolk Estuary Co.,
134
Bentley r. Bates, 96
Benwell v. Inns, 455
Benz, J{e, 362
Bergman v. Macmillan. 329
Berkhampatead Sehool, Ex p., 696,
698
Berks v. WT-combe Rly. Co., 116
Berliner «. Edison, 617
Berlita School v. Duchme, 466
Bermondaey Vestry t>. Brown, 110,
300, 303
Bemey v. Sewell, 644
Benidge v. Ward, 305
Besant v. Wood. 13, 435, 448, 607,
633
Besemures v. Besemeres, 664
Best V. Drake, 103
Betts V. De Vitre, 332, 339
V. GaUais, 362
V. Neilson, 336, 674
(Frederick) & Co. ». Piokford,
185, 186, 214, 216
Betty, Re, 65
Bevan v. Webb, 529
Beven r. Wekbock Light Co., 516
Bewick v. Whitfield, 93
Bewley v. Atkinson, 191, 193
Beyfus «. Bullock, 626
Birkott r. Morris, 328, 231
Bickford Skewea, 345, 678
Bickmore «. Dimmw, 4!l 441, 444,
496
TABLE OP CASES.
XV
Bidder v. North Staflordghire Rlv..
279, 284 '
Biddulph V. St. Geori'e's Vestry.
181, 168. 205 " '
Bideford U. C. v. Bideford. &c..
Rl, . Co., 682
Bidwell t). Holdon, 497
Bien. The, 272
Bile Bean Co. v. Davidson, 377
Bill t'. Cureton, 523
V. Sierra Nevada Co., M7
Bincley v. Marshall, 674
Birch V. Marylebone Vestry, 121
Birch Wolfe v. Wolfe, 71, 92, 96
Bird V. EgKleton, 492, S64
V. Like, 464. 645, 663, 655
V. Relph, 63, 80
Birkbeck Building Society, Be, 570
Birmingham Canal Co. v. Lloyd, 22
Birmingham District Land Co. v.
L. and N. W. Ply. 40, 124
Birmingham District Land Co. and
Allday, 487, 488
Birmin^am, Dudley, &c.. Banking
Co. V. Ross, 186, ^14
Birmingham, Mayor, See,, of. v.
Allen, 210, 211, 217
Birmingham (Mayor) v. Foster, 31.5,
320
Birmingham Vinegar Co. v. Powell,
370, 607
Bishop Auckland Industrial Co. v.
Butterknowle, 117, 218. 220, 221
Bishop V. Inman, 515
Black V. Ballymena, &c.. Commis-
sioners, 238
Black Point Syndicate v. Eastern
Concessions Co., 2. 12, 16
Blackburn Soc. v. Brooks, 661
Blackbume v. Somers, 246, 249, S60
Blackett v. Bates. 428
r. Bradley. 221
Blaokmore t>. VVTute, 65, 75
*• ^"'•y Corporation,
Vol, 032
Bla^ave v. Blagrave,*72
Blair V. Deakin, 239
Blair Open Hearth Co. v. Reigart.
577
Blake v. Peters. 49. 74. 94
V. Wallscourt, 634
V. Woolf, 255, 256
Blakeley «. Dent, 027
Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Rlv..
20,26,42,46,115.497
Blakesley's Truat, Re. 622, 824
Blarney v. Blamey, 653
Blanchard v. Bridges, 187
Blewett V. Jenldns, 64
BliMv. Hall. 201, SOS
Blissett V. Daniel, 530
Bloomfleld v. Eyre. 644, 880
Blower v. Ellis, 271
Blpxam V. Elsee. 330
— V. Metropolitan Rly., 19. 559
Blundell v. Cat^erall. 273
Blythe v. Birtley, 649, 686, 688
Boake, Robert* & Co. v. Wavlaad Sc
Co., 377—379
Boaler, If«, 810
Bodger v. Bodger, 548
Bohn t'. Bogue, 31, 403, 414
Bolivia Republic Expferation
Syndicate, Me, 631
Bolton V. Bolton, :J78, 289, 290,
634
V. London School Board, 657
Bonnard v. Perryman, 6, 009, 51(»
Bonner v. (ireat Weatem Rly., 40
550, 55* '
Bonnet v. Sadler, 64. 446
Boord V. Huddert. 385
Boosey, f. Whight. 418
Booth t'. Alcock. 187
V. Lloyd. 399
1>. Lord Leycester, 613
V. New Africander Gold Mining
Co.. 86J
». Rattt*. 260
Bordicr v. Burrell, 667
Boreham v. Hall, 200, 201
Bom V Turner. IHIi
BorougL ."ommercial Societj, 684
Borthwick v. Evening Post, 41. 367.
370, 374, 388
Bosch V. Sim»-s,Manufacturing Co.,
888, 691, 692 *
Boatook ». North Staffordshire Rlv.,
204, 208
V. Sidebottom, 280
Boucas V. Cooke, 396. 407
Boulnois V. Leake, 366
Bourbaud ■•. Bourbaud, 678
Boorke v. Alexandra xiotel Co., 41,
181
«. Davia, 296
Bonme V. Swan and Edgar, 361, 381
V. Taylor, 61
Boustead v. Dempster, 425
Bovill f. Crate, 333, 343. 347
Bow V. Hart, 14, 383, 388
Bowden v. Amalgamated Pictorials
Co., 417
V. Boxhall, 694
Bowden'a Trade Mark. 369
- — Patent Syndicate v. Smith, 330
Bowen r. Phillipt, 519
- — t'. Young, 828
Bower v. L ill, 178, 248, 288
Bowea «. L. ir, 4M, 498
tri TABtl
Bowht', Lewia, CaM. 06. 73, 83
Bomer v. M'Clesn, W, 81, 78. 381
Boworth V. Wilkefl, 404
Bowrinj; i: Swan and Edgar, SS7 <
Box r. .lubb, 255
Bovpe V. I'addingtoii Boroii({h Coun-
cil, no. 111. 150. 204. 309. m
r. Cill. 651, m'2. 678
Boyle V. Holcroft, 284
BoyM. Jtt, 617
Brace v. Taylor, 48
Bracher v. Bracher, 344
Bradbum t: Morrta, 287
Bradbury i'. Dickens, 533, 834
V. Hotten, 403
Bradford Corp. r. Ferrand, 239, 251,
2.52, 670
V. Pickles. 251, 252
Bradshaw r. Bray, U. D. C. 116.
130. 133
Braham. v. Bnatard. 3fi9
Braintree Loeal Board v. Boyton,
202
Brampton v. Beddowes, 462
Bramwell r. Halcomb. 26, 29, 403,
411, 414, 678
f. Lacy, 444
Brand v. Mitson. 520, 630, 648
Braunstein v. Accidental Death In-
auraaee Co., 438
Breay v. Royal BritJah Nniaes'
Assoc., 564, 570
Brecon Corpn. v. Edwaida, 318
Brett i: Clowser, 276
V. East India and London
Shipping Co., 478
Brewer v. Rhymney Iron Co., 218
Bridewell Hospital t». Ward. 192
Bridgea v. Highton, 272
Bridson v. xJcAIpine, 343
Brierley HUl L. B. ». Peanall, 167
Brigg t'. Thornton, 34, 438, 439, 443,
449, 681
Briggs V. Lord Oxford, 91, 437
Bright V. North, 567
V. River Plate Co., 631, 632
V. Walker, 286
Brighton Corporation v. Packham,
274
Brinckman v. Matley, 267, 273, 274
Brinamead v. Brinamead, 40, 364,
461. 664
Briscoe r. Drought,242, 247,249. 251
Bristol Corporation v. Aird. 631, 632
Bristol. Dean and Chq^r of. «.
.lones. 55
Hiislol Guardian* «. Bristol Water-
works. 444
Briatol. &».. BIy. v. Sometaet Biy.,
BTiatoT> V. Cormican. 220
Britain v. Kennedy, 390
British Insulated Cable Co. v. Lon-
don Electrical Wire Co., 423
British Light Contracting Co. v.
.Metropolitan (las Meter* Co., 341
British Liqoid Air Co. «. Bittiah
Oxygen Co., 339
British Motor Syndieate v. Taylor.
336—338
Britiah Mutoacope Co. v. Homer,
330
British Soutu Africa Co. r. De
Beers & (^o.. 12. 684, 628
British United Shoe Co. v. Collier,
336. 336, 350
British Vacuum Co. v. Exton Hotels
Co. 342
V. New Vacuum Cleaner Co.,
368, 582
Briton, &c.. Life Auociation. Be, 9.
610
Broadbent r. Imperial Gas Co., 200
r. Ramsbotham, 238, 261
Brock, A> parte, 68
Brock & Co's. (Crystal Palace) Co.
V. Pain, 370
Brocklebank v. Thompson, 303
Brockleaby «. Munn. 408
Broder v. Saillard. 162. 154. 200.
204. 205. 206, 669
Broemet v. Meyer. 374, 392
Bromley v. Smith, 460. 461. 452.
456, 460
Brook V. Evans, 639
V. M. S; & L. RIy.. 127
Brooks V. Greathed, 544
Brooks. Jenkins v. Torquay Cor-
poration, 473, 667
Brooks V. Jennings, 439
V. Lycett Swidle Co.. 343
V. Purton. 678
Broom v. Batchelor, 437
t'. Summers, 525
Broomfield v. Williams, 185, 187,214
Brown v. Ali^aster, 277, 290
V. Beat, 244
t'. Dunstable Corp., 244, 245
V. Newall, 676, 677
V. Robertson, 651
r. Windsor. 215
Browne v. Flower, 180, 182, 184,
185, 198. 214, 276. 277,
287, 474
V. La Trinidad. 574
r. Robins, 210
V. Monmouthshire Rly.Co.,574
Browning «. Wright, 437
Brownlow «. TomlinMNi. 293
Bmne v. Jamea. 14
Bmnton v. Hall, S8S
TMU or atam.
via
Bryaat v. L«feTre, 198, SOS
Bt, M3, 693
Bi7d«M t>. Biydgat. «M, Ml
V. KUbum764
t>. Stephens, 54, 89, 90
Bubb V. Yelverton, 96
Buchanan v. Andrew, 220
Buckley Si Sons v. BuoklsT, 155
Bucknall v. Tatem, 480
Bull V. Smith, 52
Bullen V. Denning, 54
». Waktij, 307
Bnlli Coal Minbig Co. r. Oaborae, 38,
145, 146
BuUin V. Teoce, 453
BuUivant i'. Att.-Uen. for Vietoiia,
606, 606
Bullock V. Chapman, 536
Bullus V. BulIuH, 520, 630, 633
Banbury v. Bunbuiy, 615
Bann «. Ony, 453
Banting «. Hieka, S38
Burberry v. Cording 4e Co., 367, 370
Burberrys r. Watkinion, 329, 360.
354. 355, 418, 41!). 664
Burchell v. Wilde, ;173, 533,534, 535
Burden v. Rigler, 296
Burdett v. Hay. 657. 675
Burgees ti. Burgess, 358, 3-^6
— V. Hatley, 387
r. Hill, 40, 386, 664
r. Lamb, 91
Burghes v. Att.-G«i, 9
Burgoine v. MooidaS, 6A6
Burgoyne t>. Banojne GodCrar It
Co. 387
Bnriaad v. Eaile, 573, 574, 57<b 578,
579
BnnnMter v. BiirmMt«r, 838, M9.
633
Bumtialaad Whale Co. v. Trotter.
201
Burrows v. Lang, 247, 249. 280
Burt V. British Nation Life
Assurance Association, 580
Burton r. Blakemore, 856
V. Hudson. 275
Bury I'. Bedford, 372, 373, 380
V. Famatima Co., 663
Bnahby v. Monday, 11, 614
Bnasy o. Amalgamated Society
Bailway Servants, 327
Bntler v. Gardener, 661
V. Northern, &c.. Co.. 571
Batt V. Imperial Gas Co., 182
Btttterknowle Colliery Co. v. Bishops
Auckland Industrial Co., 209,
217, 218, 219, 220, 221
Bntterley Co. v. New Hucknall
Colliery Co., 209, 210, 218
K.I.
Battorworth v. Kelly, 411
V. Yorkshire (W. B.) Rivew
Board, 203, 343, 244, U*,
265, 311
Buxton V. Jamee, 413
Byron (Lord) v. Dagdale. 413
V. JohaatoB, 849, 853
Cable v. Bryant, 186, 197, 198, 305
V. Marks, 301
Cadbury v. Walker. 208
Cade V. Calfe. 464
V. Daly, 451, 458
Cadis Wsterworka Co. v. Bamett,
620, 637
Caird v. Sime, 410
Calcraft v. Guest, 606
Caldwell v. Baylis, 75
V. Kelkelly, 264
V. Maclaren, 229, 230
r. Vanvliasingen, 332, 344
Caledonian Rly. v. Colt, 166
V. Glmboig Union Fireclay Co.,
V. Solway Junction Rly., 088
V. Sprot, 213
V. Walker's Trustees. 204
Californian Fig Co., Rt, 362
Callow V. Young, 686
Calvert t>. Gason, 74
V. Gray, 852
Campana «. Webb, 643
Campbell v. Alkood, 49. 88, 83
V. Anatraliaa ProvUleat So-
ciety, 673. 676
V. Lang, 296
V. Paddington Corporation,
111, 161, 181. fsS, 294.
308, 309
V. Scott. 404
Campbell-Davya ». Lloyd, 308
Campbell's ease, 585
Campbell's Trustees v. Sweeney,
269, 270. 273
Campden Charities, Re, 598
Canadian Pacific Rly. v. Parke. 163
V. Roy, 161
Canbam v. Jones, 507
Cannon v. Trask, 575, 576
V. VUlars, 278, 288, 436
C»ptM V. Hntton, 429
CapiM V. Norwich and Spalding Rly..
Capeuloid, Re, 363
Cardiff, Mayor of. »'. Cardiff Water-
works Co., 26, !il, 112
Cardiff Rly Co. v. Taff Vale Rly.
Co.. 132
Cardigan (Lwl of) v, Armitage. 68
b
xviii
TABLE OF CASKS.
Canlinull r. Cariliiiall, «l«'>
r. MolyiUMix. N2, «7H
Cardwftll r. Midland lUy. Co., IL'O.
1.30
Carew, Kx parte, 651)
V. Y»t«». M4
Caribonnm Co. v. Le Courh, 460
Carlwle (Karl) r. Northampton
County Council, 222
Carlinle i-. .^^outh Kawtern Klv., 242,
244
Carlton llluHtratorHt'. Coleman, t),I8
Carlyon r. l^ovorinjj, 242, 244
Carmic'hael v. Kvans, 27, 530
Ounea v. NMbitt. 4fi3, 466, 47U
Cwrr v. Bath Gas Co., 157, 681
r. Crigp, .'l.'i!)
V. Foster. 11(2. 246,
»■. .Morice, 643, 654
Carron Iron Co. «. MacUren, II, 61 1,
613-617
( arrow r. Ferrier. 686, 6!t3
Cant t'. Bland Light Syudieato, ol8
Canbalton Park Estate, S«. 545
Cantain r. Taylor. 256
Carter r. Cropley, 524
V. Fey, 643, 644. 647
• f. Creat F.atttern Kly., 125
r. Robvrts. 680
f. Salmon, 30, 103
«'. 1'homaH. 84
Cartier v. Carlisle, 384, 385
Cartwricht, Be, 66
V, Last, 669
Cary r. Faden, 413
Cary-Elwes Contract, Rt, 123
Casaniajor r. Strode, 77, 644, 646
Ca«e r. Midland Ulv.. 24f . 83, 669
Ca»h r. Cash. 366. 461
Cawi r. Bailey, f'.")8
Cassella & Co.. /V, 362
Caasidy, Be, 642
CaateUi r. Cook, 6ul, 656, 676, 677
Catt V. Tonrle. 431, 458, 479
Cattermonl v. J«red, 436, 438, 461,
462
Catterson i'. Anglo-Foreign, &c.
Co., 3i)8, 383
Cattle r. Thorp, 4,53, 457
Catton f. Wild, 674
Cavan County Council t: Kane &
Co., 150, 304. 309, 310
Cave V. Horsell, 436, 438, 443
Cavendish f. Tarry. 463
Cawkwell v. Riuaell. 166, 246
Cellular Clothing Co. «. Haxton,
357. 369 I
Central London Kly. Co. i: City of
London Land T^:; ComisgionQrs,
229, 304,309 I
I t cntral .Suftar Factorica Co., Be, S20
Cerfle Hestaurant Co. ». LaTMT,
13. 620, 637
Ch.viwirk r. Marsdeii. 298
ChatTers v. Baker. 651
Chaliender t>. Boyle. S, 51S— 517
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Hopwood,
241
r. Koohdalc Canal Co., 221
Chamberlain's Whuf v. Smith, 80S
Chambrrlaino v. Cheatw, ke., RIy.
Co., 551
Chamberlayne v. Dummer. 86
Chanibers V. Manchester and Mil-
ford Rly., 568
V. Toynbee, 647
Champion t'. Birmingham Vinegar
Co., 509
Chance v. (i. W. Rly. Co.. 5r>2
Chandler r. Tliompson. 182
Chandos (I)uko of) v. Talbot, 62
Chauoi k t'. Hertz, 643, 649
Chantrey v. Dey, 395
Channel Coaling Co. v. Roaa, 610
Chaplin t>. Bamett, 670
Chaplin & Co. «. Westminster Corp.,
150—161, 204, 307
Chapman v. Auckland Union, 172,
261, 673
Chapman v. .Mason, 443
Chappell t'. Davidson, 40, 374, 648
V. (;ri(tith, 533
r. Sheard. 381. 407
(Charles f. Finchley Local Board, 156
V. Jonea, 642
V. Potttter, 498, 531
Charlton v. Newcastle, &*:, JUy.
Co., 558
Charrington ii. Wooder, 445
Charnock r. Court, 325
Chasemore v. Richards, 231, 238,
251
(.'hastey v. Ackland, 1U8
Chatteria v. laaaeaon, 373
Chatterton «. Cave, 403, 406, 414
(^haytor. Be, 67, 58
Chajrtor t>. Trotter, 58
Cheavin v. Walker, 378. 379
Chedworth, Lord, v. Edwards, 621
Chemische Fabrik Sandez t'. Bad-
ische Anilin, &c.. 644
Chester (Dean) v. Smelting Corp.,
167. 681. 689
Chesterfield (Earl) Settled Estates,
Re, 66, 67, 69
Chesterfield (Earl) i: Harris, 230
Chibneli •-. PauL 164. 206
Chichester Corporation «. Foator,
164, 310
I ChiU V. DoBite 24. 97, 49}. 49»
TAULC or c.
xu
Ck Ifon V. ProgreM I rinting Co.,
392
Chinnnck v. Hartley VVintley Rural
rniin.'il,
rhitty V. Bray. 436
Ch\ym V. Chirm. 3S8. 3«4
Ch <!»tt V. Hoffman. 330
Chorley Corporation v. Nightinffale.
304
Christ Church, Re, 695
Chrutie v. Davey, 204
t'. Tipper. 362
Chubb V. (Jrifflthg. 388
Churchward v. Reg., 439
Cbnrton v. Doo^w. MO, 371 461,
S3S. S33
City of London Lwd Tax Comn.
V. Central London Rly., M9, 304.
306
City and Sonth London Rly. v.
St. Mary Woohioth, 123
Civil Service Co-operative Society
V. General Steam Navigation
Co., 28
Civil Service Instrument Aaaocia-
tion V. Whitman, 21, 22. 36. 37
Civil Service Supply Auociation t-.
Dean, 367
Clar— -e Uly. v. Great North of
England Kly., 138
Clark V. Adie, 340
V. Clark, 448
V. Cogge, 287, 289
V. Jacques, 661
V. Lloyd's Bank, 204. 208
r. Royaton, 63
I'. School Board for Lmidon,
123, 144, 167
(Marke r. Clarke, 29
V. Ferguson, 345
V. Manchester, Sheffield and
Lincolnshire Rly., llg
V. Nicholg, 347
V. Price, 477
V. Rugge, 290
V. Skipper, 667
V. Somersetshire Drainage
Commissioners, 245
f. Wat kins, 462
Warke's Design, Re, 423
Clarkson v. Edge, 466
Chiudins Ash & Co. v. Mircha Co.,
365. 381
CUvering v. Clavering. 68
Claxton «. Choton. 243
Clay (Henry) b Co. v. Godfrsy
Phillips. 40. ^HA, 3.S7, MS
Clay V. RuSord, 569
Clayton v. Day, 358
V. Le Roy, SIC
Cleaver v. Bacon, 444
Cteeve v. Mahauy, 178, 200
Clegg V. ('iegg, 96
V. Edmondson, 21, 23, 50, 337
t'. Hands, 446, 482
I'. Rowland, 57, 58
Clements v. Welles. 444, 486. 645
ClewM V. Staioidthta* PoMwita Co.,
183
Clifford V. Hoare. 278
— ;— V. Holt, 189
Clifton V. Robinson, 676
Climie v. Wood, 70
Clinton v. Bennett, 15
Clowes V. Bock, 104
V. Staffordshire Potteries Co.,
158, 260
Clydebank Shipbuilding Co. v. Don
Jos6 Castaneda, 4M— 438
Coats V. Chadwiek. 341
t'. Clarence Rly., 160
I'. Herefordshiro County Coun-
cil, 298—301, 306, 665, 668
Cockell t!. bacon, 538
Cockrane v. Macnish, 359, 379
V. Martin, 330
Coffin V. Coffin, 31. 48, 49, 86
Cohen r. Polanid, 43
«. WiiUnion. 833
Colbum r. Simma. 38, 40. 384. 417
Cok V. Forth. 64
V. Green, 64
V. Peyson, 56, 71
('olebeck v. Girdler's Co., 216
<.'olebume «. CoIaiwnM, II, 810, 343,
648
ColefpaYO o. Diaa Santos. 60
Coleman v. West Hartlepool Rly.,
639
Coleridge. Re, 623
Coles V. Simms, 23, 468, 480
Collard t-. Allison, 348
V. Cooper, 649
c. Marshall, 6, oOC. 51 1
Colley V. Hart. 614. 515, 516
Collins V. Caatle. 404
». Oreen, 341
V. Lamport, 843
V. Locke, 461
r. Plumb, 430
r. Slade, 278, 282. 445
Colling Co. t\ Reeves. 377
V. Walker. 377
Collis V. Cater, 391
V. Laugher, 192
Colliton V. Warren. 46, 647
Colh V. Home and Culooisl Stores.
20. 32. 38. 43, 48. 173—181. 183,
184. 180, 190—182. 107, 109. 203.
339^ 873, 373
b 2
u
TABLI or CASES.
Colninn r. Ewtern t'ouutiM BIt.,
Colonial i,if«< ImuranM «. Uonw
and t'.ilonial lnHurance Co., fmz
r<ilK<>ii f. WillianiH, .'»38
I'olwcll r. St. I'iUiiTMDktriet Coun-
cil. 3.->. ll(t. 153. 103, 1S5, lea,
204, 207, M'2
Conibinatira Hub* Co. v. tiMbrook,
341
CommiMioner* of Public Works
<rape Colony; v. UtgM, IM
ConimiMHioiierH of !*evren for Eimx
« 'oni iiatfii ifi Ui'H Pdt rolfx. Rf,3«2, 363
Comimiiliiu (If Mocttiiibiriue r. Uri-
tinh South Aliira Co.. 12
»:oni|itoii r. Huh»rd». INH, 180
Conaclier v. Cnnacber, flSO
Concaris r. Dunera, SIS
Connolly V. Conanmera Co., SfiS
Count r. Ilarria, .536, 645
V. Barr. 655
Constable and Cranawiok. St, 78
ConMilidatfd Car Co. «. CkBM, 839,
340, 341, 342
Continental Tyre Co. ». Uestli, 467,
460
Conway v. Webb, 383, 32S, 3M
V. Whaler, M
CoolKardi« (ioUminea, B«, A70
( ook r. Hath (Mayor, &c., of). 111,
I.-.O. 30!t
Coolif V. ForbcH. 154, 2(K»
i: London County Council, 119
125
r. Whaley, 85
Cooper e. Barber, 234
». Crabtrue, 103, 104, 153, 178
V. Ciordon, 524
V. Hubbuck, 180, 191, 194, 241
t'. Milburn, 194
V. Page, 530
V. .•ihroiwhire Union Rly., 574
V. Stt viiiH, 391
■ I'. Straker, 189
V. VVhittiiigbaio, 9, 18, 38,
354, 411. 418, 665
Coote J. Ingram, 667
Cope V. CreMingham, 006
— — r. Sharp, 106
Copestake ; . West Suaaex Count.v
Council, 'MH')
Coppinger r. (irbhins. 51, 60, 75
V. Sheehan, 269, 273
Corbett v. South Eastern Rly. Co.,
653. 568
<'"r»l!i I'. Gray, 407, 417
V. WaU, «, 609, 010
Corush V. New, 70
Coraellia v. London ( 'ouuty Council,
303, 303
Cory V. HarriMin, 464
— «•. Thamaa Iroa Co., 970
r. Yarmoath and Norwleb
Kly., 19, 29. 313
Conena, Ke, 524
Cotehing v. liaiwett, 173
('oteaworth v. .StitphutiH, H|i)
Cother v. MidlancI Klv., 133, 662
Cotton, Hr, 539
r. (iillard. 360, 508
CoakoD V. OoiikoB, 010
Conhon, Bt, 660
Courage r. Carpenter, 440, 440. ~,
479
Coiirtaiild V. Legh, 19t
Courtown (LenO Ward, 60, 60,
79
CouttK I', (lorhani. 185
Coventry v. L,ondon, Brighton, &c.,
Bly., 130
Cowea U. D. C. v. Southampton
Steam Pa<'ket Co.. 312—314
Cowley (Earl) i-. Byaa, 168, 8.16
i: Cowley, 637
V. Welleiiley, 53, 54
Cowling V. HigginHon, 282, 287
Cowper I'. LaidTer. 20. 32. 34. 35, 43.
44, 178, 183. 671, 672, 673
Cox and Neye. Bt, 484, 480
Craeknall o. Janaon, 41
Craig t;. Dowding, 013, 014, 016,
618
f. Greer, 433, 441, 495
Crane v. Priee, 340
Craimtoun (Lord) v. Johnstoue, U.
628
Craven v. Kay, 669
Crawford v. Hornsea, tte., Staam Co.
200, 673
f. North EMtem Bly., 060
Cregan v. CuUen, 60
Crisp I'. Holdcn. 27, 477, 020, 026
Critcholl V. London and South
Western Rly. Co., 609
Crockford v. Alexander, 77
Croft V. Day, 358, 366
Crofta V. Haldane, 181
Cromford and High Peak Kly.
Stockport, &c., Rly., 28
Crompton v. Lea, 204
Crookes t'. Petter, 370
Cropper Minerva Co. v. Cropper.
378, 380
Croeafield (Joseph), Be, 362, 363
V. Caton, 385
Croaaley v. Beverley, 352
V. Derby Uae Light Co., 21,
38,347,303.
TAMLI flV OAIM.
ssi
CroHlry v. Pixon. 346
- f- LiKhtowlcr. 239. 240, 241,
243. 244. 240. 2«0. S«l, SM
( nmman v. Bristol mmI Sontb
Walw Rly.. 168
Croteh «. Arnohl. 374. 3Sf, 401
Croneh v. Crouch, 437
Cnwder v. TinUw. |05
Crowther t<. United FkniUe Tuba
«'o.. 515. 5I«
Croywiale v. f iinburjr U. D. C, 17i
Croxoii, Ke. 03»
<"riinihi«< r. WuliHf>iKl I, H.. 210
Crump f. Laiiili<-rt, 2(K» — 2<»4. 207
208
Cruttwell V. Lye, 461, 532
Cubitt r. M«ZM. 397, SM
V. Porter. 216
Cuddon V. Morl«y. 61, 76
Cuff I'. London "aiid Connty Land
Co.. 568. 673
I'uU and Rooke r. Oreat Ewteni
Riy.. Co., 137
CnmminH v. Perkinn, 6, 6M
V. Stewart, 346
Cvnder «. Lerwill, 369. Sit. SIS
CanUffe r. Whaller, 306
^'^"L^MS "
( urran v. Treleaven, i$i
CurriP t-. ConHolidatad Kent Col-
lieriee Co., 619
Curriers' Co. v. Corbett, 46, 178
Curtice v. London City and Midland
Bank, 663
Curtki, Be, 634
». Cntta. S45
V. Keateven, 800, 306
t'. Piatt. 342
Curwen v. Salked, 316
t'ufhbert v. Fane, 658
CycIiRts Touring C3ab «. TomUaMn.
670, 576
D. «. A. k Co., 68S — 687
Da^Kett v. Ryman, 464
Daimler Motor Co. v. London
Dair .!er Co., 384
Dalby v. Hirst, 63
Dales r. VVeaber, 463
Daljflish V. Jarvie, 346. 631. 676
Dallimore v. Willianis, 323
D'Almaine v. Boosev. 4O7
DAlmer «. Daahwood, 76
D«lton V. Angua, 181, ao», Sll, 212,
S13, 214
I'. Gill, 75
Daly V. Edwards, 449
Damper v. Baaaett, 28S, 298
Daaee «. GoUini^kMB. 821. SS3
Daad v. KingMote. 279, 284
DmM ». Fwmion. 46. 192
V. Wbitehouse, 375
Daniels. K», 58
Dann v. Spurrier. 36
D'Arry r. Adamson. 601. tOt
r. Askwith. 55. 208
Darby 1: U'hltaker. 479
Dare v. lleathcoate, 287
Dariey Mate C^mtry *. MitelMU.
210, 217
Partford Brewery Co. v. Till, 448
Darvall i'. l)ouf(all. 206
Dashwood v. Mainiia«-. 52, 53, 87.
58. 96. 97
Dangers r. Rivaz. 524. 596
Dnenport i-. Davenport. 92
I', .lepson. 343. 345
V. Kyland. 673
Davey (Lord) v. Askwitli, 62
D«Tid and Matthewa. fy, 272, 839
Daridaon v. Leslie, 688
V. Sun Fan Co., 351
Davies r. ("lough. 506
r. City of London Corporation,
140. 141
V. Davies, 42, 66, 432. 430,
460. 461, 465
V. 6aa Light and Coke Co.,
42. 102, 498, 499. 829.
557, 609
V. Hodgson, 532
I'. Lowen, 4.'')6
V. Mitkuna. 433
V. Marshall, 23. 37. 174. 188
r. Sear, 21, J6, 289
r. Thomas, is
V. Townsend, ■. lO
V. Williama. 24S
Davia v. Araer, 401
V. Benjamin, 392
I'. Bromley Corporation, 168
V. Fonuan, 432, 477, 482
V. .lenkins. 586
t». Duke of Marlborough, 74
V. Marrable, 179
r. Masou. 462
». RlMyader, 692, 693
». Town Propertiea Corpora-
tion, 188. 198. 474
V. Trehame. 218. 219
Daw V. Eley. 351. 685, 693
Dawes. Ex parte, 437
V. Bagnall, 146
V. Hawking, 299, 301, 303
V. Tredwell, 437
Dawkins v. Aatiobat, 601, 603, 604
V. Simonetti, 818, 819
DawaoB «. B««m, S7S, 838. 647,
68(^878
xxii
TABU 09 OABU.
Damon v. Bingley, U. D. C. 262, 263
V. Ciroat Northern aiul City
Kly. Co.. 121, 166
t'. Paver, 157. 174, 253. 690
V. Thompson, 634
Day t'. Brownrigie, 6, 3ti6, 638
V. Davieit, 332, 339
V. Longhiuvt-., 629
r. Merry, 86
V. Snee, 37. 681
Deacon v. South Eastem Rly. Co.,
290
Dean r. flpnnett. rf2r>, r,2(i
V. Thwaite, 38, 145
De Bemalea v. New York Herald,
644
Deere v. Gneat, 105, 107
De Falbe, 67, 68, 89
De Freyiie (Lord) v. Johnatone,
066
Defries r. Mihie. !>7
De Kuyppr c. Bain. .".77
Delalield i: (lanaheus. 62.-)
Delte V. Delaniotte, 417
De Manneville v. De .Muniieville. 634
De MattoB v. Gibson, 429, 433, 473,
480
Demerara Electric Liithtine Co. v.
White, 163
Denaby and Cadebv Collieries Co.
r. Anson, 268, 269. 270, 273
f. Yorkshire Miners Associa-
tion. 324
Dence r. Mason, 369
Dendy v. Henderson, 452, 453
Denman v. Westminster Corpora-
tion. 140, 141
De Xicolls V. Abel, 498
Denley v. Blore. 331
Dent V. Auction Aiart Co., 177
1'. Turpin, 376, 384
Dental Manufacturing Co. e. Trey,
357, 376, 412
Denton v. Denton, 71
Denys v. Schuckburgh, 95
Derby Motor Cab Co. v. Crompton,
438, 4t3
Derbyshire County Council r. Derby
Corporation. 267
1 >e Rutzen v. Llovd, 315, 316
Dement Boiling Milk Co., Re, 617,
620
De Salis v. CrosB:iii, fill
Deschanips t?. Miller, 12
De Tastet v. Bordenave, 656
Deverges v. Sandeman, 539
De Vitre v. Betts, 386, 674
Devonnld v. Rosser, 439. 481
Devonport (Mayor, acc., of) v.
Plymouth Tramways Co., Ill
Devonport (Mayor. &c.. of) r.
Tozer, 8, 9, 110, 111, 144
Devonshire (Duke) r. Brookahaw.
202, 446
■ • «•. Pattinson, 230
Devonshire r. Simmons. 447
Dewar t'. City and ."Suburban Race-
course (;o.. 204, 206
Dibden v. Skirrow, 312 — 314
Dick V. Haslam. 353
Dickons v. Lee, 31
r. National Telephone Co.. 18.
Dickenson r. Grand .Junction Canal
Co., 238, 493, 494, 680
Dicks r. Brooks. 418
c. Yatef^. 374. 392. 492
Dickson (Alexander) & .^ons v.
Alexander. 366
Diestal t». Stevenson, 466, 467. 468
Dillv V. Doig. 412
Diniech r. Corlett. 266, 467
: Dimiind r. Xcwburn, 66
Di.\on r. Dixon. 531. 641
r. Metropc.litan Board of
Works. 255
Dockrell v. Dougall, 513
Dodd V. Burchell, 275, 289
V. Salisbury and Yeovil Rly.,
134
Doe r. Bird. 65. 446
r. Bristol and Exeter Rly.. 132
V. Earl of Burlington, 61. 64
V. Hampson. 305
— — V. Jackson, 65
V. Jones, 64
V. Leeds and Bradford Rly.
Co., 125
V. Lock, 54
V. North Staffordshire Rly.,
117. 125, 129, 132, 133
Doe t'. Pearsey, 305
— — t'. Price, 54
V. Wilson. 56
Doherty r. Allmann. 4. 15. 19. 33.
35, 44, 48, 51, 02. 64. 65.
78. 441, 493, 494, 49,5,
496, 672
V. Thompson, 11
Dominion of Canada Trading Syn-
dicate V. Brigstock, 5R3
Dominion Coal Co. r. Dominion Iron
I Co., 4,32, 478
Dominion Cotton .Mills r. Amyot,
573, .575, 570, 578
Donnell t'. Bennett, 478, 482
Donnelly v. Adama, 276—277, 893
V. Donnelly, 639
Doolittle «. WattoD, M2
Doran «. Carroll, 48, 49. 109
TABLB Of CASKS.
Dorcheiter (Mayor, ite., of) v.
Ensor, 310
Dore V. Pecorini, 200
Dottridge V. Crook, 450
Douglas V. BayOM, 432, 439
Dover Si Co. v. Nfimbeifer Fabrik,
423. 426
Dover Co. v. New Townend Cycle
Co., 349
Dover 6aa Co. v. Mayor, &o., of
Dover, 206
Dover Harbour (Warden of) v.
London, Chatham and
Dover Rly., 663
1'. South Eastern Rly., 114.
490. 569
Dowden r. Pook. 450. 4a 1. 455
Dowliiig V. Betjeman, 20, 627
— — I'. Pontypool, ice., Rly., 114,
119. 132, 133
Downahire (Marquis) «. O'Brien, 319
V. Sandya, P6, 87, 90
Doyle V. Munti, AW
Dreyfus i'. Pernvian Gnano Co.,
671, 673
DrUBeU «. lanaeed Cake Co., 013,
514, 517
Drury v. Army and Navy Co-
operative Supply Co., "16
Dry Dock Corponrfaon of London,
Re, 619
Dubowski V. Goldstein, 455, 460
Du Cros (\V. and G.) v. Gold, 357
Du Cros' Trade Mark, Re, 359
Du Pasquier r. Thompson, 15
Ducketts V. \Miitehead, 356
Dudden v. Guardians of dttttoii
Union, 238, 251
Dttder v. Amsterdsmsch Trbstees, 11
Dudgeon v. Thompson, 340, 344,
345. 352
Dudley Canal Co. v. Grazebrook, 221
Dudley (Corporation of) v. Dudley's
Trustees. 228
Duffln V. Mexican Gold Co., 557
Du^ale V. Roberston, 217
Duignan v. Walker, 453. 457
Duke V. Taylor, 19
Dummer v. Corporation of Chippen-
h«n, 6S6
Dn^hy v. Montreal Li^t Co., 117,
Doncan v. Lockoruic, 330
*. Louch, 293
Dunhill V. North Eastern Rly. Co..
555
Dnnlop Pnemnatio Tyre Co. r. Diin-
iup Mutur Co., 364, 331,
58S
V. Holbom Tyre Co., 338
Dnnlop Pnenmatic Tyre Co. «.
Hubbard, 343, 346
V. Moselev. 332, 338, 340, 341
V. Neal, 105, 338
V. Selfridge & Co., 459, 482
I'. Stone, 347
• V. Talbot. 511
Dunn r. Bryan, 89
Dnnnioliff t>. Mallet, 330
Dunning v. Grosvenor Dairies, 1S7,
681
Dunsany v. Dunne, 97
Dnrell v. Pritchard, 44, 45
Durham (Bishop of) v. Corporation
of Xewcastle. 82
Durham and Sunderland Rly. v.
Walker. 275, 279, 283
V. Wawn. 72
Durrant v. Branksome U. D. C,
171. 240. 262
Dyke ». Taylor. 2, 14
Dynevor (Lard) v. Tennant, 283
Dysart (Earl) r. Hammerton tt Co.,
312, 313. 314
Dyson t-. Att.-CJen.. 609
Eaciius v. Moss. 109
Eaden r. Firth, 26
Eardley v. Lord Granville. 54, 60,
61, 73. 106
East V. Berkshire Connty Council,
299, 300, 305, 306
V. Harding. 56
East Anglian Rly. v. Eastern Coun-
ties Rly., 566
East London Rly. Co. r. Thames
Conservators, 145. 158
Eastern South African Telegraph
Co. V. Cme Town Tramwam 161.
255
Eastern Telegraph Co. «. Dmt, 449
East Freemaatle Corporation v.
Annois, 158. 161. 165
East and West India Docks, tie.,
Rly. f. Dawes. 138
East and West In^ Docks Co. v.
Gattke, 167
East Lancashire Rly. «. Hattersley,
19, 27, 28, 655
Eastman Photograpbic Co. v. Comp-
troller General. 362
East Molesey L. B. v. Lambeth
Waterworks, 060
Eastt'R r. Russ. 433
Kastoii V. Isted, 190
Hast wood V. Lever, 433, 435, 480
Eaton r. Swansea Wirtnrwoika Co.,
192
Eooles Corporation v. Honth Lan-
cashire iVamways, 554
XXIV
TABLS OP CABU.
EeelMiaatical Commiiaionen *
Kino, 176, 179, 180, 195
V. Wodehouge, 80, 81, 82
Eckeraley v. Mersey Docks, 631
Ecroyd v. Coulthard, 230
Edelsten v. Edeteten, 382—386
V. 378
Eden v. Foster, 595
— — ». N. E. Bly. Co.. 286. 227
Edenborough v. Archbishop of Can-
terbnnr, 698
Edge V. Nicholls, 357, 369
Edginton v. Edginton, 638
Edinburgh HagktrstM v. filwskie.
316
Edmbnrgfa. 4»., Tnunways o'o. v.
Black. 131
Edinburgh Water Trustees v. Som-
merrifie, 231, 237
Edison v. Holland, 352
Edison-Bell Phonograph v. Bern-
stein, 344
V. Hough, 347, 349
r. Smith. 39
Edlin f. Pneumatic Tyre Cycle Co.,
515. 517
Edmund v. Martell. 60. 61
Edmundfion v. Render, 453, 462, 463
Edridge v. Kdridge. 622
Edwards v. Spaight, 564
— - V. Standard Rolling Co., 545
Edwards' Trade Mark, Be. Ml, 3«3.
372
Egbert v. Short, 609. til
Ehrhck v. Ihlee. 330
Ehrman i'. Bartholomew. 451, 482
Eldeston v. Crossley, 234
Electric Telegraph Co. v. Brett, 330
Electromobile Co. v. British Elec-
tro mobile Cr 368, 6S2
Eley V. Read, 542
Elias V. Griffith, 60. 79, 95
— — V. Snowdea Slate Quarries. 57,
68
EUiman v. Canrington. 7, 4. 8, 4 s2
Elhott (Trade Extension Co.) v.
Expansion of Trade Co., 368, 582
Elhott V. Brown, 631
». Xorth Eastern Rly„ 211
213,228 '
Elliotson V. Feetham, 208
Ellis e. Banyard, 311
V. Bromley Local Board. 58
■ e. Eilir, 632 -
e. Glover, 70. 77
V. Grey, 7
— — »•• National Union, &c., 518
Elliston V. Reacher, 19. 21, 23 33
35^44. 7S, 434, 44!, 4SG, iSS.'isd.
490, 491, 494, 496. 500, 672
Elmhiist V. Spencer, 27,
Elmore v. Pine. 671
Elmslie v. Beresford, 528
V. North Western Rly., 135
V. Boursier. 337
Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron Co..
466, 467, 468, 469
Elsas V. Williams. 362, 679
EMon e. Hampataad Corporation,
Elsey V. Adams, 654
Elves V. Crofts, 458
Elwell V. Crowther, 157
Ehres v. Maw. 66, 67
V. Payne, 27, 28. 29, 318
Emanuel v. Symon, 10, 11
Embrey ». Owen, 231, 233, 234, 236
239
Empire and Guaiantee Insurance
Co., Be, 663
England. Bank of, v. Anderson. 629
V. Booth, 629
V. Moffat, 621
England v. Carling, 529
Eni^ V. Metropolitau Water
Board, 7, 20. 34. 36,
44, 211, SS». 251,
252
- — Vestry of Camberwell, 648
Enghsh and American Machinenr
Co. V. Gaie. 516
Ennor v. Barwell, 241
Eno V. Dunn, 363
Ernest v. Vivian, 21
Errington t>. Birt, 202, 446, 447
— — K. MetropoUbm Dktriot Bly..
117, 228 '
Escott V. Mayor of Newport, 119, 143
Espley V. Wilkes. 290
Estcourt V. Eatcourt Hop Essence
ijOtf 381, 388
Eton College v. Great Western Rlv
133 ' '
Evan V. Corporation of Avon, 584
Evans, Re, 685
t;. Coventry, 537. 645, 646
V. Davis, 444, 645
V. Hughes. 534
■ XiOvy. 449
— ''"g''*'*®'"' i"y- 171,
I'. :jorrig, 389
; . Smallcombe. 561, 562
Evelyn's (Lady) case, 92
E\ entt ti. Prythergh, 519
Eversfleld v. Mid-Sussex Rly., 134
Everton v. lH>ngmore, 453
Ewart V. Belfast Poor Lmm Onw
dians. 262
«■ Codmiw, 24^ 289
TABtB OF CASES.
XXV
Exchange Co. f. Central News, 389.
504
V. Gregoiy, 389, 416, 504
Howard Preu Agency, 405
Eyre V. New Foreat Highway Board,
M7, 301. S07
P. V. F., 635, 636
Facsimile Letter Printing Co. i'.
Facsimile Typewriting Co., 367
Fairclough v. Manchester Ship Canal
Co., 692
». Marshall, 546
Fairlie v. Booamr, 407
Fairthorne v. Wwton, SS8
Faloke «. Gray. «27
Fanahaw «. London, to.. Dairy Co.,
667
Farbenfabriken v. Bowker, 349
V. Dawson, 344
Farmer t>. Waterkw and City Rly.
Co., 122, 124
Farquhar v. Newbury B. D. C. 896,
298, 299—303
Farrant v. Lovell, 48, 71, 76, 79
V. Olmius, 469
Farrar v. Cooper, 7. 532, 631
V. Farrars, Limited, S41
Farrer v. Close, 324
Farrow t'. Vansittart, 280
Faulder v. Rush, 370
r. Rnahton. 381
Fawoett v. Laurie, 559, 560, 563
Fay V. Prentice, 209
Fear v. Morgan, 190, 193, 285
tj. Vickers, 230, 234
Fearon v. Ayleeford, 448
V. Mitchell, 318
Featherstone v. Cooke, 578
Featherstonhaugh t>. Lee Moor Por-
eelain Clay Co., 569
Feehter e. Montgomery, 433, 481
Fell, Ex parte, sio
Feb V. Hedley, 370
Fennall v. Brown, 652
Fenner v. Wilson, 30, 183, 6S9. MO
Fennessy v. Clark, 666
t>. Day and Martin, 40, 665
Fenwick v. East London Rly., 162,
203
I'ergnson v. Malvern U. D. C, 256
remnd «. Corporation of Bradford,
S36
V. Hamer, 679
V. Wilson, 53
.'ettes v. WUliams, 387, 419
Field. Ex parte, 622
V. Carnarvon and Lianberis
Field V. Debenture Corporation. 541
Fielden v. Cox, 7, 17, 39, 297, 306
t'. Lancashire and Yorkshire
Rly., 647
V. Slater, 447, 486
Fielding v. Morley Corporation, 173
Filder t>. London, Brighton, &c.,
Rly., S.'-.O ^ •
Finch v. Creat Western Rly., 280
Finchley J:iectric Light (^o. r.
Finchley U. D. C, 141, 142, 304
Finck v. L. & W. Rly., 132, 133
Fine Cotton ."^pinners Assoc. r. Ilar-
wood & Co., 365, 367. 581, ,-)83
Firth V. Ridley, 477
Fisher v. Apollinaris Co., 639
V. Jackson, 626, 527
V. Keane, 602
V. Prowse, 303
Fitch V. Rochfort, 677
Fitz V. lies, 447
Fitzgerald, Re, 10, 524
— — V. Firbank, 239, 260
Fitzhardinge (Lord) v. Piircell, 101
102, 109, 268, 273, 274, 295, 306
Fitzwilliam (Lord) v. Moon, 82
Flamang's case, 101
Flavel t'. Harrison, 378
Fleet V. Metropolitan Asylums
Board, 202
■Fleminff v. Bishop of Curlisie, 92
t). Hislop. 20')
Fletcher I'. Bealey, 17. 157, 158
V. Birkenhead Corporation.
211
». Glasgow GaaCommiasioneTB,
336
V. GreM '."estem Rly., 226
V. Rocii , 12, 619
— — V. Smitii, 254
Flight V. Thomas, 192
Flint, &c.. Re, 10
Flitcroft's case, 563
Floienee e. Mallinson, 39
Flower ». Local Board oi Ijow Lev-
ton, 172
V. London, Brighton, and
.*iou*h Coast Rly., 117
F"'oley V. Addenbrooke, 67
r. Wontner, 524
Foley's Charity Trustees r. Dudley
Corporation, 111, 141, 297, 3(t'
Follett V. Jeffreys, 506
Fooka V. Wilts, Somerset and Wey.
month Rly.. 118, 124
Ford V. Foster, 380, 381, 386, 386
ti. C.ye, 28, 29
V. Tennant, 505
V. Tynte, 67, 86. 87. 88
ForrigB BoadboMen v. Pastor, 630
TABLE
Foreman c. Free Fighera of Wiit-
stable, 267
Formby v. Barker, 19, 33, 35, 44,
78. 441, 484. 493. 672
Forrest o. Maneheater, Sheffield,
and Linooln^ire Rly.,
M9, M2, 569
V. Merry, 46")
Forrester r. .'loin-s, 668
ForteKcup r. I.ostwithit-l Rlv. ('o.,
431
Forwood V. G. N. Rly. Co., rtr>3
Pom v. Horbottle, 573
Poster V. BirminghMn, Wolver-
hampton, &c.. Rly., 430,
499
r. Coles, 565
V. Honisby, 168
»'. London, Chatham and
Dover Rly., 554, .ISS
V. Warblingtoii IT. I), c., 109,
239, 266, 262, 271, 272
Foster and Dicksee v. Hastings Cor-
poration, 437
Fotherjfill v. Rowland, 478, 627
Foundlmg Hospital r. (iarrett, 498
Pox V. Astrachan Co., 353
«'. Scard, 465, 471
Fradella i'. Weller, 38, 40, 417
Francis r. Hayward, 109
Francome r. Francome, 652
PrankUn v. Bank of England, 621
Fraser v. Fear. 9, 17, 240, 264
V. Whalley, 675, 576. 657, 658,
675
Frearson v. Imb, 335, 336, 349
Frechette v. St. Hyacinthe, 246
Freeman r. Chester Rnral Council,
632
f. Fox, 463
Fiemington KSehool, Re, 525
French «. Macale, 465, 466, 469, 470
Frewen v. Philipps, 190, 193
Frewin v. Lewis. 113, 168, 168, 588
Frith r. Frith, 428, 431, 432, 477,
479
Fritz V. Hobson, 294, 310, 673
Frompton v. Tiffin, 306
Frost r. OUve Series Pubhshinff Co.,
390
Fruit and Vegetable Association r.
Kekewich, 575
Fuller t: Taylor. 657
Fullerton, He. 93
FiiUwood r. Fullwood, 25, 37, 360,
365, 381. :t82
Fynn, He, 634
Qado v. Thompaon. 450, 464
Ot" CASEh.
Oalbraith v. Poynton, 66, 75
(iale c. Abbott, 25, 36, 38, 46, 152,
178, 189
V. Rhymney Gaa and Water
("o., 264
Galloway v. Mayor, &e., of London,
113, 116, 118
Gandy Bell Manufacturing Co. v.
Fleming, 388
(iann r. Fishers of Whitstable, 267,
268, 273
Garbutt v. Fawcus, 13, 6l»7
(tard V. Commissioners of Sewers,
140
Gardiner v. Griffith, 543
Gardner v. Hodipson's Kingston
Breweries Co., 241, 284,
286
V. .lay, 665
V. M'Cutcheon, 528
(iarrard r. Lauderdale, 623
(iarrett r. Banstead and Epsom
Rly., 430, 431
Garstin v. Asplin. 103
Garth v. Cotton, 71, 89, 90, 92, 94
Gartside v. Ontram, 604
Gasfcell V. Lane. anA Cheshire Miners
326, 327
(iaskin v. Balls, 6, 45, 433, 500
Cas Light and Coke Co. r. St. Mary
Abbott's Vestry, 164, 310
Gaunt t>. Fynney, 24, 46, 204
Gaved v. Martyn, 233, 238, 242. 248,
249
Gayford v. Moffat, 285, 287
Gaynor v. Gaynor, 632
Geary v. Norton, 40, 382. 387
(ieddis V. Proprietors of Bann
Reservoir. 158
f;ee r. Pritcliard, 408, 409
General Accident Association Co. r.
Noel. 454, 470
General Bill Posting Co. v. Atkinson.
452
General Estates Co. v. Beaver, 312,
313. 314
(ieneral Investment Co. «. General
Reversionary Co.. 582
General Reversionary and Invest-
ment Co. r. (ieneral ReversionMT
Co., .368
Cent V. Harrison. 96
Georg Schicht, &c.. Re, 363
Geriud v. Cooke, 279
Gennaine r. London Exhibitions,
204
German i: Chapman, 434, 435, 444,
495
German Date Coffee Co., Be, 670
Genrard v. O'Reilly. 37. 460. 4e»
TiMLM ^
(>eryua v. Edwards, 4S8
GMtetner, Be, 364, SAB
Gibbingk v. Hungerford, 169, 244,
245, 263
Gibbon v. Puddin^ton Vestry. 141
(iiblan v National Amalgamated
Labourers Union, &c., 325
Gibson V. Campbell, 33S
V. Doeg, 433
V. Goldsmid, 428
e. Smith. 48, 49
Giles r. Hart. 453
Gill »'. Dickinson. 220
■ I'. Newton. .539
I'. Philips. 354. 355
Cillett V. (iillett, 620
Gillette Safety Uazor Co. r. Oamage,
333, 346. 347, 3S3, 639, 641
GilKng V. Gr»y, 80, 803, 807, •72,
673. 674
Gillingham v. B«ddow, 372, 533,
534
Oiugell r. Stepney B. ('.. 316
Gladdon i: Stonenian, 5 1 it
Gladstone r. Musurus Bey. 8. 6,30
I'. Ottoman Bank. 7, 13
(ilamorgan Coal Co. f. S. Wales
Miners, 325
Glaaoott v. Lang, 2, 678
Glasdir Copper Works, lU, 68
Glasmw (Lord Provost of) e. Fkirie,
isl, 884, 887
Glaase «. HHshall, 621. 629
Glassington r. Thwaites. 336
Glaye v. Harding. 186. 188
Ohdhill t'. British Perforated Paper
Co.. 381
Glen V. Gregg. 525, 597
Olmny «. Smith. 360, 368
GlenTUle «. Selig Polyscope Co..
391
Cilenwood Lumber Co. «. PhiUips,
109
GloBBop r. HestoB, tte.. Board of
Health. 262
C.loiieeKter Bank ». Rudry Steam
Co., 544
Glover v. Coleman, 192
Glyn V. HoweU, 38, 72, 145
Glynn r. Gilbaid. 684
(iodden v. Hythe Burial Board,
637
Godfrey v. Poole, 524
V. Watson. 75
Godwin v. Sehweppes. 185, 186
Goldfoot V. Welch, 642
Gold Hill Mines Co., Bp, 6!17
Gold Reefs of Western AustraUa v.
Datmon, 570
GoMsmUl «. G. E. Ry., 317
CASM. ixvii
Goldamid v. Tunbridge Wells Com-
missioners, 23, 155, 156, 239, 240,
243, 24S, 260, 26:
Goldsmiths' Co. v. West Metro-
politan RIy., Co., 138
(^lolilstone V. WilUiuns, Deaoon &
Co.. .506
Gonty V. M. S. & L. RIy . 554. .555
Gooch t'. Marshall. 663. 684, 686
Goodale v. Goodale, 629
Goodfollow V. Prince, 370, 376
V. Nelson Line, 578
Goodhart v. Hvett, 288, 418. 664
Goodman v. Kuie, 77, 543, 644
V. Whitcomb, 535
Goodright v. Vivian, 54
(ioodson V. Richardson, 44, 45, lO.^t,
107, 114, 306
Goodtitle v. Alker, 306
Goodwin v. Fielding, 627
Goold V. Great Western Deep CoiU
Co., 59
Goose V. Bedford, 204
(Jophir Diamond Co. v. Wood, 464
(iordon i\ Cheltenham RIy , 22, 23
r. St. Mary Abbotts, 141
V. Smart. 446
Gorges v. Stanfleld. 56
Gormg V. Goring, 62
Gort (Lady) v. Oark, 803
Gorton «. Smart, 201
Gosnell v. Aerated Bread Co., 155
Gottgh V. Wood, 70
Goniton v. London Architectural
Co., 558
Gower v. Eyre, 56
Goiney v. Bristol Trade, &e..
Society, 320, 324
Grace v. Newman, 391
Grafton v. Watson, 426
Graham v. Campbell, 29, 183, 649,
659, 634
Gramaphone Co., Be, 362, 363
V. Magaaine Holder Co., 488.
426
Gramaphone Typewriter Co. v.
Stanley, 677
Grand Canal Co. e. McNaaaee, 48,
51, 64
Grand Hotel Co. Caledonia Springs
V. Nelson, 359
Grand Junction ran.al Co. v. Dimes,
644, 690
t'. Petty. 298, 566. 566
V. Shugar, 45, 14A, 155. 158,
238, 252
C.ran'l --.nction WaterTork? v.
Hampton D. C, 8, 9, 610
Gravity v. Barnard, 86, 4S7, 4SS.
461
TABLE OF CASKS.
liray v. AUiHon, 6(H) — (i02
V. Lewiw, ST"), r>"s
— ^^^r. Liverpool u .1 Bury Rly.,
Gray f. Trinity CoU.. Dublin. 684,
Great Central Rly. To. v. Balby-with-
Hextliorpe ("onnty Coun-
oil. 298. rir>4. flfiS
V. Midland Kly. (o., 137,
571
Groat Eastern Rly. (ioldgmid,
317, 318, 319
Great Northern Rly. f. Eastern
Counties Rly., 572
• v. Harrison, 439
— — r. East and West India Docks.
X. Kly. Co. and (i. C. Rly. Co.,
Jlf, 571 '
G. N. Rly. Co. t'. xM'Alister. 278
threat Northern and Citv Hlv «
Tillett. 128 ^
Great North of Enghuid Rly. v.
( larenoe Rly., 107
(;re.-it \()rth-\Ve«t Central Rlv. t-
Cliarlebois. ,5.53
Creatrcx v. (Ireatrex, 498, ,531
■ 1: Hayward, 247
Great Torriiigton Conservators f.
Moore Stevens, 229, 230
Great Western Rly. v. Bennett, 222
229, 227
r. Birmingham and Oxford
Junction Rly., 2, 475
■ — — r. Blades, ,59, 224
V. Carpalla Clav Co., 42, 223
224. 225 ■
V. Cefu Cribbwr Brick Co
213
V. Metropolitan Rly., 548, 568
V. Oxford. Worcester, &c.,
Rly., 20, 21. 24, 479,
674
V. Rushout, .566, 676
V. Solihill, 554
— " m^*"*'
P. Talbot. 278
Green v. Cole, 52, 64, 65
V. Green, 109, 632
f. Hackney Corporation, 141
V. Howell, 526, 630
V. Pledger, 629
• i: Prior. 652
r. Pulsford, 679
■ 1: Rufhorford, 595
Groriihakli r. Briiidiry, iSS
— — f. Manchester aiid Birmine-
ham. Rly., 21, 27
Greenoujjh v. Gaskell. 604, 506
(ireenslade v. Dare, 598
Greenwell r. Low Beechbum Coal
Co., 222 .
Greenwich Board of Works v.
Maudsloy, 304
Greenwich Hospital Commissioners
t>. Blaokett. T6
e. Cheahin Lines Committee.
136
I'. Wadsworth, 636
V. Homsey. 46, 196, 672
Greer v. Bristol Tanning Co., 847,
Greville-Nugent i'. Mackenzie, 58
Grey v. Duke of Northumberland,
61
Greyvensteyn ». Hattingh. 107, 254,
256, 257
Grierson v. Cheshire Lines Commit-
tee, 122
V. Eyre. 94
Griffies v. Griffies, 95
Griffith V. Blake, 660, 674, 684
V. Richard Clav & Co., 184
— — ». Tower Publishing Co., 399
Gnfflths V. Benn, 512
Grimston p. Cunningham, 481
Grindley v. Booth, 201
Grose v. West, 303
Grove v. Search, 521, 522
Grosveuor v. Hampstead Junction
Rly., 127
Grosvenor Hotel v. Hamilton, 214
Grundy v. Briggs, 558
Guardian Fire aad Life Insurance
< o. t'. Guardian and General
Insurance Co., 368. 387
Guests' Estates Co. v. Milner's
.Safes C:o., 294
Guinness r. Fitzsimons, 108
f. rimer, 377
Gullick V. Tremlett, 200, 201, 206
Gnnter v. James, 161
Gumell I'. Gardner, 645
Gumey v. Behrends, 569
r. Longman, 302
(iutta Percha, &c.. Rubber Co., JB«,
363
Guyot I'. Thompson, 330
G Wynne v. Drysdaie. 341
Gyers, Be, 66
Hackett v. Jaiss, 671
Haddington Island Quarry i-. Huson
538, ,541
ii!«idon V. ilannerman. 425
UadMy V. London Bank of Scotland.
*■ 601
XUU OF CAMS.
ZXU
Hadwell v. Ri^ton. SM. 311
HMnie ». DoncMter R. D. C, 172
Haigh and L. & N. W. Rly., Re.
631.
Ilaitetonc, Be, 659, 660, 674, 683,
684
HaincM f. Taylor, 17, 18, 31, 157,
158
Haley t>. Hammersley, 68, 69
HaUord e. Hwdv, 686
Halifax «. ChamDen, 63
Halkctt V. Dudley (Earl), 540. 626
Hall, lie, 520, 674, 683
V. Barrows, 373, 380
r. Byron, 62
V. Corporation of Bootle, 298
V. Ewin, 492
V. Hall, 528, 537
V. Lichfield Brewery C!o., IM
V. Lund, 184, 268
V. Norfolk (Duke). 223
V. Swift, 245, 246
V. Trigg, 686, 689
Hallam t>. Vernon, 458
HaUiwell v. Phillips, 86, 87, 89
Halsey v. Brotherhood, 613
Hamilton v. Board, 652, 659
I'. Dunsford, 442, 479
V. Hector, 476, 633, 634, 635
Hamlyn v. Wood, 439
Hammersmith Rly. e. Brud, 161.
166
Hammond v. Brunker, 372
V. Maundrell, 622
Hamp V. Robinson, 645
Hampden v. Buckinghamshire
(Earl), 522, 546
Hampson v. Price's Patent Candle
Co., 576
Hampton «. Hodges, 77
Hanbury v. Cundy, 469, 470
V. Llanfrechna U. D. C, 33,
34, 194, 234, 236, 241, 246, 681
Hanbury's Settled Estates, Be, 74
Hanfstaegl v. Smith, 387
Hanmer v. Chance, 60
Hanna v. Pollock, 248
HanaoB v. Derby, 76
Harben v. Philipps, 558, 573, 676,
577
Harbidge v. Warwick, 189, 191, 192
Harcourt v. Ramsbottom, 540
Haidteg V. Metropolitan Railway
Co., 123
t'. Pingey, 684, 690
V. Wilson, 276
Hardman v. Holberton, 204
Hardy c. Martin, 466
Han «. LondoB and North W«t«gm
Btsr., M9, Ml, 571
Hargreaves v. Freeman, 363
Hargrove v. Congleton, 60
Hartogten v. BMidall, 600. 601, 604
Harland «. Binka, 524
Harman t'. Jones, 20
Harme v. Parsons, 464
Harmer v. Plane, 344
Harness' Trade Mark, Be, 871
Harper v. ApUn, 77, 643
V. Pearson, 369
V. Wright, 424
Harrington (Earl) v. Derby Corp.,
7, 34, 84, 170, 172, 240, 242, 244,
245, 261, 262, 263. 267
Harris t'. Beauchamp Bros., 4
V. Boots Cash Chemist Co.,
441, 494
V. De Pinna, 189, 193, 198
V. Ekins, 96
V. Flower, 280, 281, 283, 291
V. Jenkins, 293
V. Lewis, 660
V. PanoDs, 448
V. Ryding, 69
Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co..
341
I'. Cockeroll, ,519, 649
I'. Gardner, 461, 532
V. Goode, 41, 155, 445
V. Guiney. 613, 616
V. Rutland (Duke), 295, 296,
297, 304, 306
V. Sonthwark, &c., Co., 136,
165, 161
V. Taylor, 38, 385
Harrison Patents Co. v. Nioholson.
340
Harrop v. Hirst, 238
V. Ossett (Mayor), 173, 202
Hart V. Colley, 360
V. Denliam, 627
V. Hart, 13
». Herwig, 626
Hartlepool Gas Co. v. West Hartle-
pool, &c., Rly., 646
Hart's Trade Mark, Re, 372
Hartz V. Schrader, 532
Harvey v. Ferguson, 97
V. Hall, 679
V. Truro B. C, 306, 308
V. Walters, 209, 246, 246
Haskell Golf Ball Co. c. Hatehmaon.
514
Hastings, Jix parte, 78
Ilat Manufacturers' Snwly Co. v.
Tomlin, 40 387
Hatterstey «. Lord Sfaelbume, 572.
673
HaufBtaeoi^ v. ami&, 414, 416, 418,
419
XXX
TABLK OF CASES.
H»v»ii* Cigar Co. r. Tillta, 377.
Havwi Gold Milling Co.. R*, 570
Hawea v. Bamford, 653
V. James, 623
Hawkins v. (Sardiner, 64d
1'. IlawkinB, 331
». Troup, 629
Hawley v. Steele, 206
Hawthomthwaite V. Kussell SlU
Hayles v. Peaae, 59
Hayman v. Govenion of RuBbv
School, 626, 626
Haynes v. Donan, 451, 456, i60
r. Ford, 3 J 5, 317. 318
V. Hayneg, 121, 123
Hayvard v. East London Water-
works Co., 264
V. Lely, 379
Hayward & Co. ». Haywaid it
.Sons, 512
Haywood v. Brunswiok Permaaent,
&c.. Society, 483. 492
V. Richards, 200
Ht'alcy (.. Corporation of Batky,
300, 301
Heap V. Hartley, 330
Heard v. Pickthome, 642
V. Stewart, 444
Heam v. Tennant, 686
Heath f. Brighton Corporation, 177,
204
c. Deane, 60
V. Maydew, 1 58
Hejjthcoto r. North .Staffordshire
Rly., 12, 471. 472
Heather r. Pardon, 207
Heather Bell. The, 643
Hccia Foundry v. Walker, 422, 426
Heddy v. Wheelhonae, 317
Hedges v. Metropolitan Rly., 122,
Hedley r. Bates, 610
Heine SoUy & Co. v. \orden, 343,
344
Helmore v. Smith, 641
Henderson «. Bank of Anatralaaia
870, 676
Hendriks v. Montague, 367, 368, 681
Hennessey v. Bohman, 671
Henning v. Burnett, 278, 281, 282,
283
Henry r. Great Northti u Rly., 565
Hepburn v. Lordan, 44. 206
Hepworth v. Pickles, 433
Heriot V. Nicholas, 480
Hermann Loog v. Bean, 42, 46, 509,
sn, 838
Heme Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hut-
ton, 480
Herriuff v. Dean and Chapter of .St.
Paura, 80. 82
Herron t>. Rathminee, 120, 132
Hersey v. Young, 644
Hertford, Sje parte, 622, 623
Hertz V. Union Bank of doo.
656, 637
Hervey v. Smith, 42, 46. 2(»5
Hewlett f. London C., 172
Hext V. GiU, 18, 59, 61, 213, 217,
646
Heydon's Case, 56
Heywood o. Wait, 686
Hickman v. Maisey, 105, 205, 296,
297, 306
r. Roberts, 632
Hicks V. Simmonds, 342
Hickson i-. Darlow. 339
Higginbotham v. Hawkins, 04, 96
Higgins and Hitchman, Hr. 5.)7
Higgins V. Betts, 43, 44, 177, 178,
179
V. Searle, 311
Higgs V. Goodwin, 336
Hisham «•. Rabett, 286
Hildesheimer v. Dann, 426
Hill V. Barry, 60
t'. Cock, 156, 246
V. Fearia, 373, 535
V. Hill, 463
V. Kirkwood, 539
V. Metropolitan Asyluiim Din-
triot, 202
V. Midland Rly., 122
V. South Staffordshire Rly., 22
f. Thompson, 343, 346
v. Wallasey L. B., 118
Hilliard v. Hanson, 628
Hilton V. Eckersley, 321, 325
V. Lord Granville, 2, 19, 27.
31, 60,218,221 • • •
Hinde v. Power, 658
Hindson v. Ashby, 269
Hipkins v. Plant, 387
Hipkiss V. Fellowee, 688
Hippesley r. Spencer, 77. 542
Hirsch v. .Tonas. 376
Hitchcock t>. Coker, 450, 452, 453
460
Hoare v.
206
Lewisham (Jorpor tion,
Hoare & Co. e. Mayor of Cnelten-
ham, 17
Hobart v. Southend Corporatiim.
255, 263.271
Hobbs V. Midland Rlv., 555
Hobhouse v. Hamilton, 507
Hobtioii ti. Gorringe, 70
V. Tulloch, 443
Hoby ». 6nMT«iorLibrar7, 366, Ml
TABU or oAsn.
Hodgkinson r. Ennor, SSS, MS
HodgRon t'. Deane. 8M. Ml
V. Dure, 103
f. Lord Powia, 683
IlodHon 17. Coppard, 444, 646
Hoffnuntf V. HsUubiuj, 518
Hogg t'. Kirby, 374
Scott, 37, 40«, 413
Holden v. Bolton Corpontion, 686,
593
V. Wee ken, 81
Holdsworth v. Macrae, 423, 426
Hole V. Bradbury, 398, 417, 418
V. Chard Union, 673
». Thotnafi, 89
Holford t). Acton Urban Council,
437, 430, 443
Holker v. Porritt, 232
Holland and Buxton School, Bt, 825
Holland v. Dickaon, 557
V. Hodggon, 70
f. Lazanis, 208
V. Worley, 672, 673
Holliiirake r. TruHwell, 392
Hollins 17. Verney, 207, 285
HoUoway v. Eghjua U. D. C, 208,
290
p. Hill, 484, 485
V. HoUoway, 365
Holme V. Guy, 527
HolniM V. Kasteni Countioa Kly.,
431, 442, 475, 479
17. Goring, 290
V. Millage, 5
ti. Upton, 108
Holophane e. Berend, 343, 346
Holroyd v. Marshall, 546
Holt & Co. t?. CoUyei-, 447
liolyoake v. Shrewsbury and Bir-
mingham Rly., 115, 133
Honywood v. Honywood, 52, 53
Hood r. Aston, 631, SU
ti. Easton, 76
e. Jones, 460
V. North Eastern Rly., 490
HotAliwn «. Pottage, 368, 373, 532
Hoole «. Great Wertem Kly., 558,
660
Hooley, Re, 692
Hooper v. Brodrick, 474
V. Bromet, 436, 486
17. Willis, 451. 454, 460
Hope V. Carnegie, 615, 687, 690, 692
17. Corporation of Gloucester,
43«
r. Hope, 10
17. Oshome., lO.';
Hope Bros. v. Cowan, 444, 642
Hopkins v, Greftt Northern Bly.,
3U '
Hepkinson r. Exetor (Marqoii),
(UH). 603
«7. Lord Burghley, 4<>9
f. St. James Co., 356
Horner r. Flintofl, 467
■ V. Graves, 430, 463
Horton t7. Colwyn Bay U. D. C.
161
Hotham, St, 523
Hotten V. Arthur. SOI. 405, 416
Ho Tung V, Man On Imnranee Co.,
561
Hough t>. Clark, 230
llouldsworth v. Evans, 661, 662
House Property, &e.. Co. Hone
Nail Co., 164
Howard v. tiunn, 400
17. Papera, 619
V. Press Printem, Co. 30, 650,
661
— V. Woodward, 453, 466
Howarth v. Armstrong, 214
Howitt t'. Hall, 399
Howley r. Jebb, 55, 60
Howley Park Coal Co. v. L. & N.
W. Rly. Co.. 209, 210. 217, 222,
223, 224. 225. 226, 227
Howton V. Frenwn, "88
Hubbard r. WoodfleU, 646
Hubbnck v. Wilkinson. 812
Hudson V. Ashby, 271
V. Bennett, 387
V. Maddison, 412
f7. Osborne, 372
t7. Osgerbv. 42
V. Tabor, 273
V. Walkn-. 680
Huggert V. Mien, 281
Hughes and Ashley, Re, 277
Hughes t. Percival. 216
Huguenin v. Basely, 1
Hulbert «>. Dale, 275, 284
Hulse. Be, 66. 67, 68, 60
HumphiejB v. Hanltoii, 64, 77, 78,
642
Hon^hriea «. Brocden, 209, 210,
212
V. Conaina, 208
Hnnt, Be, 523
— — V. Browne, 64
V. Chambers, 668
— V. Hunt, 448, 659. 660, 684
17. Peake, 209, 210, 217
Hunter v. Nickholds, 645
Hnnti^ V. Rnaaell, 61, 67, 81
Hnnt-Roope «. Ehrmann, 369
Hurdman v. North Eastern Bbr..
205 '
Hoasey «. Bailer. 204
HiiteliinMn *. Pittaln. Stt
xxxu
TABI.I or
HutrhUon & ("„. ,, St. Mungo Co..
422
liuitun I'. Hi-pworth, 650
». London and South Wcatern
Rly., 125. 167
r. Wanren, 62, 63
- — r. Weiit (^ork Rly., 57t», .->73
HlU!7.ry r. VwUl. 312
Hynian ,: U,.|„,. ig, eu, fig
r. K.w... 48, ao, 51, 64. M
Titi'. illL"'
IllLEE t'. Henshaw, 376
Ilford Park EsUtM Co. ». Jacobs,
Illinprorth V. Manchfwter aad Leeds
wly., 173
ImpeiiHl (Jiw Co. r. nroadb«nt. 26,
.•(•.•. ."),-). 14"). 1.56, 1.58. 166
InilxTial lly.ln.pathic Hotel Co. v.
IianipHoii. ,57;{, ',-<i
IncandcHceut (ia8 Light Co. v.
Brosden, 335, 339
V. Cantefo, 339
t: De Marc Incandeaeent Usbt
ic, .341
7 . Incandegcent Co.. 338
Inchhuld c. RobinMon. 110, 152 204
Incorporated Society of Law'Re-
portinjj r. (ireen, 392, 405
Ind Coope & Co. v. Hamilton, 443
lug* V. Birmingham. WolverluunD-
ton. Sec, Rly., 125
Ingram f. Edward*, 427
f. .stiff, 442
V. Tuck, 30
Inland Revenue Conimissionew v.
Joicey, 60, 61, 75
v. MuUer, & Co., .535
innocent v. North Midland i'lv
23 '
International Pulp, &c., Co., Jie, 620
International Tea Storm v. Hobba.
260. 276
Irish Provident Assurance Co.". Re.
."iH4 '
Irifili Society r. Harold, 272
Iron (»x Remedy Co. p. Leeds
InduHtrial Society, .■(84
Irrigation Co. of France. Re, 625
haaeson v. Thompson, 381
Isenberg v. East India House Estate
Co.. 43, 44, 45
Itwob *. Hwris, «4«. «ai
Irimej r. Stooker, 243, 24*
Isle of Wight Rly. r. Tahourdin, 575
Isiuigton Market Bill. He, 316
IsKngton Vestry v. Uomsey D. C ,
35. 47. 170, 171, 174, 244, 594.
669, 681 ' '
Ives e. Willans, 632
.1. — - V. S.-_. S28, S32
■lackson i'. Barry Rly., 631
v. Cassidy, 654
I'. Cator, 18
V. Munster Bank, 877
• r. Newcastle (Duke), 152, 183.
186, 176
- — ». Norraanby Brick Co., 42.
197. 496, 499
V. Peaked, 110
V. Stacey, 282
I'. Stanhope, 103
t'. VVinifrith, 436, 498
Jacoby v. Whit more, 465
Jacomb v. Knight, 44
James «. Coehnne. 489
I V. Downes. 687
V. Institute of Chartmd Ae-
countants. 602
r. J^vel, 116
f. Plant. 275. 292
t'. Stevensjj, 246, 291
James Westoll, The, 608
Jamieson v. Jamieson, 380, 358. 377
; — V. Teague, 449
Jan t>. Grossman. 367
Jandus Arc Lamp Co. e. Are Lamp
Co., 386
Jard t>. Ford, 318
J^roW HoBlstono, 406, 406, 418.
416
Jarvis v. Dean. 29i(, 302
— — - V. Islington Borough Council,
Jary v. Bamsley Corporation, 213.
■lay I'. Richardson. 465
Jeffries v. Jeffries. 689
tJ. Smith, 94
Jegon V. Vivian, 146
Jenkins v. Bushby^ 665, 666, 667
r. Hope. 40. 351, 354, 358, 664
V. Jaekson, 41, 154, 204'
«. Jones, 538. 541
Jeonings ». Brighton, Ste., Smrer
Board, 678
r. Jennings, 372, 533
Jersey (Earl) v. Neath Union. 89
Jervis i'. White, 531
.lesus College * . Bloom. 94, 95
Job V. Potton, 72, 95
Johns r. James, 523, 524
Johnson, Be, 519
V. Edge, 814. 515, 516
*■ ^3^ ***"'* AgMicy Co., 888
— - — ShrawsbuT and fiiimins-
ham BJy., 19, m, 477
UMLM or OAin.
uxiii
JohiiKoii I. Wyull. 24, 30, 173
.lohnaoii H 'l"r»«le Mark. S», MO
JolUUtnn r. ( oiirtM of Jtutiee Chain-
b«TM. 4H
• r. O'Neill, 22«. 271
— — - ». Orr Kwing, 376, 384
Jobiuitone v. Crompton. 59
V. HkU, 153. 433 444. 403, 404
V. Symonii, 63
JoUy V. Kiiir. Se, Kine f. .loUy,
— Hi ■'' p'l' '"'''•''*'"» Dorking
Joiiiw, iiV. tilt)
JoDM ». Cliai.iM-ll, 48, ai, 64, 153
*. UiHldeii, 816
■ ». Gibbona, 438
OrMt Cratral Bly.. ms. 506
V. Gnat We«tem Rly.. 29
V. Grewi. 406
f. Heavens, 463, 465
r. Lalimer, 65A
V. f ee, 311
■ V. "K, 4")8
v.: '.uirwHt r. t'., 25, 36 4<(
110. 152, 153, 156, 'l7tt,'
178. 178, 229—231, 230,
240. 242. 26 .. 260—263.
271. 203, 673
North Vancouver Land Co.,
558
V. Paeayt. Rubber Co., 2. 16
26, 3t). 5,58, 661
». Powell. 21)1
V. Pritohard. 186; 213. 214
216. 242, 244, 258, 28l!
288
I'. Staiistead Kly., Sec., 161
V. Tankerville (Earl), 20, 34,
44, 428,429,431,600,602,
672
I'. 'I'lionie, 446
V. WiUiaiiig, 220
JopMu V. James, 612. 613
Jordeson v. .Sutton, 10, 20, 32 44
163. 166. 168, 211. 252. 55<(
.liiHeph I). Land Integrity Co., 540
.loMelsohu 0. Wailer. 296
Judea Umkal Oompotiition. Be, 398
Kane and Pattison r. Boyle, 351
Kamo V. Pathe Freren. 391
Kaufman e. Uerson, 10
Kavanagh v. Coal Mining Co., 276
Kay V. Oxley. 276. 276
Kayo V. Chabb, 366
— — i;. Croydon Tramwaya, 677,
Keates v. Lyon, 487, 488
V. Woodward, 14, 15
Keitli V. Burrows, 543.
r. Twentieth Century Chb,
Keith Pr<.wiw r. National T<>Iephone,
432
Kekewich v. Marker, 83, 90, 642
Kelk^f. Pearson, 44, i76, I7», 188.
Kelly f. Hylcs, 374
V. ll()0|>er. 414, 417
r. Morris. 8M, Me, 413
Kel»ey t: Dodd, 24, 433. 600
Kenihle r. I'arreii, 466, 467
V. Keen. 432
Kemp r. Hird, 438. 430
i: London, Brighton, 4ee.,
Rly.. 113, 120, 135
V. Sober, 434. 444
r South Kantern Rly.. 117
120
t'. Weet End, &c., Rly., 120,
131
Kennedy v. De Trafford. 538. 641
— r. Kennedy, 436, 448, 633
Kenriek and Jeffnmn'a Patents.
ite, 332
Kensit v. Great Eaatera Rly., 233,
241
j5cnt Coalfields Syndicate, Be, 667
Kent t». .Taoksor., 560
Kcnworthy r. Accitnor, 652
Kerfoot i'. CooiK>r, 384
Kerford v. Scaeomhe Hoylake Rlv.
Co., 127 '
Kernaghan r. WillianiK, 664
Kerr i: .Mayor. of Preston, 8
Kershaw r. Kalow, 530
Key V. Neath, 268. 260
Kcynsham Co., Be. 619
Kidgill r. Moor, 1 10, 29.1
Kilb«iy r. Haviland. 496
Kilgour i\ liiKldes, 28.5, 286
KilMiorey (Lor.l) v. Thaekeray. 497
KinilH T 1: AdaiiiH, 443
Kinipton r. Kve, 57. 63. 64, 78. »1H3
Knie c. .loUy, 34. 35, 43. 44, 45, 148.
e?": 67!'
Kmg V. Brown, Durant & Co., 104,
105
1: (JillHrd, 30 41, 388
1: Maloott, 520
V. Smith, 77, 543
— - r. AVycombe Bly„ 122. 126,
King & Co., Re, ."-.SO
Trade Mark, Be, 654
Kingham v. Lee, 72
Kingsbury Collieries Co., Be, 548,
669,684 ' . .
Killfrnlfill Miller \ To. I-. T. Kiug-
Hlon A r.,,, ,|H4. :itlT, aSl, 5U
Kimiuiiil c. I'iclil. tWOI. (IH7
r. 'rriilliipi', .">;is
Kiiiiicll V. Itullaiitiii)-, :iHtt
Kino r. Rudkiii. H74
KJTby p. .narrowKutc, 123, 145, 166,
402
c. I'iii({iil<iii I'. I). ('., 2«H. 21M»
Kirrliiirr i: ( Inilmii. 4.ii», 477, 4m2
.".".'t. tl.ll
Kiikliriiioii l.ocal Uiiiird r. Aiiilcy,
-•«.->, 2(1(1
Kitcttt I-. Shar|M'. tt4(»
KitU V. Moore. 4, 6, 7, MS, 631
Knapp V. London, Chatham, and
Dover Rly.. 126
Knight r. ("rinp, 377
V. I'ii|>lchhin, .'i4
■ — I. (iiinlncr. im
r lull' of W'inlit Klcrliic Lifjlit
( (1., 2(14
1: Mowlt-v, 80. 81, 82, ur.
P. Pnrwlf. 41
— — r. Ximmoiw, 24, 433, 435. 446,
49.'-.
- - r. \V<M)rt', 28B
KiiowlcH 1: Lmicawliiic uikI Vork-
»hirp HIv. Co., 221
Kodak Co. r. (frenville, 377
V. London •StereoMopic Co.,
362
Krebl r. Biirrt-U, 44. in, 072
Kiirt« I'. Spence, 614. &15
Kyiiork & Co. v. Rowlands, 107,
Id!)
Kyslii- r. AltiiruN CoKl Co., 558
L.VBdi ) iiKRK. r. Ih'NH. 4(l!(
r. J.oiil WliaiiKlitTf, (idl. (id.'J
La CuinpaKiite Ue .Vlayville r. U'hil-
le.y. S79
Lacon's t^ttlement, lie, 66
Lade v. Sheplierd. 306
L£.i1yinan v. Grave, 193, 194
hiU'K V. Whalev. 258
Laird r. Birkenhead Kly., 22
V. BriggH, 274
Lake v. Smith 27
V. Kotax .Hotor Co., 34d
Lamb r. Beaumont, 67d
V. Evans, 389, 391. 410, 504
I'. Xortb London Rly. Co.,, 113
r. .Sambaa Rubber Co., 30,
5.58, 661
Lambert r. Adtluiou. 6(l2, G0.3
1: Lowestoft Corporatioii, 158
Lutnhtuu r. Mclliab, 154, !&;>, 2u4.
295
Lampon t>. Corke. 437
ur CAHBH.
LuMim n t'neiunatif Tube i'o. r.
I'l.illipH. 452. 457
LuncHMhire ;in<l Yurl.ithire Kly. r.
l>iiv<'(i|Mirt. 55.">
LaneaMhire KxploHiviH Co. r. Ko-
bnrite Co.. .151. 35.'.
Lanciwter (Att.-tien. of Duchy) ».
L. ti \. W. Rly.. 609
Lancaster and CarUile Rly. r. North
WeHtern Rly., 471, 471
i Land .S4><Miriti*-H Co. «, CMBmoeial
Co., 270
l.and. kcr r. \V(»lff. 411
LaiM) v. Barton, 648
I-. Capw^v. 294
f. Newdigate. 42, 46, 406, 663
r. NomMn, AS6
V. 8teme, 683
Lanjf r. Pnnrea, M6
LaiiKham v. Grtat Mortbwn Rly..
649
LaUKley. hj- }Mirle. 663, 667, 693
f. IlitniiiioiKf, 276
r. Hawk. 5r»
Lan>i<iown« t'. Laniidowne, 04
Lapointe v. L' Association de Bien-
laisanoe. Montreal, 600
Larkin r. Relfa«t Harbour Coints..
:)2I, .{24
I.alinicr c. Ayli nbury, ti»., Rly., 138
liiuKider. He. .'153. 686, 686, 687
Law r. (Urrett. 031
c. Ki'(ldit( h Local Board, 468
Law (iuarantt'e .Society <. R:issian
Bank fi4d, o44
Litwes t>. Pimer, 345
lAwranee v. Noneys, 409
.Lawrence v. (ireat Northera Rly.,
257
c. Ilitcli, 3i;
- — r. llorto;!, 4.i, 500
V. .Smith. 413
Lawton v. Lawton, 67
Laiaraa v. Cairn Steamaliip Co.,
439 474
r. Charles, 423
Lea. Re, 362
•. \Vbit :aker, 466
Leader '-. Moody, 493, 500
Leahy v. (ilover. 332, 349. 354
; lA-ake V. Beckett. 77. 645
Leamy v. Waterford and liimerick
Rly., 313
Leaa Hotei Ci., He, 542
; Leather Clotb Co. «. American Ck>th
I Co., 367, 360, 377, 378.
I 379 380. 388
V. Lursont, 450, 508
Leatheriee Co. v. Lycett Saddle Co.,
n-OM or CUM.
IIXV
, 23
U Ulaiwli r.
l^ ^ ' WP ^ W i Wuarrivft { r. Bui-
B««rd. 18. 301, MA
Loe V. AUtiiii, .•(.•(, 5fl
r. Anihiirxt. IH, 27
r. A.vl.Hl)iirv 1'. f., MS. §03
p. Httl. v. :i«H. 3«7, 877, 378.
:m. .•»H4
— r. Milii,.,-, I 1.-), 134
v. Kudnii, 67
•>. Mtevenaon, 258
^((h""**"'"*'^ Board i: Button,
•-♦•••••h V. S« liwpdrr, 183, IBS
L«M'<I.H (I)iiki' of) r. AmherKt (Lord).
21. ;tH. !t4. <(«, 1)7, |7;(
UetU Vtnitf t o. v. Uei^hton Kluo
< <>.. :\4H.
U'Mh Navigation r. Horafall, 103
l»eaukm V. J«kiMt«B-W]itt«, Mu.
451, 48S
r. Ktttik, 512
LcKtfott I'. Barrett, 437
L< >,'li c. Ilculd. .14
Kt'hmann c. Mararthiir
LeiceHtPr. A> /wjrfr, 054
Leigh V. 1 1. -Witt. 63
f. Hind, 457
p. Jack, 304
r. Leigh, til
V. Taylor, B7, M, 69
I^eighton r. Walee, 456
I.«ith Council r. Leith Harbuitr. fce..
173. .'■.fi7. :.!M). 301
JA'Uiaitrc i: Davin, 214
Lcnianu r. llerjter, 531
Le May r. Wolch, 422
Lenuiion v. Webb, 148
Lenipriert' v. Lange, 626
Loiiey f. I allinghMn and TbompMn.
2, 16, 26, 542, 670
Lcnjj V. Andrewen, 450, 451, 452
4,-)6, 460
Leonard and Ellin' Tra<le Murk, iff.
3fltt
Leonhardt r. Kall^^, 333, 346. 347.
349
LeischallaH r. Woolf, 68
Leslie v. Bimie, S24
v. Shiel, 626
r. Young, 392
Lett c. U-Xt. till. 613
Lrvcr r. ( iiiodwiti. 38,'>
Lever Bros, i: Manbro"
I'ioneers .'Society, 40,
:«-_•!.-■!, ■!77. :)s2 387
Levy r. Walker, 373
Lewi* Bowles' Oaae, 5^ 73, 83
Le»k V. Baker, 30
Kquitable
332, 339,
i.i4 wii« r. t 'hapiuiui. 413
I'. Durnford, 4,54
I'. FullirfoM. 301, 413. 415
V. Meredith, 105, 247. 248, 280,
276
r. Smith 303, 506
r. WpHton • super - Mare Local
Board, 115. 116. 117
lA'Viin and Allenhy r. I'egg,-, 440
lifwix and .<<alonie r. Charing Crons
and KuMlon Illy. Co.. 133, 134,
• I H. 217
Ixiyman v. lleK«|,. p. I). C., 206
Libraeo r. Shaw Walker, 3!Mi, 392
Licensed Victualler*" tiazette v,
HinghMn, 374
LifTord's rase. 288
Lingkt^ r. ChriMt<>huNh Corporation.
295, 2!I0
Lingwood r. Stowniarket Co., S39
Linoleum .ManufatturlM Co. v.
Nairn. 358. 360
Lin(.tyi.e Comptuy Trade Mark.
A'l 362
Linotype Co. «. BrHidi EmpinType-
setting Co., 612
Lipman v. Pulnian, 39, 204
Liquid Veneer Co. r. .Scott. 003, C07
liister V. Ka«twood, 344
p. JiPather. 655
— ; — r. Lobley, 125
Litholite Co.' c. Tr.ivi« hmiilatois
C«., 389. 391, 410, 411, 503. 304,
807
Liltte p. Kingswood Collieries Co.,
807
I'. Newport and Hereford Bly..
132 ' '
Littler c. Thonip..*on, .-.6. 603
Littlewood r. Caldwell, 536
Liverpool (Mayor. Jte., of) r. Chor-
ley Waterworks Co., 112, 550
551. 679
Liverjwol and N. Wales Steamship
( o. r. Mersey Trading Co., MS.
269, 271 B • «wt
Liverpool, Su., Stores Association
V. Smith. «. 510, 511
Livingstone c. Rawyard Coal Co., 146
Llandudno r. c. ,.. Woods, 7, 38.
34, 1(H. 135, 273, 274. 681
LlMelly Rly. V. London and North
Western Rly.. 136
Lloytl r. I,ondon. Chatham, and
Dover Rly., 43.5, 442. 496
Lktydrt i: Lloyds Inventment Co.,
•■J67. i>»i
i: Lloyds, Southampton, 384
Lloyds Bank ». Medway Navim-
tiou, 630
e 2
XXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
6. rm>. 510
JJo.vds jiiiil Dawson r. JJoyds,
•"^t'utlianiiitim, 3«7
LlynviCo. ,•. Hiof;deii, 146
J-ocktr J.ariiiiNDii ,-. Stanley, 220
J^ockliart i: lluiily, 538
J^odtT f. Aiiiiild. tl!)0
Logaii r. Maiik "f Scotland, 12, 600,
<>lii. ()I2
'■. l>a\ is. 577
J^oiiiax I-. Stott, 254
London Ash. of .shipowners r. hoii-
dou and Tilbury Docks, 111, 112,
London (Hjsliop of) f. Webb, 8»
London (City ol) c. (iraeme, 64
Loiidnii (Ciy of) Hrcwery Co. r.
Jt'iiiiaiit, 1 7(i. l!»7
London Comity Comiril i\ Atl.-
Ccn.,'548, 54!1, 5.")0, 587,
588
C. K. Rh ., 7. 161
• '■. Hancock, 143
• '•. Iliifrlics, 296
• ' . Illuniiiiatcd Advert. Co., 143
' Metropolitan Rlv.. 143
i: I'lyor, 143
'•. Si iiewzik. 14;!
London (Mayor. \c., of) v. Hedger,
().")
V. RijfgK, 280
London and Birmingham Rly. i.
(irand Junction Canal Co., 263,
685
London and Blackwall Rly. t'. Cross.
6. 7, 1()7
London aM<l liri;;liton, &c., Rly. v.
'rriinian. Itil. 2oti
London and County lianking Co.
r. Ijcwis, 545, (i26
London (ieneral Omnibus Co. r.
Lavell. 670
London (iloiKCKtcrshirc Pairv v
Morl. y. 21ti ■
I-oiidon and Norllicni Bank i:
Ni wrn s. .")I2
London and Ndilli \\'c.>tcni l!lv. r.
Ackroyd, 222. 227
■ — — i: Conuw. .St'wcrK for Fobbing
Levek, 273
f. Evans, 213
V. Camett, 447
V. Howley Park Coal Co., 209.
210, 217, 222—227
r. LancaKhirf and Yorkshire
lily.. 107
■ — — i: I'liif, ."its. 5ti;i
>■■ Wcstmmstpr <'on>iiration
105. 107, 113, lie, 30S
London and Provincial Law Co. v.
London and Provincial Joint
Stock Co.. 582
London and South Western Rly. v.
Coward, 167
t'. Gomm, 483. 484, 4!»2
London and Suburban Land, \c
Co., V. Field, 447
London and Yorkshire Bankinc ( o
»•• Pritt. 465
London, Chatham, and Dover Kly.
Arrangement Act. /I'c. 472, 473
London. Chatham, and Dover Rly
V. Bull, 25, 37. 4!)!t
Londonderry v. Kussel, 382
London Pressed Ihnge Co., He, 544,
545 '
London Steam Dyeing Co. r. Digby,
41
Long Dau.n Recreation Ground t?.
Midland Rly. Co., 123, 166, 492
Longman r. W inchester, 391
Iioog i: Bean, 6
Loosemore v, Tiverton, &ic., Itlv
124, 126
Lord 1'. Copper Mining Co., 57.i
Commissionens of Sidney
230, 232
i: (ireat Eastern Rly. Co., 154
Losh c. Hague, 329, 347
Louis !•. SmcUie, 38i», 504
Lovatt (Lord) c. Duchess of Leeds,
53
Love r. Bell, 212, 214, 219
Lovell and Chriatmas c. Wall. 447
451, 464 '
Lovell V. Smith, 292
Lovett, Re, 520
Low f. Iniies. 28, 432, 663
■ I'. Staines Reservoir, 127
r. Ward, 414
Lowndes v. Bcttle, ,13, 101, 102, 104
r. Norton. 53
Lowthcr r. Carlton. 48ti
Luby II. Lancashire and Cheshire
Miners, 602, 606
Lucas Moncrieff, 398, 399
Ludlow, f,V piirte, 56
Liiker r. Iiennis, 459
Luniley r. (iye, 325
t'. .Metropolitan lily.. 447
r. Ravenscroft, 28, 431
— — t-. Wagiier, 19, 20, 429. 440.
473, 470, 482
Lurting v. Conn, 57
Lnscombe r. G. W. Rly., 297
Lushmgton r. Boldero, 87, 92
Lnttreil's case, 236, 245
Luzmore, lie, 688
Lyoett Saddle Co, v. Brooks. 513
XABtB
Lyddall v. Claveiing, 73
Lyddon v. ThomM, 454
Lyde V. Eastern Bengal Rly., 548
r. Kutwvll, 68
Lynch V. ('omi-r' ,.s. ,r',i-.r« r>» Sewers,
122, 140
Lyndon, He, tit
Lyne, v. \icl < P<. ."i
Lyon f. Fisb ci . m' < o., 1;31 232,
239, 269. 2"4
V. Godduiti, oo'fi,
r. Newcastle {'ornoration, 350,
355
Lyonn & (■<». r. (iullivev and Capital
Syndicate. 2()(i. .'!0!)
I'. Lon<l()n, City and Midland
Hank, 53
Lyons Sc. Sons v. Wilkins, 321
Lyttletou Times Co. v. Warner &
Co.. 185, 440
Lyttleton v. Blackburne, 600, 603
Lytton r. Devey, 408, 409
M Andhkw i: Ilassett. 40. 3.">7. 30n,
38(i, :m
M Beatli c. Kavenscroft, 646
Macbride v. Lindsay 560
M'Cabe v. Bank of Ireland 680
McCartney v. Londonderry Rly. Co.,
232, 233, 234, 235. 236. 237, 238,
240. 2.58. 5.54
-McClelland i: Manclie«ter Corpora-
lion, 159. 161, 162, 163, 262. 304
Maccksfleld (Uayor of) v. Chapman,
317
M'Curdy, v. Noak, 656
M'Dougall tj. Gardiner, 573, 578,
579
V. Jersey Imperial Hotel Co.,
563
McDowell i: Craiid Canal Co.. 55!)
McKacharn r. Coltoii. M». 33. 35 44
7S. 441. 44!). 4!)3. 672
McKvoy r. ii. X. Kly., 248
McEwen v. Steedman. 203. 2.-4
Macey v. Metropolitan Board of
Works, 126, 144. 167
Maefadden v. .Tenkyna, 521
.Me(;iiMle V. Royal London InsarsDce
Co., .-,.-)(». .586
Mclilc'iirion. lie. 303
McUratli. AV, 635 . 636
Maegregor i: .Metropolitan Kly.,
126
M'Gruther v. Pitelier. 483
McHenry v. Lewi«. 611. 612. 615
Melntodb and Pontypridd Co.. Re,
Si
Madntyie r. Bclelier, 430, 439
or CASKS. xxxvii
Mclntyre Brothen ». McGavin.
240, 244
Mackenzie r. Childers, 487, 488
M Kenzie r. M'Kenzie, 623
I McKeown r. .loiiit Stock Institute.
693
Mackett i: Heme Bay Commia-
! sionem, 29!), 639
Mackie r. Solio Co., 517
M'Kiunon v. Stewart, 523
Maclaren v. Staiuton, 613, 018, 677
Maclean v. Mackay, 486
: Maeleod v. Jones. 30, 539, 540, 661
McMahon v. North Kent Iron-
works Co., 545
.M.-Manus i: Cooke, 44, 173, 193,
499
Maemillan r. Dent. 395, 408
McMurray r. Cadwcll, 205
McNab V. Bobertsou, 238. 251
McNeill V. Garratt. 663, 686
— — I'. Williams, 29
Maci)heinoii r. Scottish Wav, &c..
302
MCrae v. Houldsworth, 427
.Maxee r, Lovell. 46(i
Magnolia Co. i: .\tlas Co.. 376. 386
Magor V. Chadwick. 248. 2.50
Mahon (Lord) v. Stanhope, 89
Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Re,
13. 607, 641
' Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., 478
i .Major Bros. v. Franklin, 359
Maleverer v. Spinke 62
MaUan v. May, 437, 460, 462, 463,
! 460
! Malmsbnry Kly. v. Hudd, 631
Malone v. Laskey, 153
Mancheoter Banking Co. v. Parkin-
son, 6G0
Manchester Brewery v. Coombs,
44.5, 459
r. \orth Che-hire, &e., 367,
581
: ManchcKlcr Corporation t'. Lyons.
31.5. 318
■ V. New Moss Colliery, 217
». Peverley, 315
Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln-
■hire Rly. v. Anderaon,
IM
1'. Worksop. 263
I Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Man-
ehcKter Kaeecourse Co.
439, 474, 626
— — I'. Rochdale Canal ( 'o.. 250, 556
Mander c. Falcke. iSi, 686
Mangan v. Met. Kleotric Supply Co.,
668 KK. .
I Mann v. Brodie, S9S
txxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
and Navy
Mann f. SU plicnH. 432, 489
MiiiiiierK (Lord) v. Johnson, 23, 48;-,
4!t4, 400, 4flO
Miiiii..', Tlif. r,43
Miiiisell r. British Liiioii Co., 084
'• ^'iillcy PrintiiiL' Co., 231
2n!», -'.-.l.2r,2, 418 •
MUI18.T c. Xoitliorii and EiiRfpm
< uunties RIy., 16«
Man»fipld r. <"rawford, .K)
— V. Shaw, .519
.Maiiwood's cano. 54. Ti.l
Miiplc r. .Tiiiiior Arinv
Stores. 31»1
Mai(j) r.lcock. f,78
Mii|(|)iii V. I.ihcrl V. •Mtr,
Alan oni c. Jiritisli i;a,lio Trloeriiph
Co., 34<^ 342 '
Marker v. Marki r. 21, 83, 8.-., 86. 88
MarlborouKh (Duke of) v. 8t. John,
oO, 81
Marnior r. Alcxuiider, 564
Marriott v. Kum (irinstead fily.. 33
34, 105.107,111.112,114,'
161. 306, 547. 549—551,
.580
.-. Tiirplcv. 82
Marsh, Ke, «35
Marshall f. Bull, 391
1'. Colman, 535
'■. Marsliall, 448, 633
r. Kdss, 378
• 1: Sladdeii, 521. 625
' ■ WiilKoii. 531, 534
Marshall K Valve (;oar Co. v. Man-
imig & Co., .-.77- 57!»
Martin i: IJaiiiiistpr, 14
V. Beauchamp, 680
f. Great EaHtern Uly. Co
162
r. Kin)wly8, 95
I'. I<oii(loii. Chatham, and
Dovt r Hly., 119, 125
r. L. C. C. 150
■ '•■ Niitkiii, 442
V. I'orter. 146
V. Price, 20, 183. 672. 673
f. Roe, 60
Marliiiiiali', AV, 640
.Marty I r. I,awrenre, 107. 108
Mason 1. I'ulhani Corporation, 216
Mawn (. Hill. 231. 233, 240
V. Mason. 7!t
r. Provident ( lothinjj c,,., 450.
451. 4.12. 457. 458. 462!
405
f. !<hrew8l)ury RIy. Co.. 242.
244
— — V. SlokM Bay Pier and Rlv.,
123
Mason r. Wcstoby. 544
Mason s-()i phani.'>ti', AV. ,■.42
•MaKsani r. Thorley H Cattle Food
I «., 365, 369, 508
Massey v. (Joyder, 215
Master r. Hansard, 487, 488
aiatthews V. Great Northern RIy.,
565
— — r. Sheffield (Mayor), 202
Matlhewnon r. Stoekdale. 405, 411
Matthie 1: Kdwards. 139
Matts c. llawkiii,', ,;15
Maudslev, Sons a >. Field, Be, 617
Maunsell v. Hort, 64, 65
7,"- Midland Great Western lUv.
of Ireland, 168, 473. 561, 566, 572
iT.',"'*.".,'- ''''''^f' 391. 404, 405.
41.3, 414, 41.5, 416
Maxey Drainage Board r. C, X
lily.. 2.5(i. 257. 272 ' "
Maxim Xordenfelt r. Xordenfelt,
458
Maxwell r. Ho^g, 374, 375, 377
V. 8omerton, 404
May V. Bellerille, 276, 276. 284
■ 1'. O Xeill. 433
Mayer v. .Spence. 346. 656
Sla.vlair Property Co. v. Johnston,
1 1*', 153. 293
Mayuard t'. Gibson. 57
Ma.,Tiard's Settled Estates. Jfo, 67,
I Oo
I Mayo V. Seaton, U. D. ( .. 206
Maythome v. Palmer. 433, 436
Mears v. Callender, 67
Mea«un'8 Bros. e. Measures. 389
428. 433, 441. 462. 481. 60S. 604 '
Medway XaviKation Co, v. Romnev
(Larl). 237
Melachrino v. Melaehrino, 368. 368.
369
Mellor V. Thompson. ,508. 640
V. Walmsley, 230 267 ''71
Menier r. Hooper s Teleifraph Co
.575. 576. 580
Menzies r. Lord Rreivdalbane, 257
Mereer 1: .Vuctloii .Mart Co.. 178
r. Irvinjt, 466
r. Liverpool RIy. Co.. 121
— — V. VVoodgate, 303
Merchant Banking Co. r. .Mereliants'
.louit Stock Bank, 581
Merchants' Trading Co. t'. Bajiner
428, 476 mii.er,
M. redith r. Wilson, 435
Merri. ;k e. Liveriiool Corp., 9, «10
Merrideld v. Liveipool C»tt<m As-
sociation, 576
Merryweatlier r. Moon, 389. S0S,S04
tABtB or CABE8.
xxdx
M '*8agerie« Inip^riales v. Baines,
48(»,
Meters ('<i. r. Metropolitan (ias
Meters Co.. 35:{. 692
Metropolitan Anialganiateil Kxtatex
Co., Re, i>i4
Metropolitan '^wk v. Pooley, But)
Metropolitan ^.oard of Works v.
London and North Western Rly.,
244
Metropolitan Distriet Asvlum c.
Hill, 16:i. 104, 165. 202
Mt'tropolitan District Rly. r. EarlV
Court Co.. 646
Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. t'.
(Under, 439, 474, 478. 482
Metropolitan tias Meters Co. i'.
British, Foreign Supply Co., 515
—518
MetropoUtan Muaio Hall Co. v.
Lake, 693
Metropolitan Rly. v. Wodehouse.
121
Metropolitan Water Board r. Solo-
mon, 163, 164
Meux V. Bell, 545
ti. Cobtey, 48. 50, 51, 62, 65,
V. Jaooba, 70
Mexborough (Lord) v. Bower, 499
Mexican Co. v. Maldonardo, 6fiO
Meyen v. Heunell. 526
MieUethwaite v. Newlay Bridge Co.,
230, 305
v. Micklethwaite. 83, 8S, 87
f. Vincent. 271
Middleton v. Browne. 4M, 461
V. Magnay, 54S
Midland Rly. 'r. Ambergate. &p.,
Rly., 137
f. (ire.Vt Wentem Rly., 129,
I ;!«, .'57 1
r. (iribble. 1U4. 292
■ r. Haunchwood. &c.. Co., 224
I'. I^ndon and North VVestern
Rly., 439, 571
V. Mile*. 2*0
V. Robinson, 224. 225
MidwMMi V. Manchester Corpora-
tion. ITtS. 16:i. I OH. 169. 2,'iS
MiffheU «r. .lohore, 630
Milbiim r. Newton. 685. Wt
MiWr«'d i: Weaver, .100
Milex t'. Tlionias, HSl
V. Tobin, 22
Millar v. Lang and Polak. 390
Millw «. Haneoek. 27S, 877. 381,
tM
HiQelt «. DavMT. 75, 7«. 643
MilUcan v. SnlUvaa, 477, WO
Milligan v. Mitchell, 524
Millington v. Fox, 30. 41. 357. 382,
386, 387
Mills t'. Dunliani, 461
r. Northern Kly. of Buenos
AyrcK, 553. 629
.Mihier's .Safe l,'o. v. (ireat Northern
and City Rly. Co., 186, 208, 243,
275, 277—279. 282, 283. 280, 290
—292
.Miner r. (lilmour, 236
.\Iinet I'. Morgan, 505
Mireaha Taniaki i-. Baker, 85
Mitchell V. CantriU. 193
V. Darlev Main Colliery Co.,
670
V. Henry, 27. 28. 29. 426
— — ■ I'. Reynolds. 449
Moet r. Couston, 4U, 41. 385, 387
V. Pickering, 377, 388
Motfatt (;ill. 403
Mogul Steam ."^liip Co. v. Macgr^tor,
2, H, 320, 324, 4.-)8
MoUett r. Knequist. 6.52
Molliueux t'. Powell. 71
Molyneux r. Richards, 432
Mouckton V. tiraiuaphone Co., 391
Monson «. Tussaud, 6, 5U9, 510
Montain v. Parker. 617
Monteflore v. Browne, 524
Montgomerie i'. Youtii.'<, 377
Montgomery v. Thoni|.-ion, 383. 384
Monti c. liarnes, 68. 70
Moody r. Hebberd, *-'59
r. .Steggles. 641
Moor I'. Anglo- Italian Bank, 615,
620
Moore, Re, 520
I'. Bennett, 41
r. Rawnon. 194. 292
r. rilcoatK Mining Co., 429
478
r. Webb, 242, 244
.Moosbriigger r. .Moosbrugger, 640
Morant k. Chamberlin. 302
Mordue r. Deaa of DsAam. 5.1
Moreland v. Riehardaon. 105, 107
Morgan v. Fear, 190. 1^ 286
r. (ireat Kastem Rly., 41
r. M Adani. 378
Morison r. .Moat, .'>03, .5(»7, 508
.Morley i>. Pragnall, 201
Moro<-c« Boand Sjradieate «. Hania,
421
Morrell r. Pearson. 37, 681
Morris v. Aahbce, 40S. 406, 415
V. Coiauw, 4ti
V. Ed^iftMi, n». 2»l
v. (irraat, 45
V. MorriM, 94t 96^ 96
xi
TABLE OF 0A8B8.
2.(7. 2:t8
< 'jr-
Morris r. V.ylo. 4.">0, 4.->l. 4-,2
— — «•. TottcnliaiM. \c,," Rly.^ 134^
t: Wrijjlil. 4()(i
MoiTuon, Jie, 70
Mortimer r. AVibon, 604
Morton 'h Design, Be, 422
Moscli V r. rhadwiok. 318
'^T.-jy.':: Kott.vl<.nf,.i„ Mineg Co.,
i).>!l. MW. .->«!, om, ->76
1: Wiilker, .•il7
Moscr r. Scwfll. 344
MoNCN c. 'laylor, 444, 44((
Moms r. Brail burn,
Mo«tjn J'. Athcrtou, 2.t«
239. 249
■ — ■ — f- Lanoaster. 210
M"(ioii 1: .Mills. 2114
Motley r. I )()wiliiiaii. l>(i
•Moll I-. • Imiillired. 1 "(.•(. Ijjj gji
.Mi.lieliel r. Ciibiti. 4ri>i
.Moullel ( ol^.. 4 -,7
■Muiilis r. Owen. lo
Moiisuii r. Hoelini. .t:.",
Mowart r. Hudson. «7
.Moxhum V. (Jrant.
Moy r. St,m]t. I'm!
M../lev r. Alston, .-..-.it. 57;). .574
■Miuhl r. Ceneial rtiiini S,r,
I"- I lets. ,!24
Muudoek 1: Blaekwood. 3«, 416 417
Miillins c. Howell. 683
-Miilli, r. Hubbard. 144
MiiiMlonl 1: (;etliin}r. 4.->(»
Mnnns Isle „| \\,^r],i l-Jy., Jgg
-Mnnro r. Hunter. .•!77
— '•. U iv«'nlioe. &c., Rlv 07
431. 654, 6,-,-,, (i.-,7
Munsterr. Canimell <'i... -,.-,7 r,-g
iriy..'>,<io'"^'^'''""''''' "'"^
Muntz r. J-'oster. 336
Muraio i-. Taylor, 384
M«Wtroyd ». Robinson, 240. 242,
Murphy ,•. \\ illeockll. 689
Murray r. Dunn. 432
— — V. Epsom K. M., ,i(i,s ;({)<)
Mnsjrpave «•. Horner, 6,'J 47s '
MiisMlburKh Real Estate Co i
.Muss,.lbur(rh ( Corporation. 275 " '
Mussel white v. .Spieer. 435
Muslims Hey r. (iadban. 8
-Myers c. l aKerson, ls5
Myers' Patent, He. 644
N'adix. A> j>„ J jg
N'anjtle v. Lord Fingal, 62
Nash r. Karl of Derby. 65
-National Cash Register Co. v. Thee-
inaii. 381
NatioiiaJ Co. c. (;ihl)s. 331
National -Mantire Co. Donald, 548
National Phonograph Co. ,.. Edi-
son Bell Consolidated
National Phonograph Co. of Aus-
tialia r. .Menck. 339, 483
National, &c., Plate (llass Assurance
t o. r I'riKlential Assurance Co.,
■i4, 4.!. 4,'>. 1<».")
National" Starch Co.. He 'iCr'
~~ V. Munn's Co.. 381," 382"
T62"'U P**""* Co. ... Baker,
ro ".tfi.r"" ^wxxn
Natural CoNnir Kinematogranh Co
'■• Speer. 345 ^
Nealo V. Cripps. 102
N.^th Canal Co. r. Yiiisardwed,
&<•., Colliery Co.. 108
Nci d r. Hendon U. D. C.. 3O6
Aei I Devonshire (Duke), 271
Aeilsoii Betts. 386, 674
• r. Ilornimaii, 412
r. 'I honipson, 348
Nelson /• Salisbury, l{ly., II5
— »'. Uorssani. 087
Nerot r. Buriiand, 626
Nevanas p. Walker. 466. 460
NeviU V. Studdy, 699
Newall r. Elliott, 334
- <: Wilson. 343, 344
-New by v. Harrison. 660, 683
6m"*"* Att..G«D„
Newcastle (Duke) v. Worksop, 316.
Newcomen v. Cottlion. 279. 280
674 '
Newdigate (^olliery Co., Be, 542
New (iold Coast Co., Re, 640, 693
-Newhaven Local Board v. New-
haven School Hoard, 143
New Imperial Hotel Co. r. .Johnson
177.203,204
Newling v. Dolwll. 454, 463
Newman e. Newman & Co.. ifo. 5*3
r. Pinto. 378. 381
V. Ring. 689
tABLm or 0A8M.
Newmarch v. Brandling, 497
New Inverted Incandescent Can
Lamp Co. t'. Howlett, 341
New MoRR Colliery v. Mancliegt«r
Corporation, 223
V. Manchester Rly., Co., 221
New Prance and Garrard's Trus-
tee V. Hunting, 523, 624
New River Co. v. Johnson, SS2
New Sharkton CollieriM Co. p.
Westmoieluid (Eari), 209, 217,
218
Xewun V. Pender, 27, 31, 183, 196,
661
Kewton, Re, 634, 836
V. (^ubitt, 312, 313, 314
V. Newton, 626, 629, 633
V. Nock. 497
New Travellers' Chambers v. Cheeae.
620. (537
New VViiidHor (Mayor) v. Stowell,
243
V. Taylor, 315
New York Tukab Co., Bt, 645,
576
Nichol V. Stockd^, 412
NichoUu V. Chamberlain, 259
Nieholk v. Nieholb, 276, 277
Niehoh v. Manland, 266
r Pitman, 410
• V. Stretton, 460
Nicholson i-. Knapp, 501, 598
Nickson r. Dolphin, 525
Nicoll ti. Beaumont, 308
V. Beere, 454
V. Fenning, 486, 489
Nield V. L. & N. W. Rly., 266
Niemann v. Harris, 654
Niger Merchants' Co. v. Capper
620. 637
Nireaki Tamaki v. Baker. 112
Nisbet I!. Golf Agency, 391, 405
Nisbet and Pott's Contract, He, 483
^ 484, 48.5, 492
Nobel's Kxplosives Co. r. .Tones
331, 334, 336
Norbury (Lord) v. Kitchin, 235, 238
Nordenfelt v. Gardner, 41, 341
». Maxim-Nordenfelt Gnn Co.,
460. 452, 453
Nore.v t'. Keep. 529
Norfolk (Duke of) t'. Tennant, 167
Norman r. .lohnRoii, 520
• V. Mitchell, 547, 558
Normandy v. Ind Coope it Co., 670,
673, 576, 577
Normanshaw v. Noimanilunr, 606
Normanville v. Stannteg, 676
Norm «. ChamitiM, II, 12
». (toBoad, 634
North V. Great Northern Rly., 627
Northam v. Hurley, 258
Northam BridM and Road Co. v.
London and South Weatem BIy..
29 '
North and .South Shield* Feny Co.
V. Barker, 311
North British Rlv. v. Budhill Coal
Co., 59, 222, 224, 225. 227
V. Todd, 130
North British Rubber Co. v. Gor-
mully, 329, 333, 347, 348,
356
V. Macintosh, 339
North Cheshire, &c.. Brewery Co.
V. Manchester Brewi rv. 582
North London Hly. v. ( ; r.-at Northern
Rly., 4', 5, 7, 631
V. Metropolitan Board of
Works. 118
t'. Vestry of St. Mary, 299
North Shore Rly. v. Pion, 231, 269
North Staffordshire Rly. Co. p.
Hauley Corporation, 263
Xorthiimberlaiid (Duke) i-. Bowman,
25
North Western .Salt Co. v. Elec-
trolytic Alkali Co., 450, 469
Norton v. Cooper, 76
p. Daahwood, 68
p. London and North Western
Rly., 162
V. Nicholls, 26
V. Norton, 609, 611
Norwich (Mayor of) ». Norfolk Kly.,
438
Nottingham Patent Briek Co. p.
Butler. 486 — 490
Nugget Poliah Co. v. Harboro'
Rubber Co., 367
Nuneaton Local Board p. General
Sewage Co., 476
Nunn V. D'Albuquerque, 40, 354.
3^5, .-IS 7
Nussey v. Provincial Bill PostiuK
Co., 445, 498 *
Nutbrown v. Thornton, 627
Nutt p. Eaaton, 638, 541
Nnttall p. Bracewell. 232, 235. 248
Oake^ v. Dalton. 376
Oberrheinische MeluUwerke Co. p.
Cocks, 29, 31, 183, 659
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 89
O'Callaghan r. Balrothery, 237
V. Barnard, 678
Oeean Accident and Guarantee
Corporation «. Ilford Gas Co.,
109, 110, 153, 646
Offln p. Roekferd B. C, 306
Ogileii c. KosKick, 428, 477, 47», 481
<)K<l»!ns r. N'clsoii, 4;iit
Ogle t>. Braudling, 640
O^ton V. Aberdeen TrmmwayB Co.,
162
Oldaker v. Hunt, 260
Oldfield V. Cobbett, .519, 680
O'Leary v. Deatiy, 450
Oliver v. Lowther. 633
i: Oliver. 408
Ollfiidorf i: HUi k. 17
Onlcy 1. tiarilirifr, 100, |<)|
Oorcftiini Co. ,-. Kopcr, ."iti.^i
Opeiisbaw r. I'ickorijig, 3tt2
Oram v. Hutt, 606
Oriental Inland Steam Co,. Ee
620
Oriental Steamship Co. v. Tyler,
437
Origuial Hartlepool Collieries Co.
V. Ciibb, 270
Orlwpola, Ae, aa2
Ormerod f. Todmorden. &c., Mill
«b 22- 232, 233. 234. 238. 238.
^58, 665
Orr Ewing t'. Colquhoun, 229. 231,
233
V. .Ii»bnKton, 383, 384
Osbcnir r. Amalgamated Society
(if Railway ServatifH, .327*,
60.x 606
r. Bradley, 24, 78, 433, 434.
435, 441, 488. 491. 493.
494, 495
r. VVige, 288
Osmond v. Hirst, 341
Osram Lamp ("o. t'. Smith, 343
Otiraui I.,ani[i Works v. " Z " Elec-
trie Lamp ( O., 356
Otto r. Sti'vU: 3,-).')
Out ram v. Maude, 285
V. lAtndoii Evening News-
papers Co., 366. 374
Ouvah Ceylon Eatat^a Co. r. i va
Ceylon Rubber Co.. 367, 580. .-,81
Overton i: Bum. 644
Owen r. Faversham Corporatiim.
17(», 270
Oxford and Cambrid <e ITniTetMitieH
r. (iill, 37f,
■ I'. Hiebai'd»oii. .•128
Oxley V. Holdeii, 338
Oyers «. Uanaon, 206
Packinuton .'S Cine, 89
Palace Tlieatred i-. Clensv, 18 27
Si. 4.J.J, 495
I'aliu c. (iather'-ole. OHO
Palmer r. Uua<l.^i, 2»S
C7 C.4BES.
Palmer v. Hendrie, S38
r. L. B. & 8. C. Rly., 5S2
r. .Mallett. 453, 464
Panhard. &e., Co. v. Panhud Motor
Co., 367. .581
Pardoe v. Pardoe, .52. 71, 74, 84
Parederi v. Lizard i, 678
Paris V. Lymington Rural Council.
300
Paris Chocolate Co. r. Crratal Palace
<'o., 470
Parker r. Calcraft. 644
i: Dunn, 79
r. First Avenue Hotel Co..
181
I'. River Dun Navigation Co..
473
r. Stanley, 45, 46
V. \Vhyte, 430. 444, 486
Parkes f. Stevens. 340
Parnell r. Parnell. 616
Parr v. Att.-tJen., 58.5, 587
V. Lane, and Cheshire Miners.
:i27. 602. 605. 606
Purnitt V. Palmer. 38. .50, 60, 7.5. 94.
05, 173
Parry and Hopkins, Re, 66
Parsons v. (dottrel!, 455
Partridge v. Scott, 210
Piisniore r. Oswaldtwistle, 171
I'jitehing r. Dubbins. 434
Pat man r. Harland. 485
I'adison v. Cilford. 17. 430
Payler r. llomersham, 437
Payton i-. .Sneliing. 381
Paynter v. Cvew, 530
Peacock v. Peacock, 531
Peak Hill Golufleld Co.. Re, 537
Pearce r. Crutchfield, 634
i: .Scotcber, 271
r. Wycombe Rlv., 133
Pearks r. t 'ullen, 450.' 457, 463
Pearson r. Spe u-er, 277, 278, 290.
201
Pease i: Coates, 447
Pecbel f). Fowler, 621
Peek V. London School Board, 276,
277. 290
Pedley r. Road Block, 8tf>., Co.. S70,
571
Peek i: Matthew*. 434. 495
Peel. Re. 523
Pell i: Nortbampton, Banburv. tee.
Rly., 1.38
Pcmberton .ind Cooper. Re, 62, 684
Pena Copper Mines v. Rio Tinto Co.,
611.612
Pender r. LuahingtoR, 576, H79
I Penn v. Bibby. Sf
I PenneU v. Koy, 7, ttlS, 618
tABLB or CAgU.
P<iiiiin){ton I'. Krinnop Hall Coal
Co.. 239. 260, 261
Penny v. S. E. Hly. Co.. 182
Penrhyn (Mayor) v. lient. 315, 317
Pentlaad v. Somerville, 7S
Pentney r. Lynn Paving Commui-
xionere, lr)2
Ppi'cival r. Phippg. 409
P»*rkin» r. .slater, 197
IVils r. .-aiiili. ia, 436, 438, 451, 460
IVirctt r. Rmlford, 445
Pcrrott i: Periott. 52. 71
Perry v. EaineH, 190, 194
V. Hewin, 378, 380
V. Shipway, S24
V. Tniefitt, 378
)•. Weller. 649
Perth Ceneral .Station Committee v.
RoKs, 130
I'iru Kepiiblie r. Peruvian (Juano
Co.. 60«
Peruvian (iuaiio Co. r. Bockwoldt.
612
Peseod v. Pe«cod, 632
— — Westminster Corporation.
140, 141
Peter v. Kendal, 312, 313, 314
Pethick t>. Plymonth Corporation,
206
Petley v. Eastern Connttos RIy., 78,
649
Peto V. Brighton, Uckfleld, and Tun-
bridge Wells Rly., 433, 476, 481
Petty I'. Daniel, 688
Pliey«ey v. Vicary, 276, 277, 292
Philip V. Pennell. 408, 409
Philippart v. Whitcley, 362, 376
Phillimore t'. Watford U. D. C, 262
Phillip's Charity, Be, 026
PhiUips V. Batho. 11
V. hury, 595
1>. Crouch, 205
V. Great Western Rly., 490
V. Homfray, 94, 145
— - V. Low, 186, 277
V. Smith, 63. 64, 78
— V. Thomas, 18, 49, 105, 158
r. Treeby, 107. 497
Philpot V. Bath, 267
I'hipo,-* V. Callegari, 485
Phipps V. .lackson. 64, 428, 432, 478
PhfiBoix Life Assoe., Re, 648
Phosphate of Lime Co. v. Green, 561
Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 432.
477
p. StepboDun, 564
Piekford r. Grand Jnaetioii RIt..
662
Pidding r. How. 378
Pidgeley v. Rawling, 53, 54
Pierce v. Franks. 42, 386
Piers I'. Piers, 86
Piggott t'. (Jreat Weatera Rly. Co.,
123
e. Middlesex County Council,
22. 23, 114. 119. 14.5. 159,
166, 167, 174
V. Stratton, 471
Pigot V. Bullock, 96
Pike, Re, 622
V. Cave, 659
t'. Xieholas, 405. 406, 416
IMIkington v. Scott, 460
V. Yeatley Vacunm Hammer
Co., 365
Pim V. Curell, 312
Pinehin v. London and Blackwall
Rly.. 19. 113. 122, 126, 130
Pmet t'. Maison Louis Pinet, 366,
366, 384
Pinniiigtoii r. Calland, 289
Pirie & Co. V. Kintore (Earl), 231,
233, 236, 243, 244
Plake V. Hall, 152
Plan.t V. James, 276
V. Stott, 108
Plating Co. v. Farqnhanon. 853,
693
Pledge t'. Pomfret, 230
Plumbly V. Perryman, 510
Plymouth (Countess of) v. Archer,
91
Plympton v. Malcolmson, 345
t'. Spiller, 27, 346, 348, 641
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Goodman,
332
1. Marwood, 344
ti. Warrilow, 347
Polo r. .Joel, 665
Polini V. Gray, 32, 670
Pollard V. Clayton, 433
f. Gme, 187
«'. Photographic Co., 407, 408
Pokue V. Rushmer. 176, 177, IW,
209, 203, 204. 207
Pomeroy v. Scal6, 372. 373
Pomfret v. Ricroft. 184, 288
Ponsardin i'. Peto, 383
Poole r. HuNkisKon, 299, 301. 302,
303
Pooley V. Budd, 627
Pope, Re, 644
V. Vurl, 408
r. Whalley, 318
Poplar Corporation v. Millwall Doek
Co.. 142. 304
Popplew .]) Hodgkinson, 211
Portarlington (Earl of) r. Soulby, 11,
611,612
Portland (Duke of) t;. Hill, 60, 61
TABLE OF CASKS.
Portamonth W«terwork8 Co. t
L B. and .S. C. Rly, Co., 230, 232!
213. 238 240. 242: 244, 257
i otter r. Chapman, 598
I'ottK V. Ivevy. 18. 26, 157, 182
— r. PottH, 6.56
V. Siiiifh. 181
Poulet t'. Chatto, 510
Poulton r. Adjustable Cover Co..
3oI
Pountney v. Clayton. 226
PoweU». Aiken. 38. 1()8, 146, 499
■ V. Birmingham Brewery, 357.
369, .',86
— I'. IIonHley. 46. 440, 474. 493,
■ V. VVilliaiiis. 667
V. Wrifjlit. 626
■'*T*i?-.?'i*7." ^*'''"» " '"al < <>• '■•
TaffVale Kly., 137. 432
Powers e. Bathurst. 302
I'owley V. Walker, 63
I'ow.vH V. Blafp-ave, 66
I'ratI r. Brett. 63
- — I'. \Valker, 651. 659
Iremier Hiiiks ( «. ,, Amalgamated
I meniatojfritph Co., 449
Prexland r. Buigham, 192
Prestner «>. Coloheeter Corporatwn.
Preston (C()rporation of) v. Full-
wood Local Board, 308
•—- r. Liu k, 2, 501
Pnce V. Bala, &c.. Rly., 493. 496,
409, 500
i: (Jreeii, 454, 460
V. H.itehinHon, 693
Price's Patent Candle Co. ,-. London
38. 47, 149. 160,
255;S2T^S^8^'^««'"»'^^"'
Pridjfeon r. Mellor, 112
Prie.stley v. Kllin, .'523, 524
Prince r. Lewin. SI8
Proctor r. Bayley, lag. 328, 350
354, 427
V. BenniK, 23. :J7, 329, 332
334, 341, 350, 355
V. HodgHon, 290
V. Sargent, 465
• V. Smilen, 506
Pwwwr r. Bark of Kiisland, 621
"otheroe^iY'roaenhain. &c., Rly.,
Proud r. Bates, 58. 213. 279, 284
Provident Clothing Co. v. Maaon
453. 458
Prynne. He, 069
Pryor r. Petre, 230, 305
Prytherch, Bt, 544
Public Works CommiHsioners i: Hill
466, 467
PiuUey UaM Co. ,-. Corporation of
Bradford. 151. r,n{t
Pugh I'. Arton, 68
V. Colden Valley Rly.. l.fr,
V. Riley Cycle Co., 422. 426
V. Vaughan, 7a
Pnlbrook v. Riehmond Mining Co.,
657. 558. 560
Piiljej-nc r. France, 434, 49o
Pulujig r. London. Chatham, and
L>over Kly., 126
Palteney v. Shelton, 63
Punt V. Symona, 676, 676
Pnrcell t>. Xash, 69
Pyeroft i-. Pyeroft. 656
I I'ye r. liritiwh AutoinohiJe .-^vndieate
j -too. 467, 468
yi'.AHTZ Hill .Mining Co. v. lieall 6
509, .")llt. .-)! 1 ■ '
Que.u Anne Residential Mansions
444 ^^««toM»rter Corporation.
QuickC V. Chapman. 18.5. 186, 188
Qum and Aston v. Salmon, 577
Qumcey, Ex parte, 67
<2ninn «. Leathern, 324. 326
R: lie. 671
Kaclcliffe c. Duke of Portland, 178
Rakusen v. Ellis & Co.. 50.5, 607
Kaieigh f. (Joschen. 7, 112
Ralph, Re, 369, 375
Ranie«hur. &e.. Singh v. Koonig.
247. 248. 249 *
Ranwden v. Dyson, 21, 22, 23
— v. Manchester, &c., Rly.. 124
Kamsgate Corporation v. Debling.
2/4 *
Randall «•. Bradley, .582, 583
V. Commercial Rly., 649
Raiigeley v. Midhind ^ly., 134, 3(»4
Kaiiger v. Great Western Rly., 466
Kanken r. East and West India
Docks Co., 128
Rankin v. HuHkisson. 442, 497
Hanson r. Piatt. 646
Rantzen r. Rothschi d, 692
Rapier t>. London itamwaya Co.,
Raple.V r. Smart. 201. 446
KatcliiTe V. Evans, 612
— V. Winch. 610
Rawsfrnn v. Tavlor, S47 2.5! "ss
Kay V. Hweldine, 188, 280^ 290
Bayne v. Benediet, «S«
TABI.B or CABm.
Riiyiici r. Steimey I'urporstkm,
113. U42
Read v. Blunt, 520
V. Bowera, 631
- - - f. Prirndly Society of Stuiie-
muMong, 32')
Hondo r. Boiitloy, 398, HOit
I'. ConquoHt, 415
Kcddawttv r. Buiiliaiii. 357, 365,
37'». .'i-i4
V. Flynii, 5(t8, 640
RedlieiMl v. Wulton. 61U
Redler v. (J. W. Ky. Co., 233, 237
Reeee r. Milit i 229, 271
Reeve I', .loiiiiinjis, 455
r. .MarNli. 4fl4
licovos r. Cjittoll. 444
Keg. V. J{ott«. 26!)
V. RirmiiiKhaiii iiiid Oxford
Junction Kly., 120, 130
V. Bradford NaTigation Co.,
163
V. Chester (Dean). 5M
r. Chorley. 291, 292, 293
V. Clement, 639
- - r. Cross, 2(11, 2<»3
r. Darlinjfton Board of HcaltL,
166
V. Uariington .School, ,',26
V. Dover, 5
V. East and West India Docks
and Kly., 160
r. Eastmark Tything 299, 30i
■ r. (ireat Northern Rljr., 128
r. (iyngall, 634, 635
t'. Halifax C. ('.. 14
r. Hertford Coll., 59."), 596
V. Judge, Lincolnshire County
C'ourt, 610
17. Londii: iiid South Western
Rly., 122, 126
V. Longton Ga« Co.. 206, 308
f. Metropolitan Boaid of
Work«, 252
t'. Niel, 201
V. Payne, 693
Petiie, 299, 301, 302
f. Pierce, 201
V. Poulter, 119
V. Roeheater (Deui and Chap-
ter of), 697
V. Train, 308
V. United Kingdom Telegraph
Co.. 306. 308
V. Woods and Forests (Com-
sioneis of). 121, 122
Regent's Canal Co. v. Ware, 123
t'. London County CotucU,
127
Reiehel v. Magrath, 609
I lioid i\ nickorxtaff, i:;4, 443, 486,
487, 488, 489, 490, 491
Retnhardt v. MentastJ, 35. 41. 155.
200, 206
Remfrey v. SunreTor-Oeneral of
Natal, 268
Remmington «. Seolaa. 800
Honals r. CowUahaw, 48S, 487, 489,
490, 491
Konard v. Loviiistoin, 330, 343. 348
Kendall v. Crystal Palace Co., 686
Rendell v. Blair, 527. 598
V. Grundy. 680
Rennie «. Yoaog, 23
Rex V. Baker, 323
V. Barr, 325
V. Bartholomew, 308
t'. Biightoii Corporation. 116.
117, 588
r. ( atherine Hall, 595
V. Dolby, 592
V Dunstan, 67
Education Board, 598
e. Ely (Bishop of), 695
V. Hungcrford Market Co., Ill
V. Leake, 298
t'. New, 636
V. Pagham (Commissioners of
Sewers for). 256, 272
V. Registrar of (Companies, 580
V. Salop (Inhabitants of), 296
V. South Holland Diainage,
V. Starkey. 317
V. Walker, 636
V. Wall, 323
V. Ward 269
t'. White, 201
V. Wigand. 692
V. WiltM and Berks Canal 310
— t!. Wright 306
Key V. Lecouturier, 360, 372, 384
Reynell v. Sprye. 644. 880
Reynolds v. Ashby. 69, 70
f. Barnes, 65, 293, 810, 478
V. Bridge, 467
f. Clarke, 148
V. Pre«tcign D. C, 307, 308,
309
Rhyniney Rly. Co. V. Tall Vale Kly.
Co., 138
Ribbte River Committee «. HaOi-
wen. 266
Rice's Case, 74
Richard v. Graham, 80
Richards v. Butcher, 376
••. Culleme. 14
— V. Noble, 75
t'. Platel, 546
V. Revitt, 435, 494
TABLE or CAHE8.
HichardH r. Ku liarUw, I 'it
• V, Roae, 214
~Vo ""ij^*"*®* '"•Proviiiu-ul, &(•..
RichantMoii. A>, fl2i, Mfl
• r. Ardley, M
*■• 103, 104. J8fl,
'•• lla«tiii({s, ,">28
r. Methloy ScluKtl Hoard 5
V. Murphy, 447
Riche e. Aahburn Klv. Co., .-,n4
Kiefamond W«terwork>« ( '«. c. Xortli
London RIy., 122
7.77 '•• ^'e«try of RioLmond. 872
Ku kard« r. Lothian, 233. SSfl
Ku kpttK l^ Knflpld, 493
KidRc, In re, 71
Kidgway v. Amalgamated IW.
366. 367. 374
■ r. Roberts, 627
Rigall IT. Foster, 021
Ri«by V. Bennett. 213, 214
1'. (^nnol, 600
Hi^dfii V. .loiiew. M't, 37(»
Kiley V. Halifax forporation. 20
34. 114, 673
R'Dle Jriffitli. 359
Ripo:. .arl of) r. Hobart. 17, 18.
26, 148. 137, 253
" Co. V. North
Midland Rly., 1 13
Rivett V. (iriiiishaw, 423
Riviiijftoii ( . (iarden, 42
Robb f. lircoii, 389, .-503, 304, 507
Kobbiug V. iie«, 303
Roberts r ,zon, 627
V. Cj. , 300
r. Charing Cross, Eustou. &n.,
Kly. Co., 138, lao, 161,
166. 168
V. Eberhardt, 535
V. FellowPs, 234, 236, 242, 246
V. liraydon, 344
■ V. Gwyrfai DUtrict Council.
33. 237. 238. 682
V. Haines. 209
V. Holland!, 153
V. James, 276, 286
». Richards, 237, 248
V. Roberts. 73. 632
Robertson v. Hartopp, 62
— - «. WiUmott. 464, 463, 464
Robinson t. Balmain New Perry
Co., 312
». Byron (Lord), 258
V. Finlay, JU
V. Own, m
KobinsoM v. Hciut, 430
- - 1: Litton, 4N
^ r. London (i. iuTal Omnibu
Co., 201, 204, 206. 681, «n
■ i". I'lrki'iing. fi21(
Smith and Ritchie. 336
"■ill. II aiiii ni[fni<>,
KobuiHon'H .Settlements, 03
tk'm!^
Kol)Kon r. Dodds. .5.-1O
- '■• Kd wards, 193
Rochdale Canal Co. v. Kinu. 21 22
23. 24. 26. 34.
.).)6
*. MuiK li»-«ter Skip Canal Co.,
u . " «*8. -..-.6
I Kodcrick V. Aston Local Hoard. 181
Rodger f. Herbertson, 466
Rodgera v. Nowill. 366
I ,7— ' • Rodgers. 388
Rodgers (.loseph) & .Sons v. J.
Kodgers Simpson, 365, 366
Rogers r. Challi«, 431
V. Dock Co. of Hull, 119
t'. I)riiry, 462
f. Hosegood. 443. 484, 485
402. 403
V. Maddoeka, 400
f. Spence. 104
Rogers' Trmle Mark. He, 371
Rolte V. Peterson, 469
— — I'. Rolfe, 454
Rolls V. Miller, 444
—^v. School Board for London,
Rolt V. SomerviUe, 86
Rooke e, Dawson, 627. 608
Roper f. Williams, 434, 404
Rose f. Huckett, 154
I', (iroves. 294
— V. Loftus, 42
Law Guarantee and Trust
Ross r. Adcock. 81
I'. Buxton, 674, 676
- — V. 8herer, 621, 628
Roswell's Case, 48
Rothes (Counte«s of) v. Kirkcaldr
VVaterworks Co., 263
Rothwell f. King, 343
Roundwood ColEeries Co., Be, 610
RoiuiUen V. Ronsillon. 10, 462
Routh fj. Webster, 636
Rowbotham v. WikoB, 200, 218
Rowe r. Wood. 76
Rowell V. Rowell. 564
r S.ifhrll, 183, 487
Rowland V. Mitchell, 26, 360
Bo<;iatt V. CMtea, MO
7AMM W CAUB.
Roral BaUng Powdw Co. «. Wright,
5] 1
Royal Inauranoe Vn. i; Midtatid
ln*uriuife Co., 368
Iloyal Mail Steam P. ^t To. v.
(icor|{«.. 245
Koyal Warriuit ilolderti v. Dean,
371, 384
I'. KitHoii. 371, 388
r. SliMlo. 371, 381, 382
Ruabou Hrick, ike., Co. v. li. \V
Bly.. 226
RnbeiM r. Path* Prftrw Pathe-
phone, 398
Rudii V. BowIm, 276
Rugby Charity f. Meiryweathcr,
3(M», 3(12
Kundell v. Murray, 22, 333, 413
Rundle r. Ilearle, 273, 303,
Riucoo f. (irounsell, 19U
RuHh V. LucaH, 62
RuHhbrouke v. O'SuIUvan, 431, 432
Riuihni«r v. Pobne Alfleri & Co.,
176, 177, 109, 2(K), 203, 204, 207
Ru88el V. Amalgamated .Sooiety of
Carpeiitent and Joioen,
324. 327, 450
V. East Aufclian RIy., 685, 690
p. Jackson, 503, 504, 605, 606
». RtiMoU, 090
p. WakefleU Watoworka Co..
.'578
c. WattK. 21. 22, 41. 18«, 180
Runtoii V. Tobiii, 067
Ryan I. Mutual Tontine, See.,
Anuoc, 20, 137. 476, 477
Rylanda v. Ffotdier, M4
SABLONliBK HOTZX Co., Re. 619
Saccharui corp. v. Anglo-Contincn-
tiO. ke., 337
p. Chemicab Co.. 386, 674
V. Dawaon, 351
V. Jaekson, 351
■ •. Mack & Co., 361
■ t'. Xational Saccharin Co., 343
p. Uuincey, 361
V. Baitouqrer, 333, 337
Saekett p. Closenbeiv, 426
Sadd V. Maldon, Braintme, tc..
Bly., 133
Sadler «. Great Weetem Rljr., 164
Sam^ V. F«rg«ura, 4S^ 40^ 466,
Saiaman t-. Socretarjr of S^«te for
India, 609
SaUabiiry (Maivik of) «, Oladatone.
60
— -e. Qraat VmeOmu Vtf., UO,
130
Halmon r. Randall, U.'t
Salomon v. .Staluan, 659
MatoraoHH v. Knight, 609
*. LaiiiK, 569, 662
Salt Union r. lirunner Mond, 311.
252, 254
.<<altcr r. M. lropolitau Rly., 127
.SalKTi* r. .lay. 194
Salviii i: North HranceiN^th Coal
i'o.. 17r>. 199. 200
.Samponii r. lioddinott, 234, 236,
238, 240, 244
f. Smith, 200
Sandeman v. Ruahton, 77
Sanders p. Rodway, 448
Sanders-Clark p. (irosvenor Man-
sions Co., 165, 201, 203
SanderHon v. Cockerniouth and
Workington Rly., 118, 432
Sanken »•. Busnack 324
Sanxter v. Foster, 28
Sargant r. Read, 647
Sauer p. Bilton. 104
Saall V. Browne, 8
Saunby p. London (Ontario) Comm.,
20, 114, 166, 672
Saunders p. Newman, 234, 246
p. Smith, 18, 22, 104, SIS, 898.
410, 411, 414
r. Wiel, 423. 425, 426
Saunder's Case, 57
Savarn v. Brindle. 331
SaTiOe v. Kilner, 200
.Savory p. Dyer, 843
p. liuptiran Oil Co., 38, 416. 680
Saxby v. Easterbrook, 33
p. Fulton, 10
Saxlehner i: Apollinaria Co., 386
Sayers r. CoUycr, 24, 433, 441, 4M,
600, 671, 673
Scanlan, He, 836
Scarborough I'orporatiou r. Cooper,
584
Scarisbrick p. Tunbridge, 434
Scheile v. Brakell, 638
Sohlesiiiger v. Bedford, 684
r. Turner, 40, 665
Schmitten r. Faulkea, 661, 676
Sehoole v. Sail, 538
Seiiove V. Sekmiake, 370, 374
.Schweder Worthing Gm Light
and Coke Co., 82, 47. 106, 107,
297, 804. 6M • ^ »
.Schweppcs »•. Oibbena. 381
.Schwinge r. London and Blaek-
wall Rly.. I'S
Scotson 1). (iiiiirv, rt.">2
Scott p. Becher, 619, 523
V. Hull StMB FWitg Co.,
349—361
xlviii
TAHtK OF CAraM.
■^••<<ti I,iv,.,|.,„,| ror|M>r»tion, 436
— — '•• Moxoii. (18.5
r. I'ttiw, KM. in,,
Howlttliil, .V.U
P. Soot I. .5o«, «40. HUl
'' ''fumfonl, 403, 418
S<nllfMl, Xorlh Kii<»,.m RIy. v
S.-.ttiHli f n„M,. (■„. ,.. Srottwh
AiitioiiHl lriniraiic(> Co , guo
Sfuifrttlii I'. KniKlit. 52 !(«
'♦e*fcy r. (ia*foii, h.i.j
Sk-urU"' r. Cboate, 641
'^mt"^ 2'»4. 646. 688.
'*"66o '""'' ''
Setldon r. Hank of Itoltoii,
8elxo r. Pn)vez«-ii(li- ;tfio
Mhy r. ('olne ValL-y and HaUte d
Rly.. 117. 133
- - r. Nettleford, 28S
Spllcrs I'. I)irkin.snii. 342
''''"iT, »' Health.
41. 14... 165, 172. 206. 295
mt. 6..2 •* "•^*'»'
»empU> r i.oiidon and Birmin^wm
Rly.. 153, «77 -"Vmu,
^m"** *79. 281,
UminT r. Pawson, 4.5. 46
.SoptiniuH Parsonage & Co., Re. 640
.•^(•riiKlio. I'Ih", «0:{
.StI i: A< ((.ii L,ical Hoard, 280
ScrvK'p Cantanoila. 847. 675
Sotton r. (iooiUlcii. .■(12. 313
.S<n ill I'. DeiilandoN, 480
^vt^ lif"^ Uxbridge Rly.
.'*o.vrnonr j.. London and South
Wmtcrn Kly., 128
Sliacklftoii r. .Swift. 609
.Shaft o r. liolekow. 18, 64S
Shari) '•• Braupr. r.l7
■ — I'. ^Vate^hollsp, 2r>H
— ^r. Wilson, 231, 233—236. 238,
Shaw, h'jt piirie, 557
^f^y* 103, MI
SLeard v. Webb. 434
Shears c. W' 236
I^niloa, Co..
1 / . 2(». .32, 34. 35, 43, 47. 110 ir,2
Ijy^. I fi8. 18.3. 204. 349. 350.' 662:
6.1 0,3, 070, 682
Shelley v. Wcatbrooke, 684
•♦heppard r. Gilnoif.
SherrinKhain I'. IJ. r. r. HakaT
111. 1.50. 3(12. .3<m ""■•y*
Shicl V. (i xlfrcy. 4.1
ShiiUto r. Larniuth, 344
Shinwell ,.. National Bailon. tu>..
Union. 327
ShipwriKht v. « 'lunientit, 37 1 . 372
Shoo Machinery Co. v. t'utlan, 341)
Shore v. Wilson, 52.5
«hotU Iron Co. ... IngBi, MO. W7
.Shrewsbury and BirmlnghBIB Rly
Kl/.'."5B8" Norti Wertei'
Shrewshiiry and choslfr Rh-, «
.Shrewsbury and llirmincham
Hly.. 17, 475 ^
Sicklemore v. Thtoaleton. 437
Siddon* r. Short, *18. 817
Sidney Clarkaon. 434
- — r. Sidney. (U«. 633
SieijenberK r. Metropolitan Dhtiiet
. Kly. < o., 126
.Siegert r. Findlater. 37«. 381, 507
Sjeveking v. Behrens. nio
ovum ». Evans, 524
aimmona ». Norton, 51, 55, 56, 62
1^' ». Foley. 110, 158. 178, 193,
Simpwn |J|Att.-Oen.. 270, 898, 302,
r. Dend.v, .3(»5
V. Denison. 138, 566, 567
t'. Hodmanohester (Mayor),
242, 244
V. Lancaster Riy.. 120
V. Savage. 110
• '•• Simpson. 96
'■• South Staffordsliirc Kly Co
113 ' •'
P. .South StafTordshin- Water-
works Co., 116, 134
— — I'. ^Vestrninstcr V :la<<. Hotel
. ' '>.. •'■'•■.!•. 561, 56!l
••^'"ger Manufacturing Co. i-. Uritish
£mpire JfaDufaeturine
< o., 381 " .
- — I'. Looe. 370. 379
!-u.Ker .SowuiK Machine Manufac-
tunng Co. V. Wilson. 878. 383
.^jtwell i'. Londesborough (Earl), 08
, , ?y Parson*. 69, 224
•>io, 017
Sluttnem' Sm^jr v. likh Society.
ilix
m. 415
H74. an. 6M
Kkip ;•. Harwonil. HMfl
Hkiill I. <il».iiiiil« r. 2T.'>. 283
Hiwle c. 'I'unier, WIS
HUzpiigcr V. Ki-ltham, 3H4
' r. l'i){ott. 3«8
— - t: Spalding, 83. 40. 382. S»3,
.'185, 38«, 387, 4 IB, ««4, Mft
Hl«ilj{e I'. I'oinfn^t, 2U3
Hl<<«- r. < 'urporation of Bradford, «7«
HlinK«l>.v r. Bradford Patent Tnick
Co., 413
Hloan V. HoUlday, 283
Mmallroan r. Oniuna, 72
Kmait r. .Smart, •34. 63S
Hniitli, (Bull t. Smith). 00
8mitli (Bnllttn), Rt, 044
Smith r. Andrfwn, 271.
r. Baxter. 28, Hf,'
lit:. tiHi
r. I'Lutto. 40.)
• t. Day, 2!i. 4,-,
r. EU»i. 1»2
> ». Co^lv, 148
», Or»»( W««terB Rly., 225, 217
' e, Hancock, 404
—— r. Ilowiicii, 304
V. .IcycK, r>:i I . .53.")
• r. Kciirick. i'.">4
• II. Loiidtiii and Nortli W .•nh rn
l(lr.. 'i n
• ». Luiiduii Mid Sunth W«»teiii
Hly., 333
• ». Maenally, 825, 526
• V. Manchester (Duke), 5f4
• V. Midland Rly., 137, 200
■ V. (twpii, 182
• r. I*et»Ts, 5(»2
• V. Smith, 23. 37. 42. 4"). 47
634. 672
• r. Swan»ea iJtick r,,., 655
-— e. Thomawton. 323
». Weguelin, 8
■ V. Wibon. ISO, 300
SniithieR r. National AHo«i^ion of
Pll»l^t^r^'^^. 326
.'5niollcir» Irade Mark. «§, 378
Sraythc V. Tarter. 64
• V. Smythe, 89
Hnare v. fe.tarc. .527
>Saow V. Whiteliead, 2S4
Kuug^ V. Seyd, 41
Sobay v. Saiaabary. 434, 486. 485
Socitt^ ABonyme. Ste., de I'Etoile.
Se, 384
Soci^t6 Le Ferment, Rt, 362
Society, &c., de (ilacen ti. TU^man,
338, 317
Solicitor, lie A, 688 i
Soltau V. De Held, 149, 180, 161,
156, 176, 2U4, 645
X.I
I SomrrHct ,: (.. \V. Klv. ( .... 2M, 28S
I Homt rvillc . .Scli(.||,|,,| .ihk
i .SoliKhuptt I'. J)ix..v. 7H
.Sonneii»cliem r. Harnard, 40. 41
.Houth AfriTtti, T«rrtoriM C*.
H altmgtoii, 431
)^mih EmtM Khr. ». AMoeiatad
' i^MonA Ca., 888
- - ••• Wifn. M*. 888
,Soitth of Engtel Dairie* Co. r.
MHHT, 486
Ho»rtfc*y I. Shcrwii.^ 4I3
tSmithport Uai kiiiu Co. r. T!i..mi>-
•«,««. 70
SouWl MetroptWitaii (Vm.'tcrv Co.
r. Kden, 282
.SoiiUi \Vale« Hnien' Federation i-.
«>laitiiirKan Coal Co., 325
South Wale. Kly. 1 . Redmond. 588
U'vfli.., 428. 431
><>iitl.»ark. AC. WatM t'„. ,..
VVaiidHWorth Hoard ..t '\urk-
l.W. 21 -., 216
Ho V.rkshirc lily. A ,-. (.reut
n Rly., 588
Xpacknia"! <•. Evans, 561
'■. J..attimM«, ,'567
SfialdinK !•■ tiamaR*', 3.59
'■. Kccly,
.><paiiwh (ien'crui .\i;..ncv r Sp.iniMh
Corp., 6.51. BTs
l^parrow i-. (Jxlord, Worcester, and
WoIverhamptMi 81y., 17, 121,
Spaul r. Monopole Cycle Co,. 329.
349, 350. 355
.•Spencer 1: Ancoatu Vale Co., 353
r. Holt, 343. 34.5
- r. London and liirminKhani
l!ly.. 2!)
penny moor Foundry Co. v. Ca-
theraU. 130
.Spieer p. Martin, 475. 487 — 490
.SpierH V. Brown. 410
.Spoke« f. Banbury Board of Haaiyi,
261, 684, 08.5, 692
.X[Mitti>»woode t: Clark. 374, 411
.SpraKUc . Booth, 437
.Spriiijttield .Spinning Co. ». Sfley, 8
Squier v. Mayer, 67
Squire v. Campbell, 1 1.56
St.^AlbaBB (Bishop of) r. Battersby,
Albana (Dnke of ) r. Skipwith,
.51, 80 ^
St. Helen's Smeltinjt Co. e. ItpBiBC,
177, 199," 203. 204
St. .lohn'a CaOcm «. Toddtagtaa.
695
d
1
TABLE 6t Ck6^
St. Mary, Islington (Vestrj) v.
IIoriiHey t'. I). V., 694
St. Mary. X»wiiigton (Vestry) r.
•lacobK. 2!»7
St. Mary's Viwtry, Hattcrsca v.
County of London and lirutih
Kloctrir ] jjihthic Co.. 141. 142
St. 'I'lioniua' Hospital v. Charing
CroM Rly., 126, 127
St. Victor V. Devereux, 678
Staepy c. SluTrin. 283
.•^tackniann i: I'aton, 395, 408
StadharU v. Lee, 438
Stafford (Marquis of) v. Covney, 301.
302
Staffiinlsliiro County Council v.
.Si'isdou K. D. C, 267, 268
Staffordshire and VVorcestersliire
Canal Co. v. Birmingham
Canal Co., 250, 556
r. Bradley, 106, 259, 263
f^tasg r. Medway Navigation, 548
Staijrht v. Uurn, 1!»6
.Slaiiiton r. W oolrycli, 160, 108
Stani|>s r. Hirniingham and Stour
Valley Kly., 12(1, 6.53
Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban
Coancil, 35, 47, 261, 682, 692, 693
Standard Bank of S. A. v. Standard
Bank, 367, 581
Standard Bank. &«. e. Stokea, 216
.'^taiidish •'. Mayor, See., of Liver-
pool. 114
Stanford c. llurlntone, 102
."Stanley r. Coulthuist, 92
Stanley (Lady) r. Lord Shrewsbury,
43. 674
Stanley of Alderky (Lord) v. WUd,
14
Stanuard c. Canibcrwcll Vestry, 6,
!t. (ilo
r. Vestry of St. (iiles, 6
Stanslicid r. llaborKliani, 71, 74
Stanton >■. Canon Co., 5J9
Staple I-. lleydoii , 277
Staples r. Easlnian I'hoto. Co., 565
V. Vouiig, 59
Stapleton v. Foreign Vineyard Aggo-
oiation. (i:i8
.Starkey r. Hartoti. 431
.statliarn r. liiijrhtiin Miniiie Co.,
.".ti.")
* • r. Kaekw ar nl liaroda, 630
Stedall r. Houghton. -1(»7
.Stead »'. Anilerson, 334
». Clay, 621
Stednian v. Smith. 216, 241
r. Webb. .'•)45
.Steedinau r. I'oole, 675
Steele t>. Midland lUy., 127
Steele v. Mayor of liiverpoo), )2l
V. North Metropolitan Ely.,
13, 471, 472
Stephens v. Mysore Reefs Mining
Co., 570, 671
I'. Workman, 694
Stephenson c. Garnett, 609
Sterry v. Clifton, 437
Stevens, Re, 520
V. Benning, 398, 399
V. Brett, 417
V. Chown, 8, 9, 320, 687
f. South Devon lUy., S65,
566, 567, 574
I'. Stevens, Ht6
t . Theatres, Lini., 540, 626
V. Wildy, 392, 406
Stevens (William) & Co. V. Cassell
& Co., 366, 374
Stiff V. Cawwll, 432, 442
Stiles V. Eoclestone, 14, 456, 470
Stirling v. Maitland, 439
Stockdale i'. Onwhyn, 413
Stocker v. Brocklebank, 478
V. Planet Building Society, 104
Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Mayor,
&e.. of MMiehester. 151,
550
V. Potter, 232, 241, 258
Stockton and Darlington Bly. v.
Brown, 116, 168
Stockton and Hartlepool Bly. v.
Leeds and Thirsk Rfy., 13
Stockton FootbaD Co. «. Gaston.
689
Stocks V. Wilson, 626
Stoke Parish Council v. Price, 1 10,
111
Stokes fi. City Offices Cc, 197
Stone V. Broadfoot, 340, 341
V. Commercial Rly., 118, 120
Storer v. Great Western Rly., 496,
499
Stourbridge Canal Co. ti. Lord Dud-
ley, 221, 226
Stourcliffe Estates Co. f. Bourne-
mouth Corporation, 589
Stourton v. Stotxrton, 635
Strachey v. Frantic, 80, 81
Strathmore (Lady) f. Bowes, 89
Street r. I'nion Ban! of .Spain, 366.
638
Strelly r. Pearson, .">02, 670
Stretford V. I). C. r. Manchester
Soutli .hinetion Kly. Co., 298
Stretton r. Cr.at Western, Sic.,
Rly., 115, 119, 130
StriWoy v. Hawke, 1
Striok V. City Offieea Co.. t79
Stride *. Martin, 453, 455
TABLB or CASKS.
Stroud t). Roy«d Aon.vinin, 670, 576
Stroud V. Want -.^rth Bo»rd of
Works, 116. 118
Strutt V. Bovingdon, 244
Stuart t;. I>jplock, 448
V. IlaUtead, 457
•Stubbs ti. Slater, 539
Studdert v. Grosvcnor, 564
Stupart V. Arrowgmith, 560
Stnrge v. Eastern Union Rly., 566
Sturgeon v. Hooker, 676
Stnrgea v. Bridgman, 177, 203, 204,
207
V. Warwick (Countess), 630
Sturz r. De la Hue, 346
Sudlow t'. Dutch Rhenish Rly., 617
Suffield V. Brown, 290
Sugg V. Silber, 667
Summers v. Boyce, 503, 504
Sunderland v. Newton, 66
SateMe v. Booth, 248
Sutton V. Mumford, 650
t'. Mayor, &o., of Norwich, 113
V. South Eastern Rly., 552
Swaine r. (Jieat Northern Rly., 164.
200 J ' '
Swale V. Swale, 527
Swansborough v. Coventry, 186, 188
Sweet V. Benning, 403, 404
V. Cator, 31
V. Ely (Bishop), 508
— — V. Maugham, 392
V. Shaw, 403, 404, 411
Sweetman t'. Metr >politun Rly., 128
Swift V. Swift, 4<6
Si^indon Waterworks Co. v. Wilts
and Berks Canal Co., 233, 234,
236, 237, 250, 268. 263, 554
Syers v. Metropolitan Board of
Works. 110. lis
Sykes v. Howarth, 332, 338
Symington v. Caladonian Rly. Co.,
224, 225
Symonds v. Hallett, 632
Synnot v. Simpson, 624
Taddt v. Steriotts, 482
Tall Vale Rly. v. Amalgamated Soc.
of Railway Servants, 386,
606
V. GordoM-Cumminc, 278, 280,
283
— — V. P»i typridd U. D. V.. 298,
301. 554, 555
Talbot V. Scott, 101, 102
TaUia r. TaUis, 462. 466
Tamworth (Lord) v. Lord Ferren.
Ta^iK «. Jmies, IW
Tate V. Fullbrook, 406
Tatham v. Palace Restaurants Co.,
574
Taunton v. Royal Inanrance Co..
509, 576
Tawney v. Lynn and Ely Rly.,
121 f ■/ '
Taws i>. Knowles, 290
Taylor, I{e, 120
f. Clenison, 131
— V. Davis, 498, 531
V. Friem Bamet Local Board,
175
1'. Hughes, 557
V. Mostyn, 146, 443
V. Pillow, 399
f. Roe, 689
I'. St. Helen's (Corporation of),
242, 243, 251, 2.')8. 437
Taylor Plinston & Co. v. Plinston.
688. «8»
Teacher v. Levy, 359
Teape v. Douse, 484, 486, 486
Tebb t?. Cave, 198, 474
Telegrapli Despatch, &c.. Co. r.
Maclean. 433
Telford v. Metropolitan Brard of
Works. 471. 476
Temple Bar. The. 667
Temple Pier Co. v. Metropolitan
Board of Works. 144
Tenby Corporation v. Jfaami, 106
Teofani, He, 362
Teresa. The. 610
Teuliere r. St. Maiy Abbots Veatty,
140 '
Thames Conservancy r. London
Port, &c., 267
V. Smeed, 230, 267
Thellusson v. Valentia, 600, 604
Thioknesae ». L an e aa t e r Canal Co..
122 •
Thiedemann v. Ckddamidt. 6S9
nirauM «. Birain^am Canal Co..
266
V. Harford. 697
V. Hunt, 338
V. Oakley. 95
V. Owen, 277
Tkomaa, 808, 246
V. United Batteries Co., 626
V. WiUiama, 8, 688
Thompson v. Hammersmith Corp..
141
f. Hickman, 129, 305
V. Hughes, 343, 347, 348
r. Moore, 351
V. Stanhope. 408
V. Tottenham and FMMt Gate
Bly. Co., 122, 126
d a
Ui
XlBIiC OF cint.
Ihompson v. Univenity of London.
695, 096
• ». Waterlow, 275
Thomson, Be, 409
Thom t>. Nine Reefs Co., 64S
Thome V. Sandow. 371
~ ». T»w Bly. Doek Co.,
Thorneloe v. Hill, 388
V. Skoines, 843
Thorneycroft v. Crockett, 78
'riiornhill v. Week*, 18, 64S
Thornton t>. Little. 278, 281
Thorpe v. Bmmfltt, 154, 155, 275,
Three Towns Banking Co. v. Mad-
dtver, 360, 382
Thurao New Gas Co., Be, 620
Thurston v. Charles, 408
Thynne v. Shove, 373
Ticehurst Water Co. v. Gas, Sec ,
Supply Co., 66«, 689
Tickle V. Brown, 285
Tiessen v. Henderson, 677, 6;8
Tilbury v. Silva, 230
Tillett V. Nixen, 644
TiUuig Diek, Ken & Co., 158. 160,
188
Tilt Cove Copper Co., Be, 545
Timson v. Wusou, 667
Tinckley v. TNylesbury Dairr Co.,
204 J . ,
Tink V. Rundle, 120, 641
Tinkler v. Wandsworth X)istrict
Board, 688
Tipping V. Clarke, 503
V. Eokersley, 18, 260, 430,
474. 483. «45
V. St. H^n's Smelting Co.,
35, 19». M9. »1, S08
Titohnuush «. RoTston Water Co.,
288
Titus Astle, Ltd. v. Mansfield, 426
Tiverton and North Devon iiy. v.
Loosemore, IM, IJM 125,
120, 130
Tivoli (Manchester) v. Colley, 456
Todd Birlestone Co. v. North Eastern
Ely. Co., 41, 234
Tod-Heatley v. Benham, 446, 446
Tompkmson «•. South Eastern Rlv..
.'559, 563
Toms V. Merchant Service, iic, 368
Tone V. Preston, 212, 214
Toni Tyres Co. v. Palmer Tyre Co.,
332
Tonnins v. Prout, 627
Tooker e. Anneeley, VI
Teppin ». Teton, js», 9U
Torriano v. Youf, M
Tottenham D. C. v. Rowley, 299,
TottenhuiD.C. v. Williamson, 110,
ToW V. Eastna Coaatiea Bly. Co.,
Towers v. Afriean Tag Co., 559—
661
Townsend v. Haworth, 331, 338. 340
- — V. Jarman, 373, 466, 634. 5S5
Trjoey-Elliott v. Ead Mmi^. no.
873
Tracy «. Tracy, 71
Trade Auxiliary «. Middlesboro'.
403
V. Vickers, 578
Trafford v. Rex, 267
V. St. Faith*! Banl Cmmeil.
299. 301 «»»mai.
Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, 815
Trautner v. Patmore, 343
Travers v. Lord Stafford, 678
Treacher v. Treacher, 446
Treadwell v. London and South
Western RIy., 126
Trego V. Hunt, 372, 461, 688. 683.
535
Treloar v. Bigge, 449
Trevor v. Whitworth, 664
Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Ambard
210, 212, 217
Tripp V. Frank, 312
Trollope v. London BnildbicFedem-
tion, 326
Trotter v. Maclean, 146, 140
Trower v. Chadwick, 215
Truefltt V. Edney, 358
Truman v. LoiUtai. Bii|^mi, *e..
Rly., 311
Truman & Co. v. Redgrave, 641
Truro Corp. «. Rowe. 274
Trusoott V. Meraluuat Ta«lm' Co..
189. 190, 194 ^ . •
Tubbs V. Esser, 22, 47, 4S5» 4S«,
444, 489, 496 ^
Tuck, Be, 686
V. Silver, 30
Tucker e. Linger, 69, 62, 63
-— 9, New BrunswiekTndngCS*.,
30, 661
V. Newman, 209
Tulk V. Moxhay, 483, 484, 486, 493
Tullitt V. TuUitt, 73
Tun bridge Wells (Mayor) v. Burd.
141, 142, 297, 304
Turkington v. Kearnan, 78
Turnbull v. West Ridiue AtUsil*
Club, 558
Turner v. Biamire, 114
TABliB Of OMBS.
Twnor r. KvsnR. 436. 455, 462
V. Goldsmith, 481
V. London and Somtli W««tom
RIy., 499
V. Major, 531
V. Mirfield, 152
V. Ringwood Highway Qoard,
307
«. Sswdon, 481
V. Spooner, 18S
r. Turner, 658
r. Walsh, 299, 301. 541, 646
r. Wright, 72, 73, 74, 83
1 iirton t'. Turton, 42, 358, 364, 366.
461
Tuggaud V. Tussaiid, 367, 581
Tweedale v. Ashworth, 342
Twort V. Twort, 72, 06
Twyoroas r. Dreyftu, 8
Tjmoioatii Cotf. ». Att.-Gen., 587,
Tjrrell t. Painton, 637
Ulmann f. Cowes Harbour Comrs.,
14
V. Lenba, 360, 371
Umfreville v. Johnson, 200
Underhay t>. Read, 544
Underwood v. Barker, 450
Uneeda Trade Mark, Be, 362
Ungar v. Sur ,-, 517
Union Lighterage Co. t'. London
Graving Dock Co., 213, 214, 287
289. 290
United Horseshoe Co. v. Stewart,
674
Uirited Land Co. v. Great Eastern
„ Bly.. IM. 278, 282.
United Merthyr Collieries Co.. He,
146
United Mining Co. v. Becher, 686
United Shoe Machinery Co. f
Brunet. 451, 459, 482
United States v. Priolean, 10
United Telephone Co. Dale. 338
363, 687
«. EqiiitebleTeleiihoBeCo.,347
«. Nelaon, 338
V. Sharpies. 335, 336, 337, S43
V. Tasker, 348
Unwin v. Hanson, 307
Heath. 342
Upmann f. Elkan. 364, 377, 383
385, 387. 388. 665
V. Forester, 38, 40, 329, 354.
383, 387, 064
UptBB «. H«»»«w»on, 448, 470
U n — tea «. WkitelBit. 4M
I Vaciieu v. London Society of Com-
positors, 324, 326, 327
Valentine v. Valentine. 365. 366
Vance v. East Lancashire Rly., 566,
687
Van der Lccuw. Be, 363
Vane v. Lord Barnard, 83. 84, 85
V. ( ockermonth and DariioK-
ton Rlv.. U6
Van Gelder t-. Sowerby. 330, 546
Van Oppen & Co. v. L. Van Oppen,
369, 381
Vansandau. Ex parte, 694
— — «'. Rose, 663, 664
Vansittart v. Vansittart. 476
Vardopnio r. Vardopulo, 12. 614.
61«. 617. 61!)
Vaughan t-. Taff Vale Rly. Co., 158
\ avasseur v. Krupp. 8, 832
Vavasour's Case. 57
Vmmt ». Genwal InTMtmrat Trait,
Vernon v. Baehanan, 387
«. FMlam, 372
— — James's Vestry, 206, 296,
Victoria Steamboat Co., Re, 545
Vincent r. Spiccr, 83. 90
Viner v. Vaughan. 57. 68. 72
Ving V. Robertson, 575, 576
Vipan f. Mortlock, 678
Von fierkel v. Booth, 341, 342
Von Eckhardstein r. Von Eckhard-
stein. 617
Von Hevden v. Nenatadt, 337
Von Joel V. Uonuey. 44, 47, 178,
W.. Pc. f,36
Wagstaff V. Edison Bell Co., 206
Wake V. Dyer, 319
V. Hall, 67
Wakefield f. Duke of Buceleneh, 34S
«'• Hendron. 60
Waldroii. A'e. 66
Walford r. VValford. 32
Walker r. Brewster. 204
r. Clarke, 517
r. Falkirk Iron Co,. 424
V. Jones. 2
V. Mottram, 372, 53u
V. Stewart. $58
vv a V. London Assets Corp., 28
Wallace v. Att.-C.m., 453
— V. Camphell. (iI8
Wallasey Lo< al Hoiutl v.
iV: 111. ;$(»{»
WailiB ( . Hands. \tni
~ r. Smith. 466. 468
V. Wallis, 626
liv
TABLE OF CASES.
Wallwyiiii r. ('(iuHh. r>2:i
Walsby r. Aiih y, 321
Walah V. Lonsdale. 30
V. TieTuioii, 487
Walter v. Ashton. 536
V. Selfe, 176, 200
• V. Steinkepff, 39,
40. 354.
418, 665
AViiltois r. I'foil, 215
Walton V. .lohngon, 63, 646
Wwidsworth Board of Works i.
London and .South Wes-
tern Rly.. 114 lr)8
United Telephone Co., 141,
142
Wapshare Tube Co. r. Hyde Rubber
Co., 34.-.
Warhurtoii r. London and Black-
wall Rly., 158
Ward r. Countess of Dudley, 67
V. Society of Attorneys, S85
«. Ward, 246, 291
Ward Lock v. Long, 398
— — V. Operative Printers, 324
Ware v. Grand Junction Canal Co.,
12, 471
— i: Regent's Canal Co., 24, 31,
114, 115. 130, 132, 151, 250. Hon
Waring v. Manchester, Shelheld,
and Lincolnshire Rly., 429
W^ng and Gillow v. Thompson,
Warlters ». Green, 325
Wame v. Routledge, 399, 476
— — V. Seebohni, 415, 417, 418
Warner »•. Jacob, 30, 538, 539, 641,
661
• f. M'Bryde, 1S5
V. Murdoch, 3
Warren t>. Lambeth Waterworks.
575
Warsop V. Warsop, 388
Warwick v. Queen's College, 60
Warwick Tyre Co. v. Now Motor
( o., .337. 375
W»r\vick and Birniinghani Canal
Co. V. Buriiani, 34
Washburn Manufacturing Co. i
Cunard Co., 331
Water v. York, 634
Waterford Bridge Co. v. Waterford
Corporation, 313
Watcrhouse v. Waterhouae (1893
P.), 626. 629, 643
V. Waterhouse (1906, 94L.T.).
43, 104, 106 '
Waterlow tv Bacon. 28
Waters v. Taylor, 535
Wathcrcii v. IIowulls, 56
Watney «. Trkt, 6S8
Watson V. Daily Record, «, 609.
511,644
V. Gray, 216
■ — — V. Hunter. 93
V. Hythc Corp., 110, 586
■ — — V. Lyon, 545
V. Troughton, 246
Watts, Ex parte, 622
r. Kelson, 258, 259, 275, 278
r. Smith, 463
r. Watts, 628
Wauton f. Coppard. 440
Wearraouth Crown Co., Me, 10
Weatherby International Horse
Agency. 33. 392, 403, 404, 406,
414—416, 418, 419
Webb V. Baldwin, 298. 299
V. Bird. 198
— — V. Earl, 565
V. Manchester and Leeds Rly.,
116, 134
V. Plumnier, 78
— - r. Shropsliire Rly. Co., 565
Webster r. Bosan(|uot. 466 — 468
V. South Eastern Rlv.. 115
Weddenham v. Atholl (Diikc), 272
Wedderburu v. Wedderburn, 613,
616
Wedges, He, tiTit
Wedmore v. ^Mavor. &c.. of Bristol.
206
Wedneshurv ( orp. r. Lodge Hole*
Colliery. HI, 26!t. 308. 309
Weeks v. lleward, 242, 244
Weeton v. Woodcock. 68. 148
Weingarten v. Bayer, 329, 367, 360,
382, 384—386, 664
Weir V. Fermanagh D. C, 586, 694
Weir Hospital. Re, 598
Welch r. Knott. 382
Welcome's Trade Mark, He, 372
Weld Bhmdell r. Wolseley. M, 87
Weld V. Hornby, 203
— — V. fouth VVestern Rly., 131
Weldon v. De Bathe, 632
V. Dicks. 413
Wellesley v. Lord Momington, 688,
601
I'. Wellesley, 92
Wells. He. 520
r. Atteiiborough, 4!(4
r. London, Tilbury, Ac, Rlv,.
203 - J .
Welsbach Incandescent Co. »i. Day-
light Co., 362
r. General Incandescent Co.,
347
— V. New Iiu iii>de«!ent Co., 362
VVetatead v. Hadley. 455. 46S, 535
Welton V. Saflery, 565
TABUI OF CAnS.
WeahMa Om Co. «. cauunpton Qtm
Co., 339
Wenloek (Ladj) v. Dm Rivw Co.,
547, 548, 561, 568, 584
Wemer Motors Co. v. Gamage, 340,
350, 3.'54, 424, 427
West I. Bristol Tramways Co., 161,
162, 165. 255
— — V. Gwynne, 39, 440
V. White, 667
West Cumberland Iron Co., Be, 620
West Cumberland Iron, &o., Co., v.
Kenyon, 254
West End Hotels Co. v. Bayer, 578,
579
Western v. M Dermott, 24, 435, 436,
485, 494
Western Waggon Co. v. West, 431
West Ham Charity Bd. v. East
London Waterworks, 48, 50, 51,
63, 65
Weot Leifth Ct^iery Co. v. Tunni-
oliffe, 209, 210
Westminster Association «. Upward,
660
Westminster Brymbo Coal, Su>., Co.
V. Clayton. 108, 254
Westminster Corporation v. London
and North Western Rly. Co., I(t5,
107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 1.S5, 142,
158, 160, 161, 162, 168, 588
Westmoreland v. New Skailstoa
Co., 169
Westoll (The James), 13, 608
Weston V. Arnold, 216. 677
— — 1'. Metropolitan Asylum Dis-
tript, 470
Whaley, Re, 69
V. Laing, 250
Whalley ». Lancashire and York-
shire Rly., 2SS, 257
Whatman «. CMbsen, 485
Wheatcroft, Re 409
Wheatley v. V. estmtnster Brymbo
Coal Co., 478
Wheaton t>. Maple, 191
W'heeldon v. Burrows, 184, 185,
188, 287. 289
Wheeler and Wilson Manufac-
turing Co. V. Shakspear, 360
Wheelw «. Le Marohant, 505
Wheelwright «. Walker. 522
Whiston e. De»n add Chapter of
Rochester, 595, 597
White V. Arthur, 466
V. Carmarthen, &o., Bly., 560,
662
i). Cohfii, 156
— — V. Grand Hot*l, Eastbeame,
278, 280, ^8^
White V. Hall, 628
V. Jameson, 153
». MtJann, 81
«. Mellin. 611
V. Pollard. 435
v. SoBthend Hotel Co., 445,
459 465
V. White', 231, 233, 240, 242,
244
White, Tomkins & Co. e. Wibou,
455
Wbitechurch v. Holdworthy, 54
White's Charities. B», 230, 305
Whitehead, Be. 641
r. Bennett, 67, 433
V. Wellington, 390, 391
Whitehouse v. Hugh, 296, 475
Whitoley, Be, 525
Whitfield V. Bewit. 58, 71, 72. 93
WTiitfleld's Bedsteads, Be, 362
Whitham v. Westminatn Brrmbo
Coal Co., 146
WhiUey v. ChaUis, 542
Whitmores (Edenbridge) Co. «.
Stanford, 229, 231. ^4, 247. 248,
249, 255
\ATiittaker v. Howe, 453, 498
Whittingham v. Wooler, 404
Whitwham i'. Moss, 34, 498
Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hard-
man, 432, 476, 480, 481, 482
MHiitworth «. Gaugain, 656
t». Rhodes, 30, 539, 661
Wickenden v, Webater. 444
Wickham, Be, 680
Wicks V. Hunt, 22, 31, 173. 257
Wigglesworth r. Dallison, 63
VVigram t,. Fryer, 123, 145
WilcoT V. Steel. 34, 318, 310, 681
Wild I'. Woolwich Borough council,
121, 122. 123. 126, 140
Wilde V. WUde, 41
Wilding V. SaadMaon, 679
Wiles V. Oresham, 625
Wilkes V. Spooner, 486
Wjilkiiis f. Wood, 63
Wilkinson r. Cummins, 861
V. Hull Rly. and Doek Co., 117
J'. Rogers. 430
Wille r. St. John, 486, 490
Willes V. Levett. 538
Williams r. Ba<;nall, 220
V. Bingley, 531
V. BouviUe, 650
V. Oavies, 652
V. Day, 85
V. Duke of Bolton. 71, 02
V. Gabriel, 154
Jmm, M, 178, 181, 38^.
SM
Ivi
TABLE or CAKRR.
VVilliaiiiM f. .ItTRf.v, 36
V. MHrnaina'ra, 8fi
• V. Morlaiid, 236, 256
V. Prinee of Wales Aasnnuiee
Co.. SOS
V. Quchrada Bly., 806
V. Rajtcett, 147
r. Roberts, 20
— ~ r. Salmon, 560
r. Weston -super- Marc, 7
I'. \\ illijiin»i. 73, 466, 607
Willi* r. Childe. 526
Willmott r. Barber, 21. 22, 36. 37
V. London Road Car Co., 449
Wills r. Adams, 436, 448
Willsou V. Love, 466, 467, 468, 470
Wilson V. Chureli. 32
t'. Churrh Kngineering Co., 517
r. C. W Rlv.. .566. 660
r. Hart. 484. 485, 486
c. Ronton, 323
V. Si'ottisli 'rv|«)){rapliical
Assoc., 327, 606
t>. Townend, 148, 168, 163
V. WaddeU, 254
V. Wilson. 627
Wimbledon and Pntney Cornmis-
sionerg r. Dixon, 282, 284
2«(i, 287
Winibli'don Loral Hoard c. Croydon
Sanitary .Antlioritv, 677
Winch t'. Birkenhead, Lancashire,
and Cheshire Kly., 136,
669, 672
t>. Conservators ofThanies. 307
Winefaester (Bishop of) v. Knicht
60
Windhill Local Board v. Vint, 638
Wing V. I'ottonhani, &c.. Rlv. Co
138
Winstanley v. Lee. Ifl4
Winter v. Baker, 2<»4
Winterbottom v. Ijonl Uerbv, 111
150.301.309
\Vintlc V. Bristol and South Wales
Rl.v . 11.5. I.Tt
Wither r. Dean and ( iiapterof Win-
chester, 80. 81, 82
Withington L. C. tr. Manclwster
Corp., 202
Wittman v. Oppenheim, 40, 364,
419, 424, 664
Woking U. D. C. (Basiamtoke
Canal) Act, 1911. Be, 6SS
Wolfe V. Matthews. 606
\Volnierhausen v. O'Connor, 464.
458
Wolverhaniptoii ami Walsall Rly.
i>. Lundou and North V\esteru
Bly., 476
Wolverl im;>'..n Con), v. Emniofla.
431, 432. i»r
Wombwell c. Hi,'la«yse. 87
Wood t'. Cha.in- ( li.s, Biy , 114
V. ConnoUy & Co., 6. 11. 610,
611. 615
V. Cooper, 446. 497
V. Downsa, 687
». Epsoin and Leatberhead
Rl.T., lie, 120, 13S
V. Ilamblct, 668
t>. Lillies, 7, 631
— V. North Staffofdsiiire BJv.,
133
r. RowclilTe, 627
V. Saiuidero. 41, 184, 208, 246,
268, 278, 283
V. Sutcliffe, 19, 34, 35, 36, 239.
280
V. Veal, 297
r. Wood, 632
I'. Waud, 232, 236, 238, 839.
247, 248, 250, 630
^Vood bridge ». BeUamy, 23, 433.
462, 463
Waodeoek v. Oxford, Ste., Riy., 658
Woodhottse v. Newry Navigation
Co., 44, 46
- i: Walker, 66
Woodman v. BoUnsoo. 88
Woodruff V. Breeon aad Mertfcrr
Rly.. 135 '
Woodward c. Battcrsea Consaratiaii.
432, 433, 499
»'. Gyles, 468
Woodyer v. Hadden, 298, 302
Woolf t'. Woolf. 388
Woolley t'. Broad. 426
Woolston »•. Ross. 542. 642
Woolwich Corp4K«tiMi «. GibaoB.
317, 320 •
Worcester's Case (Dcmi and CluMter
of), 80
Worcester College, Oxford v. Oxford
Navigation Co., 43, 46. 66, 433
vV orsley r. Stewart, 68
— p. 8wan, 430
Worthington v. Abbott. 636
V. Uinison, 2?5, 276
Wragg V. Denham, 75
Wright V. Atkyng, 644
». Berry, 438. 439
V. Howard, SM. 888. 236, 848.
244
V. Redgrave. 607
V. Stavery. 87
i: Tallis, 413
,,. Wallawey Local Beard, 636
— - 1.. WiUiams, 841, 842. 844
Wrightson p. T»fln, 01|
TABI.B or CASn.
Wylam «. CUrke, 41
Wyndluun «. Wat, 04
Wynne v. Lord Newboroogb, 645
Yapp v. WiUiuns. CSS
Yarmouth Corporation «. Groom,
317
Yates V. Cyclists Tearing dab, 575
V. Jack, 197
YMtnum*. Homb«rg«r,358,383.682
Yellowly v. Gower, 66
V. Morley, 104
Yetts r. Norfolk Rly., 574
York and North Midland Uly. r.
Hudson, 563
Yorkshire County Council v. Holm-
flrth Sanitary Authority, 265
Yorkshire Miners Association r.
Howdnn, 386 («), 606
Yorkshire Rivers Board t>. Preston,
265
V. Ravenscroft D. C. 266
t'. Robinson, 266
ti. Tadoaster E. C, 229, 271
Yost Typewriter Co. v. Typewriter
Ezdumge Co., 361, 38S
Young V. Ashley Gnrdena Pro-
prietors, 449
Yoang V. Brassey, 643, 649, 653
— V. Brownlee, 675
tJ. Chalkley, 466
V. Cuthbertson, 396
f. Macrae, 358
t'. Naval and Military Society,
563, 564
V. Peck, 323
o. Spencer, 61
V. Star Onmibos Co., 291, 293
Young Si Co. V. Bankier Distillwy
Co., 233, 239, 254, 260
Young Manufacturing Co., Re, 658
Yovatt V. Winyard, 503, 507
YHtalyfera Iron Co. v. Neath and
Brecon Rly., 122, 129, 130
" Z " EucTBic Lamp Co. «, Oeram
Lamp Works, 515
Zenith Motor Co. v. Collier & Co.
343
Zick V. London United Tramways,
121 '
ADDENDA ET COBRIGENDA.
Pa);c S ( (). .liW ■ Kfl Jieitiihlic of Iloliritt lixjilornUoii Syndicatt, (1914)
1 Ch. I3it.'
Page 9 (u). Add • And hcp Dover I'irture I'aUireCo. v. Dover < orporalion,
(1913) 11 L (1. K. p. 077. /.(■« Hamilton, L.J."
Pago 10 (j-). Add -And see Bobinson v. Fenner, (1913) 3 K. U. 835;
(1W4) 83 L. J. K. B. 81."
P«g6 10 (y). Add "Oarvin. Gib$on db Co. v. Gihion, (1013) 3 K. B.
pp. 887. 388 : 82 L. J. K. B. 1315. 1318."
P«ge 18 (n). Add " Dauer»-8mith v. Uadiley, (1913) 108 L. T. 897 ; 57
.1. 6.5.'> ; liedford v. Corporation, (1913) 77 J. P. 430."
Page 32 (e). .l/«*r " Sta««»j«r v. Spalding" (p. 33), adtf ".ii>.-GM». V.
fori.*. (1913) 2 Ch. p. 454 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 667."
.-i'^y** "Btdford T. <forfMmitjM. (1913) 77 J. P. 430.
434.
, ^•ft'^ifK ^''^ " AU-Om. v. Pom*, (1913) 8 Ch. 444; SS
Id. J. Ch. 502 (bnaeh of bye-laws)."
Pago 35 iq). Add " PhiUimore v. Watford Sural CouneO, (1913) S CJh.
p. 443 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 619." \ i
Page 35 (t). After "Jones v. Llanrwet Vrbom CMUteU" (p. 3S). add
'■ /'/kiHimor. v. Watftrd Bmrtd CmmeO. (1913) 3CIi. 443 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 619."
Page 41 (»)■. I ^ Wforua (1913) 3 Ch. 444 ;
Page 43 (I). ) I'- »«2-
Page 45 («). ^/tor " ^Smior v. Prtic»on, ' add " See ^H.-Gen. v. Parish,
(1913), 2 Ch. 444 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 502, where a mandatory injunction was
granted for the removal of » houM erected (before iMoe of the writ) in
advance of the prescribed building line."
Page 45 (M). Add " Att.-Oen. v. Parish, (1913) 2 Ch 444 ; 82 L. J. Ch.
562."
Page 46 (6). i Worcester College v. Oxford Canal yaviqation is also reported
Page 46 (p). ] 105 L. T. 501.
Page 46 (e). .4iid " i^ee Dover Picture Palace Co. v. Dover Corporation,
(1913)11L. li. R. 971."
Page 70 (y). In re Morrison, Jones and Taylor, affirmed in C. A., and
now reported (1914) 1 Ch. fiO ; 30 T. L. B. 69.
Page 74 (d). In re Hamllmr^'e Settled EeUttee is also reported 82 L. J. Ch.
430.
Page 1 04 ( I ). King v. Broum, JhtrrmU A Co. k abo reported 82 L. J. Ch.
548 ; 109 L. T. 69.
Page 105 (x). ''Lewis v. Meredith." for " 108 L. T. 349," read "108
L. T. 549 ; also reported 82 L. J. Ch. 255."
Hcpe V. Osborne is a.'so reported 82 L. .T. Ch. 457 : 109 L. T. 41.
After ''King v. Jliown." add "See Ilampstead Oarden Suburb Trust v.
Deeiow, (1013) 77 J. P. 318, where an injunction waa granted to leatniia
the holding of meetings on private roads."
Page 106 id). After " Cope v. Sharpe " add " Cf. KfthM T. Chtetum,
(1013) 30T. L. R. 15." r r ,
Page 107 (9). ) Knuoek db Co. v. S^wkmde is ako lenorted 81 L. J. Ok
Page 109 (ff).) 340.
ADOmPA IT COMIOIMDA.
w^\^78"4«i' fifr lu*'^ ^'**'"" ^"*'"'"' "'•
I'liK.- lit (m). For •' (1913) S8 T. L. R. 861." read " (I91S) 38 T. L. R.
J'ajf.- lU7(r) (irrotienlml l{„iU,ny(o.M. Mutlnnd Rnil^nu Co.. atF.mti
m H. J., oil other Krouiid*. ( 1013) 30 T. L. K. 33 : 33 W. N. 294
L. J*Si* 562 *• reported (1B13) 2 Ch. 444 ; 88
Page i48 (f). Add '• MiddltUm v. U»mpkrie», (llH.t) 47 Ir. L T 160
where an injanrtion wm grmted to rentrsin the defendant Irom allowinii
tlip rootn of hiH trees to daniaxe the plaintiff"* wall "
I'a^e 152 («). | Add " White v. London aeneral (hmniiut Co., (1914) W. N
Faxe 153 (.'). | 78 ; 4B L. J. N. C. 114. '
L. jTh^Mo'"' "'^ ^"'^^ » «». 492; 88
W*'x*78''*4H L .i''x ( ''114 •
_^i'ap. 179 if).' Add ' ikmi r. Marraih, (1913) 8 Ch. 481 ; 88 L. J. Ch.
h '.'"n/^lo''' *■ "ported (1913) 8 Ch. 481 ; 88
Pajce 170 (A). .Idfi ' And «ec Ihwig v. MnrmbU. iiipra, where the heiidit
of a ImildniK on the servient tenement had been raised in one part, the
lowered in another part, no that the total amount of light cominit to but
dommant tenement was not diminixhed. ' b u.
(19*1^ X 6i("%«^J^"i"v r^f ?/r ^"Hl" Ltd .
by otLr pe^on,)." " ^* "* (-"J"^* «» P^«»
Page 203 «). Add " Bodford r. Lttdo Corporation. (1913) 77 J. P 430 "
430 Xir) " " ^ L>o3rcorpo;^ion,\ 1913) 77 JUP.
Pape 204 (rf) Add " De KtyurS Royal Hotel v. Spietr Bro,., (1«14) 30
1 . L. K. 2.1, (pile driving between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.)."
Page 20.5, 7th line. .Idrf • But an injunetion was granted to restrain pUe
dnving between the hours of 10 p.m. and « a.m.. as being unreasonable
{De hty»er'» Roi,„l Hotel v. Spirer Hron.. (1014) 30 T L K 257) "
Page 206. 1.5th line. After - (»)." add " allowing the root, of treea to
spread under an adjouing owner's land and injure his wall (Middklo* r
Humpkneg. (1913) 47 Ir. L. T. 160)." x^nmmn t.
« ^1" vT-!™ 'n' Lvong v. GuUiver, affirmed in C. A., 30 T. L. R. 75 ; 58
^. 0/ (Plidlimore, L..T., di»».).
Page 254 (/). Add " ( hnring Crogg and Wegt End Suppfy Co. v. London
%rfr««/.r /W,r r„.. (1013) 3 ft. B. 442 ; (1914) 83 L. ^.T. B. 116 (eSe^
of water through burHtmg of mains)."
PaKe28(J(n) ' " ^- (^""^ Hotel, EagOoHme. s^mrmeA in H. (10131
Paie282 (j);) M S. J. 117 ; W. N. 306. '
Page 293 ig). Add " WkiU v. londoit Oeneriii Omnibug ( o.. ( 1914) W N
78 : 49 I,. .1. \. (". 114." «'■«;".
Page 204 (I). For " (1912) " read '• (1911)."
Page 297 (/). For • 82 L. .1. Ch. 673." read " 82 L. .1. Ch. 73."
Pago 200 (r). ^ Tottenham I rban Counril v. Kovley. atlirmed in H L
Pagc30fi(9). gub nom. Rowley v. Tottenham I rban Couneil (I913I
Page 307 (n). ' 30 T. I.. R. 168 ; \V. \. 367. '
Page 30!) /,yons d" To. v. Cuiiiuii s,,,uUralr. itlTirincd in C A ( t»IMl
30 T. L. R. 75; 58 .S. J. 07 (Phillimore. L.J., digi,.). ' ' '
Page 309 (e). "4tt.-Gtn, v. Hharpneig Xew Doejcg Co.," delete " (1913) j
iDsnrsi IT coRRioiNVA. txi
K. B. 440, 441 : 82 L. J. K. H. p. 1»8." imtl lubitUuU " (inU) 49 L. J. X. C.
8S ; 136 L. T. .lo. 376."
Page 341 (k). A'«w Invtrttd Ineamtt$tent Oai Lamp ('•. v. Uiniktt.
»»nud iB C. A., (IMS) 10 B. P. C. «M.
Page 343 U). Add "Otram Lamp W«rkt Co. v. Sehh- 4t €•„ (l»13)
30 R. P. C. 3fl!»."
Page 357 (r). For • 29 T. L. R. 117 " read " 29 L T. T. 163."
Page 357 (d). Feitlman v. Ilombtrger w aliio reported 2» T. L. R. 26.
Pajre 359 «)• />«<«<« " R," and tn»ert before " W. »l- (I. />« frot,"
" KegiHrin- of Trade Markn." ThwfaHe is now reported (1914) 83 L. J.
Ch.I.
Page 360 («) J<W • And «■«• /'in* v. Sharwootl. (1913) 109 L. T. 394."
PaC»3M (p). /f« rnn (iff Ammm) U aUo reported 81 I,. .]. Ch. 1(H».
P«g» 364 («). Hrintmend v. Urintmtad, alhrnHid in C. A., 29 T. L. R.
7M: ft? S. J. 716.
PaSa 170 i*!' i ^dd "And see Boviden Wire Co. v. Howden Hrake Co.,
P^e3l" Id). \ (1913) 30 R. P. f. 609."
Page 371 (i). Add " See Pink v. Sharwood, (1913) 109 L. T. 594."
Page 372, end of lant paragraph. Add " And the xanie principles apply
in the case of a itale by a trustee under a deed of miignment by a debtor
for the beneat of hin rreditors (Gr««» d 8—$ (ircfOMMtM) Mmnit,
(1914) W. N. 65 ; 40 L. J. N. (!. 99)."
Page »7ft («). THUtmmm Hmmh0ifKt 4» C«.. ftOriMd in C. A.. 107 L. T.
74S: SOT. L. R. 2».
Page 387 (o). Add " Brintmead v. Brimmmtd, (1913) 29 T. L. R.
p. 239."
Page 389 (d). ) /t/<#r " LithoHle Co. v. TnwU d- IniuUilori Co.," add
Pago 391 (/). i •• 532."
Page 391, 3rd line (3). See Corelli v. Ora^, (1913) 30 T. L. R.
Page 391 (a). /»»»<>r< before " A« to the law before the A«t," '
V. P(Uki Friri* PatKephone Co.. (1914) 1 K. B. 395."
Page 3M. Sad line. Intrt after "time tables (o),"
(BynM ▼. r»« StoMft e*., (1014) 30 T. L. B. 254 ; W. N. 37)."
Page 394 (m). ) Add " See BynM t. 7*« Statitt Co.. (1014) 30 T. L. R.
Page 396 («). j J54 ; W. if. 37."
Page 308 (9). AuftMM ▼. i>MU Frim Ptihtpkomt Co., •mxmoi in C. A.
itub nam. MonckUm v. PM4 JMnt PuOMpkont Co., (1*13) 30 T. U B. 1S9 ;
(1914) 1 K. B. 395.
Page 402 (9). Add " Hee Xfonckion v. f'oatf l''»4i«t PaOtpkMM C«b,
(1913) 30 T. L. R. 123 ; (1914) 1 K. B. 395."
Page 410 («J). ) J ft^ tM " -jj " KM "
Page 411 (Z).)^-''^
Pan 410 {ph ^di " See Bwrn$ y. the «MM Co., (1914) 30 T. L. B.
884 rW. N. 37."
Paga 417 («)• for " (1913) 29 T. L. R. 72," read " (1913) 29 T. L. R.
67S ; aiBraea in C. A., (1913) 30 T. L. R. 116."
Page 418(1.). ^lU " CoiwU* t. 6ray, (1913) 20 T. L. B. 57S } 30 B.
116.
P^e 426 (o) i " ^ °- ^'
Piige432(*) ■ ^dd"C»«»««IT.irM««*y.(1913)683.J.60; W.N.277. "
Pi«e433ie). " Sen^iuMrt .iUmm «eM JfiiiiHy Ce.. (1013> 58
8. J. 48."
Pag«4M(i). iSMm t. 8min*mrf, now ako xvparted (1914) 83 L. J. Ctu
Pa^6 136 (a). ^
r .g 438 (9). ; Catm ▼. JITanaKli Mpoitod 81 L. J. K. B. Ml.
Page 443 (z). )
p"' 'J^ ;"/"■ /'■'■<"• V. rov.itt iM u1mi> rf|H<rti><l N2 L. .1. ch 4;i..*
J:*. " ' ""'"'"'J'"" * • "'»'>'/" i" now M iMirti-.l (Jiti.n .jd T. i,. K.
.iemiS!l*™«^""*- ^Z**' u".* » im. ,., us,. ,1...
ittuc j w»i8tco»U Mid m»ckinto»htt., w*, keld to huv.- b.wi bro; . u i.v th.-
». J?1m!*" ''■'W'' it "K'W n!>"r'.Mi (l<»l;()
r.H s!) ''u ' ' '..ported (1914) ..i T. L. U. 837 ;
pomt in ... L.. (1914) VV. N. 73 . 49 J S ifa ' **" *^
L. £• »«nu«.d in C. A.. (1»13) IW
l/j' xT. fl/'"- ' """"^ " "^•'^ SO T. L. P. Ig4 J 49
29^'r^'/RM^i*;- -tW. r. Jone^ (1918)
PttKe 462 -nh line. Add - ti,, jlg,, » cov. iiant bv ari «mi>iBT<«
broken bTlu» «)licituiK<M>«t„,„ , h.-. .1 Iron, uilu-r .V, mi«^^^^^^^
bnwneMiL^ been mo ve.l (.»/,„,/,„/, „ u V , ^
T. L. It. 351)." ' •""'-«"" "■ "I mil, hut. \ .Ja*f. J) ; t
I'aKe 462 • • • • ilM.
V&KK 462 (r). f
PiKP 463 («). 4 " S«- Dojfmr-Swm v. l*aiMm, (1913) lAg J H97 •
1 aK« 483 (J-). /
Page 476 (d). , ,
Page 477 (A). ' .•"'*»«r en.6«>«." ,tdd ho,,mn. Urbu.
Page 482 (A).) (1913) .>8 s. J. 5„ ; W. \ '77
{mTa^^L^-R '^r' ' reversed . A
Patro 4M (y). .4M " Milt'^w v £fM*. (1914) 1 Ck. S4, 40 1 lu« L. T.
I'ngf 4>.f>(o). I A.'/.n/ .. Smmt^mrf » new (eportfl (1914) 88 L. J. Ck.
l'ttK« 4''+ (.). i 103
I'ttjft 4((/i 1 1913) 30 H. P. r. oA/ " 532."
Pmif 5i» . f ■■ t'«W«.M." " 272," rtod " f'o66«/(. ' ' 271."
P..;;.- .')2fi AiUi -Vf. ihtrhfU v. En»l Sii»»ex f (•„ {1913) ii. .^.
66."
Piu. ' s:!.*). loll x*. W<<"' "debtor ' (uM "or Iroiu liu tnMtM under b
iliHxi i. > foi uebeuetttot! creditor' '. om 5»M (J^WfkaM|>-
ioHi V. '/«m., (I 14) \ X. 65 : 4'.» L,. J. N. C. '
I'aRi ' ic). ' i// "«TM»» PoteM C#. T. l«v«w CMyaroliM,
1H|3) U. K .>7.
f.|... a(lf'ir! < L, K
.4*< /./ - V. .« kmOmaf Co., (1913) .S. • t!) (mmI,. of
''»jr* SttT '). -"on k iiliia reported (1' ^2 L. .1.
K t(. !• (17 .
m, ,11 {if t ■ M idUmii liiiUw n.i u. is oImo
n p- rted (»••!:' ,
I i»i e«l '>)„. i„ aw rt'i d (1U14) 1 Ch. 94.
i tt(e ei< o Hfxiifr u reporMu 414) 63 L. J. K. B. 139.
> me 63i> HtjMMit oj Balima rpiafatiM tfyiMiMia<« i> now
<rt«d (1»: . «^J> i9 : 30 T. L. B. 78.
48 64° QtMfo • r. W«kk ia now raported (1914) Oh. SIS ; 109
I After " Leney v. Ctillingham." add >ee ' v. //ny-
WHK, ilr V. b. 160 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 117 (decided in Oru- r Xli., r. 3,
Vwuitj > itrt .uiea. 1903, 1904)."
A TREATISE
OK TBM
LAW AND PRACTICE OF INJOTCTIOM
CHAPTEB I.
nrjUNonoirs » oubbal.
An injunction was under the old procedure a writ issuing Ch«p- 1-
by order and under seal of the Court of Chancery. A writ of Uudwtb* old
injunctio may be described as a judicial process whereby a
party was required to do a particalar tiling or to refrain from
doing a particular thing according to tiie exigency of the writ.
The process, however, was rather preventiTe than restorative,
though it was by no means ecmllned to tiie former object.
When commanding an act to be d<me, it issued after decree,
and was in the nature of an execution to enforce the same;
as, for instance, it might contain a direction to the party
defmdant to yield up or to quit the possession of the land or
other property which constituted the subjeet'maitla' of the
decree in favour of the other party (a).
Under the present proeedun no writ of injnnetioa is to Under madern
issue. An injunction is by judgment or order, and such
judgment or order has the effect whidi a writ of injuncticm
previously had (6).
Injunetioos are either inUrlociitory or perpetuei. Inter-
locutory injunctions are such as are to continue until the
hearing of the cause upun the merits, or generally until
further rader. Perpetiui imyumetioiu un sudi as fom part Perpetual
injunctiou.
(a) Gilb. For. Bon., 11, 194, 9 B. B. 148, S7A.
196 ; Stribk t. hawkt, 3 Atk. 375 (») (M. L. r. 1 1.
Hugtmiit t. Ba«2qr, IS Ye*. IM;
2
INJUNCTIONS IN OENEBAL.
Obap. I.
Interlocntoijr
iqjaactini.
1*
111
of the decree made at ttie hearing upon tiie merits (e). The
perpetual injoncticm is in effeet a decree, and conelodes a
right.
The interlocutory injunction is merely provisional in its
nature, and does not conclude a right. The effect and object
of the interlocutory injunction is merely to keep matters in
statu quo until the hearing or further order (d). In inter-
fering by interlocatory injunction, the Court does not in
general profess to anticipate the determination of the right,
but merely gives it as its opinion that there is a substantial
question to be tried, and that till the question is ripe for trial,
a case has been made out for the preservation of the property
in the meantime in sta lu quo. A man who comes to the Court
for an interlocutory injunction, is not required to make out a
case which will entitle him at all events to relief at the hear-
ing. It is enough if he can show that he has a fair question to
raise as to the existence of the right which he alleges, and can
satisfy the Court that the propwty should be preserred in
its present actual cimdition, until such questitm can be dis-
posed of (e).
(e) Oilb. Far. Bom. 194, IM.
{d) Bladt PoitU Syn^tt v.
Sa t tt r* OMiemimtt Co., 79 L. T.
660 ; Leneff S Co.v. Cattingham and
Th<mi)tnn, (1908) 1 K. B. p. 84;
7" L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; Jontt v.
Pacwja Rubber Co., (1911) 1 K. B.
p. 457 ; 80 li. J. K. B. p. 156.
(f) aiatcott V. LaKff, 3 M. & C.
4S1, 4M ; Hilton v. Lord Or. nvi/le.
Or. ft Hi. 983, 299; 10 L. J. Oh.
398, 401; M B. B. 997; Chtat
Wt§lem Sattwofi Oo. Bhmittgham
and Oxford Junction Railway Co.,
2 Ph. 497, 603 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 246;
78 B. B. 909; Dght TViyfar. 3
De O. P. 4 J. 467 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
284 ; Walker v. Jonet, L. E. 1 P. C.
50, 61 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 36 : I'raton v.
LutJt, 27 C. D. 505, 606, per Cotton,
L.J. ; Challtnder v. Royle, 36 C D.
425, 436, 443 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 99S.
1002; Mogul Stmmtkip Co. y.
McQrtgvr, IS a B. D. 478; M
L. J. a B. 040; Jmm t. Ahmpi
RtMm Co., uifra. 8m, however,
M to granting interlocatory in-
junotimu in libel aotioni, po$t.
CHAPTER II.
TUK NATURE AND LIMITS OF TUB JURI8OICTI0N OF TBR
HIOH COUBT OF JCSTICB BT INJUNCTION.
Unokb the former procedure, the jurisdiction by injunction chap. ii.
to restrain the doing of wrongful acts was a jurisdiction which Jnriidietioa
could only be exercised by the Court of Chancery. The Courts 'rnfinelf to
of common law had by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, ch*""!?-
17 k 18 Vict. c. 125 (a), been empowered to grant injunctions
in particular cases; and by the 16 k 16 Vict. c. 8S, had been
empowered to grant injunctions in patent cases; but until the
Judicature Act, 1873, the remedy by injunction continued to
be, with these exceptions, a remedy peculiar to the Court of
Chancery. By that Act, 36 k 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 16, all the
jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was transferred to the
High Court of Justice (6); and by sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, it is
declared that:
" A ma'idamus or an injunction may be granted, or a Sect. 26,
receiver appointed, by an interlocutory order of the Court judi^™ a^,
in all cases in which it shall appear to the Court to be
just or convenient that such order should be made; and
any such order may be made either unconditionally or
upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall think
just; and if an injunction is asked, either before or at,
or after the hearing of any cause or matter, to prevent
uiy threatened or apprehended waste or trespass, such
injunction may be granted, if the Court shall think fit,
whether the person against whom such injunction is
sought is, or is not, in possession under any claim of
title or othenrise, or (if oot of posswsiim) does or does
not claim a right to do the act soo^t to be restrained
(a) Soctions 81, S3. ISmbs mo. (h) 8m Wtmur t. MwrdarA, 4 Q.
^m^n np m M by tts Btetuts D. 7M; ML. jr.(^ itt.
1— a
4
JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.
^**' under any colour of title ; and whether the estates claimed
by both or either of the parties are legal or equitable."
ThttAtttf This enactment (c) does "not confer an arbitrary or an
8, of the Jwii- unregulated discretion on the Court and does not authorize
c»uueAct, Court to invent new modes of enforcing judgments in
•substitution for the ordinary modes "(<{). It does "not
mean that tho Court is to grant an injunction simply because
it thinks it convenient. It means that the Court should grant
an injunction for the protection of rights or tiie prerention of
injury according to legal principles " (e). This sub-section (/)
does not enable the Court to issue an injunction in a case in
which before the Act there was no legal right on the one side
or no legal liability on the other side, either at law or in
equity (g) It was not intended by the enactment "to give
the right to an injunction to parties who before had no legal
right whatever, but simply to give to the Court, when dealing
with legal rights which were under its jurisdiction indepen-
dently of this section, power, if it should think it just or
convenient, to superadd to what would have been previonsly
the remedy, a remedy by way of injunction, altering therefore
not iu any way the rights of parties, so as to give a right to
those who had no legal right before, but enabling the Court to
modify the principle on which it had previously proceeded in
granting injunctions, so th'^t where there is a legal right the
Court may, without being hampered by its old rules, grant an
injunetitm where it is just or convenient to do so for the
purpose of protecting or asserting the legal rights of the
parties. ... All that was done by this section was to give to
the High Court power to give a remedy whitk formerly would
not have been given in that i)articular case, but still only a
remedy in defence of or to enforce rights, which according to
(f) ae ft 37 Vict, c M, 8. 23, (/) 36 4 37 Vict. c. 66. s. 25,
sub-H. 8. 8ub-8. 8.
('/) Dohtrty r. AKman, 3 A. C. (g) I'er Brett, L.J., in North Lon-
p. "28 ; Harris v. Btaitckamp Brot.. lionXRailtvay Co. v. firmt Korthern
(1894) 1 U. B. p. 809; CJ L. J. Raihmy Co., 11 Q. B. D. p. 38; 62
Q. B. p. 4X4. L. J. y. B. p. 383 ; and eee Kitt*
(f) /Vr Jpssol, M.E., in ,is!a't v. Muoit, (1893) 1 Q. B. 263;
V. Cttrporation of Southampton, 16 64 L, X Gb. lU, W,
C. D. p. 148 ; M L. J. Cli. p. 83.
JtmiSDICTION BY INJUNCTION.
s
low were previously existing and capable of being enforced in cb»p. II.
some or one of tiie different divisions wliich are now united in
the High Court. . . . The sole intention of the section is
tliis: that where there is a legal right which was, indepen-
dently of the Act, capable of being enforced eitiier at law w in
equity, then, whatever may have been the previous practice,
the High Court may interfere by injunction in protection of
tl.it right" (fe).
As was said in a recent case, the enactment in question
" has not revolutioiiise'l the law, but it has enabled the Court
to grant injunctions an ; receivers in cases in which it used
not to do so previously. I will not say where it had no
jurisdiction to do so, that would be going too far, but where
in practice it never did so " («').
It was not the {M-actice of the old Court of Chancery to
interfere by injunction where there was a legal right in
question which was being put in course for trial at law.
Accordingly in Reg. v. Mayor of Dover (k), the Court of
Queen's Bench decided, two years after the issue of the writ
and a year after the mayor had left of&ce, that he had no right
to be mayor at all. But under the Judicature Act it seems that
where independently of that Act there is a right that can be
asserted either at law or in equity, the Court can grant an
injunction whether interlocutory or perpetual in protection of
the right {I).
Accordingly, in A$laU v. Mayor of S<mthampton (m), ThecAetof
although there was a remedy at law by quo warranto and S|^''ttrjJS^
before the Judicature Act an injunction would not have been J^Ja*^
granted, the Conrt restrained the corporaticm by injunction
from declaring the plaintiff's office void, on the ground that
{h) Pw OottoB, L.J., in Soiih L. J. Ch. 1S3.
/.(mdm JtotitMiy Co. y. Ormt (k) OUtd by JtmA, ILB.. in
yorthrrn HaHtnay Co., 11 Q. B. D. A$M r. Mayor ^ aouthtmpbm, 16
39, 40; S2 L. J. Q. H. 380; Holmet 0. D. p. 148 ; SO L. J. Ch. p. 83.
V. Afi7/a</f,(18W)Hl.B.p. WI; as (*) Ru-hardtnn v. Methlty Srhool
L. J. Q. B. 384. jBoor./,(1893)3Ch.510; 62L.J.Ch.
(«) Citmmini v. Perkin$, (1899) 943.
! ( 'h. p. 20 ; f)8 L. J. fT, p. .^9, (m) 16 0. D. 148 ; 60 L. J. Oh.
Lindley, M.B. See, however, KitU 3S.
Mooro, (ISM) 1 U. B. 263; «4
Judicature Aeti
have not
altered tbf
principles ou
whicli injuuc-
tioBn are
inulad.
I.
JUBI8DICTI0N BY INJUNCTION.
_ the injunction was required in order to do effectual justice.
So al.o in Stomuud v. Vextri, of St. Giles (n), and in Medley
V. Bates (u), where there was tefore the Judicature Act a
rtgHt to apply to a Court of common law for a prohibition,
JesMel, M.K., wi.en lie had the jmrties before him, instead of
sending them to get a prohibition, f inted un injunction
against tin person who was seeking to go before the wrong
tribunal.
Again, the Court will, since the Jn licatur.' Act, in a proper
case, restrain the publication of a Ubel (q) ; or the making of
slanderous stateaents calculated to injure another in his
business (,). Hut it is only in the clearesl cases of libel or
slander that the Court will interfere by injunction, md
especially by interlocutory injunction (s).
The Judicature Acts, however, have not altered the prin-
ciples on which the Court acts in granting injunctions where
principles have been established as just and convenient (t).
" The very first principle of injunction law is that primd
iacie you do not obtain injunctions to restrain actionable
wrongs for which damages are the proper remedy " (u). Nor
will an injunction be granted where the case is one, not of legal
injury, but of mere inconvenience (i). Moreover, an mjunc-
(n) i20 C. D. 190; ai L. J. Ch.
629. See Wood Oimm<lly .{• Co.,
(19U) 1 Ch. 731, 7-W; 80 L. J. Ch.
409, 413.
(o) 13 V. I). 498 ; 49 j^. j (.j,.
170. See also The 7VrMa, 7IL.T.
343 ; llVxx/ v. Citiiuolli/ <{• Co., supra.
(7) Thomas v. U illiams, 14 C. D.
8ii4, 867 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 606 ; Q«aHt
Hill, iic. Milling Co. y. BeaU, 20
C. D. 601; 61 L. J. Ch. 874;
Hayward y. If., u c\ I). 198;
Bonnard v. I'erri/man, (1891) 2
Ch. p. 283; 00 L. J. ch. 617 ;
CollartI V. Marshall, (1892) 1 Ch.
571 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 268;
Chap. XII.
(r) /.w/j/ V. Bean, 26 C. D. 306;
53 L. J. Ch. 112B; and aee po-t.
Chap. XII.
(«) /.iivriiool Household Stores y.
Smith, 37 C. I). 170; 57 L. J. Ch.
83 ; lloiituiril v. I'errymun, (1891)
2 Ch. 269 ; and see Monum v.
Tussanil's, Lt.l., (1894) 1 Q. B.
671 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 464; ZJoyd't
Hank; Ltd. r. Jloi/ai Brituh Bani,
Ltd., (1903) 19 T. L. B. 548;
rortlti V. Wall, (1906) 22 T. L. K.
532; and tln^*,,! v. /taili/ Iteror-I
{(!lat,,ow). (1907) 1 K. C. 859; 76
L. J. K. U. 463; lujd «Kt,
Chap. xir.
it) (laskin V. Ilalh, 13 Ch. D.
329, /ler Thesiger, L.J.
(«) Per Ijndley, L.J.. in Ltmdtm
and Btaekwall Bailwag Co. v. Orom,
31 C. D. p. 989.
(*) Da^ V. Broumrifig, 10 C. D.
894 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 173.
JURISDICTION BY DWUNCTION.
7
ti<m will not be granted in a trivial case (y), nor where it ia Cb»9.a.
not required, the plaintiS having the remedy in his own
hands (z).
It was not the function or practice of the Court of Chancery
to reatrain men from prosecuting frivolous, litigious or
desperate suits merely because they are so (a). Nor has t'
Court under the Judicature Acts jurisdiction to interfere ! .
injuncticm uptm a false assumptiim of aatiiority. The Court
has no general jurisdiction to restrain persons from acting
wiUiout authority, and au injunction cannot be granted to
restrain a person from taking proceedings out of Court in the
name of a person who has given no authority to use it (b).
In like manner the Court has no jurisdiction to restrain a
party from proceeding with an arbitration in a manner not
auth(niBed by the agreement to refer, although such arbitra-
tion may be futile and vexatious (c). But the Court will, in a
proper case, restrain a party from proceeding with an arbitra-
tion if an acticm is pending impeaehing tiie instmment which
contains the agreement to refer (d) .
The Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the public No^atugMtion
duties of any of the departm«its of Government (e), or with with puidb
the sovereign a^ of a fore^ govemm«»t (/), m to Miforee a'^lSJi^trf
{y) Llandudno rrlmn Council v. R. R 78.
Wood*, (1889) 2 Oh. 706 ; 68 L. J. (i) London and Blackwall Jiuil-
Oh. taSi Bokmu T. akiardt, {1906) van Co. v. Crott, 31 Ch. D. 3M,
2 Ch. <14, aU; 74 L. J. Ch. «19. 871 ; U L. J. C!h. 313, 314.
620 ; JfVeWm ▼. Cte, (1906) 22 («) Ifertk Lmu^ Aifiteuy Ob. t.
T. L. B. 411 ; Englith v. Mttro- Qmat Northern Bailwag Co., 11
politan Water Board, (1907) 1 K. B. Q. B. D. 30 ; 52 L. J. a B. 880 ;
688, 603 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 361, 371 ; and see H'oorf v. Laiie»,6l I.. J. Ch.
SMtety of Archittctt v. Kendrick, 158; Ftirrar v. C'oo/(«r, 44 V. I).
(1910) 102 L. T. 626 ; 26 T. L. E. p. 3:2n ; 68 L. J. Ch. p. 508.
433 ; see as to enforcing by-laws, (J) Kittt v. Moore. (1895) 1 Q. B.
AU..thii. V. Oibb, (1909) 2 Ch. 253; 64 L. J. Ch. Wi. As to
p. 277 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 627. restraining arbitration proceetlings,
(t) SlUma* Carrmsbm, (1901) w»poit. Chap. XXI.
2 Ch. 278, 279 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 677, {•) See SlIU v. Or^, 6 Sim. 214,
680; Harrington {Earl) ▼. I)m*p SM ; 2 L. J. (M. 8.) Ok. 181 ; 38
Corporation, (1905) I Ch. m MI ; B. B. 98 ; BaJtigh OomAm, (18M)
74 L. J. Ch. 'il9, 227. 1 Ch. 73 ; 67 L. J. Gk 89.
(«) Pennell v. hoy, 3 De G. M. (./) Oladtlont v. Ottoman Bank,
& Q. 133; 22 L. J. Ch. 414 ; 98 1 H. & M. 605 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 228,
8
jumsDicnoM by injunction.
CbHK II.
No juriKiictiou
in mtttcn
mcrelj crimiMl
or iamonl.
Crimiaal
prooMdingi.
PneMdingi
bafora angii-
tntw.
_ th« oODtnete of a foreign go?emtn«it against the jmperty
of such government in England (g), or to prevent a foreign
sovereign from removing his property in this country (h), or
to make a decree against a foreign ambassador who does not
submit to the jurisdiction (j).
The Court will not interfere by injunction in matters merely
criminal or immoral, which do not affect any right to pro-
perty (*). But if an act which is eriminal tmiehM also the
enjoyment of property, the Court has jurisdiction, but its
interference is founded solely on the ground of injury to
property (0. ^
The Court will not, it seems, interfere by injunctiwi to
prevent criminal proceedings being taken by a plaintiff against
the defoidant in a pending action, notwithstanding that the
criminal proceedings and the action are both based on the
same wrongful act, unless the objects are identical (w).
Nw will the Court, as a general rule, interfere by injunction
with iwoeeedings before magistrates fw the recovery of
penalties for the breach of statutes (n), unless Ha Attimiey-
Oeneral is a party (o).
is) Smith T. Wegvelin, 8 Eq. 198 ;
38 L. J. Ch. 465; Twi/crogt v.
Ihey/ui, fi C. D. 605 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
510.
(A) Vavcuour v. Kriipp, 9 C. D.
351 ; 39 L. T. 437.
{»') OUuUtone v. Miiturtii Bey, 1
H. & M. 495 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 228.
See Musurut Bey y. Oadhan, (1894)
2 a a 3S2 ; 83 L. J. a & 621.
(k) AU-Oen. v. ShrJMd Oat Co.,
3 De O. H. ft G. p. 320 ; ?2 L. J.
Ch. 81 1 ; 98 E. B. 151 ; £n , t. or of
Aiiitria v. Diit/, 3 De O. P. & J.
217, 239, 2.53 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 690, 712 ;
Springfi.U Spiniiiiiy Co. v. Biley,
6 Et). 551; 37 L. J. Ch. S89 ;
Sleiths V. Clwirji, (1901) 1 Ch.
r . 904 ; 70 L. J. Ch. p. 675.
(/) Mataulay v. acMcdl, 1 Bli.
(N. a) P.O. p. 127; 8L. J,(0.a)
Oh. 80; AH.-Oat,y. 8kt£Uld Oat
«>., 8Ds O, M. * O. SM; 22 L. J.
Ch. 811 ; 98 R. B. 151 ; Emperor of
Auilria v. Day, 3 De O. F. 4 J.
253 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 690; Mogul
Steavuhip Co. v. Macgrtgor, 1»
Q. B. D. 476; 64 L. J. Q. B. 640.
(to) Saull V. Browne, 10 Ob. 04 ;
44 L. J. Ch. 1 ; Kerr t. Mayor of
iV«i<«>««,60.D.p.467 ; 46L.J.Ch.
409, 410; Orand Junction Water-
wtrkt Co. r. Hampton Urban Coun-
cil. (1898) 2 Ch. 8*1, 84S: 87
L. J. Ch. p. 608.
(n) Kerr v. Mayor oj Pretton, 6
C. D. p. 467; 46 L. J. Ch. 408.
410 ; Staiinardy. Camberwdl Veitry,
20 C. D. 190. leS; 61 L. J. Ch.'
629. 632; Qnmd Jjrjgim Wmltr.
MMrke Co. v. BtmfUn, (1898) 2 Ch.
841. 842. 844 ; 87 L. J.Ch. p. 610;
Devonport Corporation v. Tour
(1902) 2 Ch. p. 185, (mS) 1 Ck
For note (o) lee p. 9.
JTJBISDIOnON BY INJUNCTION.
9
Nor where the Legislature has provided a spedal tribonal
for the deciaion of s questkm, should the Coort, except in
very special cete e, interfere by injonetioQ or deokr»tion ci
right (p).
Where s etatate prorides a partieolar remedy for tiie
infringement of u " right of property," the jurisdiction of the
Court to protect the right by injunction is not excluded, unless
the statute so provides (g).
And where there has been a breach of a statutory enact-
ment, for which the sole remedy provided is a penalty, an
injunction may be granted to prevent future breaches which
are threat«ied (r).
In the winding up of a company, the Court has jurisdiction
to restrain by injunction qua*i criminal proceedings which
are being taken against the company to recover pmalties (•).
So also where a petition has been presented for winding up a
company, the Court has jurisdiction to restrain {woceedings
SptaU MkwMl
pruvidol bj
tUtiit* for
iafriim«MBt ti
Fatal* lif wi el M
of itatale,
restnuBod
thoogh i f ea fal
stotutoi;
remadf, or
peiwltj.
Windiog up
oompanj.
7aB, 72 L. J Ch. p. 416;
Merrick v. Livtrp<iul Corj/oratum,
(1910) 2 Ch. 449, 4fl0; 79 L. J. Cit.
7fil, 766.
(o) AU.-0*». y. Aikboume Be-
cTMlMM anm»d, (UN») 1 Ch. 101,
107 ; 79 L. J. Oh. p. «B; DtvmfoH
T. Ttttmr, (1903) 1 Ch. 709; 72
L. J. Ch. 411 ; Att.-a»n. t. Win-
bUdoii House Estate Co., (1904) 2
Ch. 34, 41; 73 L J. Ch. p. 695;
Atl.-den.y. Puntyfiridd Wateru-orkt
Co., (1908) 1 Ch. 398, 399; 77
L. J. Ch. 237. 239.
(j>) Skumard t. Cantbtrwdl Vetirfi,
20 C. D. 190; M L. J. Ch. ^9;
Orand Junction WcUerworhi Oo. r.
Hampton, (1898) 2 Ch. p. 331; 67
Ij. J. Ch. 603 ; Vevonport Corpora-
tivn V. Tozer, (1902) 2 Ch. p. 195;
(1903) 1 Ch. p. 764; 72 L. J. Ch.
416; Burghet v. Att. Oen., (1911)
2 Ch. 156, 157 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 516.
See Eitdan v. Hamptiead Corpora-
tion, (1905) S Oh. 633, 642 ; 75
L. J. Oh. p. as ; of. jU(.-0m. v.
Stiiffordehire County Council, (1906)
1 Ch. p. 344; Att.-den. v. Ponty-
pridd n'ateruMrkt Co., tujira.
(q) Coojter v. Whittingham, 15
C. U. 506, 507 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752,
766; Stevtiuy. Ckoum, (1901) 1 Ch.
904, 906 ; 70 L. J. Ch. S70. <7S:
AU.-Oen. v. Athhonrne StertaHen
Onmnd, (1U03) 1 Ch. p. 107; 72
L. J. Ch. p. 69 ; Att.-Oen. v. Wim-
Uedon House Estate Co., (1904) 2
Ch. 34, 41 : 73 L. J. Ch. 593, 595 ;
and see Carlton llltutrators v.
CotemiiH <t Co., (1911) 1 K. B. 782,
783 ; 80 L. J. K. B. p. 616; Fraier
T. Fear, (1912) 107 L. T. 424. 428;
67 S. J. 29.
(r) Coeptr v. WkUUmgkam, tttpra,
p. 607 ; 49 Zi. J. Ch. 762, 766;
Att.-Otn. y. Athhowm* Acrtt Uion
Oround, siqyra ; Carltm JtMmlm
V. Cctemaii, supra.
(«) lie Briton, tic. Life Astocia-
titm, .H2 C. D. 60 ; 39 C. D. p. 64 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 874, decided under
Met86,CM^anMAot.l862. Sm
10
JUBISOICTION BY INJUNCTION.
CUp. IL
Politi.'tl
mttwa.
Osatneti awde
Forei^D
_ on » amnmoiu for enforcing poor rate* owing by the cwa-
pany (/).
Mutiora of a politicttl nature do not come within tlie juris-
diction of the Court. The Court will not interfere with the
view of preventing revolution in u foreign country, or in favour
either of the prerogative of a foreign sovereign or the political
rights of his subjectB, or in aid of the revenue laws of a
foreign country. But if a case of injury to the iHDperty of
a foreign sovereign or his government or his subjects be auule
out, the Court has jurisdiction to interfere at the suit of «
foreign sovereign («).
The Court will not enforce u contract entered into abroad,
although it be valid by the law of the country in which it was
made, in cases where the Court deems the contract to be
in contrav«ition of some essential iH>inoipie of justice or
morality (x).
In actions in personam the Court will enforce foreign judg-
ments, (i.) where the defendant is a subject of the foreipt
country in which the judgment has been obtuiiiod ; (ii.) where
he was resident in the foreign country when the action begttn ;
(iii.) where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has
selected the forum in which he is aftciTvards sued ; (ir.) wfaar*
he has voluntarily appeared ; and (v.) nhere he has contracted
to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was
obtained (y), but the fact of possessing property situate in a
foreign country, or the fact of entering into a contract in
such country dealing with that property, does not give the
now sect. 140, Oompuiies (Coiwdi. 306 ; AnmiOm v. Rauillm, 14 C. D
dation) Aet. 1908.
(<) JU FIM, «<f., O)., 56 L. J. Cix.
232 ; In n Wearmoiilh Crown Ulata
Co., 19 C. D. 640 ; and see sect. 140,
tnpra (s).
(«) Kmpmir of Amtria v. 7)aj/,
3 lie G. F. & J. 217 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
690; I'niitd Statet v. Prioltau, 2
H.ftM.U0; 2£q. eS»;3AL.J.
Ck.1.
(<r) Einfmr ^ Atutria v. Dag,
r UtfM ▼. Aip*, 8 De O.M. *
341 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 338 ; Kuu/man
V. Otrtm, (1904) 1 K. B. 591 ; 73
I.. J. K. B. 320 ; Re Fitzyerald, Sur-
mui, V. Fitzgerald, (1904) 1 Ch. 673,
597 ; 73 L. J. I'h. 436; Moulit v.
Owe,,, (1907) 1 K B. 746 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. 396 ; Saxhy v. Fuiion, (1909)
2 K. B. p. 232 ; 78 L. J. K. B.
p. 794.
(y) BomOmj. AmmOIm, 14 C. D.
p. 371; 49 L. J. Oh. 344;
Emanuel v. Symon, (1908) I K. B.
a. TSl ; aeL. J. Ch. 417 ; l W B. B. 302, 309 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 180, 185
JtJMSDICnON BY INJUKCnoH.
Courts of the foreign country jurisdiction in an action in
penonam ovmr • BritMi tDbjMrt who was not rwident in th*
foreigi! country at the (lute of the action, unci who husi not
appeared in the proceedings, nor agrted to submit to the juris-
diction of the foreign Court (2).
In granting injum-tionN the Court Ojierates in perKumm. Iiii»"e»Jo«
The person to whom its orders are addressed must be within •» ;
the reach of the Court or amenable to its jurisdiction (a).
But the Court will not suffer any one within its reach to do
what is contrary i • its notions of equity, merely because the
act to be done may bt;, in point of locality, beyond its juris-
diction (h).
As a consequence of the rule, tluit in granting un injunction
the Coun operates in personam, the Court may exercise juris-
diction indei«ndently of the lo^lity of the act to be done,
{NTOVided the person against whmn relief is sought is within
the reach and amenalilo to the process of the Court. This
jurisdiction is not grounded upon any pretension to the
exeroise of judicial or admintstratire rights almiad, but on
the circumstance of the j)erson to whom the order is addressed
being wiihin the reach of the Court (c). fiut an English
Court will not pronounce a decree, ttren in personam, which
can have no specific operation without the intervention of a
foreign Court, and which in the country where the lands to
be charged by it lie, wouid probably be treated as a brutum
fvimtn {d). Nor will tiie Court adjudicate on questioos
lt,r Huckley.L.J. ; and see y'/,i7/f;«i ' M. & K. p. 108; 4 L. J. (N. S.)
V. liatho, (1913)3 K. B. p. 2!-: 82 Ch. 241; 41 E. K. 23; Kuihhn v.
L. J. K. B. p. 885. Munday, 5 Madd. 307; 21 H. R.
(z) KmoHUfl V. Symm, (l!")8) 1 294; Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren,
K. B. aOS ; 77 L. J. K. B. 180. tupra ; Lord Cratutown t. Johnilm,
(u) Baditeht Atuiin Fabrik r. 3 Va*. 170, ; 6 Yea. 877 ; 3B. B.
./oANteiii»Co., (1897)2Ch. p.84S; aO;Dtidtrr.Amil»rdam»ekTru$lta,
(1898) A. C. p. 203 ; 6« L. J. Ch. (1902) 2 Cli. 141, 142 ; 71 L. J. Ch.
497; 67 L. J. Ch. 141; Bank »/ e'22; Bank of A/riea y. Cohen, {Ifm)
Africa v. Cohen, (1908) 2Cll.p.l4«; 2 Ch. p. 146; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 780 ;
78 L. J. Ch. p. 780. BHti>h Smith Africa Co. v. Dt Betrt
(i) The Camm Iron Co. v. Mac- d Co., (1910) 2 Ch. p. 514 ; 80 L. J.
iareit, b H. L. U. 416, 430; 24 Ch. 77 ; HW/ v. Cutmully, \
L. J. Ch 620 ; 101 B. R 229. Ch. 744, 745 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 416.
(c) Lord PartarlimgUm y. Soulbg, (<<) Norri$ j. VhanUtrm, 3 !)• Q. F.
18
JUBIBDICnON BY INJUNCTION.
_ relating to the title to or the right to tlio {toHgegnion of land
aituute abroHd (r), fxc jit in oases where there exists between
tht- pnities to tiio !uiit in Eriglnrifl, ii jwisoiia! obligation
Bribing out of contract, or implied contract, fiduciary relation-
ship w fraud, or other eontntct, which in the view of a Court
of I<:qiiity in this country, would lu- uiicoriHcionablo ; thus in
cases of trusts, specitlc pcrforuiance of tontructn, fon-ciosure,
or redemption of mortgages, or in the case of land obtained
by a (lefcndunt by fraud, or other unconscionable eondaet, the
Court would assume jurisdiction, but vflwre there is no con
tract, no fiduciary relationship, and no fraud or other un-
cmscionable ccmduct giving rise to a personal obligation
between thu pirties, and thi. whole question is whether or
not according to the law of the loctu the claim of titJe set up
by one party would be prefered to the claim of another party,
the Court should not entertain jurisdiction to decide the
matter (/). Moreover when a matter in dispute is l)eing liti-
gated in a foreign Court which has the means of deciding up(jn
un<l enforcing tlie rights of the parties, the Court here will
not, in genej-»l, interfere (//).
AppH«tio» to Upon the y nciple that the Court act. in peraomm in
granting an injunction, it appears that it has p^twer, upon a
proper case bei mad.' out, to restrain a man from appi>ing
to Parliament (ft.) : out the jurisdiction will only be eisrciaed
* J. 584 ; 30 U J. Vh. 284 ; ne rhamja 80 L. J. Ch. p. 77
V. ^^i!ler, (1908) 1 Cli. 863. 8«4; (/) Dmchamp, 'v. MilUr, iUm)
T, L. J. Ch.^i30i BttHko/ A/riea lCli.a«,864 ; 77 L. J. ( h p 42C
v. CbA««. (IBW) 3 Cb. pp. 146, 147 ; (g) North v. C/mmlT,,. :i De O F
78 L. J. Ch. p. 780 ; Britith South & J. 583 ; 30 I,. J. Ch l!85 • and
A/nettCe.r. Ot Bttn * Co., {mo) cf FUul.tr v. JloJyer,, 27 \V B.
3 Oi. 414, •17 ; 80 L. J. du 97 ; and II,,ma,i y. Helm, 24 C. D.
, ; '"id «!e Loyan y. Bank of
[t] Companhia de Mtfamliv/iif v. ,Sro</an,/, (l!H»ti) 1 K. B. 141 IM-
BritUh .%,«</, Africa Co., (1893) 75 L. J. K B. 218. 222- uid
A. C. 602; (U L. J. Q. B. 80; Vardifmlo r. Vardcpulo, (1909) 28
and Bee Tht Black Poiut Syudkatt T. L. B. 518.
iJa^ Cm^tmion, Co.. 79 L. T. (h) ITare r. Grand Junctic,
OK; Bank o/ Africa r.Coke>t.{Um9) Water ('„., 2 B. & M. 470 483-
3 CJl p. 146; 78 L. J. Ch. p 780 ; i, L. J. (O. .S.I ( I, kjq ni .
BritKhHouth Ani.„V„.>i.l)eBerr, P. fi. 136; hcathcoU v North
* Co., lupra, (1910) 2 Ch. p. 617 ; tHaffordthire Baiiway O,.. 2 lUc *
JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.
18
under rery exceptional circumstances, and it is difficult t ^
oooeeive a case in whicli such a course could be adopt' ' (i)
Tbtt Coort eannot, howgw, rwtnia • bwb from spplyiiig for Application (•
a grant to a fornifrn ^ovrrr>ign, nor, itftwr the grant is made, |^S«N%ib
can the Court prevent a man from nsbig the grant made by
the «niM WTMwign sntfiortty. 1h» fact that th* pint M
made may be inconsiHtpnt with ii grant preriously made by
the same sorer' -^n autiiority does not gire s man any <qni^
to apply to the Court (k).
An tnjnnction being an order directed to a pmon, it iom injonetion doe*
not run with the land (I). the i»nd.
Under th«- former i>rocedare, the Court of Chancery bad injaBe tioM to
jarisdiotitm to restrain by injnneti<» an action at tow hi all nHt-nHiiiifcifl
cases where the defendant to tho action could show that he
i.ad a good equitable defence. But this jurisdiction has been
abolished by the Judicature Act, 1878. It is there declared
that no cause or proceeding, at iciy time pending in the High
Court of Justice or before thi Court of Appeal, shall be
I'bstrained by prohibition or injunction, but that every matter
of eqnity on whidt an injaiiciion againet tiie proeeeatioii of
any such ctiuso or pro- 1 ' mi. liave been obtained, if this
Act had not passed, either ' ^ ^'tionally or on any terms or
cmiditions, may be relif ' v - > . of d^ntee tiiereto (m).
Although the Court hn /t i jurisdictiOQ to restrt l:. a
pending o tion, an injunc n lau/ be granted to reetrain '.Hr
institution of proceedings in the Hi^ Court of Justici > >; )
O. ie9; M B. B. 25 ; SMtm amd mb-f. S ; m* OartnU t. Fau, 1
HnrtUpool Railwtty Co. r. T.MtU amd Ch. D. ISA ; 4fi L. J. Ch. 133 ; Tht
Thirsk RnUimy Co.. 2 Ph. AM, Jiorrt WtHoll, (19M) V p. 61 ; 74
670. ^ P. r 11.
(0 lb.; Stfth V. North Metro- . Iletant v. W-"l, 12 C. P.
fioMn,, Railway Co., 2 Ch.9n,9IO, Hart v. /Air' 18 C. D. 670,
(6 L. J. Ch. .MO. ti8o ; 50 I.. J. Ch. 697 ; and see
{k) Gladniont y. Ottoman Bank, 1 Ctrrle Rettaitrant,elc.,Co.y. f.attry,
H. ft M. M6; 32 L. J. Ch. 228. 18 C. D. .U5 ; SO L. J. Ck. 837 ;
({) Att.-Qm. T. Btrminghmm, tif., mmd Inrt A Otm^frntg, (ISM) 3
Draimtge Bmrd, 17 C. D. flU,60S: 349; Ma fr. re MMtbme Palace of
50 L. J. Ch. 786, 787 ; and Me VarieHn, (ISffr 2 Ch. p. 286 ; 78
.itt..nen. ^ Ihrking.MV. D. MS; L. J . ( -h. p. 7'*e ; and fmt, Obmp.
61 L. J. Ch. 686. XX.
(m) M * «T «. M, a. M
14
jmrsDicnoN by injunction.
— The prerogative of the Crown to intenrene in actions affect-
T^Tali '"^ ''8'^* ""'^ revenue of the Sorereign has not been
J^dklta^Ad.. ^^^'^^^ Judicature Acts (o) : and the proper tribunal
for the determination of such matters is the Revenue side of
the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justiee (p).
cCLt' cwt"' . ^ ''""'"^ '""^ .Tudicature Act, 1878, s. 89,
by injunction, in actions within its jurisdiction, power to grant an injunc-
tion (q), whether interlocutory or perpetual (r), including
actions in which an injunction only is claimed, provided the
case is one in which, if damages had been claimed, the amount
would have been within the jurisdiction of a County Court («).
Obedience to the order can he enforced by cMnmittal (t).
The County Court has no jurisdiction fo restrain the infringe-
ment of a patent if its validity is disputed (u), nor to restrain
the infringement of a registered trade mark (x), and it has
been doubted whether the County Court can grant an injunc-
tion to restrain a threatened injury where no damage has been
sustained (p). Where the only question before the Court is
whether an injunction shall be granted or not, an appeal
lies without leave, notwithstanding the provisions of sec-
tion 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888 (z).
It has been held that section 116, sub-sect. 2 of the County
Courts Act, 18R8, which d(-prives a plaintiff of costs who
brings nn action found.Hl on tort in the High Court and
(o) AU..Qm. V. CimtabU. 4 Exoh. a B. D. 623 ; we County Ctonrt
n. 172; 48 L. J. Ejt.4M; 8teii% Rnlee. 1003-1912, Order XU
e/Aldtrt«!t{Lcrdiv.WUdandSm, r. 6 ; Older XXH r Ifi
(1900) 1 a B. 267; 69 L. J. Q. B. (,) SWe» v. KrrU,tone, (imj), 1
818; and see VImann v. Coiifi K. B. 544; 72 L. J. K. B. 256.
Harhour Cmnmisiionns, (1909) 2 («) Martin v. Hani,ter, 4 Q B D
K. B. 1 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 877. 491 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 077.
ip) Ntanlf,, of AMrrley (Lot,I) v. («) Reg. v. Halifas Conntg CmH
n iW anr/ Son. tn/^a. ,/,„A,,, (ig^i) 2 a B. 268 ; 60 L. J
(7) See Kfaies v. Woodward, Q. B. 650; Aw v. Fort, (19051 1
(1902) 1. K. B. p. 638; 71 L. J. KB. p. 698 ; 74 L. Z K B
E. B. p. 329 ; SMu t. &dmloM, p. 342.
(19M) 1 K. B. 644 ; 72 L. J. K. B. (r) Bo,^ r. ffart, .„,.n,
256; Me also Comity Coart Bules (..,) Afartin v. limmUr, ,u,,ra.
1903—1912, Order XII., rules 6, (j) Brnne y. JamaAim) I Q B
11 ; Order XXII., rule IB. 417 ; 67 L. J. a B. 288.
(r) Rirhmrdt v. Culhtrne, 7
JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.
15
recoren le«s than 101. damages, does not apply where the chmp. ii.
main relief sought is an injunction (a).
In any cause or matter in which an injunction has been injoaetiaB
or might have been granted, the plaintiff may before or after JS^'rf "SSJid
judgment apply fw an injunctitm to reatrain the defmdant *^ I"«k>> <^
or respondent from the repetition or eontinuance of the
wrongful act or breach of contract complained of, or from the
commiasion of any injury or breach of contract of a like
kind relating to the same property or right, or arising out of
the same contract, and the Court or a judge may grant the
injunction either upon or without terms as may be just (6).
(a) A'«afe< v. Woodward, (1902) on his claim for an injunntioo,
1 K. B. 532 ; 71 L. J. K. B. ;)25 ; and recrrered under IW. on hk
/)« Pntquier v. Cadbnry Co., alternative claim for oompenaatiMi,
(1903) 1 K. B. 108; 72 L. J. see CliHionv. BenneU,(l9W)XK.B.
K. B. p. 81 ; and see Dnherty y. 100; 77 L. J. K. B. 52.
Thon^mn, (1906) M L. T. 828. (>) Order L., r. 12.
A* to eocta wkare a pUintiS failed
CHAPTEB III.
itrjDNonoirs aoaikbt tbb violatioh or ooxMOw law hobts.
sBcnoH 1. — THE PBononoN or lboal biobts to n/tnwrt
PBNDINO LmOAnOK.
Ciatp. m. The jurisdiction of the High Court of Jnstioe by injunction
^^^h is not confined to the protection of equitable rights, but
le^riihu"' extends to the protecti<m of legal rights to property from
^dugUMiii- damage pending litigation. The protection of legal rights to
property from irreparable or at least from sei-ious damage
pending the trial of the legal right was part of the original
and proper oflSce of the Court of Chancery (a). In exercising
the jurisdiction the Court does not pretend to determine legal
rights to property, but merely keeps the property in its actual
eonditicm nntil the legal title can be established (b). The
Court interferes on the assumption that the party who seeks
its interference has the legal right which he asserts, but needs
the aid of the Court for the protection of the property in ques-
tion until the lepnl right can be ascertained (c). The offlee
of the Court to interfere bring founded on the existence of the
legal right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able
to dmw a fair primA faeie ease in sappert of tihe title wbit^
he asserts (rf). lie is not required to r ;!ke out a clear legal
title, but he must satisfy the Court that he has a fair question
(a) mUon Ltrd OrvHviUe, Ci. 4S7 ; 80 L. J. K. B. p. 186.
& Ph. 28.3, 292 ; 10 L. J. Oh. MS; (r) lb.
54 B. R. 297. (rf) Saiindern v. Smith, 3 M. & C.
(h) Ilarman v. Jnnr>. Or. & Ph. 714, 728; 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 227;
293, ;«)1 ; mark- Point Syndicate v. 45 B. B. 367 ; Hilton v. Lord Grun-
Kattern rnm-ffsion/i Co., 79 I,. T. p. ville, Cr. ft Hj. 283, »2 ; 10 Ij. J.
662; r.ene^d:Co.y.CaUinghamand Ch. 398; MB. B. SOT; Lenry i
Th,mpion, (1908) I K. B. 84,86 ; 77 Ch. r. CMin^um md Thompmn,
L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; JoMt v. Paaiya m^ira.
SuUir.tle., Co., (1911) 1 K. B. p.
BY INJUNCTION FUNDING TRIAl OP THE RIGHT.
17
to raise as to the existence of the legal right which he sets ci»»p. iii.
ip (e), and that there are substantial grounds for doubting ^wt. l.
the existence of the alleged legal right, the exercise of which
he seeks to prevent (/). The Court must, before disturbing
any mm's legal ri^t, or tbrip^ng him (rf any of the ri^tts
with which the law has clothed him, be satisfied that the prob-
ability is in favour of his case ultimately failing ia the final
issae of the suit (g) . The mere existence of a doubt as to tite
plaintiff's right to the property, interference with which he
seeks to restrain, does not of itself constitute a sufficient
ground for refusing an injunction, though it is always a
circumstance whidi eaik for the attenti<m of the Court (A).
Where the question of right had been decided in tihe plain-
tiff's favour in a Court of law, the fact that an ajqteal waa
pending was held to be no ground tor a Court of equity refus-
ing an injunction, unless the Court doabted the correctness of
the decision at law (t) . But the pendency of the appeal might
be a ground for the Court postponing the operation of the
injunction (k).
If the legal right is not disputed, a man who seeks the aid A cue of artind
of the Court must be able to show that the act con; plained of "oUt^'*of*tii<>
is in fact a violation erf the right, or is at least an act which. '^""^"^ ^
" ' mtda out.
if carried into effect, will necessarily result in a violation of
the right {I) . The mere prospect or apprehension of injury or
(c) a hn wt burg attd Cht$Ur Hail- 64 L. J. Ch. 736 ; AU.-Om. v.
u!ctfCo.t.8krtw*kuryandBirming- Birmingham, Tame, etc, Drainage
ham Sailteay Co., 1 Sim. N. S. 410, Board, (1908) 2 Ch. 563 ; on appeal,
426 ; 20L.J.Ch.874; 89R.B.143. (1910)1 Ch. 48,62; 79 L. J. Ch.
(/) .Sparrow v. Or/,>r,l. nWret- 137; (18l») A. & 788 ; « L.
ter, and Wolrerhamptoii liailwai/ Ch. 45.
('..., 9 Ha. 436, 441 ; 2 I)e O. M. & (/) Kiirl of Uipon v. HolHirt, 3 M.
Q. 94 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 95 E. R. 21. & K. 1«». 176 ; 3 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch.
(v) Ati.-Gen. v. Mayor of Wigan, 145 ; 41 B. B. 40 ; Haitu* r. Ti^for,
5DeO.M.ft0.fi2; 101 B. B. 600. 10 Bmv. 75; 2 1^809; 78 B. B.
(A) OOmder/r. BlmA, 4 De O. * 71 ; /Mmm t. Oa/ori, I8B9. 359 ;
S.211;20L.J.Oh.l«6;87R.B.3S3. 43 L. J. Ch. 524 ; (TomMoW T. //yiM,
(») AU.-Om. y. Proprietort of 25 C. D. 190 ; 60 L. T. 96 ; Fletcher
Hradford Caual. L. E. 2 tiq. 71. v. liealey. 28 C. D. 688 ; 64 L. J.
(*) L. E. 2 E<i. pp. 79, 84; Ch. 424 ; Fi<lden v. fVw, (1906) 22
Hhelfrr v. Citi/ nf r.mulon Electric T. L. E. 41 1 ; see Fraxr v. Fmr,
Lighting Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 388; (19121 107 L. T. 423 ; 57 a J. 29.
18
PBOTECTION OF LEGAL BIGHTS TO PBOPEBTY
I'liap III.
Stct. 1.
Bmttsining
foUowing Uade.
IrrepAnbl*
danuige.
the mere belief that the met omiiiluiied of may or will bo
(lone, is not sufficient (m) ; but if an intention to do the act
complained oi can be shown to exist, or if a man insists on
his right to do, or begins to do, (ht threatens to do, or gnx%
notice irf his intention to do aa act which must, in the opiniua
of the Court, if completed, give a ground of action, there is a
foundation fw the exercise of the jurisdiction (n). Iho mere
denial by a man of his intoation to do an at^ or to iafriiige a
l ight will not prevent the Court from interfering (o); but if a
mull who claims a right to do a certain act asserts positively
that bef(H% proceeding to do the act, he will give reaaonaUo
iM^ee of his intention to do it, and there is no reason to doubt
the truth of his assurance, the Court will not interfere (p).
The Court should not grant an intorlocotory injunction
on a prima facie case, restraining a defendant frwn following
his trade or profession, if it is clear that such an order will
prevent the defendant from earning bis livelihood (9).
A mm who seeks tiie aid (rf the Court by way of inim-
locutory injunction, must, as a rule (r), be able to satisfy the
(m) Earlo/MiponY. Hobart,3U. PkiUif t. TkamM, «B L. T. TM;
LiMmmfiim Qmarrim Co. ». Bol-
lix gtr and Cheltenham SurcU Dittrict
CuunHl, (1904) 20 T. L. E. 5{9
(affirmed on appeal on question of
costs, 21 T. L. B. 632); Carltcm
Iltiistratorav. CWetnon <t Co., (1911)
1 K. B. at p. 783 ; 80 L. J. K B.
p. 8la ; Dickeiu v. National 3U».
phoM Go.. (1911) 74 J. P. W7:
TkemUa w. Wmk$, 1 Ol
4M.444: 89L.J.Ch.2W.
(o) Jaekmm v. Oator, 5 Ve* 688 ;
6 E. B. 144 ; PotU y. Leiy, 2 Drew.
272, 279; 100 B. E. 131 ; Adair v.
Young, 12 C. D. 19.
(p) Lord Cowley v By at, S C. D. 950.
(v) I'alace Theatn Co. v. Clenty,
(:9fl9) 26 T. L. &. 38, ^ Yma^bMi
Williauis, L.J, Ju tikis the
iajaootkm WM gnirtsd,tlM ^aintiff
kaving andertakan to mpfiy lor as
immediate trial,
(r) Am to OMM where an injoae-
ft K. 174; 3L. J.(N.&)Ci. IM;
41 S. B. 40; JioinM t. T^or, 10
Bear. 76 ; 2 Ph. 209 ; 78 B. B. 71 ;
Ait.-Otn. v. Corporation of Man-
rhater, (1893) 2 Gh. 87. 91 ; 62 L. J.
Cb. -15 ; Att.-Oen. v. liathmiiie» and
I'eu.bruke Hotpitat Hoard, (1904) 1
I. U. 1 6 1 , and Att.- lien. v. Nottingham
Corp.,ratu.ti, (1904) 1 Ch. 673, 677 ;
73 L. J. I'll. p. 514, where theprin-
dfim on which the Court piooeeda
m gnmtiiig or Mtaaing injunction*
fMS Umtl are discniaed ; Att.-Oen.
T. Jhrm, (1912) 1 Ch. p. 378 ; 81
luJ.aLf. 23ft.
(«) Att.-Oen. V. fWbe; 2 M. & C.
p. 43 11. n. 13; Tipi^ny v.
Kikertley, 2 K. & J. 264, 270 ; 110
B. B. 216; Uexl v. GUI, 7 Ch. 699,
711; 41 L. J. Ch. 761; Cooptr v.
WhitUngham, IS C. D. 001 ; 49
L. J. Ch. 70S; ah^fto V. BUdcow A
Cb.,S4 O.D. 7»: 34 W. B. ««2;
BY INJUNCTION PENDING TfilAL OF THE BIOHT.
19
Court that its interference ia necessary to protect him from Ch»p. III.
that species of injury which the Court calls irreparable, before
the legal right can be established upon trial (s). By the term
" irreparable injury " it is not meant that there must be no
physical possilnlity of repairing the injury; all that is meant
is, that the injury would be a iniaerial one, and one which
could not be adequately remedied by damages (t) ; and by the
term " the inadequacy of the remedy by damages " i« meant
that the remedy by damages is not such a compensation m will
in effect, though noo •« specie, place the parties in the position
in which tliey form3riy stood (u). If the act complained of
threatens to destroy the subject-matter in qtt«sti<m, the ease
may come within the principle, even though the damages may
be capable of being accurately measured (x). The fact that
the amount of damage cannot be a«eorsteIy ascertained may
constitute irreparable damage (y) ; but although the amount
of damage may be difficult to ascertain, a man who has on a
previous occasion ctnnpromised his rights against other
parties by accepting a sum of money, may preclude hiimHIf
from saying that the damage is irreparable and cannot be
compensated by money (2). It is, however, no objection to
tion is claimed against the breach {i) Pinchin y. LomUm mtd BInek-
ol Si negative covenant, see Doherty wall Railway Co., De O. H, 4 Q.
V. AUtKm, 3 A. 0. 719, 1M; p. 860; M L. J. Ch. 41t; ga^
MeSuthum OoMm, (IMS) A. 0. p. UneaMr* Railway Co. JIbMr*.
107; 71 L. J. P. C. p. 21 ; Formby %, 8 Ha. p. 90; M B. E. 218;
T. Barhr, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 554; 72 AU.-Om. v. 8hfffi«ld Oat Co., 3
L. J. Ch. 721 ; EUiston v. Rracher, De O. M. & O. 304, 320 ; 22 L. J.
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 396 ; 79 L. J. Ch. Ch.811,813; Bloxamy. Metropolitan
p. 628; Ati.-Oen. v. Walthanutow Railu^ay, Z Ch. p. 364 ; .Turdtumj.
Urban Council, (1910) 1 Ch.p. 361 ; SuUon, etc., Oai Co., (1«99) 2 Ch.
79 L. J. Ch. p. 269 ; pott. Chap. X. 237, 238 ; «8 L. J. Ch. 467, 476.
(«) ZHifaT. Taylor, 3 DeO. P. 4 {«) WoeiT. a»Mit^»mm.V.B.
X467;30L. J. Ch. 281; Att.-Gm. p. 166; SI L. J. Oh. 168 ; MB.B.
r.SluitUd Oat Oo^3D9Q.U.It m
0.*H; ML.J. rai.811;98B.B. (x) BiUcn t. Lcrd OranvilU, Or.
in; Mmoh v. ShrewOury and & Ph. 283, 293; 10 L. J. Gh. SM;
Mrminghom Bait jay Co., 3 De O. 64 E. E. 297.
U. 4 G. p. 931 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 921 ; (y) Cory v. Yarmouth and Norwich
98 E. E. 960 ; Lumlty y. Wagner, 1 Railway Co. , 3 Ha. 603 ; 64 E. B. 4Sfl.
De O. M. & O. p. 613 ; M L. J. («) Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim. N. a
Ch. 898 ; 91 E. B. 199. 168, 160 ; SI L. J. Oh. SM ; W
so
PBOTECnON OP LEGAL RI0HT8 TO PROPERTY
SMt.!.
Conduct of the
pert; who weka
the aid of the
Court must he
fur md honett.
Aaqainonee.
the esercise of the jurisdiction by injunction that a man may
have a legal remedy. The questkm in all cssea is, iriiether the
remedy by damages is, under the circumstances of the case,
full and complete (o). ' A person by committing a wrongful
act (whether it be a pablie company for public purposes or a
private individual) is not entitled to ask the Court to sanction
his doing so by purchasing his neighbour's rights, by assess-
ing damages in that behalf " (b).
The jurisdiction of the Court to interfere by way of inter-
locutory injunction in support of a legal title being purely
equitable, it is governed upon strict equitable principles. The
Court, where its summary interference is invoked, always
looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application,
and will refuse to interfere, even in cases where it acknow-
ledges a right, unless his conduct in the matter has been fair
and honest, and free from any taint of fraud or illegality (c).
Parties who, possessing full knowledge of their rights, have
B. B. 262 ; Dowling t. Betjeman, 2
J. 4 H. p. 544 ; Ormerod v. Tod-
viorden, etc., Mill Co., 11 Q. B. D.
162. But see Aiiuworth v. Bentley,
14 W. R. eao, (532.
(n) See Lumley y. Watjrur, 1 De
O. M. <t O. 604. 616 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
898, 900 ; 91 R. B. 193 ; and Bj/tm
T. Muttul TaUint Wtdmmiler
Chamhen AnaekMrn, (1883) 1 Cb.
p. 128 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 206; Martin
V. Fricf, (1894) 1 Ch. 276; 63
L. J. Ch. 209; Shel/er v. City of
Lmulmt Klfctrie Liyht Co., (1895) 1
Ch. 287 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 216, 224 ;
Jordeson v. Suttim, etc., Oat Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 237, 238 ; 68 L. J. Ch.
M7; Obit* T. Hum* owl OolmUt
^om, (1804) A. 0. p. 183; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; ud we KnglM
T. MtlropolUm WaUr Board, (1907)
1 K. B. p. 603 ; 76 L. J. K. B.
p. 371 ; Riley v. Halifax Corpora-
tion, (1907) 97 L. T. 278; 23
T. L. B. 613 ; Jones v. TankerfilU
(£aW), (1909) 2 Ch. p. 446 ; 78
L. J. Ch. p. 761. As to breach of
negative covenants, «ee lupra, p. 18,
note (r), and Chap. X.
(i) Per Smith, L.J., in Shelf er v.
City of London Electric Liyhttny Co.,
(1895) 1 Ch. p. 322 ; 64 L. J. Oh.
p. 224 ; AUpoH v. ThtatemUim Ch..
72 L. T. U3: Oowpir v. LoiStr,
(1903) 2 Ch. p. 841 ; 72 L. J. Ch.
578; CoiU V. Home and Colonial
Stores, (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; Saunby v. London
(Out) Commitiionert, (1906) A. C
no. 115. 116; 75 L.J. P. C. p. 27;
Gilling v. Oraij, (1910) 27 T. L. B.
39.
(c) mainmort v. QUxmarganikire
Maffwoj/ Ok. 1 M. * K. p. 168 : S
L. J. (N. &) 88; 36 B. B. 288;
Ortat Weetem Bailivat/ Co. v.
Oxford, fVorcester, and trulverhamp-
tvn Railway Co., 3 De G. M. * O.
p. 359 ; 98 R. B. 175 ; WiUiamt v.
Roberii, 8 Ha. 326, 327; Jarvii y.
ItlingtoH ttorounh Cxmc*!, (1808) 78
J. P. Jo. 323.
BY INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE RIGHT.
91
lain by, and by their conduct hare encouraged others to expend
numeys or alter their condition in omtraTention of the rights
for which they contend, cannot call upon the Court tm its
Rummary interference (d). Acquiescence by one of several
co-plaintiffs in the act complained of precludes the inter-
ference of the Court by injuneti(m ; and the role is the same
although some of the plaintiffs are infanta (e). The principle
applies with peculiar force where the property on which the
mOTieys are expended is mineral property (/), or property of
a speculative character (g), or if the act complained of is
caused by a public company in the execution and construction
of their works (fc). As the injury to a company in being
stayed (if it shall ultimately turn out that they are acting
lawfully) is great in proportion to the magnitude of their
operations, the Court will in general hold even slight acquies-
cence on the part of the complainant a bar to relief (t). The
extent of the expenditure is to a certain degree the measure of
the acquiescence (;).
In order to justify the application of the principle, it must
clearly appear that the party against whom acquiescence is
alleged was aware of his rights, and by his conduct encouraged
the other party to alter his cmidttion, and that the latter acted
upcm the faith of the encouragement so held mit (k). There
(<i) Great Western RnUway Co. v.
Oxford, Wortttter, and fVolrtrhamp'
ton Bmlmag Cb., 3 De O. M. O.
^ 3M : W B. B. 175 ; BoeMtk
Ctmat Cb. t. King, S Km. N. S. 78 ;
16 Be»T. 630 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 89
R. R. 211; Bee Lee.l» {Dnke cf)
V. Amherst, 2 Ph. 123 ; 15 L. J. Ch.
37fi ; 78 E. fi. 94 ; fMriet v. Senr,
L. R. 7 Kq. 427 ; n'illmott v. Bnrher,
1") C. I). 105, 106; Rutiell v Watts,
2i) C. 1). 576; Ramsden v. Dyson,
L. R. 1 H. L. 129, 140 ; OivU Strriat
liutkai Itutrmmmt AmoeiaUem r.
Whitemm, (1899) 68 L. J. Ch. 484.
(e) Marker r. ifaritr, 9 Ha. 1,15
20 T,. J. Ch. 246, 251 ; 89 R. R. 306;
(/) (^Itgg v. Edmtudson, 8 De O.
M. * G. 787; 26 L. J. Oh. 673;
Emeri V. Vivian, 33 L. J. Ch. 513.
(g) See CVoMiey v. Derby Oa$
LifU Co., Wdwt P. 0. IW;
SaUam r. Tkmfum, ib., 378.
(A) AU-Oen. v. Grand JumeHim
Canal Co., (1900) 2 Ch. MO, 818;
78 L. J. Ch. 681, 684.
(«') Qrrenhalgh v Maiithester and
Birmingham Bailwny Co., 3 M. ft
C. 784; 8L. J. (N. 8.) Oh. 78; 48
R. R. 39.3.
(J) Oreal Western Railway Co.
T. Osjori, ifercnt^, etc., BailwaD
CIS., 3 De O. M. ft O. 341, 361 ; 98
R. R. 175.
[k) Marker v. MarJxr, 9 Ha.
p. 16 ; 20 ]',. J. Ch. 251 ; 89 R. R.
305 ; Green haigh v. Mancheittr and
Birmaigham Railway (V.S M. ftC.
M PBOTBCTION OP LEOAL RI0HT8 TO PROPERTY
c^y i- ia no Mqaieoeence if an act has been permitted, or expenditure
'■ — has been allowed to be made under an erroneous opini<m and
Wew,and in ignorance of thoconsequpncps or t he real facts (/).
The acquiescence of an agent, when acting within the scope
of his authority, is binding on the principal ; bat in order that
it should be binding the agent must be acting within the scope
of his authority (m). A corporation or company may be
boond by acqniesoence as well as an individual (n) .
The conduct and dealings of a man with others than the
party with whom the contest exists may constitute a case of
acquiescence, so as to preclude him from coming to the Court
for relief against a state of things to which bis own emidaet
has (o). Where, accordingly, the owners of a canal had
permitted several persons to supply their mills with water for
several purposes, the Court would not restrain a man who had
be«i allowed to lay down pipes to the canal from using the
water in the same way as his neighbours (;)).
Aeqaieneaoe. The mere objection to, or a mere protest on the part of the
plaintiff against, the act of the defendant, or a mere threat to
take legal proceedings, is not in general sufficient to exclude
the consequences of laches or acquiescence (q). Nor will the
oimtinual assertion of a claim, unaccompanied by any act to
give effect to it, keep alive a right which would be otherwise
791 ; 8 K J. (X. 8.) Ch. 75 ; 45 Railimy Co., 6 Bmv. 238.
E. B. 393 ; Banmlen v. J^son, L. fi. (») Laird r. Birkmthmi RaUwM
1 H. L. 129 ; Willmclt v. Barttr, 16 Co.. J<An. aoo ; 29 L. J. Ch. 218 ;
C D. m ; Buma r.WM$,26C. 123 K. H. 206; Jlill v. So„ih
D. p. 476; dml Servin MiuiceU Staffordthire Railway Co., 11 3\xx.
/nsMonentt Atociatioii V. Whitman, N. 8. 192.
([ •^W) 68 L. J. Ch. 484; and see {o)f{m.,Ml v. Murray, Jac.
f:"u>U.; v. n. nrhfr, (1908) 2 Ch. 374, p. 316 ; 23 fi. B. 75 ; Saunder, v.
392 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. «17 ; l'ig,i<dt Smith, 3 M. & C. 711, 730 ; 7 L. J.
V. .Mui./leiu^ County Connril, (1909) (N. S.) Ch. 227 ; 45 E. B. 367.
1 Ch 134, 146 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 820. (;,) Jlochdnle Catial Co. t. Ktmg,
(t) Baiikart v. lloughUm, 27 Beav. 2 Sim. N. R 78 ; 80 L. J. Oh. 678 ;
42a, 431 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 122 89 R. R. 211.
B. B. 471 ; r«M» T. Euer, (1910) [q) Hirm{M,ham Canal Co. r.
26 T. h. E. 146. U.^j.l, 18 Ves. 516 ; 11 R. R. 245;
(to) See AU.-Om. v. Brigga, 1 \\ uks v. l/unl, John. 372; 123
Jur. N. S. 1084 ; Mi/ea v. ToUn, B. E. 157.
16 W. B. 466 ; Oordon v. Cheltenham
BT INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE BIOHT.
98
precluded (r). But if nKHieys are expended »fter fall and
distinct notice that the work is objected to, and that steps '—
will be taken to prevent it («), or with full knowledge of the
true condition of the title (<) ; or if the acquioflcence is satis-
faetorily aeeoontfed for ud ezidained(«(), m, fbr instance, that
it has taken place upon the faith of a representation that no
grievance would result from or be |Hroduced by the act (v), or
the faith that negotiations were going on between the
parties with a view to the settlement of the dispute on points
in ecmteat between them («) ; or if the party against whom
aoquieacence is alleged was justified in assuming that his
rights would not be a&ected {y) ; or if the delay is while the
acts done are preliminary to the acts against which he claims
relief, and not such acts themselves (z) ; the consequences of
acquiescence are excluded. Nor will a nun be precluded from
relief on the ground of acquiescence in what he was led to
consider a mere temporary violation of his right (a). Nor
does the aoquiesoenee in a state of things idiieh produces
little injury warrant the subsequent extenst<m of them to an
extent productive of serious damage (b).
(r) CUgg j. Kdnumdton, 8 Da O. 3 Ou 874. W2 ; 77 L. 3. Cb. «17,
M. 4 O. 787 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 246 ; 114 628.
E. H. 279 ; Lehmann v. Macarthur, (») Davie* v. Marihall, 10 C. B.
3 Ch. 496. N. S. 711 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 64.
(«) Att.-aen. V. Sheffield Oat Co., (x) Innocent v. Midland Railway
3 D. M. 4a. 304, 328 ; 22 L. J. Ch. Co., 1 Ka. Ca. 242. 256.
811 ; 98 P-. E. 141; BoekdaU CatuU ^y) Att.-Uen. v. LettU Corporation,
Co. T. Kitig, 18 Beat. p. 843; 33 6Ch.p.594 ; 39L. J.Ch. 711 ; Hmith
L.J.Cai.a04 : 98B.B.288; Lord t. «m«A, 30 Bq. p. 603 ; 44 L. J.
J£ niMT* T. Johnxm, 1 0. D. 879; Oh. 680; tmt PigtM t. MidiUmc
45 L. J. Oh. 404. Cotmijf Ovtmcil. (1908) 1 CSi. p. 148 ;
(«) St mie V. Young, 2 De O. 4 J- 77 Tj. J. Ch. p. 820.
136, 142; 119 R. B. 56; Jtanwlen (z) Northam Bridije atid iioadt
V. Di/ton, L. R. 1 H. Ij. 129; Co. v. London and South Weitem
Prvftor V. Ben»i», 38 0. D. p. 780; Hailimy Co., L. J. CSl. 377 ; 1
67 L. J. Ch. p. 22. Ra. Ua. 653.
(tt) OMtmd T. Tunhridge Well* (a) Gordon v. Chelfenliam Hnilirai)
Ommimtmert, 1 Ch. 349, 366 ; 36 Co., 5 Ueav. 229, 238 ; 59 It. R.
L. J. Ch. 883; Alt.'0*it. T. Cbr- 486; AU.-OeH. t. Luton Board
pomtion 0/ HM/ax, 17 W. B. HeaUk, 3 Jur. N. 8. 183 ; AU-Oen.
1088 ; Col'^t T. Simmt, 6 De G. M. 4 *. ttorongk ••/ Birmitti/kam, 4 K. 4
(}. I ; 23 I.. J. I h. 258 ; 104 R. R. J. 546; 116 H. B. US.
I ; see ElluUm v. Readier, (1908) (A) BankaHr. Houghtmt, 27B««v.
U PROTECTION OP LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY
<^i" A l«R8 strong degree of scqnteieenee ia Buffloient to diamtitle
—^—^ B rwrty to an intrrlofn- ny inj.ii . lion tbin \h roq uired to debar
hill, from relief at the hearing of the cause. In distnining a
bill upon interioeutoiy ftppiieation. the C^)ort doe.* not con-
dudp n right, hut merely refugee, in the exercise of its diter*-
tion, to interfere gummarily in favour of a jwrty who has not
shown due diligence in making the application (c). " A short
acquiescence," said r,,,r<l Ungdale, in Gordon r. Chettmtum
Railway Company (d), " may propprly induce tho Court not to
interfere ex juirte. A longer actjuiescence may, under the cir-
cumstances, throw serioQB doubt upon the right of the plain-
tiff, and induce the Tourt not (o interfere by interlocutory
order even when applied for on notice. But when acquies-
cence is used as an argument in support of a demurrer, there
must, to make it effective, be such un acquiescence as wholly
to disentitle the plaintiff to any relief. It must he assumed
that the plaintiff had originally a right, but that he has
altogether deprived himself of it by acqnieseenee."
A man may by hia acquiesr. nee preclude himself not only
from coming to the Court for an injunction, but from obtain-
ing damages (e).
^^3- Delay, though it may not amount to proof of aoqaiescenoe.
may be sufficient to disentitle a man to the summary inter'
ference of the Court by interlocutory injunction (/). But
delay in taking proceedings is not so material whilst matters
128; 28 L. J. rh. 4T:J ; WtMrm v.
M'Dermiilt, 2 Ch. 72 ; 'M L. J. Ch.
190; .llt.-den. V. (WiKin'tion </
Uni.far, 17 W. R. 10S8: and see
Ki,i<jhl V. Himmond; (18a6) 1 Ch.
65.J ; (1896) 2 Ch. 2M ; 65 L. J.
C1». 583 ; OAonus v. BradUy, (1!U)3)
2 Ch. 446, 487; 73 L. J. C?-.
49, 31.
(. ) Johrurm V. Wyatt, 2 De O. J.
* .S. 18, 2o: ii \j. J. Ch. -.m :
<'hilil V. Jkmyhui, 5 Do (}. A[. & (>.
7;f9. 741; 104 R. B. 2ti2.
(li) a Beav. 233 ; 59 B. R.
486.
(f) Keltty V. Dodd, 82 L, J. Ch.
34 ; Sayeri y. 860. D. 106 ;
54 L. J. Ch. 1
(/) AU,.Otn. r. SkeJfiddGat Co.,
3 De O. M. 4 O. ;«)4 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
811; eSB. E. 151 ; Great Wettem
n»away Co. V. Oxford, Worreitter,
elf., naUmni Co., 3 De O. M. 4 O.
■ill; 98 K. R. 175; jfVjre v.
ll'tiniVa Canal Co.., 3 De G. & J.
212. 230; 28 L. J. Ch. 153; 121
I!. R. 80; OauHt F^ntg, g
' 1' 42L. J.Ch.iaa; Att..a«,.
V. South atafrndskin ITolmwnb,
(I90B) 26 r. L. B. 406.
BT INJUNCTION PBNMNO TRTAL OF THE BIGHT.
rmmin in Mfatu quo (g). Moreover, it seema that niM« delay oim^ III.
IB not matorisl wh«r« an injanotion ia aou^t in aid of • l«fal —
right, and that accordingly mere lapse of time will not be a
bar to the granting of an injunction at the trial, unless it
woald be a bar to the legal ri^t (A). Mere aequieaeenee,"
said Lord Cranworth, in Rochdale Canal Co. v. King (i), " (if
by acquiescence is to be understood only the abstaining from
legal proeeedings) is unimportant. Where one party invades
the right of another, that other does not in general deprive
himself of the right of seeking redress merely because ho
remains passive, unless indeed he continues inactive so long as
to bring the case within the Statute of Limitations " (k).
Delay is a circumstance which may be taken into considera- Actiom hy
tion by the Court in determining whether to grant an injunc- tklwiL™*''
ti<Mi, on an applioatim by the Attoroey-Qmenl on behalf of
the public (I).
The Court, upon the application for an interlocutory injunc- Coune of the
Won in support of a legal right, w ill deal with the injunction ^uTtl", i^^^"'
upm the evidence before it, and will confine itself afarietiy to'
the immediate object sought, and as far us possible abstain
from prejudging the question in the cause (nt). If a fair
primd faoU eaae be made oot, aad tiie eaae ia free from objee-
(./) Hale V. AhMt, 8 Jur. N. S. (1908) 2 K. K p. 169; 74 L. J.
988, 989; ArchMl v. Scillj,, 9 K. K 803; Att.-<hn.r. M«l€aifmd
II. L. C. p. 388. Onig, (1807) 2 Ch. pp. M, M, 19
(A) Fullwaod v. FMwcod, » 0. L. J. Ck. Sfi9 ; (i«v»ned <m i^pttl
D. 178 : 47 L. J. CIl 4W ; ArrMoU on ■Bcthu- point, (1908) 1 Ch. 327 ;
V. Aw//y, 9 H. L. C. 38;t ; Rmvland 77 L. J. Ch. 261 ) ; .,4 «. . (ten. v. Grand
V. Mitthta, 74 L. T. 63; Hngg y. Junrtion Canal Co., (190«) 2('h. p.
Beett, 18 Eq. 444; kcv Jonu y. 518; 78 L. J, Oh. (j-sl ; Att. Gni.y.
Llanrwtt I'rban CouHcil, (1911) 1 South StafonMirc lyattraorlet Co.
Ch. p. 311 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 154. (1909) 28 T. L. R. 4(»H ; Att..(lm. v."
(i) 2 Sim. N. S. 89 ; 22 L. J. Ch. Birmingham, Tamt, efc., DratMige
6<M. 606 ; 43 L. J. Ch. "05. Hoard, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 63; 79 L. J.
(A) London, Ckatliam and Dottr Ch. p. 137 ; (1912) A. a 788, 812; 88
RaUwag Co. t. BM, 47 L. T. 416; L. J. Ch. 45. Sm A1t.-a*n. v. &mM
DhIm of Ifartktmitrland v. Bote. BlaJM$kin Waterwork$ Co.,tuj>ra,
man, M L. T. 773; ArehMd t. m to delay in oaaea of uttni tnret.
8cuU}i,ntpru. [m) Skiin,er$' Co. v. Iiiih Svcirti/,
(0 AU.-Oen. v. Wimbledon Uoute 1 M. & C. 162, 164 ; 64 B. E. 166 ;
E»tate Co., (191 I) 2 Ch. p. 42; 73 Wvoiihrulye \. Bellamy, (1911) 1 Ch.
L. J. Ch. p. 595 ; AU.-Oeii. v. Scott, p. 338 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 272.
26 PBOTECTION OP LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY
c**i>- ni- tions of an equitable consideration, sereral courses are open
— to the Court (n). Which of these courses will he adopted is
always a matter for the discretion of the Court, but, in the
absence of special circumstances, the leading principle which
is the rule of the Court and limits its disci etion is, that only
such a restraint shall be imposed as may stop the mischief
complained of, and keep the property in its actual condition
until the hearing (o). If the case, ns ninde out, is plain and
free from doubt, the Court would, even before the Judicature
Acts, in the exercise of its discretion, determine the question,
and grant an injunction without putting the parties to the
expense and delay of requiring the plaintiff to establish his
title at law (/>) ; but the case had to be very clear for the Court
to adopt this course (q). If the defendant disputed the legal
title of the plaintiff or denied the fact of its violation, the Court
would seldom, however clear the case might in its opinion be,
grant an injunction without putting the plaintiff to establish
his legal right (r).
In doubtful cases where the question .-s to the legal right
is one on which the Court is not prepared to pass an opinion,
or the legal right being admitted the fact of its violaticm
is denied, the course of the Court is either to grant the
injtmction pending the trial of th« legal right, or to order
the motion to stMid orer until the legal right has been
tried (<). In determining which of these two altematlTes
(n) Baetm v. Jvntt, 4 IC. ft 0. 438, R. R. 195 ; EtuUm t. Firth, 1 H. ft
437 ; 48 E. E. 143. M. 573.
(o) lUakemore v. (Hamnrgiinshire (r) Ilarnn y. Jnnet, i}S.. &C.433 ;
RaUumy Co., 1 M. * K. 154 ; 2 48 R. B. 143 ; Norton v. NirhdU, 4
li. J. (N. a) Ch. 95 ; 36 B. E. 289 ; K. & J. 475, 478 ; 116 B. E. 416 ;
Lenty * Co. v. Callingham atid Mayor of Cardiff v. Cardiff Water-
Thompim, (1908) 1 K. B. p. M; ti>orib(Co.,4DeO.&J.5M; miLB.
77 L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; Jone$ r. 409 ; Harman t. Jonti, Cr. ft Fh.
Paraya ffM»ier Co.. (1911) 1 K. B. 301.
p. 458 : 80 L. J. K H. p. 156. (») BramwtH v. Holcmh, 3 M. &
{ ji) Bwo), V. ./<.n^«, tiipra ; l\itlK V. 737, 739 ; 46 R. B. 378 ; A'./r/ of
V. r.ev',, '.' Drow. •J7'-' ; KK) B R. v. ni<ha<f,.\ M. & K. 169;
131; (hai-elfi v. Ilnrnanl, IS Kq. 3 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. H5; 41 B. B.
518, 523; 43 I.. .1. Ch. 659. 40; lm)>erlal 'ln>! <'n. v. Ilrnailhrnf,
(q) Motley V. Itownmaii. A }A.&V. 7 H. L. C. p. 612; 29 L. J. Ch.
p, 17 ; « L. J. (N, a) Oh. 308 ; 4* 377 ; ltd B. B. 396.
BY INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE BIGHT.
27
it shall ftdopt, the Court is governed by the consideration as to oiwp- m.
tho comparative mischief or inconvenience to the parties which
may arise from granting or withholding the injunction (<), ^JJ^^L
and will take care so to frame its order as not to deprive either
party of the benefit he is entitled to, if in the event it turns
out that the party in whoso favour the order is made shall be in
the wrong (m). In doubtful cases, if it appears, upon the
balance of convenience and inconvenience, that greater
damage would arise to the defendant by granting the injunc-
tion in the event of its turning out afterwards to have been
wrongly granted, than to the plaintiff from withholding it in
the event of the legal right proving to be in his favour, the
injunction will not be granted, but the motion will be ordered
to stand over until the hearing. If, on the other hand, it
appear that greater damage would arise to the plaintiff by
withholding the injunction, in the event of the legal right
proving to be in his favour, than to the defendant by granting
the injunction, in the event of the injunction proving after-
wards to have been wrongly granted, the injunction will
issue (x). The burden lies upon the plaintiff, as the person
applying for the injunction, of showing that his inconvenience
exceeds that of the defendant. He must make out a case of a
comparative inconvenience entitling him to the interference
of the Court (y).
(<) Hdcon V. Janen, 4 M. & C. 433, Birmimjliam, Hailway Co., 3M. & C.
43(i; 48 E. E. ; Hilton v. Lord 784, 799; 8 L. J. (N. S.) C'h. 75;
Granville, Cr. & Ph. 283, 297 ; 10 4d R. R. 393 ; Hilton Lord Chan-
L. J. Ch. 398; M R. B. S97; Wfe, Cr. ftfli.p. 297; lOL. J. Oh.
Munror WiiM>thoe,tle.,Raatoaif(U>., 398 ; 64 B. R. 297 ; Flimfim v.
4 De O. J. * S. p. 738 ; Elr^hitit BpHler, 4 0. D. 286 ; Elwe* v.
V. Spencer, 2 Mac. * O. p. 50; 86 Paijnt, 12 C. T). 468; 48 L. J. Ch.
B. R. 16; Carmichael v. Evam, 831; Mitchell v. Henry. 15 C. D.
(19(M) 1 Ch. 492,493 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 191; Seusoii v. iVnt/fr, 27
p. 333 ; Arnolt v. Whitby District C. D. 43; Carmichail v. EvaM,
Council, (1909) 73 J. P. 64 ; Crisp (1904) 1 Ch. 492 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 333;
V. Holdm, (1910) 34 S. J. 784. Arnolt v. WhUby District Council,
[n) K„st l.micashite Hailway Co. (1909) 73 J. P. 64 ; Ori^r. HoUm,
V. Hatltrsley, 8 Ha. 93, 94 ; B. R. (1910) 64 S. J. 784.
216; see Pulatt Thtatrts Co. r. (g) ChilHr. DonglaM, 5 DaQ.U.
Clen>y, ( 1 909) 26 T. T,. B. 28. ft O. 741 , 742 ; 104 B. B. 382.
(x) (ireenlialyh v. Mnnthmttr ami
28
PROTECTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY
<^^in. In balancing the comparative convenience or inconvenience
'- — 'roni granting or withholding an injunction, the Court will
take into ronsideration what means it has of putting the party
who may be ultimately successful in the jxwition he would
have stood if his legal rightvs had not been interfered with (z).
Interlocutory In a caso where one of two defendants in an action for
injunction -at • . .
ancillary to
specinc performance of an agreement for a lease was an
relief at the trial, jnfant, the Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction
to restrain the defendants from leasing the property to %
third party as the plaintiff was not entitled to specific per-
formance against both defendants (a).
TermB imposed The Court may often by imposing tenns on one party, as
on defendant as , .. . , •.■ ,. ,
the conditioji of the Condition of either granting or withholding the injunction,
"n^uMtSJi?'''" secure the other party from damage in ihe event of his proving
ultimately to have the legal right. If the Court feels that it
can by imposing terms on the defendant secure the plaintiff,
in the event of the legal right being determined in his favour,
against damage from what may he done by the defendant in
the meantime, and the defendant is willing to accede to the
terms required by the Court, an injunction will not issue (6).
The terms imposed on the defendant as the condition of with-
holding the injunction vary with the circumstances and the
exigencies of the case. The defendant may be required to do
such acts, or execute such works, or to remove any works, or
otherwise deal with the same as the Court shall direct (c), or
(«) Stttuettr T. Fmtfr, Cr. & Ph. 4 De O. J. & S. 286 ; Klwet v. Pa,/ne,
302; M R. R. 307; Bigby v. Oreat 12 C. 1). 470; 48 L. J. Ch. 831 ;
Wenffrn Railii-a>i Co., 2 Ph. 44 ; 15 Mitrhdl v. //r«n/, 15 C. D. 191 ;
I,. J. Ch. 2t)6; 78 R. R. 12; East Wall v. Lmitlmi A'teh (hrptratiim,
Laiira^hire Itnihr,,,/ C„. v. Haittriley, (18!»8) 2 Ch. 469 ; 67 I,. J. Ch. 596 ;
S Ha. p. 04 ; 86 R. R. 215 ; Arnatt Smith v. Biuter, (1900) 2 Ch. 13$,
V. mM!f DiOrirt Council, (1909) 73 M8 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 442.
J- P- 8*. (f) Att.-aeii. r. Manehtiler and
(o) Lumleif v. Raxtnimfl, (1898) Lttd$ Sailway Co., I Ra. Cti. 436;
1 Q. H. 683 ; 64 L. J. a B. 441. Foni v. Gye, 6 W. H. 2;to ; fVater-
CO Biyh;/ v. ffrmt WeOern Rail- loiv v. Jtavoii, Ij. K. 2 Kq. 514 ;
MJO.V C,,., 2 Ph. 4J 50 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 35 I.. J. Ch. (M;i ; l!nrkrr v. Smth
266; 78 R. E. 12: Cromfnnl am/ Slnffonltliiri Uni/nni/, •> l)e O. & S.
liii/h I'lah l/ai/ira;/ ('<,. v. ««/,■. 55; 7!»R. R. 125; Sinitli v. llaxlrr,
imrt, etc.. Railway Co., ll>e O. & J. (1900) 2 Ch. p. 148 ; 69 L. J. Ch!
326 ; 118 B. B. 118 ; Lam v. /hmm, p. 442.
BY INJUNCTION PENDING TEIAL OF THE RIGHT.
29
to enter into an undertaking to refrain from doing in the Chap. iii.
meantime the acts complained of (d), or to abide by any order ^ ^-
the Court may make as to damages or otherwise, in the event
of the legal right being determined in favour of the plain-
tiff (e). If the permission to do the act complained of involves
the making of profits, the defendant will be required to keep
an account of all profits made pending the trial of the
rigl't (/) ; and may also be required to pay such a sum by way
of damages (in the event of the plaintiff's rij^t being estab-
lished) as the Coui t may direct (g).
Where an injunction is withheld upon the ctmdition of
the defendant entering into an undertaking aa to terms, the
Court may make it a part of the order that if default is made
in complying with the order the injunction shall issue (h).
As on the one hand the Court may in doubtful cases, as a Term. impoMd
condition of withholding an injunction, require the defendant condition rf*"
to enter into terms, so on the other hand it will, as a condition k^"""*
of granting an injunction, require the plaintiff to enter into
an undertaking as to damiges in the event of the right at
law being determined in favour of the defendant, and the
injunction proving to have been wrongly granted (»). The
undertaking was formerly required only in cases when the
application was ex parte, but the present practice is to re-
quire the undertaking aa well where the motion is on notice
as where it is ex parte (k). The Court, however, has no power
(rf) darkey. Clarke, 13 W. E. 133. 266 ; 78 E. B. 12.
(e) Jonet v. Oreat Western Rail- {h) Projirietort of Nartham Bridgt
ii-ay Co., 1 Ea. Ca. 685 ; MrSeill v. and Roadt v, Londonand Southamp.
Wiliiami, 11 Jur. 344 ; Ford v. Qye, Um Railway Co., 9 L. J. Ch. 277 ;
6 W. B. 235. 1 Ba. C«. 603; Spmeir y. Lemim
{/) BramwMr.Hak€mi,SyLit ami Birmingham aaUway Co., 1
C. 737 ; 4A B. B. 378; Bi^ y. Ba. Ca. 109; AU.-Oen. t. Eattem
Qrtat WmlUm Bailivay Co., 2 Ph. Railwayt Co., 3 Ea. Ca. 337.
44; 15L. J. Ch.266 ; 78E.E. 12; (•) Chaj^ll v. Duvidaon, 8 De
Cory v. Yarmouth and Xoru-icli O. M. & G. 1 ; (/ra/itim v. Camp-
Railway Co., 3 Ha. 603; 64 E. E. iell, 7 C. 1). 490 ; 47 L. J. Ch.
435 ; Klwes v. Payne, 12 C. D. 693 ; Practice Note, (1904) W. N.
470; 48 L. J. Ch. 831; V. 203, 208; Oberrheiniiche Mttal-
Ilenry, 15 C. D. 191. werke Co. v. Cocki, (1906) W. N. 137.
(y) Bigby v. Great Weibm Bail- (*) SmUk ?. Day, 21 Q D. p. 434 :
iwy C^, 8Hi.44,M; 1«L.J.C^ CAo^f v. ZtevMMN, 8 De O. IC ft
80
PROTECTION OP LEGAL RIGH"'S TO PROPEBTY
Chap. III.
8«ct. 1.
Teimt in
cn plaintiff t
condition of
gnnting an
iqjaiMUcn.
to compel a pai1y applying for an injunction to give aa
undertaking as to damages, but if the applicant refuses to
give the undertaking in a case in which the Court considers
it ought to be given, the order for an injunction will not be
made, or if pronounced will not be drawn up (I). According
to the practice in the Chancery Division, when i lefendant
offers an undertaking which is accepted by the plaintiff in
lieu of an injunction, a cross undertaking in damages by
the plaintiff will be inserted in the order unless the contrary
is agreed and expressed at the time (m).
Where the question a* issue has reference to the payment
of money {e.g., where a mortgagor seeks t^ restrain his mort-
gagee from selling (n), or where a person seeks to restrain a
company from forfeiting his shares for non-payment of
calls (o), or where a tenant seeks to restrain a distress (p)),
the Court may, as a condition of granting an injunction,
require the money to be paid into Court.
The Court may, on granting an inju.iction, put the plaintiff
on an undertaking to prosecute the action with due dili-
O. I ; 114 B. B. 1 : Tuck j. Silver,
John. 218 ; mB.B.82; Feniierv.
Wibon, (1893) 2 Oh. 668 ; 62 L. J.
Ch. 984 ; AU.-Oen. T. AOanif BoU,
(1896) 2 Ch. 699 ; 65 L. J. Ch.
885; Howard v. Preu PritUen Co.,
(1905) 74 L. J. Ch. 103, 104. In
Ingram v. Tuck, cited in note to
riici- V. Sili er, the defendant being
dearly guilty ol fraud, the Vice-
Che ucellor granted an injunction
without requiring the plaintiff to
give ma nnderteldng 'g to damages.
See farther Chsp. XXIL, sects. 1
and 5, pott.
(/) Tutkfr V. New Brnntv'ick
Trwliwj Co., 44 C. D. 249, 252; 59
L. J. Ch. 561, 862; Alt. -(leu. v.
Alhuiy IMfl Co., Howard v. I'rets
hriniera Co., aiijira.
(ni) See Pr. Note, (1904) W. N.
203, 208 ; Oberrheinuche Melal-
ieerke Co. v. Cock», (1906) W. N.
127. Bawluuim of tJM Judcw of
the C. D., in consequence of the
decision of the C. A. in Howard v.
Preu Printer* Co., $upra (k), that
thwe is no general practice that a
croM nnctortaking in damages by
the plaintiff ia to be imi^ied.
(n) Whitworth v. Shodet, 20 L. J.
Ch. 105 ; Mat leod v. Jouee, 24 C. D.
289; 63 L. J. Ch. 149; Warner y.
Jacob, 20 C. D. p. H ; 51 L. J. Ch.
642.
(o) Lamb y. Hi.inbaa Rubber Co.,
(1908) 1 Ch. 846 ; 77 L. J. "^h. 386 ;
Jontt Paca^ia Rubber Co. (1911)
1 K. B. 4M: 80 L. J. K. B.
157.
( p) Shaw lord Jertey, 4 C. P.
D. 12.), 359, affirming 48 L. J. C. P.
308; Carttr y. Salmon, 43 L. T.
490 ; Walth v. Lmudale, 21 C. D.
9; 62 L. J. Ch. 2; see Lewi* t.
Mker, (1906) 1 Ch. p. 47 ; 74 L. J.
Ch. 39.
BY INJUNCTION PENDING TBIAL OF THE BIGHT.
81
gence (qr). The Court may also, upcm granting or refosing oh.p.iii.
an injunction, impose terms as to admissions being made at —
the trial (r).
In granting an interlocutory injunction at the instance of ITidMUking u
the Attoiney-Genenil, suing on behalf of the Crown, the J^tlJU^^
Court will not require an undertaking as to damages to be
given (»).
Instead of issuing the injunction in the flrst instance, the interim rntnia.
.prohibition of the Court is often issued and conveyed in the
shape merely of an interim rpstraining order, by which the
defendant is restrained until after a particular day named,
liberty being given to the plaintiff to serve notice of motion
for an injunction for that day (0-
If the plaintiff has not, in the opinion of the Court, laid a DUmual of
sufficient foundation for his action, it will be dismissed. The ?f*'™ """T
. Court cu fom
Court will not order the motion to stand over or retain an ^ftTounblt
acticm, unless it has a favourable opinion on tiie merits of the tSeMtttH.*"
case (tt). Nor will the Court, unless the circumstances of the
case are such as to lead it to form an opinion as to the legality
of the act complained of , or to pat the case into a coarse of
immediate investigation, allow the motion to stand over till
the purpose has been so far executed as that its character may
be judged of, but will refuse the motion (i). An injunction
will not be granted on the principle that it will do no
harm to the defendwt, if he has not dcme the act ocmpluned
of (y).
The mere fact that an appeal may be pending ia not a ii^wMiiM
ground for refusing an injunction to restrain the violation Of »"■'"■••»••'•
(g) Newion r. Pender, 27 C. D. XXII., sects. 1 and fi.
43, 63; Palace Thtatrt* Co. (<) See poM, Chap. XXII., •. 1.
CZnuy, (1910) 26 T. L. B. 38. («) rMb v. Hwmt. Jeha. 372.
(r) HiUt» T. Lard GranviUt, Or. 381 ; 12S B. B. 157 ; Ware t.
ft Ph. 283 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 398; M Segent't Canal Co., 3 De O. & J.
B. B. 297; 8wtel v. Cater, M Sim. p. 231; 28 L. J. Ch. 153; 121 B.
672 ; 54 K. E. 439 ; /)/c/tem v. Iff, E. 80.
H Jut. 186 ; Bohn v. Bogue, 10 Jur. (x) Maine* v. Taylor, 2 Ph. 209 ;
420. 78 B. B. 71 ; Att.-Om. v. Corpora-
it) Att.-Otn. V. Albany Hotel Co., titrn of Manchester, (1893) 2 Ch. p.
(1896) 2 Ch. 696 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 91 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 463.
886 ; and Me further, M to onder- (y) Co fin v. Oojfin, Jae. p. 72 ;
tkkinga for damegee, po< CSkap. 29 B. B. 1.
82
Ohap. III.
8Mt. I.
PROTECTION OF LEGAL BIGHTS TO PilOPERTt
a legal right, though it may influence the decision of the
. Court as to the date ut which the injunction should com-
mence (a). Mere inconvenience and annoyance is not enough
to induce the Court to take away from the aueceB^ful party
the benefit of liia decree (a). The Court may, however, sus-
pend the operation of the injunction for a given time if there
is danger of irreparahle mischief being done in the meantime,
or to enable the defendant to appeal (b) ; and the Court p- v,
on a proper case being made out, restrain by injunctir
dealings with a fund pending an appeal to the Ho of
Lords, although the Court has decided against the title of
the plaintiff and dismissed the action (c). The jurisdiction,
however, will be exercised with care and so as not to en-
courage any orn' to present an appeal for the purpose of
delay {d).
8WI.2.
Uj.
BBCnOK 2. — PBBPKTCAL INJ0N0TI0N8— MANDATOBt IMJOHO-
Tioirs.
After the establishment of his legal right and of the fact
of its violation, a plaintiff is in general entitled as of course
to a perpetual injunction to prevent the recurrence of the
wrong, unless there be smnething special in the circumstances
of the case, such as laches, or where the interference with the
plaintiff's right is trivial (e). So also where a public body
(2) Att.-Qen. v. Bradford Canal
Co., L. E. 2 Eq. 71 ; 36 L. J. Ch.
619; Perm v. Bibhy, L. R. 3 Eq.
308; see Att.-Gtn. v. Birmingham,
Time, etc., IMrict Board, (1910) 1
Ch. p. 62 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ; (1912)
A. 0. 788; 82 L. J. Ch. 48;
Sekwtckr y. Worthing Om, Light
artd Coke Co., (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 102.
(a) Wal/ord \.W.,3 Ch. 814.
(6) Wal/aril v. II'., 3 Ch. 812, 814 ;
Andrews v. A bertiflrry VrhanCuuni il,
(1911) 2 fh. p. 414 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 742 ; Schuieder v. Worthing Oa$,
Light and Out* Co., (1912) 81 L. J.
Ch. 102.
(e) Folini y. Oroy, 13 0. 1>. 438 ;
Wilson V. Church, 12 C. D. 454 ; 28
W. E. 284.
(rJ) PMniv. Graij,iupra,4i6,4il.
(e) Imperial Oat Co. v. Broadhent,
7 H. L. C. 612 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ;
115 E. E. 295 ; and see Llandudno
DUMct Council t. Wood», (1899) 2
Ch. 706 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 623; Bhtiftr
Y. atyof London ElteMe Co., (188S)
lCh.p.314; 64L.jr.C9u216,8Se;
Jordeton v. Hittton, tie., Oai Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 238; 68 L. J. Ch. 457,
476 ; Cowprry. Laidler, (1903) 2 Ch.
337, 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 580 ; ColU
V. Honu and Colonial Stores, (1904)
A. C. 212 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 802 ; Brhrent
T. A'^tenb. (1906) 3 Ol 614; 74
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.
88
it c:r. needing tta powwrs, or flommitting an offence against a ni.
8tatu(j, the Attorney-General is, as a general rule, entitled
to an injunction, although not as a matter of right in all
cireoButances, for the Court has a discretion (/).
The jurisdiction to grant a parpetoal injunction la foooded
on the equity of relieving a party from the necessity of
bringing action after action at law for every violation of a
eomiwm law right, and of finally quieting the right, after a
case has received such full decision as entitles a peraon to
be protected against further trials of the right (g).
A perpetual injunction should not howerer be granted to
protect a right having only a limited duration ; in such a case
the injunction should be limited to the period of the plain-
tiff's interest in the subject-matter of the action (A).
Where a defendant has given an undertaking to the Court DeciMmtion of
not to infringe the plaintiff's rights, and there is no proba- [j.^JppTj'^or u'*'
bility that the wrongful act will be repeated, the Court may, "joMt'o"-
instead of granting an immediate Injonetkm, make a deelara-
ticm of the plaintiff's rq^ts, and him libwty to ap^y
Jj. J. Ch. 615; Marnott v, East
(irinitead Oat Company, 1
Ch. 70, 79 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 141 ; Alt.-
Oen. T. Birmingham, Tumt,
Irict Drainage Board, {1911)
60; 79 L. J. Ch. 143; ■ ■.
ArckOta* v. KmMA, (IBK ,
L. T. m; M T. L. B. 4^3; md
■ee Wtalherbif A Co. v. Inttrn<ttioiuU
Iloru Agency Co., (1910) 2 Ch. p.
305 ; "9 L. J . Ch. p. 613 ; Slazmger
V. S/Ming. (1910) 1 Ch. 257; "9
L.J Ch. 122. As to the right to an
injunction to reetrain the breach of
a negative covenant though the
damage be slight, see Dehtrtg v.
Allman, 3 A. C. 710, 720; Mc-
Eaeham r. Cbtton, (1002) A. 0. p.
107; 71 L. J. P. 0. p. 21 ; Formby
V. Barker, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 864 ; 72
L. J. Ch. p. 721 ; EUiiton v. Beacher,
(1908) 2 Ch. p, 395 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 628; Att.-Oen. v. ]VMham»tow
Urban Council, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 331 ;
K.I. 8
70 L. J. Ch. p. 280; and pmt.
Chap. X.
(/) Att-Oen. T. WimUtdoa Home
KOatt Co., (1004) 9 34, 42 ; 73
J. Ch. MS. M6; An,-ant. t.
^ffoid Jutidion Canal Co , (1909) 2
Ch. MS ; 78L. J. Ch. 681 : Att-Oen.
V. Birmingham, Tame, etc.. Drainage
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. 53; 79 L. J.
Ch. 139 ; (1912) A. C. 788, 704,
812 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 45.
(g) Imperial Gas Co. v. BrvaJbent,
7 H. L. C. 612 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ;
115 B. B. 295; Lowndet y. BMt,
33 L. J. Ch. 461; Hanhmry v.
Llat^frtclila Urban Council, (1911)
75 J. P. p. 306 ; L. G. B.
p. 36«.
(A) Savory v. Oyptican Oil Co.,
(1904) 48 Sol. J. 673; Co/well v.
St. Pancra* Borough Council, (1904)
1 Ch. 707, 712; 73 L. J. Ch.
27S.
84
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.
Cbap. Ill,
at iajaaetion.
for an injunction, in tha event of the defendant repeating
the offence, or threatening to disturb the plaintiff's rights (i).
The fact that trifling or merely nominal damages may have
been recovered at law (;'), or that the damage is amall (t),
is not per se a Hufficicnt pround for refusing to gnint a per-
petual injunction, but it if a circumstance which the Court
will take into consideration in determining whether to exer-
cise its jurisdiction (I). The Court will in gpnoial Juivo
regard not only to the dry strict rightn of the plaintiff and
defendant, but also to the surrounding circumstances (wi),
and the conduct of the parties (n). The considerati(m of the
balance of convenience and inconvonirnce in granting or with-
holding the injunction is not neglected by the Court. If
in lieu granting the injunction would have the effect of inflict-
ing serious damage upon the defendant without ) toring or
tending to restore the plaintiff to the position in which he
originally stood, or doing him any real practical good (o) ; or
if the mischief complained of is trivial (p), or can be pro-
I)erly, fully, and adequately compensated by a pecuniary
(i) Wikox V. steel, (1904) 1 Ch.
222, 223 ; "3 L. J. Ch. p. 220 ;
Brigg v. Thornton, (1904) 1 Ch. p.
394 ; 73 L. J. Cb. p. 306; Att-
Oen. v. Birmiiiiiham, Tame, etc.,
Drainmie Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 62 ;
79 L. J. Ch. p. 144; Uanhury v.
Llem/rechla Urlan CotmcH.tuprafg).
(j) Jtoekdale Cmol Co. v. Ki»s. 8
Sim. N. 8. 78, 86 ; 20 L. J. C*.
675; 89 E. B. 211.
(A) Marriott v. East OrMead
aa$ Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 70; 78 L. J.
Ch. 141.
(/) Wood V. SutcUffe, 2 Sim.
N. 8. p. 165 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 253 ;
8Mftr V. City of London Electric
Co., (1895) 1 Ch. 314 ; M li. J. Ch.
226; and Cowperx. Laidler, (1903)
2 Ch. 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 880; A'.He
V. Julhj, (1905) 1 Ch. 503, 504;
miey V. Halifax CorporeUitm, (1907)
97 L. T, 27H.
(m) Wooil V. Sutrliffe, tupra ;
NationcU Provincial Co. v. Prudential
Atturance Co., 6 C. D. p. 769 ; 46
L.J.Ch.p. 875 ; Warwick and Birm-
inyham Canal Co. v. Burnnm, (1890)
63 L. T. 670; Llandudno Urban
Vouiml V. WooiU, (1899) 2 Ch. 705 ;
68 L. J. Ch. 623 ; Conner y. Laidler,
supra; Behrent v. Richardt, (1905)
2 Ch. 614 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 61S ; Har-
ringlon (Earl) Derby Corporatim,
(1905) 2 Ch. 220, 221 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
214. Soo f o«f , Chap. X., M to CMM
depending on contract.
(«) Kinc V. Ji'lly, iiipra ; Jonts\.
Earl Tankerville, (1909) 2 Ch. p.
446 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 676.
(r.) II'.,o<i V. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim.
N.S. 163. 168 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 283;
89 E. B. 262; RiUy v. Halifax
Corporatim, (1907) 97 L. T. 278.
(;i) Llandudno Dittrict Council r.
Woods, (1899) 2 Ch. 706 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 623 ; Behrent v. Richard; (1906)
2 Ch. 622 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 619 ; Engliih
V. Metropolitan Water Boar<i,( 1907)
1 K. B. p. 603 ; 76 r. r. K. B. p. 370.
Cbsp. III.
SmIS.
PERFBTUAL INJUNGTIONB.
sum (q), an injunction will not issue. If, on the other hand,
th.> (iefendunt ha.s covenanted that a partiealar thing shall not
be done (r), or the mischief compluincd of is of so muterial a
nature that it cannot be adequately compensated hr a pecu-
niary sum, .;nd granting an injanetion will restore or tend
to roHlor.' tlio parties to the |)osition in which they formerly
stood and have a right to «tund, it is the duty of the Court to
interfere by perpetual injunction, notwithstanding the serious
damage caused tliereby to the defendant (»).
If a considerable time must elapse to enable the parties to Fu.pMMto.rf
comply with an injunction, the Court will order that the '"j""****-
operation of the injunction ! e suspmded for a certain stated
period (0- Considerations of public u el fare also may justify
the suspension of un injunction upon terms («).
85
(7) nWv. S«<r/i/^2Siin.N. S.
KiO, 169 ; SMfer v. Citi/ of f.omlon
electric Lif/hting Co., (1894J 1 Ch.
^ 317 ; 64 L. J. Ch. p. 226; Ccwp$r
T. LauUtr, (1903; 2 Ch. p. 841 ; 72
L. J. Ch. p. WO ; ColU r. Homtmd
CoImM Storti. (1904) A. C. IBS,
IW ; 73 L. J. C h. p. 492 ; Kine v.
Jvlly, (1905) 1 Ch. 496; (19071
A. C. 1 ; 74 L. J. Cb. 183 ; 76 L. 3.
Ch. 1 (on appeal) ; Englith v. Metro-
politan Water Utiaril ,»Hpra{p) ; Riley
V. Hali/ar Corporation, tnjira (o).
(r) Doherty v. Allmau, 3 A. 0.
p. 720; McEaehamr. Oidtim,(l9Blt)
A. C. p. 107; Formbf r. Bariker,
(1903) 2 Ch. p. 6A4; 72 L. J. Ch.
p. 721 ; KllifUm y. Rtacher, (1908)
2 Ch. p. 395 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 628 ;
Att.-tlcn. V. Waltharrutvw Urban
Conucil, (1910) 1 Ch. p. ;j51 ; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 269.
(-i) U'o<„l V. Nittcliffe, iHi>ra{<i);
Imperial Gas Co. v. liroadhent, 7
II. L. C. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377;
US B. B. 296; Tipping r. 8t.
/Wen* Smdting Co., 1 Ch. 66;
Shd/w r. City of London BleOric
ligkUng Co., (1898) 1 Ch. 287;
84 I* J. Ch. 216; Cowper r.
Laidltr, $Hpra(3): Kine r. Jolly,
(1906) 1 Ch. m, 496. «M; 74
L. J. Ch. 183; Alt. -a en. v. Bir-
mingham, Taine, etc.. Drainage
Board, (1!)10) 1 Ch. 48, 60; 79
L. J. Ch. 14;i; (1912) A. C. 788 : 82
L. J. Ch. 45.
{t) Att.-(fen. V. liradf^d Canal
Co., L. E. 2 Eq. 83, 84 ; 35 L. J.
v^h. 621; AtL-Oen. t. Wittmdtn
District CmncU, 12 T. L. B. 628 ;
Beinhardt y. Mtmkuti, 42 C. D.
»0; M L. jr. Ch. 789; Shelf ery.
City of London Electric Lighting
Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 388 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
788; Robrrtt y. Qwyrfrai District
Council. (1899) 2 Ch. 616 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 759; hliwjton Vestry y. Homt$y
Urban Comicil, (1900) 1 Ch. 707;
Colwcll V. ,S7. Pancrat Bormgk
Council, (1904) 1 Ch. p. 713; 78
L. J. CL. 279; A«..atn. y. Favert.
ham Corporation (1908) 72 J. p.
404 ; AU.-Om. y. Cibb, (1909) 2 Ch!
279; 78 L. J. Ch. 628; Stancomby.
Trowbridge Urban Council, (1910)
2 Ch p. 191 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 619 ;
Att.-IU... V. Birmingham, T(ttJ,
For note (u) aee next page.
8—2
M
FERPETUAL mJUHOTIONB.
Chtp. III.
Seel. 2.
Aei|aieK«nc«.
lift* I
bj lb* AUonMj
OmNnL
The principles of the Court with respect to deity md
acquiescence applicable to the case of interlocutory injunc-
tions hold also in the case of applications for perpetual in-
junctions (r). But to justify the Court in refusing to inter-
fere at the hearing, there most be a stronger case of
acquiescence than is sufficient to a bar on the interlocutory
application (w). A man who, possessing a full knowledge of
his rights, has lain by and has by his condaet encouraged
others to expend moneys in contravention of the rights for
which he afterwards contends, cannot come to the Court for
relief by perpetual injunction, however clear his right or
whatever may be the ralue of the right, but must rest satisfied
with such damages ns a jury will give (x). A man may by
acquiescence not only preclude himself from being able to
derogate from a state of things which has been broa^t about
by his own conduct, but may even give the adverse party a
right to the interference of the Court in the event of his com-
plaining at law (y). So also, in the case of aetims by the
' Attorney-General on behalf of the public, delay is a circum-
stance which may be taken into consideration by the Court
rir., Diltrict lhaiuaife Doaril, (1910)
ICh. 48, 62; 79 L. J. Ch. 137, 144 ;
(1912) A. C. 7H8 ; N2 L. J. Ch. 45 ;
Jotm T. Llanrwat Urban Cuiincil,
(Wll) 1 Ch. 393, 411 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
154; a 0. (19U) 76 J. P. Jo. 243,
whflire an nodertaking in damagM
was required on a fnrthw ■a^en*
Bion; Att.-Om. v. Letee$ Corpora-
tiun, (1911) 2 Ch. .VH) ; 105 L. T. 701.
(k) Price'! I'uteut VaiiMe Co. v.
Lomlon Cuuntij Council, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 644 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 13. »eo
Att.-Oen. V. SoutK SitafforiUlire
Wotvworki Co. (1909), 28 T. L. B.
408, whera the injtinction wa« ma-
peoded, tk i defendMitt woe iwo-
moting a KU in Pariiamrat to
■eoure powwa to do the act com-
plained of.
(r) Seopp. 21— 25,anff, and^4«.-
Qtn, T. Chrand Junction Canal Co.,
(1909) 2 Ch. SW, 518 ; 78 Zi. J. Ch.
681, 685.
(«■) Johnii.n v. iri/a«, 2 De O.
J. & S. 18 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 394 ; o»««,
p. 18.
(jc) Dan* T. Spurrier, 7 Ve«. 231,
396 ; 6 B. B. 119; RutMaU Canal
Co. T. Kilts, 9 Sim. N. a 88 ; 16
Beav. 630 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 89
B.B. 211; Wuody.8vklifft,i9sBi.
K. 8. 169 : 21 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 89
R. ». 2G2 ; Daviei v. .Sear, L. B. 7
Eq. 427; U8 L. J. Ch. 54.'i. See
dale V. .1 bbM, 8 Jur. N. S. 987 ;
Uedi (Duke of) v. Amhertt, 2 Th.
123; 15 L. J. Ch. 351 ; 78R.E. 47;
WUlmtU V. Barler, 15 C. D. 106,
106 ; Civil Strviee Inilrument Co. r.
Whiltman, (1899) 68 L. J. Ch. 484.
(y) Willianu y. Starl of Jtnty,
Cr. & Ph. 97 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 149 ; 54
B. B. 219.
PBBPETUAL IMJUMCnONB.
9t
•lotermining whether to grant an injunction, wbetlMr it
bo (in injunction against continuing to do something, or
whether it be in the form of u muiJatory injunction («). But
the Court will not act npon light gromide against the legal
rigiit of tile partiea. It rpquiros a clear and strong case to
leud the Court to deprive a party of his right at law to prevent
a particular a«t being done, or hii right to recover damages if
it be done. There must be fi aud or sL-h acquiescence as in
the view of the Court would make it \ fraud in him after-
wards to insist upon his legal right (a) ; and it seems that
?nere delay will not disentitle a plaintiff to an injunction in
aid of a legal right unless the claim to enforce the right is
barred by the Statutes of I^imitations (6).
A perpetual injunction will not, as a rule, without consent p«r,«tu.i i..
bu granted before the trial, but an injunction maj by eon- in^nliTMor.
sent be made perpetual on motion (c).
A man is not bound to apply by motion in the Ik-st instance.
He may obtain a perpetual injunction at the hearing, although
he has not applied for an injunction on interlocutory appli-
cation (d) ; and where a mandatory injunction is sought it is
(0 AH-Oen. r. WimiUim Hmm J. Oh. 473 ; 199 B. B. 471 ; Ayy v.
£ifa<« Co., (1904) 9 (%.p.49; 73 8mM,L.S. 18 Eq, 404; 43 L. J.
L. J. Ch. p. 596 ; An..aem. v. Satt. Ch. 70S ; Bmiih v. Smith, L. B. 20
(1906) 9 K. B. p. 169 ; 74 L. J. K. Eq. 603 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 630 ; 1\'illm<,ft
B. 803; Att.-Oen. v. Metcal/ and v. Barber, 15 C. D. 103; TV.x-for
Orelg, (1907) 2 Ch. pp. 34, 35 ; 76 v. Beimiu, 36 C. D. 710; 57 L. J.
Ii. J. Ch, 259 (reversed on appeal on Ch. 1 1 ; Civil Service Mutical
another iK)int), (1908) 1 Ch. 372; 77 Imtrument Co. v. W\it»m», C?**?)
Ii. J. Ch. 261; Att.-atn. v. Grand 68 L. J. Ch. 484.
JuiKtioti rami' Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. (6) Fullwood y. F., 9 C. D. 17t;
618 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 686 : AU. Otn. v. 47 L. J. Ch. 469 ; ArckhM v. BaOlji,
SoHtk 8kff9rd$kir* WuUrworlu Co., 9 H. L. C. 383 ; LoitAm, Chalhim,
(1909) 26 T. L. B 408 ; AU.-Oen. v. and Dvver Railway Co. y. Bull, 47 L.
Birmingham, Tame, etc., Drainage T. 413,416; tee •Tbnet y. Llomrwtt
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 53 ; 79 L. J. Vrlntn Council, (1911) 1 Ck 383,
Ch. p. 143 ; (1912) A. C. p. 812; 411 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 154.
■S2 L. J. Ch. 45; cf. Att.-On,. v. (<•) Day y. Snee, 3 V. & B. 170;
Suutli Staffordthirt Waterworkt Co., Morrell v. Pearson, 12 Beav. 284;
$uiira, aa to delay in ohms of mUra Atlatl t. Southampton Corporalion,
ft'rei. 16 C. D. p. 160; 60 L. J. Ch.
(a) Qerrard y. O'Beilly, 3 Dr. & p. 34.
W 433; 61 B. B. 97; fttNiart (<<} Aiomv. JbMi,4U.*C.436;
r. BoughtoH, 97 Bmv. 431 ; M L. 48 B. B. 143; Dwte v. MmtUU,
88
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.
Cliap. III.
Aeeoaat.
CmU of Aetiun.
not unusual to wuit until the hearing before applying for the
injunction (e).
I f the act complained of involves the making of profits, the
account is limited to the profits actually made and the moneys
actually received by the wrongdoer. There can be no account
in respect of acts unattended with profit (/). The account is
of all profits actually made for six years prior to the bringing
of the action, but the account will not be so limited when the
defendant has been guilty of a wilful and secret trespass,
and the plaintiff has not been guilty of laches in not dis-
covering the wrongful acts of the defendant (g). An account
will not be granted if there has been great delay in bringing
the action (h).
In consequence of the difficulty of working out a decree for
an account of profits, such an account is not usually taken. A
reasonable compromise is generally found to be most for the
benefit of the parties (i). If the amount of profits for which
the defendant would have to account is small, the plaintiff
usually waives the account (k), and if the defendant submits,
the suit does not proceed to tl)i> hearing, but u decretal order
is made, giving effect to the agreement between the parties.
The plaintiff is entitled to discovery for the purposes of the
account (/).
Where a plaintiff comes to enforce a legal right and there
has been no neglect or misconduct on his part, the Court will
not as a general rule take away his right to costs (m). G^ere
Oale
1 Dr. & Sra. 560, 661
Abholt, S Jiir. N. S. 987.
(f) (Ja/ey. Ahhott, tnjira.
(/) Ctilhurn V. Siinmt, 2 Ha. 660 ;
12 L. J. Ch. 388; 62 E. E. 225;
Powell V. Aikin, 4 K. 4 J. 343, 351 ;
116 R. B. 358. See Mtutdedc v.
Biackwood, (1898) 1 Ch. 6S.
{g) Dean y. Thimite, 21 Beav.
623 ; lU E. E. 228 ; BMi Cval Co.
V. O$borne, (18i»9) A. C. 351 ; 68 L.
J. P. C. 49; (Ih/n V. Ilvirell, (1909)
1 Ch. 06(5, 679 ; 78 J. Ch. 391.
(/,) Croiihy v. l>rr!-y 'lai IJjht
Co., 4 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 25 ; 1 Webs.
119, 120 ; 41 E. R. 198 ; Parroit v.
Palmer, 3 M. & K. &i3 ; 41 E. E.
149; llarrUm v. Tat/lor, 11 Jnr.
N. S. 408.
(»■) Crossley v. Derby Oaa Liylit
Co., 3 M. & C. 428, 436; 4 L. J.
(N. S.)Ch. 25; 41E.E. 198.
(ft) See Fradella r. W^ler, 2 B.
ft M. 247 ; 34 S. B. 81.
(0 Saxhf/ V. Eatterbrook, L. B.
7 Ex. 207.
(in) Cooper v. Whittinyham, 15
C. D. 504 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752, ;<er
Jersel, M.E. ; T'jnntiri V. Fortsttr,
24 C. D. 231; 52 L. J. Ch. 946;
PERPBTtJAL INJUNCTIONS.
89
may be misconduct of many sorts : there may be misconduct in ckap. m.
commencing the proceedings (n), or some miscarriage in the : —
procedure, or an oppressive or vexatious mode of conducting
the proceedings, or other misconduct connected with the
subject-matter of the action (o), which will induce the Court
to icfuse costs; but where there is nothing of the kind, the
plaintiff is as a general rule entitled to his costs (p).
Where the plaintiffs brought an action against the defen-
dant, who had innocently purchased in the market (at the
price of lis. &d.) 500 cigarettes which infringed the plain-
tiffs' trade mark, the Court granted an injunction but
refused to allow the plaintiffs their costs (q).
Actions for an injunction to restrain the violation of a legal Injunction
right do not usually go to the hearing. If the defendant offers unuiiy vrace«i
to submit to an injunction with costs, and to give the plaintiff ^
all the other relief to which he may be under the circum-
stances of the case entitled, and no question remains open to
he decided between the parties and no account is sought or the
account is waived, and the plaintiff nevertheless proceeds to
trial, the Court, though it may give the plaintiff the decree,
will not give him the costs of the subsequent prosecution of the
action up to the trial (r). The tender must include the costs
Writ V. (Iwyime, (1911) 2 Ch. 1, 14 ; public duty, when all opportunity
80 L. J. Ch. 5S«. But see Order of making amends has not been
LXV. r. 1 ; and the Judicature given to the defendant, see the
Act, luyo (53 & M Vict. c. 44), 8. S ; Public Authorities Proteotiun Act,
also Th» American Tob€uxo Co. v. 1893, s. 1 (d).
Qntri, (1892) 1 C9i. 630 ; 61 L. J. (o) Lipnum PuIvmm A Co.,
Ch. 242 ; Wnlttir T. fktinkopff, (1892) (1904) 91 L. T. 132 ; King diOo.r.
3 Ch. 489, SCO; 61 L. J. Ch. 621 ; Omrd * Co., (19M) 2 Ch. 7 ; 74
Flormct t. Mallinton, 6A L. T. 3M, L. J. Ch. 421 ; Editon-BtU Phono-
ao8; and tea fOd, Chap. XXII., graj-'ic Co. v. Smith. (190.<) 119
sett. 1. L. T. Jo. 106 ; Jiush v. Luca;
(h) riehlen v. Cor, (1906) 22 (1910) 1 Ch. p. 443; 79 L. J. Ch.
T. L. K. 41 1, a case of trivial tres- 174 ; Att.-Oen. v. Paruh, (1913) 67
ivass with uo intention on the part S. J. 625.
of the defendant to repeat it. As (p) See note (m), tupra.
to the powor oi the Oonrt to ordm (9} Amtrietut Tubacto Co. v.
a piaintifr to pay ooatis between Outtt, (1892) 1 Ot. 690; 61 L. J.
solicitor and client, of ptooeedingi Ch. 242.
instituted against a defendant act- (r) HfiUiniitou v. /V. 3 M- ft C.
ing in execution of a statutory or 338 ; 46 B. B. 271 ; Colbum v.
40
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.
CUp. III.
Sect. 2.
Costs of action.
of the action up to the time when the tender is made («). If
the defendant does not offer to submit to the injunction and
pay all the costs up to that time (t), or if, although he offers to
submit to the injunction, he refuses to pay the costs, or to
give the plaintiff any of the other relief to which he is
entitled («), or imposes a condition which the plaintiff is not
bound to accept, e.;/., that the order should not be ndvortisfnl,
or that it should recite tlmt the defendant had submitted for
the sake of peace (»), the plaintiff is entitled to bring the
action to trial and will have the costs of the action.
A plaintiff who obtains on an interlocutory application the
relief which he seeks, should make an application to the defen-
dant to have the costs disposed of on motion. If he does not
do so, or if, on the application of the defendant to have the
costs disposed of on motion, he refuses to give his consent,
and no question remains open to be decided between the
parties, he will not be entitled to have the costs occasioned by
going on to trial. The question of costs cannot be determined
SirnfM, 2 Ha. Ml J 12 L. J. Ch. 231 ; fi3 L. J. Ch. 946 ; Witman
388; 62 B. B. 22A; Chappett r
David$oH, 2 K ft J. 123 ; 1 14 E. B.
1 ; yunn t. Albuquergue, 34 Bcav.
695 ; SontieiiKhtitt v. BiirnarJ, 07
li. T. 713 ; Darter v. Sleinkopff,
(1892) 3 Ch. 489; 61 L. J. Ch. 521 ;
Jenkiru) v. Hope, (1896) 1 Ch. 278 ;
65 L. J. Ch. 249; Slmenger y.
Spalding, (1910) 1 Ch. 361 ; 79
L. J. Ch. 12A; Ltv» Brot. v.
EquUablt Pknttn Soa'ety, (1912)
106 L. T. p. 474 ; 28 T. L. B. 294 ;
Brinimead v. Brintmtad, (1913) 29
T. L. E. 237.
(•) Fradella v. Wtller, 2 E. & M.
247 ; 34 E. B. 81 ; Oeary v. Norton,
1 De O. & a 12 ; 75 B. B. 1 ;
lliiriiesi V. Hill, 26 Ueav. 244 ; 28
L. J. Ch. 366; 122 E. B. 94; Mott
T. CoMttoH, 33 Bmt. 679; .AThim r.
Alh^qwrqitt, 34 Beav. 696 ; Jenkint
T. Hope, (1896) 1 Ch. 278 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 249; filaxrnijtr v, Spnlding. nipra.
(0 Upmann v. Forater, 24 C. D.
Oppenkeim, 27 C. D. 260 ; 54 L. J.
Ch. 66 ; Sonneiiscliein v. Barnard,
57 li. T. 713 ; Iltrmiiiyhaiii Didriit
Land Co. v. Ltmdou an i North
Wtttern Itailii ay Co., 57 L. T. 185 ;
Seldtaiii(/i r v. Tumtr, 63 L. T. 764.
(») Fradella v. Wdier, 2 B. ft M.
247; 34 B. B. 81 ; Geary t. Norton,
1 De G. ft 8. 18; 76 B. B. t;
CkofptU T. Davidson, 2K. & J. 123 ;
110 B. R 134 ; Burge»$ v. Hill, 26
Beav. 244 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 356; 122
E. B. 94; M' Andrew v. Bassett, 4
D. J. & S. 380 ; Sonnenachein v.
Barnard, Birmingham District Land
Co. V. London and North Western
Railway Co., Sehlesinger v. Turner,
supra; Fennessey y. Dojf and
Martin, 86 L. T. 161 ; Hat Munu-
/aetunnr Supply Co. T. Tamlin,
(1908) 23 B. P. C. 413.
(•) H*my Clay & Co. v. Qodfrty
Phm^ (1910) 87 B. P. C. 808.
PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.
41
in this way without the consent of the parties, but the party
who refuses to consent must justify his refusal, and must
satisfy the Court that he is joatifled in bringing tiie sction on
to trial (x).
If both parties are in the wrong, the one claiming more
than he is entitled to claim anil the otiier offering le«8 than
he is bound to offer (ij), or the one succeeding as to part of
his claim and failing as to another part {z), no costs will be
given to either side, or the costs as to which one party has
failed will be taxed and set off against those in which he has
succeeded, and the balance of such costs only will be paid to
the »»arty entitled to such costs (a).
If the defendant has been to blame in the matter, tiie dis-
missal of the action will be without costs (&).
A bond fide offer from the defendant before action to give
the plaintiff all the relief to which he is entitled and which
he ultimately obtains by the action, may be a reason for
depriving the plaintiff of the costs (c).
Where a defendant offered to submit to a perpetual injunc-
tion to be obtained by the plaintiffs in chambers, but the
plaintiffs set the action down on motion for judgment, the
plaintiffs were only allowed such costs as they would have
properly incurred if they had proceeded by summons in
chambem {d).
{x) Morgan v. Oreat Eatttm
Railway ( ',<„ 1 II. & M. 78 ; Wilde
T. iVilde, 4 De O. F. & J. 348 ; Sou-
ntntchein v. Barnard, 67 L. T. 712.
(y) Molt T. OMMfcrn, 3!i Oeav.
oT8; Wood y. Saundtr; 10 Ch.
p. S86 ; afflrming 44 L. J. Ck. 514,
623 ; see AtU-Orii. v. Pari»k, (1913)
a: S. J. 625.
(z) RmM V. Watts, 2:> V. D. p.
577 ; M(K>re v. lifmutt, 1 R. P. C. 130.
(a) Bonrke v. Alexaiulra lIiM
Co., 26 W. B. 782 ; Nordtr^fM v.
Uardner, IB. P. C. 65; S«Uur» v.
Matlock BoardilfMmatk, 14 Q. B. D.
936; we Omeknatt r. Jmum, 11
0. U. S3; JTi^AI r. /Wwtf, i»
L. J. Ch. 120; Beinhardt t.
Mentatti, 42 C. D. p. 690; Jtnkin*
V. Jackton, (1891) 1 C%. 89; 60
L. J. Ch. 206; Tudd v. Nortk
Matttm BaUway Co., (1903) 88 L. T.
112. See Order LXV.r. 27, sub.r. 21.
(b) Wylam v. Clarkf, (1876)
W. N. 68; llarriion v. Ooode, 11
Eq. 354, 355; 40 L. J. Ch. 294,
301 ; Borthwick v. Kveniinj Post, 37
C. D. p. 465; 57 L. J. Ch. 410;
and see Snuggi v. Seyd, (1894)
W. N. 95; King y. GiUard, (1905)
2C1I.7: 74 L. J. Ch. 431.
(e) Jftl»i^ IVtt, 31C. *0.
S88; 46B.B.a71.
(<0 Tk* ImiMtBlmmDgtmg Co.
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
If the costs of the action have been increased by an allega-
tion in the statement of claim irhich is mitrue, such increased
costs will have to be paid by the plaintiff, although his case
may be subatantiully established (e). But a wrongdoer cannot
be heard to complain that in proceedings hurriedly taken to
stop the wrong, the plaintiff has not accurately stated his title ;
in such a case the defendant will not be relieved from the pay-
ment of the extra costs occasioned by the plaintiff's mistake
as to his title (/).
Costs will be ordered to be taxed on the higher scale where
there are special grounds (g).
Mandatory Injunctions.
Although the Court of Chancery would not direct the per-
formance of a positive act tending to alter the existing state
of things (such as the removal of a work already executed),
nevertheless, by framing its -jrder in an indirect form, it
would compel a defendant to restore things to their former
condition, and so effectuate the p ime result as would be
obtained by ordering a positive act to be done. The ordei'
when framed in such a form is called a mandatory injunction.
The jurisdiction was formerly questioned (A), but its existence
must be admitted as beyond all doubt (i) ; and it is now settled
that the Court can frame the injunction in a positive form (k).
V. IHuhy, 57 L. J. Ch. 505 : 68
L. T. ; Allen v. Oakey, 62
L. T. 724.
(f) Pierce v. Franki, 15 L. J.
t h. 122; lloie T. LoflM, 47 L. J.
Ch. 57(J.
(/) Att..aeH. V. Tandint. 6 C. D.
750.
{g) Order LXV. r. 9 ; see Hudton
V. Otgtrhy, 32 W. R. 5d6 ; Turton
T. r., 42 C. D. 128, 149 ; Amervan
Braided Wire Co. v. Thomti.n, 44
C. D. 274, 296 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 425 ;
Davlet V. Daiiet, 66 L. J. Ch. 620 ;
Rivinuton v. (larden, (1901) 1 Ch.
561; 70 L. J. Ch. 282; Great
HM<«m Bailway Co, v. Caifalla
rial/ Co., (1909) i Ch. ill ; 101
L. T. a83.
(//) See Lane v. A'ewiligate, 10
Ves. 192; 7 E. B. 381 ; and /lUike-
more v. Olamoryanthire Railway
Co., 1 M. & K p. 184; 2 L. J.
(N. S.)Clt. 90; 36B.B.289.
(•) Htrvty T. SmM. 1 K. ft J.
392; 103 B. R. 141; Ftmith y.
Smith, 20 Eq. 501; 44 L. i. Ch.
630 ; Hermann Loog v. Bean, 26
C. D. p. 314; ML. J. C*.
p. 1128.
{k) Jarksvn v. Normaiily Brick
Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 438 ; 68 J. Ch.
407 ; Daviei v. Oai Light and Cdt
Co.. (1908) 1 Ch. m, 711 ; 78 L. J.
i
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
Hut the jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction is exer-
cised with caution and is strictly confined to cases where
the remedy by damages ia inadequate for the purposes of
justice, and the restoring things to their former condition is
the only remedy which will meet the requirements of the
case ({).
Every injunction and mandatory order should be certain
and definite in its terms, and it ought to be quite clear what
the . erson against whom the injunction or order is made is
required to do, or tc refrain from doing. An order therefore
will not be made directing a defendant to repair such walls
as may need repair (?»).
The Court will not as a rule interfere by way of mandatory
injunction without taking into consideration the comparative
convenience and inconvenience which the granting or with-
holding the injunction would cause to the parties. Where the
injury done is capable of being fully and abundantly com-
pensated by a pecuniary sum, while the inconvenience to the
other party from granting an injunction would be serious, the
Court will not interpose by way of mandatory injunction,
but will award damages by way of compensation for the
injury (n). But where the act complained of is a breach of
Ch. 447 ; AU.-Gen. y. Orand June-
fion Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. 816;
78 L. J. Ch. 684. For form of
order restraining the erection of
buildings so aa to obstruct the
plaintiff's ancient lights, with
liberty to the plaintiff to apply for
a mandatwy injonction by way of
further ni&ii, eee ColU v. Home and
CuUmial Btoru, (1904) A. C. p. 194 ;
73 L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; and Anderson
V. Franeit, (1906) W. N. 160;
Ilujyiru v. lietU, (1905) 2 Ch. p.
ai8; 74 I,, .J. Ch. 621.
(/) See Colli V. Home and Cuhmial
Store; (1904) A. C. 193, 212; 73
L. J. Ch. 492, 802 ; A'ine T. Jotty,
(1908) 1 Ch. p. 804; Wattrlumtt y.
Watmrh»H$e, ^1906} M L. T. 1S4 ; 32
T. L. B. l«Si Att-Om. t. ArM,
(1913)87 a J. 625.
(m) Att-Oeii. V. .Slafford$hire
County Council, (1908) 1 Ch.
p. 342 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 188 ; and
see Worcttter College v. Oxford
Canal Navigation Co., (1913) 81
li. J. Ch. p. 3.
(ti) Ttenberg r. Etut India Houte
Co., 3 De O. J. & S. 263 ; 33 L. J.
Ch. 392 ; Stanley {Lady) v. SArein.
bury (Lord), 19 Eq. 620 ; 44 L. J. Ch.
389; Xatiimnl Provincial, etc., Co.
V. Prudential A»snra>ice Co., 6 C. D.
769; 46 h J. Ch. 871; Mien v.
Seikliam, 11 C. D. 798 j 48 L. J. Oh.
611; Sliel/er v. City </ London
Sltttrie Lighting Co., (1895) 1 Oh.
3Kj 64 li. J. Ch. 226; Cm-jxr v.
Laidhr, (1903) 2 Ch. 341 ; 72 L. J.
Oh. MO : OolU r. Htm and CoUmitA
MANDATOBY INJUNCTIONa
a negative covenant (o), or the injury is of 80 serious or
material a character that the restoring things to Uieir former
condition is the only remedy which will meet the require-
ments of the case, or the defendant has been guilty of
sharp practices or unfair conduct, or has shown a desire to
steal a march upon the plaintiff, or to evade the jurisdiction
of the Court, the injunction will issue, notwithstanding the
amount of inconvenience to the other {laity (p), and though
the expense thereby caused to him will be out of proportion
to any advantage the plaintiff may derive from it (</).
If the act complained of is continued or carried on after
clear and distinct notice that it is objected to, or if during the
progress of the action an undertaking has been given to pull
down the building if so ordered at the trial, and the injuiy
done is of a serious nature, the jurisdiction will be exercised
more freely than in cases where complaint is not made until
after the act is completed (r) ; but the mere fact that the act
complained of has been continued or carried on after notice of
Stort$, (1904) A. C. 193, 212; 73
L. J. Ch. 492; Knylish v. Metro-
ptJitaii Mater Boar:!, (1907) 1 K. B.
mt ; 76 L. J. K. B. 371 ; JUIti/ v.
Ilalifar Corj\oratUm, (1P07) 97 li. T.
278 ; 23 T. L. E. 613 ; and see Ki„e
V. Jolly, {m)b) 1 Ch. p. 504 ; 74
L. J. Ch. p. 183.
(o) Doherty v. Allman, 3 A. C.
p. 720 ; McEacham v. CoUm, (1902)
A. C. p. 107 ; 71 L. J. P. C. p. 21 ;
Biclcmore r. Dimmer, (1903) 1 Ch.
p. 168; 72 L. J. Ch. p. ic );
yormbyv. Barker, (!903) 2 Ch. p.
354; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 721 ; Kllisli n
V. Iteachrr, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 395 ; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 628; Att.-Cleii. v.
fValtliamttoiv Vrlnin Council, (1910)
1 Ch. p. 361 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 269;
and Me pott. Chap. X.
(/») Ittnhtrg r. EoH India Hvuh
Co., 3 De O. J. ft S. 263, 272 ; 33 L.
3. Ch. 302, 397 ; DtirtU v. Pritchard,
1 Ch. 244 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 223; Kelk
T. iWwN, 6 Ch. 812, 813; Uuodion
V. Richcardton, 9 Ch. 221, 224; 43
L. J. Ch. 790 ; Kreld v. llurrdl, 7
C. D. 551; 11 C. D. HO; 18 L. J.
Ch. 252 ; Maanaiiiia v. CiKike, 35
C. D. 698; 56 L. J. Ch. 669; Voii
Joel v. Honuey, (1895) 2 Ch. 774 ;
65 L. J. Ch. 102; Jordeum T.
Sittton, etc., (las Co., (1899) 2 Ch.
217; 68 L. J. Ch. 457; Cowper t.
Laidler, (1003) 2 Ch. 341 ; 72 J.
Ch. 378, 680; Coll' v. Nome and
Colonial Stores, (1904) A. C. p. 193 ;
73 I.. J. Ch. -192 ; Iliyyins v. Betts,
(1905) 2 Ch. p. 217; 74 L. J. Ch.
621; Kiw v. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch.
495, 503, 504; 74 L. J. Ch. 188;
and see Jviiea v. Taitkerville (Karl),
(1909) 2 Ch. p. 446 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
676.
(q) W ooilhoutt r. Naerg Nam'ga-
titm Co., (1898) 1 Ir. B. 161.
(r) Jacomb v. Knight, 3 De 0. J. &
S. 638 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 601 : He,,biirn
V. Lordan, 2 11. & M. 345 ; 34 L. J.
Ch. 293 ; Urand Junction CancU Co.
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
objection is not of itself a sufficient ground for the exercise of
the ' urisdiction, if the act is not a breach of a negative cove-
nant, and the injury d(me can be properly compensated by a
pecuniary sum (s).
A benefit resulting to the plaintiff through the act of the
defendant, though it is no compensation for injury, may be
taken into account in deciding whether an injunction or
damages shi i . be granted ( t) . There is no rule which prevents
the Court from granting a mandatory injunction where the
injury sought to be restrained has been completed before the
commencement of the action (u). On an application for a
mandatory injunction the Court will have regard to the
character of the building sought to be removed, and if the
b' 'ding is one which can be removed without any great
hardship being imposed on the defendant, may grant the
mandatory order, though the building was erected and com-
pleted before action brought and witliout any complaint on
the part of the plaintiff (x). Wliere there is a question as to
whether the defendant's act is lawful or not, and the defendant
has acted fairly, the Court should incline to avarding damages
rather than to granting an injunction (y). Vhe Court will
seldom interxere to pull down a building which has been
erected without complaint (s), nor will the Court, except
V. Shugar, 6 Ch. 489; Krehl v. Pearson, 6 Ch. 813; OooJtm v.
BHrrell, 7 C. D. S51 ; 11 C. D. iJtcAaretson, 9 Ch. 221 ; 43 L. J. Ch.
146; 48 L. J. Ch. 252; Smith v. 490; Smith v. Smith, 20 Eq. 504;
Day, 13 C. D. 652; Ortmwood v. 44 L. J. Ch. 630; Morrii v. Grant,
Hornieg, 33 C. D. 471 ; 55 L. J. 84 W. B. 65 ; Lawrence v. Borton,
Ch. 917 ; Parker v. SUuilea, (1903) 59 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 38 W. B. 555;
50 W. B. 283. Shirl Y. Godfrey, (1893) W. N. 115.
(«) Isenher;/ v. East linlia Iltiuie, (x) Baxter v. Btmer, 44 L. J. Ch.
dr., Co., 3 be O. J. & S. 263 ; 33 625 ; see Gatkin v. Balls, 13 0. D.
L. J. Ch. 392- Senior v. Pawson, p. 329.
L. B. 3 Eq. 335. As to breach of (i/) ColU v. Hoine and Colouial
negative Goveaanta, see note (e), 5<oru, (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73 L.
tupra. 3. Ch. p. 493 ; and aee Kint v. Jolly,
(0 Naiimua, tie., FiaU Ola** (190S) 1 Ch. p. 504; 74 L. J. Ch.
Atiuranxt Co. v. PrvdmHal Auur- p. 183.
atice Co., 6 C. D. p. 769 ; 46 L. J. (z) Gatkin y. BaOt, 13 C. J>. p.
Ch. 875. 329; Curriers' Co. T. Cor6<M, 4 De
(u) Durell v. Pritchard, 1 Ch. G. J. & 8. 764.
244 ; 35 L. J. Oi. 233; KM
46
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
Cki^ni. under very special circumstances, order a defendant to pull
down a building which lias been erected in breach of a cove-
nant by his predecessor in title, the defendant being in no way
responsible for the breach of covenant («).
OtUj, A man who comes to the Court for a mandatory injunction
should use due diligence in making the application. Mere
delay will not be fatal to the application if no mischief is
caused thereby to tho defendant, and the delay does not exceed
a reasonable period (b) ; but the right to a mandatory injunc-
tion is gone if there has been unreasonable delay, and mischief
would be caused thereby to the defendant (c).
If a proper cose be made out, a mandatory injunction may
be granted against an agent (d).
lUaOttorr A mandatory injunction is not as a rule granted before the
5^j2r^ted hearing (e), but where the case is clear and fiee from doubt,
befon be-vthn. it may be had upon interloeutory application (/), especially if
the act required to bo done involves no serious outlay, nor
any considerable alteration in the existing state of things (g).
Thus where a defendant on being served with notice of
motion for an injunction hurried on his building, a mandatory
injunction was granted on an interlocutory application (h).
So also, where a defendant, knowing that a writ for an injunc-
(a) PoMJett T. Htmiky, (19TO) 2 (N. 8.) Ch. M ; 30 R B. 289 ; Juhn-
Ch. 262, 259 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 744. tlon v. dmrti of Justice Chambers,
(i) Oo/e V. Abbott, 8 Jur. N. 8. (1883) W. N. 5 ; Bvnner v. Owol
987 ; Wooilhmie v. AVury Nat-iga- Western Railway Co., 24 C. D. 1.
tioti Co., (1898) 1 Ir. R. 161. See (/) Une v. Newdiyate, 10 Ves.
Worregter Colleije v. Dxfnril Cunal 192; 7 E. B. 381; Bonntr T. Ortat
Savi;iatUm, (1912) 81 L. .1. Ch. 1. WtOern Railway Co., ; Her-
(c) .ScHH/r V. Pawson, L. R. 3 £q. maun Loog v. Btan, 26 0. D. 314,
;j3o; Ownd v. Fyimey, 8 Ch. 14 ; 315; A3 L. J. Oh. 1128; Allpott
42 L. J. Ch. 122 ; Hmilh v. Smitk, v. Th* Btatritie* Co., 64 L. J Ch
20 Bq. 500 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 630 ; 491; 72 L. T. 533; ColUyn- v.
Chukin r. BaUt, 13 C. D. 328; Warrtn, (1901) 1 Ch. 815, 816;
IForcMfer College r. Or/ord Canal 70 L. .T. Ch. 382.
Kavigation, ntpra. {,,) Harvey v. Smith, 1 K. 4 J.
(rf) Cohen V. Poland, (1887) W. N. 389, 392 ; 103 R. R. HI.
('') I>ai,u-ll V. FeryiiaoH, (1891) 2
(e) aaU V. Abbott, 8 Jur. N. .S. Ch. 27 ; and see Parker v. 8ia»ky,
98" ; Blakemore v. Glamorgaruhire (1902) 50 W. B. 263.
Canal Co., 1 M. ft K. 154; 2 L. J.
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
47
Ck^ III
BMia.
tion had been issued against him, evadod service and con-
tinued the works, a mandatory injunction was granted on
interlocutory applicaticm in respect of wmaeh of the building
as had been erected between tiie iMoe mad senriee of the
writ (i).
On granting a mandstory injiiQcti<Mi, the Court may order SupMdM «(
that its operation be suspended until after ti certain period (k) . '"j""*"""^
Where the Court of Appeal has granted an injunction, but AppUcMMfbr
has suspended its application for a certain time, application
for ft further suspeneioi riiould be made to the Court of first
instance (/).
(t) Kon Joa r. Hamieg. (ISM) a
Ch. 774 ; 05 Tj. J. Ch. 103.
(A) Smith V. Smith, 20 Eq. 500,
50j; 4 lL. J. Ch.630,6;j3; Att.-Gtn.
V. Colneij llatrh, 4 Ch. U6; Shiel v.
Uod/re;/, (1H93) W. N. U5 ; Att.-
(leu. V. Willetden Dittrkt Council,
(18U(>) 12 T. L. B. S28; /tUnyfoii
Vettry v. Hortmg Urban OomuH,
(1900) 1 Ch. p. 707 ; iV.V« ftrteM
Candle Co, t. London County
CoHHcU, (1908) 2 Ch. 326, 544 ; 78
L. J. Ch. p. 8; AU.-Oeu. v. Oihb,
(1909) 2 Ch. 279 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 528 ;
Stancomh v. Trmrhru/i/e IHttrict
Council, (1910) 2 Ch. 191 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 519; Tubh, v. Euer, (1910) 26
T. L. R. 146; Schwe>ler v. WoHhinij
Out Liyht anil Cokt Co., (1912)
81 L. J. Ch. 102; AH.-Qtn. v.
£«ii>M Cwponrfim, (1911) a Ch. 4M,
M9; 105L.T. 701.
(.n Shilfer V. City of London
Eltetrk Liyhting Co., (1805; 2 Ch.
MS; ML. J.Cai.798.
CHAPTEB IV.
UUUNOnOHS AOAINIT WA8TB.
BEOnOir l.—PBINCIPLM OM WBIOB TBI OODBT ACTS IB
BBSTBAIBIBO WASTI.
ciwii. IV. The principles on which the Court acts in restraining waste
'^^^ by injunction are the same as those upon which it proceeds
rMM°ning cases where its interposition is son^t for the pro-
vant. tcction of legal rights (a). The jurisdiction is not, however,
limited to cases where an action at law can be maintained,
but extends to cases where, in consequence of the infirmity of
legal process, there is neither a right nor a remedy at law,
but only what the law in principle acknowledges to be t)
wrong (6). Thus, as early as the reign of King Richard the
Seemd, an injuncti(m was granted at the suit of a remainder*
man to stay waste by a tenant for life or for years, althoo^
the existence of an intermediate life estate formed a temporary
impediment to an action at law (c)'.
If wmU Iwof • It is not necessary for a man to wait til a serious act of
the Cowrt wui waste has been committed, before applying to the Court for
■ot intwrfen. j^g interference by injunction (•/), But the Court will not
interfere where the waste is trivial and of small extent (e), or
where the person against whom relief is sought baa stopped
Ante, ft. hietseti. Donm v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch. 383 ;
(6) Empcr'.r of Ausiriay. Dan,Z (Ininu Canal Co. v. McXamee, 29
De O. F. & J. p. 254, }>er Turner, L. R. Ir. IJl ; and see Doherly v.
L.J. ; Rohiuaon v. Litton, 3 Atk. Allman, 3 A. C. p. 733; Jonet
p. 210 ; Farrant v. Lovell, ib. 723. Chajtjiell, 20 Eq. p. 542 ; 44 L. J.
(c) Moore, 664 ; Roiw^ft ca$t, I Ch. 668 ; Meux v. CoWey, (1892) 2
Eoll. Ab. 377, pL 13 ; Farrant t. Ch. p. 264 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 452 ;
LoveU, 3 Atk. 723. Wttt Ham Cmtrti Chanty B,>ard v.
(rf) Oibton Smith, 2 Atk, 182 ; Eait London Waterworkt Co., (1900)
Coffin r. Coffin, iws. 71 ; 23 R. R. 1. 1 Ch. pp. 636, 636; 69 L. J. Ch.
(«) Brae$ t. Taylor, 2 Atk. 263; 267, 262; Ilyman v. Rou, (1912) A.
Barrji t. Surry, I J. * W. 6M; 0. 623; 81 L. J. K B, 1082.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
committing waste since the bringing of the action (/). If, Ch.p. ir.
howcirer, an intention to commit further waste can be shown,
the Ckmrt will iD*«rfwe, thou^ the first acts of waste may
huvo been of a trivial nature (. ) ; but where waste of one
kind has been done or threatened, the injuoction will not be
extended to wMto of another kind (A).
The Court has jurisdiction, if a ftiir cmo of proepectire v«v-a^m
injury can be made out, to intorfore before waste has been j£l2r^
actually committed. If an intention to commit waste can
be shown to exist, or if • man ioaistii oo bia right w threatens
to commit waste, there is a foundation for the exweise of the
jurisdiction (t).
The words "on pain of forfeiture" after a prohibition
ogninst the commission of waste do not take away the rights
und remedies which arise from the prohibition itself, but will
be regarded as having been inserted merely as a more effectual
means of enforcing the obligation (A).
A man who comes to the Court for an injunction (I) against D.Uy.
waste should use due diligence in making the application.
Belay, however, is not so prejudicial to the plaintiff in eases
of waste or trespass as in other applications for injunc-
tions (m). In some cases indeed delay is not material. A
man, for instance, who has been permitted to cut down half
of the trees upon the land of another, can acquire no title from
the negligence of the owner, to cut down the remainmg
half (n). Nor can t<»»nt8 who have been in the habit of
(/) Barrt/ t. Burrg, 1 J. ft W.
653. Cf. Antm., 3 Atk. 4U.
99 B. B. 318 ; and see the Judica-
ture Act, 1873, «. 25, 8ub-8. (8). w)
to gT-antiiig injunctions in cases of
"apprehended waate."
(?) Coffin T. Coffin, Jao. 71 ; 23
fi- B. 1 ; Barry Y. Barry, 1 J. 4 W.
643 ; D(^an v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch.
383. As to when the Court will
infer an intention to repeat the act
ooniplained of, see PhiUipt v.
Tl,(>ma», 62 L. T. 793 (nuisance).
(/') CofiH T. Coffin, Jaa 78; 23
(0 Barry t. Barry, 1 J. ft W.
661. See Bagot t. Bagot, 32 Bear.
aOB; 38L. J.Ch. 116.
(A) Blake V. Peteri, 1 De G. J. ft
S. 345 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 200.
(<) Gilmm v. Smith, 9 Atk. 182;
Coffin V. Coffin, Jac. 71 ; 23 H. R.
1 ; Barry v. Barry, IJ. ft W. 663 ;
CamiMl T. AUgeed, 17 Bmt. <I38;
R. B. 1.
(m) Pee Jmut v. Llann>it Urban
Council, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 411; M
L. J. Ch. p. 154.
(«) Ait-Qen. v. Eaitlalce, 11 Ha.
228; 90 B. B. 648. pw Lorf
50
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
cutting turf or working quarries for many years acquire a
title as against their landlord to continue to do so (o). Nor
is a man who bay* land oaed by tcnanta for makiiig brieks, or
who purchases Innd with notice that the liind was being con-
verted into a burying-ground, precluded from complaining of
waste committed after the porchase (p). The case howerer
is different if the tenant for life or lessee has been encouraged
by the acquieicence of the reversioner or lessor to expend
monies upon the property upon the faith and understanding
that no obstacle will be afterwards thrown in the way of their
enjoyment (q). In the case of mines the utmost promptitude
in making the application is requisite (r).
BIOTIOII 2.— UMAX. WABTI.
Wbiu UwMte. Waste is a substantial injury to the inheritanee done by
one having a limited estate either of freehold or for yeora
during the ccntinuance of his estate (<). The essential
character of waste ia, that the party committing it ia in right-
ful possession, and that there is a prirtty, of titto beti^eMi the
parties (0-
T jnsequences of waste do not attach unless substantial
dam. i dfue to the inheritance (»), which may be either^
(o) Loni Couiioutn v. Ward, 1
8ch. ft Lef. 8 ; OrijfUh, S
C. D. p. 628; 4 A. 0. 464; 48
L. J. Ch. 811.
(;/) Vregan v. Cullen, 16 Ir. Ch.
339.
{q) Iturry v. Harry, 1 J. 4 W.
661. See ante, pp. iO— 24.
(r) Hilton v. Lord QrancUle, Cr.
ft Ph. 383; 10 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 64
B. B. 297 ; PamU v. Palwr, 3 M.
ft K. 636 ; 41 B. B. 149; Ckgg t.
Edmond*m, 8 De O. M. ft 0. 808 ; 26
L. J. Ch. 246; 114 B. E. 279.
(.) Co. Lift. 5.J a; 1 Cr. Dig.
115; see Mtux v. VMfj, (1892)
2 Ch. 263 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 449;
Wmt Ifam Ckwrity Board v. Eatt
L«ndm Wattrwerlu Co., (1900) 1
Ch. p. 636; 6» L. J. Ob 293;
Ilytnan y. Rote, (1913) A. C. p. 693 ;
81 L. J. K. B. p. 1066.
(t) Davenport v. Davenport, 7 Ha.
p. 222 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 163; 82 B. B.
TC ; Lowndu T. BtUk, 33 L. J. Oh.
451, 454.
(u) Meux V. Cohliy, (1892) 2 Ch.
263 : 61 L. J. Ch. 449 ; Wft Ham,
Cl-aritjf Board r. JSm( Lmukm
n'aierwork$ Co., (1900) 1 Oh.
pp. 636, 636 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 203.
See Mmund y. MarUtl, (1907) 24
T. L. B. 25 ; Uyman y. Bote, evfra.
LXOAL WASm
lit, by diminishing the /slue of the estate; 2ndly, by <WIT
increwmg the burden, upon it; or 8rdly, by impairing the «•
•vidanM of tit}« («). An act whieb inoreMea the value of an
ostuto may nevertheless bo waste if it impMrt tlto •vidmee
of title (y), or inoreiwes the burdr:., •>n the property (x). The
owner of the inheritance has a right (subject to certoin
•Ututory modifloatioo. (*)) to require th«t the nature and
character of the property shall not bo changed by the owner
of the limited estate to the injury of the inheritance (a)
Wasie which increaaea the value of property is called
raHioratmg waste (b). To obtain an injunction on the ground
of waste, a plaintiff must prove that the acU of the defendant
are prejudieial to the inheritance (c).
Waste is either roluntary or iwrmissive (d). Volantary wmu rtw
waste consists in the commission of acts which the owner of
the limited estate has no authority to do. such as cutting """"^
timber, pulling down or subatantially altering («) buildinga.
Permissive waste arises from the omission of acts which it
is his duty to do, as, for example, permitting buildings to go
to decay by neglecting to repair tiiem (/).
fl
(x) Doe V. Earl of Ilurlint/tun, 6
n. & Ad. 507, 517; 3 L. J. (N. S.)
K. x^. 26; 39 R. R. 849; Ilmitlty
V. It,t»»ell, 13 Q. B. 572, 888; 18
L. J. Q. B. 239; 78 B. E. 441 ;
Jonea v. ChapptU, 20 Eq. SW; 44
L. J. Ch. eW; Wmt Jim CImritg
Board T. JBaK Imthm Wattmerh
Co.. (190i») 1 Ch. 894, C36; 60
L. J. Cli. 2d7, S62.
(.'/) Simnumt v. Xrton, 7 Bing.
648 ; 9L. ,r j.S.)V.P.185; Dide
of Ht. ilbano v. Skijiwith, S Beav.
357; U L. J . f h. 248; but see
Voherty y. .U/m iu, 3 A. 0. p. 786.
{z) See infra. Sect 6.
(a) Wut Ham CHaritg Beard v.
Eatt Itmdm Watinaorht Co., (1900)
ICh. 624; eOL. J. Ch. 257. But
see Hyman v. Hote, tujira.
(A) a Win*. Saund. 259 ; Duke of
Amhmt, S Ik. m; »
L. J. Ch. 351; 78B. B.47; Ccf.
pinger v. OuiWut, 3 J. 4 L. 417 •
72 B. B. 81; Doktrtgr. Attman, 3
A. 0.729, 784. 9MM*tuty. CoMey,
(1808) a Oh. 883 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 449;
Mdmund y. Martelt, (1907) 24
T. L. B. 25.
(<■) DoheHy v. Allman, 3 A. C.
p. 734 ; Meux y. Cobley, (1892) 2
Ch. 253, 263 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 4fi2 ;
Ite Melntoih and J'vntypridd /m.
prove.yMtt Co., 61 L. J. Q. B. 164 ;
Grand Canal Co. v. MoSawm, 29
L.B.Ir.181; sMir^y. Jto„,
tupra.
(d) At to whether there is any
liability for permissive waste, get,
poit, p. 65.
(r) 8e<> Tfifman t. Ros
(/") Co. Litt. 63 a ;
M'Cann, 1 Ir. 0. L, 208 ;
B f o m nr , 10 B. * 0. 148. '
Totmgr.
52
LEGAL WABTB.
Ch«p. IV.
Sect 2.
\V:iste at coni-
mi>n law imnisb'
able only in
certain cue*.
Wait* in tnaa.
What trees ar«
timber.
Wnate— wken
committed hy
cutting down
tree* which are
MttiBbw.
At common law waste was punishable only in the case of
tenant in dower, tenant by the courtesy, and guardian. These
estates being the creaticm of law, the law annexed to ttiem the
condition that waste should be neither done nor permitted. A
tenant for life ^r for years was no' at common law liable for
waste in the absence of an express stipulation to that effect in
the instrument by which his estate was created. An estate
for life being not tlie creation of the law, but of the parties to
the instrument, the law would not imply a condition against
waste in cases where no provision to that effect was made (g).
This defect in the law was remedied by the Stiitutes of Marl-
bridge, 52 Hen. 3, c. 23, andOlouoester, 6 £dw. 1, o. ^5, which
enabled the writ of waste which lay at common law to be
isL id against tenants for life and tenants for years.
Timber trees are parcel of the inheritance. A tenant for
life or years, or other owner of a limited estate, has only a
right to their shade and fruit daring the continuance of hii
estate (h). It is waste if he cuts them down, or does any act
to impair their value or cause them to decay (t). The cutting
of timber which ia overripe may be waste (k).
Timber trees are such as are useful for the purpose of
building. Ash, oak, and elm, of the age of twenty years and
upwards, are timber in all places (l), and by the custom
of different counties, other trees, such as birch, beech,
walnut, whitethorn, willow, blackthorn, hornbeam, etc., are
timber (m).
The cutting of many sorts of trees, which are not otherwise
timber, as hornbeams, hazels, willows, sallows, etc., etc., may,
from the situation in which they are placed, be considered
2 Inst. 145, 299 ; Often T.
Cok, 2 Wms. Saund. 252.
(A) 4 Co. B«p. 62 b; 11 Co. Bap.
50 a; 1 BolLAb. 181.
(<) Co. LiH. S3 a.
'il-) Perrott v. Prrrott, 3 Atk. 93 ;
Sfoyram v. Kuiyht, 2 Ch. 628; S«e
now, however, 40 & 41 Vict. c. 18,
B. 16; and 46 & 40 Vict. c. 36,
(0 Co. Litt. A3 a; 2 BolL Ab.
814; Dyvt, 66 a.
(m) Co. litt 53 a ; Ihtkt of
Ckandot T. TtMot, 2 P. Wmi. 606 ;
Ilonywood v. Uonywood, 18 Eq.
306 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 652 ; Dathwood
V. Mayniac, (1891) 3 Ch. 306 ;
60 L. J. Ch. 809 : Pardee v. Pardoe,
(1900) 82 L. T. 647 ; CruiM, Dig. tit
8, ch. i, ML 5—7.
LEGAL WASm M
waste, as if they support a bank, or grow within the site of oh«p. iv.
or shelter a house, or are used as shelter by cattle (n). ^t. 2.
Where trees hare been planted as an improvement under Tree, planted m
tho Settled Land Acts, the tenant for life and his successors in Sdw^rtST*
title having under the settlement n limited estate or interest l*"*!-****
only in the settled land, are not entitled to cut dovn any of
such trees except in proper thinning (o).
It is not waste to cut down trees which are not timber either Unm aotUaibw.
by law or custom, or from the situation in which they are
placed, unless some special prejudice arises thereby to the
inheritance (p). Nor is the cutting dowi. of oak, ash, and elm o.k. «.b, ein.,
trees under twenty years of age waste, provided they are cut
down for the purpose of allowing the proper development and
growth of other timber in the same wood or plantatim (q).
But the cutting down of trees which being undor twenty years
of age are not timber, but which would be timbur if they were
over twenty years of age, is waste, provided it be not done for
the purpose of improving the other trees (r).
The general rules with respect to waste in timber are sub- KxcepUon i. tk.
ject to exceptions in the case of what are called timber ^St^""'*'
estates (s), that is to say, " estates the trees on which, though
timber, may, by virtue of a local usage, be cut periodically
when grown in woods, with a view to secure a succession of
timber and to preserve such woods " (<).
It is not waste to cut hedges, bushes, and „nderwood, and Pnderwoodwa
even oaks and ashes which have been usually cut as under- ~pp'"'
wood, provided the cutting be done in a reasonable and hus-
bandlike manner, and so as not to eradicate or destroy the
(h) Co. Litt. 53 a; PhiUippt v. Eq. 310; 43 L. J. Ch. ti55; ™„
^miih, 14 M. & W. 893. Lowndet v. yorUm, (1876) W N
(»] Settled Lud Axlt, 1883, ■. 221.
'■^^ ('■^)- («) Femtmd v. Wihom, 4 Hk. S75 ;
(/') Co. Litt. aa a; BamU v. 10 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 67 E. R. 70;
/tarrett, Het.36; J^OK/ipiT.Sm**, Lard Laval v. DMhtst of Lte,h •>'
H M. ft W. 089. Dr. ft S. 73; Hinyxooo,! v. H<.ny'
{q) Piilgeley v. limvUng, 2 Coll. ,roo,l, 18 Eq. 310; 43 L. J. Ch. 652;
275 ; Earl Cowley v. Wellesley, L. B. and see the Settled Land Act, I882!
1 Eq. 656 ; Himywood v. Honvwood. b. 35.
18 Eq. 309 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 604. (I) Datkwood r. Magniae, (18»1)
(f) Hmpatti r. Mm^/weed, 18 8 Ck. 8«7; SO L. J. G)l pw MS.
T
64
LEGAL WASTE.
Cb^t. IT.
See*. 2.
Dead tree*.
KieeptioD of
treee.
RigbU of copy-
holder in timber.
geimens or prevent their future growth (u). Nor is it waste to
cut timber where the underwood ia the most important part of
the produce, and the cutting of timber is necessary for its
growth (x).
It seems that it is not waste to fell trees which are
completely dead and bear neither fruit nor leaves (y),
and have not sufficient timber in them for buildings or
posts (z).
Trees which have been excepted out of a demise may not be
cut down by the tenant (a). An exception of trees generally
applies only to timber trees, and not to apple or other fruit
trees, or the like (6). Where the exception was of timber and
other trees, but not the annual fruit thereof, it was held that
apple trees were not within it, because it was to be construed
strictly age.inst the lessor (c).
A copyholder, being considered in law to be a tenant at will,
has in general the same possessory interest in the trees as he
has in the land. Apart from special custom, he cannot cut
down trees or do any other act to the injury of the freehold
except with the lord's concurrence (r/) . But by custom a
copyholder of inheritance, or a copyholder for life, with power
to renew and nominate his successor, may have the right to
fell timber upon his tenement and retain the same tor his own
use (e). The lord cannot, any more tlian the copyholder, cut
down trees upon the tenement of a copyholder, without a
custom authorising him to do so (/).
(u) Co. Litt. 53 a ; Brydget v.
Btephmi, 6 Madd. 279 ; 23 B. B.
217; Humphrtys v. ffarrium, 1
J. ft W. S81 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 254 ; 21
K. R. 238 ; ridifehy v. Rawlinfj. 2
Coll. 275 ; TO R. R. 2J0 ; rhiltipps
V. Smith, 14 M. & W. Karl
Cou Uij V. WeUeslei/, li. R. 1 Eq. 656.
(x) Knii/lit V. Diiplestii, 2 Ves. 361
\y) Co. Litt. S,'} a ; 2 Roll. Ab. 814.
(z) Manwood't ca$e. Moor. 101,
Dyer 322.
(a) OoodrigKt v. VMcut. 8 But,
190. Sw Legk v. HmU, 1 B. ft A.
633; » L. J. K. B. 99; 3« B. B.
402 ; Dot dtm. DouglM v. Lock, 2
A. ft E. 708 ; 4 L J. (N. 8.)K. B.
113; 41 B. B. 496; Iht v. iVtce.
8 C. B. 894 ; 19 L. J. 0. P. 121 ; 79
R. H. 803.
(h) Wyndham v. IToy, 4 Tannt.
316; 13 R. B. 607.
(r) IliiHen v. Denninq, It. ,V C
842; 4L. J. K.B.314; 29E.E.431.
(fl) Eaniley v. Lord Oranvm*, 3
C. D. p. 832.
(e) Blewttt V. Jtnkint, 19 0. B.
N. S. 16.
(/) \nittekureh v. HoUwcrth^,
i9yM.3M: i6B.B.4n.
LEGAL WASTE. 65
" Ab regards trees in an ordinary copyhold," said Jessel, chap. iv.
M.B., in Eardley v. Lord Granville (g), the property remains
in the lord, but in the absence of custom, he cannot cut them
down. The possession is in the copyholder; the property is
in the lord. If a stranger cuts down the trees, the copyholder
can maintain trespass against the stranger, and the lord can
maintain trover for the trees. If the lord cuts down the
trees, the copyholder can maintain trespass against the lord ;
but if the copyholder outs down the trees, irrespective of the
question of forfeiture, the lord can bring an action against
tlie copyholder."
A tenant for life or for years has the right to cut timber by
way of estovers for the necessary repairs of the house and
principal buildings, the fences, gates, and agricultural imple-
ments. If there is no underwood, he may also cut, or at least
lop, timber for the purpose of firewood (h). He has this
privilege of common right, but the estovers must be reason-
able (i). The right to estovers attaches as a right to the
particular estate on which they have been taken. Estovers
cut on one estate cannot be used on another (A;). A tenant for
life or for years may cut timber to repair houses which he is
not strictly bound to repair (l), but his may not cut timber to
make new fences or to build new houses, or to repair houses
which he has wasted or suffered to be wasted (m). Nor can
he cut timber for the purpose of working mines (n). The
cutting of timber which is not fit for repairs (o), or the cutting
(9) 3 0. D. p. BSa : 4« L. J. Oh. IM; SBio. 0. 0. S7; ITm. Jr. 78;
072. Niuh v. lEart 0/ Derby, 3 Yern. 037.
(I) Co. Litt 54 b.
(m) Co. Litt. 63b; 2 Roll. Ab.
816; Darcyy. Atkwith, Hob. 234.
Craig on Trees, 4; see IIowUij v. See the Settled Land Act, 1882,
Jel,h, 8 Ir. C. L. 435. See, as as. 29 and 35, infra. Chap. IV.,
to covenant by lessee to repair, Se 3t. 6, as to right of a tenant for
" having or taking sufficient house- lifj to cut timber for executing
bote, and without committing ai.thorised improTMDMits, aad
waste," DtanandOhapttro/BritM ti nber rip* for ontiiBg.
T. Jonu, 1 EL * BL 484 ; SS (ii) Dinty t. AAurith, titjmi.
L. J. a B. StOl ; 117 B. B. 8M. (o) Bimmau t. Norton, 7 Bing.
(i) Oo. litt 41 b. 648; e L. J. 0. P. 186; 38 B. B.
{k) Lm T. AUhn, 1 Ko. C. 0. 888.
(A) Manwooft tat*, Moor. 101
2 Boll. Ab. 823; Co. Litt 41 b
Vin. Ab. Waste ; Com. Dig. Waste
86
LEGAL WASTE.
<^|^nr. of more timber than is necessary for repairs (/)), is waste.
— But if timber be cut down bond fide for the purpose of being
used in repairs, the tenant is justified, though he may have
over-caiculated the quantity required (g). The timber cut
must be applied specifically towards the actual repairs for
which it has been cut. It cannot be sold for the purpose of
raising money for the purchase of other timber (r), or for the
purpose of defraying the expenses of past or contemplated
repairs (s) ; nor can it be exchanged for other timber better
adapted for the repairs in question (t).
ErioTui. Timber may not be cut for the purjwse of firewood as long
as there is any dry or decayed wood or underwood on tbe
land (u).
A copyholder is entitled to estovers by custom, and it would
appear that he is entitled to them of common right even
without a custom (x).
The committee of a lunatic's estate may cut timber for
repairs as a prudent owner would do (y).
WaMaia^Mi The cutting of fruit trees growing in a garden or orchard is
waste, unless they have been torn up by the wind (z) . But it
is not waste to cut fruit trees which do not grow in a garden
or orchard, but grow scatteringly on dirers places of the
land (a). The ploughing up a strawberry-bed before it is
exhausted has been held to be waste (b).
It is waste if the tenant of a dove-house, warren, park, fish-
(p) Ca Li S3 b. See M to LittfiSb; Cruise, Dig. 80 ; Colev.
teiuuita for j, S. L. Act, 1883, Peyton, 1 Ch. Ca. 106.
29. (x) Hfijdon'i case, 1.3 Co. Bep.
(./) East V. Hardinij, Cro. Eliz. 67.
498; Doe v. Wilson, 11 East, 56. (y) Ex imrte l.mUoir, 2 Atk. -JOT.
(r) Co. Litt. 53 b ; LewU BmrU's (i) Co. Litt. S3 a ; Littler v.
case, 11 Co. Eep. 82 a; Simmoni v. Thompton, 2 Beav. 129 ; 50 B. B.
Norton, 7 Bing. 648 ; 9 L. J. 0. P. 134. See the AgricultunJ Hold-
185; 33 E. B. 588. ing« Act, 1908, 8 Bdw. 7, c. 38,
(() ChrgM V. StanfiM, Cro. Elis. s. 43 (1) (iii.) ; and the Small HoW-
693 ; £«« T. AUion, 1 Bro. 0. C. ingg and Allotments Act, 1908, 8
194 ; 3 Bro. 0. 0. 37 ; Oomr v. Edw. 7 c. 36, g. 47, as to lemoval
Eyrt. Coop. 166. of fniit trees.
(<) Att.-Oen. V. Htawell, 2 Anst («) Bro. Ah. Wast*, pi. 143.
P- ^1- («) WnthmU T. JioMeU*, 1 Ctotp.
(«) 2 EoU. Ab. 820, pi. 9; Co. 227.
67
Chi^ IV.
LEGAL WASTE.
pond, or the like take so many of the animals that the per-
petuitj of saccession is destroyed (c) ; or suffer the pale of
the park to decay so that the deer escape, or permit the banks Wa.t« in parks,
of the fiah-pond to get out of repair so that the fish escape or Txc!^''
the pond dries up («/). If the lessee of a warren by charter or
prescription plough up the land, it ia waste («), but it is
otherwise if it be only land stored with conies and not a legal
warren; a. d stopping up and digging cony burrows is not
waste in a warren (/). Deer in a lawful park are part of the
inheritance: it is waste in a tenant for life to do anything
to sever the deer from the inheritance; and it seems that
reclaiming deer is an act of waste, because it makes them no •
longer venison in a park, but chattels like any other dcnnes-
ticated . nimals (rj).
It is waste if a tenant for life or for years dig for clay, Wa«t« in minw,
gravel, lime, brick, earth, minerals, stones^ or the like (h). If
there bo a grant of lands, or of lands and mines expressly, he
may dig and take the profits of mines, gravel pits, or clay
pits, open at the time of the grant, or which a preceding
tenant in tail under the settlement, or other perscm ri^tfully
entitled to open, may have opened, but he may not open new
ones (t). Nor does a lower to lease with the mines land on
(f ) Co. Litt. 63 b ; Hob. 234 ;
Vavasour's rate, 2 Leon . 222 ; A non. ,
i Lev. 240; Kimftmi v. Eve, 2
V. & 13. 349; 13 R. E. 116. Seeil/oy-
i<nr<l V. Gibton, (1876) W. N. 204, for
decliiration that tenant for life was
not entitled to deer and pigeona
absolutely, but only to their leaaon-
able enjoyment
{d) Oo. Liti fi3 a; Hob. 2.34;
Bathnrit r. Burden, 2 Bro. C. C. 64.
(e) Co. Litt.53 b ; Angerttmn t.
Hunt, 6 Ves. 487.
(/) Lurting v. Conn, 1 Ir. Ch. 273.
('/) /■'.«•</ V. Tynte, 2 J. & H. 153 ;
31 L. J. Ch. 180, per Wood, V.-C.
{!•) Bro. Ab. Wa«te, pL 83 ; Co.
litt 03 b; 2BolL Ab.8ie. Sm.
bowevw, BOW M to tiM powtn of a
tenant for life, 8. L. Act, 1889.
8. 29.
{«') Co. Litt. 54 b; Saiinden'
casf, 5 Co. Bep. 12 a; Viner r.
Vaiighan, 2 Beav. 460; SO B. B.
24a ; ffuntley r. Rumll, 13 Q. B.
591; 18 L. J. a B. 239 ; 78 B. B.
441 ; Bagot v. Bngot, 32 Beav. 509;
33 L. J. Ch. 118 ; Cleyg y. Botvlan<l,
L. H. 2 Eq. 160 ; 35 L J. Ch. 396 ;
Dashici.il V. Afai/niar, (1891) 3 Ch.
p. 360; 60 L. j. Ch. 831; May-
nartVa Settled Eitatf, (1899) 2 Ch.
352 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 611. Sea a« to
whether mines are opm or not,
Eliaiy. Snowdon Slatt Qiiarrm,4
A C. p. 466 i 48 L. J. Oh. 818;
a* Magnard. (1899) 3 Ch. 347 ; 68
I J. Ok 009; At CMt^, (1800)
68
LEGAL WASTE.
which there are both open and unopened mines authorise
a lease of unopened mines (A).
As a tenant for life is entitled to continue the working of
mines which were open at the time he came in, so he may use
all meanb necessary for working them. He may, if it can be
done without any special damage to the inheritance, sink new
shafts and pits to follow the same vein of coal {l),or to reach
new seams lying under the old seams (m). But it is doubtful
whether he has a right to open pits or mines which have been
abandoned, or the preparations for opening which have not
beei completed. The question must always depend on the
circumstances of each particular case (n).
The rale ibai a tenant for life may continue the worit-
mg of open mines, gravel or clay pits, extends to the case
of quarries of slate or limestone, which have been worked by
the owner of the inheritance for the purpose of making a
profit; but it seems that the rule does not apply to cases
where stone or slate has been dug out of a quarry for the
purjMse of building or repairing houses on the property, and
not for the purpose of profit (o)c
The reservation of minerals inelades all reaamable means
of getting them (p).
2 Ch. 804; 69 L. J. Ch. 837;
(ireviUe-Nuijent v. 3/arAeHzte, ( 1 900)
A. C. 83 ; 69 L. J. P. C. 1. See as
to working gravel pits so as to
destroy the surfaca, EUit v. Brom-
ley Local n<^rd, 4S L. J. Ch. 763,
(1876) W. N. 186.
(k) Cltgg T. BowUmd, L. B. 2 Eq.
160; 36 L. J. Ch. 396; In rt
BtukerviUe. (1910) 2 Ch. 329 ; 79
L. J. Ch. 687 ; In re Danieh, (1912)
2 Ch. !K) ; r,. J. (^h. 509.
(/) Whilfield V. Ikn it, 2 P. Wms,
240 ; Cl-treriiig v. Claveriny, ib. 388 ;
Viner v. Vauyhan, 2 Beav. 469; 50
B. R. 245 ; Kliat v. Snowden Slate
Qmrri€*, 4 A. C. 466 ; 48 L. J.
Oh. 811, per Lati Sribome ; Dtuk-
wood T. Magniae, ( 1691) 3 Ch. p. 361 ;
60 L. J. Ch. 831 ; see In re May-
hard's Settled Estate, (1899) 2 Ch.
351 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 609 ; lie Chaytor,
(1900) 2 Ch. 804 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 837.
(m) Spencer v. Scurr, 31 Bmt.
334 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 808.
(n) Viner r. FoM^Am, 2 Bmv.
469; fiOB.B.245; Sagot w. Bagot,
32 Beav. 509, 516 ; 33 L. J. Ch.
116; Hinch v. Dep$(m, 78 L. T. Jo.
321 ; lie Chaytor, (1900) 2 Ch. 804 ;
69 L. J. Ch. 8;i7. As to what is an
opened mine see ^haytor v. Trotter,
(1902) 87 L. T. 33.
{o) Elicu V. diwwdon Slate Quar
rite. 4 A. C. 464 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 811.
(p) EearlofCevdiganr.Armitetg$,
2B.*C. m;26B.B.313;/VMM{
T.Ai<w,34L.J.C%.4)* ; Barrio
LEGAL WASTE.
89
A reservation ot " minerals " includes every substance Ch»p. IV.
which can be got from underneath the surface of the earth,
whether by mining or quarrying, for the purpose of profit, SSJ^"^
unless Uiere i.s ^iomcthing in the context or ia the nstore of the "dMmli,
transaction to induce the Court to give it a more limited
meaning (q). The test, however, is not whether the sub-
stances in qaestion can be worked at a market profit at the
time, but whether they have a use and a value independent of
and separate from the rest of the soil (r). A reservation of
mines and minerals in a farming lease does not indicate an
intention to exclude a custom of the country for tenants to
remove and sell flints which come to the surface in the ordi-
nary course of agricultural operations so as to deprive the
tenant of this right (•).
A tenant for life or years may take reasonable estovers of E.toTer» of
gravel and clay for the repairs of buildings, although the pits JSi^jjS!*'' *^
were not open at the date of the grant or demise (t). There
may be also estovers of brick earth, lime, or the like, for the
reparation of buildings or manuring the land («.). So also
may there be estovers of coal (x). If there are open quarries
of limestone on the land, the traants may wwk tiiem fbr
estovers (y).
A tenant for life or years of land comprising turves has
V. Jiyding, 5 M. & W. 60 ; 8 L. J. ttwy Cb. T. BmMi OmI Co., (IMO)
(N. S.) Ex. 181 ; 62 E. B. 632; A. a 131, 134; 79 L. J. P. C. 31 ;
Qoold V. Onat Wmtern Jtap Cm! BanofdBtmrtuOaCo.Y.Farquhar-
Co., 2 De O. J. * 8. 600 ; Monhu v. mm, (1912) A. C. 864 ; 107 L. T. 332.
Dean and f^r'Jter of Durham, L. R. (r) Earl of Jersey v. A'eath Union
8 C. P. 3; L. J. C. P. 114; 22 Q. B. D. 562 ; 58 L. J. Q. b!
''"i/leay. Partners, Ltd., SIT , per Bowen, L.J . ; Johnstone r.
- ;»9) 1 ' 68 L. J. Ch. 222 ; Crompton <fc Co., (1899) 2 Ch. 100,
mid sc . V. Kennedy, 197; 68 L. J. Ch. 669, fi63; n«
(1907) I ^. ^se, ; 76 L. J. Ch. 162. Skey Jb Co. v. Parsont,n^.
(9) Next V. am, 7 Ch. 690; 41 («) Tmeker v. Lingm; 31 C. D.
L. J. Ch. 761 ; andaee Ortal Wttltm 30; 8 A. 0. 308; 02 L.X CL 941.
B- Iway Co. SiadM, (1901) 3 C*. (t) 2 EoU. Ab. 816.
624, 631 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 847 ; Lord (u) Co. Litt. 53 b, M b ; Saunders'
Provost of Glasgow v. Fairie, 13 case, 5 Co. Bfip. 12 a.
A. C. 657, 669 ; 88 L. J. P. C. 33 ; (i) 2 EoU. Ab. 816.
Staples V. Yuuuy. (1908) 1 ir. H. (y) Purcell v. Nath, I Jon«B, 625 ;
133 ; Skey A Co. v. Parsons, (1909) Mansfield v. Crawford, 9 Ir. Ec.
101 L. T. m : North BrtUA SaO- 171.
60
LEGAL WASTE.
^'bS.i * ^ estovers as many turves as may be
reoKMiably sufficient for consumption on the premises by way
f"^- of flrebote (2) , but ho may not cut turrw for the purpoaea <rf
sale (a), for the right of turbary can only exist as being a
right in respect of an ancient dwelling-house or building (6),
or for a new hoose, erected in continaance of the ancient
house, provided no greater burden is imposed upon the ser-
Tient land (c).
Interest of copy. A copyholder, whether of inheritance or for life, or for
bolder in miaei, „ i i
dv.iisnl, «te. years only, has the same possessory interest in mines ae he
has in trees (d). By custom a copyholder of inheritance may
have the right to break the surface and dig gravel, sand, and
clay, without stint, from out of his own tenement for the
purposes of sale off the manor (e). So also may a customary
tenant have the right by custom to work mines for profit on
his own copyhold tenement (/). But in the absence of custom
tiio tenant cannot, without the leave of the lord, open or work
new mines or work quarries upon his own tenement, nor on
the other hand can the lord, in the absence of a custom, open
and work mines upon the tenement of a copyholder (g).
If a stranger takes the minerals, the copyholder can bring
trespass against the stranger for interfermg with bis posses-
siwi, and the lord may bring an aeticm again ,t the stranger to
(«) De Salit V. Crotsan, 1 Ba. & Jiowier v. Maclean, 2 De Q. F. & J,
Bo. 188 ; 12 E. B. 12 ; Lord Con, - 416 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273.
town V. H ard, 1 Sch. & Lef. 8 ; (e) Mar,j„it of SalMurf
Howlty V. Jebb, 8 Ir. C. L. 435. HUtdttone, !) H. L. 0. 693 ; M
(a) Coppinger v. OubUni, 3 J. & L. J. C. P. 223 ; Hannur t. CXww^
L. 410; 72 B. B. 81; UouOeg T. 4 Be O. J. ft 8. 686 ; 34 L. J. di.
Jebb, 8 Ir. C. L. 434; Wahi/ItU r. 413;8MiSrea(AT.ZW,(18M}SCh.
Htmlnm, 11 L. B. Ir. AOS. 86 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 466.
(ft) Warwick v. Quten'i Ccllege, (/) J}i»hop of Wincheiter v.
Ox/ord, L. B. 6 Ch. p. 730; Att.- Knight, 1 P. Wms. 406; Parratt v.
Oen. V. Reynoldt, (1911) 2 K. B. Palmer, 3 M. & K. 632 ; 41 R. B.
888, 920 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1073. 149 ; Ihde of Portland v. UiU,
See, as to grants of turbary, IIUl v. L. B. 2 Eq. 766 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 439 ;
Harry, Hayes & J. 688 ; Hargrove see Heath r. DeoHf, mtfm; Inhn i
V. Congleton, 12 Ir. C. L. 362, 368. Btvenut Commi**itmtr$ t. Joiteg,
(e) AU..O*a.f, RtjfmMi, tt^ra. (1913) S K. R p. 986 ; 82 L. 7. S. &
{i) Sardleg r. Lord Ormvilk, S p. 787.
0. D. 838 ; 4« L. J. Oh. §73; see {g) BMop •/ rMW^r t.
LE0AL WASm
Cb«p. IV.
Scot. 2.
recover the minerals (h) . The right of tiie lord of • maor to
minerals is a right of property to the mineral substance only, .
subject to which the copyholder has an estate in the soil J^^'^T* **
tht< iighoat. If tiie lord baa remored miaorals, tiie space left mttImMi-
belongs to the copyholder (h).
The lord of a manor, in the absence of custom, is entitled to
every substance which can be got underneath the surface of
the earth in a copyhold tenement for the porpoee of prt^t (i).
Although in the case of copyholds the property in the mines
and minerals is in the lord, the concurrence of the tenant is
necessary, as a rule, in order tii»t the minmrsle may be
worked (A;), and accordingly a copyholder may obtain an
injunction against the lord entering and digging for minerals
under hie tenement (0. It seems open to question, however,
whether the lord is not free to work the minerals without the
concurrence of the tenant, provided that he does so by under-
ground workings and without entering upon or interfering
with the surface (m).
The lord of a ma- oay take gravel, marl, loam, turves, Si^tsfMaf
etc. , in the waste oi anor, so long as he does not infringe
up<m the rights of tL. oouumners. His rij^t exists by reason [j •*
of his ownership of the soil, and is quite independent of the *
right of approvement under the Statute of Merton or at
common law. Th«e ia no ground o* distinction between the
lord's "digging and catting" simply, and "digging and
Knight, 1 P. Wms. 406 ; Grey v.
Duke of Northumberland, 13 Ves.
236; 17Ve8.281 ; Ilournev. Taylor,
10 _ .8t, 189 ; 10 R. E. 26" ; Cuddon
V. Morley, 7 Ha. 204 ; 82 B. B. 65 ;
Duke of Portland y. Hitt, L. B. 2
Eq. 76«;3iL. J.0ii.4W;2ten««y
T. hard OraHrnVt, 3 0. D. 832 ; 4ft
L.J. Ch. 688; Att.-0*n. r. Tom.
tine, 6 0. D. 750 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 654 ;
Inland Revenue Cimmiuioneri v.
Joieey, tujyra (/).
{h) Eanlley r. Lord Oranville, 3
C. Up. 833 : 46 L. J. Ch. 672.
(0 AU.-ami. T. TomliM, 5 C. D.
762 ; 48 L. J. Oh. 604; M 0. D.
150; next v. Om, 7 (%. 712; 41
L. J. Ch. 761.
(*) Hext Y. Gill, 7Cb. 712; 41
L. J. Ch. 763; Eardl^ ^ Lord
GranviUe, 3 0. D. 882 ; 4« L. J. Ch.
672 ; Itdand Revenue OemmiMimm*
r.JoiMg.eupra (/).
(/) AU.'Oen. v. Tomline, 6 C. D.
750; 46 L. J. Ch. 684; Inland
Revenue Comm imi oi un Jcktf,
mpra (/).
(m) See Bowter v. Maclean, 2
De G. F. & J. 415 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273;
Inland Revenue Con mU riu Mn T.
■foittjl, tupra (/).
62
LEGAL WASTE.
'or purposes of sale." The burthen of proving that
— — he avails himself unduly of this right lies on the tenants. In
the CMS of approrament the onxu probandt in on the lord,
upon the ground that the lord having made a grant over the
whole waste, his right to inclose is treated as a right condi-
tional upon his establishing that he has left sufficient to
enable the tenants to enjoy the right of common granted (n).
Wmu by »it»ra- Any permanent alteration of tho character of land, such as
«( lud. the conversion of meadow into arable land by ploughing it
ap, or arable land into wood, or a meadow into an orchard,
is waste, oven although the value of the land be increased,
because it not only changes the course of husbandry, but
affects the proof of title (o). But a mere temporary alteration
in the ordinary and reasonable course of husbandry is not
waste (p). The enclosure and cultivation of waste land has
been held to be waste by reason of the injury to the evidence
of title (q).
cuUUationof general law a tenant for life or for years is under no
Uod. obligation to cultivate land. It is not waste to suffer arable
ground to lie fresh and not manured, so that it grows full of
thorns : it is merely bad husbandry (r) . To oblige a man to
cultivate according to good husbandry, there must be either an
(n) Hall V. Byron, 4 C. D. 667 ; ingi Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28),
46 L. J. Ch. 297 ; Robtrtion v. ss. 46. 48. and Bdwd. L, PMt I..
Hart„pp, 43 C. D. 484. 499 ; 69 to the Act
L. J. Ch. 553. (p) 2 BoU. Ab. 814; Yiner.Ab.
(u) Co. Litt 63 Lord Darcy tit Waate; Malevnr y. Sfinkt,
V. AtktHth, Hob. 234 ; WorOry r. Dyer, 37 a ; Simnwiu y. NorUm,
Sttwart, 4 Bro. P. C. 377 ; Simmmu 7 Bing. 647 ; 9 L. J. C. P. 185 ; 33
T. Norton, 7 Bing. 647 ; 9 L. J. B. B. 688 ; Cruise, Dig. tit iii.
C. P. 185 ; 33 E. B. 588; Oorivy c. 2, b. 19 ; and see Iliiah v. Luea$,
V. Goring, 3 Sw. 661 ; Tuckfr v. (1910) 1 Ch. 43"; 79 L. J. Ch. 172.
Linyer, 21 C. D. 18; 61 L. J. Ch. (7) Queen's College v. Jlallett, 14
713; }Vat Ham Central Charity East, 4S9; 13 B. B. 293. See
Board v. Eat* London Waterworks observations on this case in West
Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 624 ; 69 L. J. Ch. Ham Charitj/ t. £a,t London Water-
257 ; but see Dohtrty t. Attman, 3 work* Co,, mpm (0).
A.O.i,. 736; Jf*iwr.CMfcsr,(18»2) (r) Bro. Ab. Waate, pL 6; i
2 Oh. 363, 264 ; and Ruth t. Luau, BoU. Ab. 814 ; Button v. Warren,
(1910) 1 Ch. 437 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 172; 1 M. & W. 172; 5 L. J. (N. 8.)
Pemberteti v. Cooper, (1913) 107 L. T. Ex. 234 ; 46 B. B. 368.
716; MidaMtlMAgnflultiinaHoU-
LBOAL WASTE.
Clwp.IV.
8m4i 8*
express contract or a custoiu of the country («). A custom of
the country need not have existed from time immemorial, as
muBt a custom pro|>erly so called. It i^ sufficient if there be
a general usage applicable to farms in the part of th« ooantry
in which tho land is situated (<). Th»! mere relation of land-
lord and tenant creates an implied obligation on the part of
the tenant to manage and use a farm in a hnsbandlike manner
according to the custom of the country where the premises are
situated (x), unless, indeed, the lease or agreement contain
some exinresa covenant or premise inconsistent with such
custom and sufficient to exclude it (y). The removal of hay,
straw, dung, crops, etc., from a farm is waste, where it is
contrary to the coatom of the country, and will be restrained
by injnnotkm («). So also the sowing of lands witii pernicious
crops, each as mustard, is waste, and ' be restrained (a).
The obligation to cultivate lands accorumg to the custom of
the country doea not .apply to a gardra <» meadow let with a
residence (6).
The Court will not, however, enforce by mandatory injunc- co.en»nt to
tion the performance of covenants to cultivate land (c). ^Dfo^b^'
(«) HutUm V. Warren, 1 M. & W.
472 ; 6 L. J. (K. S.) Ex. 234 ; 46
B. B. 368, jwr Lotd WendeydaJe.
See tbe Agrieoltnnd HoMiiigi Aet,
1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28), sa. 26, 46,48.
it) Leigh v. Heuitt, 4 Kast, 164 ;
l>alby V. Iliret, 1 B. & B. 224 ; 21
11. R. 677 ; and see Tucker v.
LingfT, 21 V. D. 34 ; 8 A. C. 608;
51 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 941.
(r) I'virley v. Walker, 5 T. E.
373; 2 B. B. 619; Jfaltfax y.
Chambers, 4 M. ft W. 663; Aa/«
V. Saun<ler;3mag. N. 0. 8W; 6
L. J. (N. 8.) C. P. 383; 48 B. B.
823. See the Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1908 ss. 26, 46, and 48.
(y) Huttm V. Warren, 1 M. & W.
466; ftL. J. (N. 8.) Ex. 234; 46
B. B. 368 ; flark t. Boyitor 13
IL *W. 782; 14 L. J. Ex. _3;
67 B. B. 806; Wilkim i. Wood, 17
L. J. a B. 319 ; Tucker v. Linger,
Mifira, and note* to Wiggltiworth t.
JDalUmm, 1 ftn. L. C. M ; and M*
•. 36 of the Agrieultunl Holdings
Act, 1908.
(z) Pulteney v. Shtiton, 6 Yes.
147, 260, n. ; v. (Milnw, 16 Ves.
173 ; Kimpton r. Eve, 2 V. & B.
349; 13 E. E. 116; I'ratt v. Brett,
2 Madd. 62 ; 17 E. B. 187 ; Walton
V. Jvhnaon, 18 Sim. 362 ; 74 B. B.
99; and aee the Agtioultaiml Hold-
ings Aet, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, e. 38),
SB. 26, 46.
(a) Pratt r. Brett, 2 Hadd. 62;
17 E. E. 187.
(i) Johnstone v. Symoni, 9 L. T.
O. S. 835. See, as to cultivation of
glebe land. Bird v. Btlph, 4 B. ft
Ad. 826; 2 L. J. (N. 8.) K. B. 99 ;
38B.B. 382.
(e) Mtugrtm v« Hmm, Si L. T.
iiUBiwtin.
64
LEGAL WASTE.
WMtota
Cli«p. IV. Wante in houacH or huildinKs consists in pulling them down,
- altering their character, or in Buffering them to go to decay (r/).
The faiw of wMte eitwids not only to dweiling-hooMt, bat
to every description of buildings (e). An ulterntion of build-
ings which changes their nature and character is waste, even
•Itiioagh the nine of the premieee be thereby increased.
Thus, the conrerting two eluinibers into one, or i eonverto, or
the converting u hand-mill into a horse-mill, or a corn-mill
into a fttUing-roill, or u mult-mill to a corn-mill, or a log-
wood mill to a cotton mill, Imve been held to be waste (/).
But every alteration by iv Icsspe of tho d(>mis(xl premisps is
not necessarily waste. It i.t in every case u question of fact
whether the act change* the nature of the property having
regard to tho user of the domistnl promises pci inissibie under
the lease. Thus, the conversion of part of a private house into
a shop {(j), and the oonversitm of a chapel into a theatre (h),
have been held not to be waste. But the building of a new
house, where there was one before, may be waste, if it impair
the evidence of title (i). In Smyth v. Carter (k) the Court
granted an interlocutory injunction restraining a man frtmi
pulling down a house and building another which tho landlord
objected to. " It is not sufficient," said Lord Bomilly,
M.B. (I), " that tile house proposed to be built is a better
oaa. The landlord has a right to exercise his own judgment
633: Phifp»r.Jadtiem,KJj.J.Ch. 2 L. J. (\. S.) K. li. 11 ; ;1K U. K.
SiO. 234. See llymitn v. Itosf, (li)12)
{(/) Co. Litt. 53 a. See Kimptvn A. C. p. 032 ; HI L. J. K. U. 10(i2.
V. £ve, 2 'M B. 36a ; 13 R. B. U6 : Cf. SmnM v. ScdUr, H Yeg. 526 ;
Ugmm T. Bo*e, (1913) A. r p. 633 ; 9 B. B. 341 ; Mattntn r. Hort, 1
81 L. J. K. B. 1063. L. R. Ir. 88.
((} Dot T. EaH of Burliugioti. S (A) l/tjman Sou, (1912) A. C.
B. ft Ad. 607 ; 3 L. J. (N. S.) 0^3 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 10G2.
K B. 26 ; 39 B. B. 649. (t) Co. Litt. 63 a ; Cole v. Oreev,
(/) Co. Litt. S3 a; tlretn v. 1 Lev. 309; S. C, nom. Coir v.
Coif, Wms. Saund. 228; City of Forth, 1 Mod. 94- but seo Joiiff
Londtm V. (irceme, Cro. Jac. 182; v. Cliaii»ll, 20 K.i. 5)!); 44 L. J.
JSrj(/ye« V. A'i7(ii(rn, cit. 6 Ves. 689; Ch. (ioH ; Jiolerty v. AUman, 3
6 R. R. 148; Hunt y. Browne, Sau. & A. C. p. 735.
8c 181 ; but nee (Jmnd Caml Co. (t) 18 Beav. 78 ; 104 B. R. 606.
McNtmee, 39 L. B. Ir. ISl. (0 lb.
(0) Doty. JoMt, 4 B. * Ad. 136;
leoal wasts.
«6
IV.
and caprice, wh-tlier there shaU b« uyohMge: if he objects.
the Court will not uUo\' a tenant to poll down on* house and
build anoUiei in ite place " (m).
But in Doherti, r. Attman (n), where land with buildings
which had been used as stores was leased for a very long
period, and the buildings had fallen out of repair, and the
lessaa wm proeeeding to emirert the store* into dwelling-
houses, which would much increase their value, the Court
refused to interfere by injunction.
A covenant to repair being positive as well as negative in its
obligations, the tenant is thereby bound as well n<rt to do an
act amounting to voluntary waste as to repair dilapida-
tions (o). The existence in a lease of a covenant to repair and
to surrender up th* buildings at the end of the term in good
condition, docs not preclude the Court from grunting nn
injunction to restrain the pulling down of buildings just befor*
the end of the term (p).
A mandatory order, however, will not be made to direct a court wiii m
person to repair (q). tniont by
Ane suoenng houses, buildmgs. etc., to go to decay by »•
wrongfully neglecting to repair them is permissive waste. An ^^r,
action on the cuho for perniissivc «-asto lies ugainst a tenant
for Ufa or years upon whoiu an express duty to repair i$
impoted hg th* inttrtment which ertatet the estate (r).
There are also authorities at law to show that an action on the
case for permissive waste can be maintained against a tenant
for life or years, even though no express duty is imposed on
him by the instrument which creates the estate (•). But it
(m)^a«Mei/?.tfort,lL.B.Ir.88; L. J. (N. S.) K. B. 32 ; 41B.Il.^08.
Bro. Ab. WMto ; Cruise. Dig. tit iii
e. 2, 8. 12. But Me Uyman t. Bott,
(1912) A. C. 623 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1062.
(») i A. C. 709 ; and see .V. ux v.
Cobleij, (1892) 2 C'h. 253 ; 61 L. J.
(-'h. 449; Writ Hum CImrity Hoard
V. Eiut London Waterworkt Co.,
(1900) 1 Ch. p. eaS; 69 L. J. Ch.
239 ; Iliiman v. Rov, (1912) A. C.
623 ; 81 L. J. B. 1062.
(o) Doe V. Jadtmm, 2 Sturk. 293 ;
Dot T. Bird, 6 On. * P. 196; 4
(/') Mayor of London v. Iledyer,
18 Vcs. 356.
('/) Jtt.-Urn. V. Stafforda/.ire
County Council, (1906) 1 C'h. 336,
342 ; "4 L. J. Ch. 155 ; see ReytuMt
V. Itarnr,, (1909) 2 Ch. p. ZVl ; 78
L. J. Ch. p. 647; Worct»Ur VoUegi,
ax/ord V. Oxford Ctmal Suviyalim,
(1912) 81 L. J. Ob. p. 3.
(r) Woodhotm t. irfUker, S Q. B.
D. 404 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 609.
(») Wreen Cole, 2 Wms. Saund.
66
LEGAL WASTE.
Clap. IV.
Sect. 2.
PiztutM.
Oenenl rata of
ExeeptioM.
seems to be new settled that, as a genenil rule, in the absence
. of express jigreement, there is no liability on a tenant for
life or a tenant for years for mere permissive waste (0-
Where, however, n lessee who is bound by his lease to keep
the premises in repair, bequeaths the lease to persons in suc-
cession, the tenant for life under the will is bound, as between
himself and the testator's estate, to keep the property in
repair, so far as the want of repair arises during the con-
tinuance of his interest (u). By the custom of certain
manors, the copyhold tenants are bound to keep their holdings
in repair (x), but in the absence of such a custom there is no
obligation on the copyhold tenants to repair their tene-
ments (y).
The general rule of the common lav is that personal chattels
once annexed to the freehold became part of it, and may not be
again severed without the consent of the owner of the inherit-
ance, and Jiat it is therefore waste if a tenant for life or years
who has annexed a personal chattel to the freehold afterwards
takes it away, and the Court will restrain the unlawful
removal (z). But many exceptions have been engrafted on
this general rule, the most important being in favour of trade
()4ti; Ydluirlji V. (lower, \\ Exch.
•i9 J ; 24 L. J. Ex. p. 299 ; Davitt
V. Davit), 38 C. D. 499 ; 67 L. J.
Ch. 1093.
(0 Bame* v. Dowlmg, 44 L. T.
811; /» re Cartimght, Avit t.
Seuyman, 41 C. D. 532 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 690 ; IHmonii v. Nttvbum,
(1898) 1 Ch. p. .12 : 67 L. J. Ch.
p. 17; In re /'nin/ ami llnjihin,
(iy(H)) 1 Cli. 100; (ill L.J. Ch. 190;
In re Larona l^eltlanent, (1911) 2
C... p. 21; 80 L. J. Ch. 010; and
see Pomy v. Blagrave, De O. M. &
O. 448, 468 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 142. A
tenant at wUl or from year to year
is not liable for permienve waste
(Torriano v. Youm,, C. & P. 8;
/Hack-more v. iVIiite. (1S99) 1 (i. B.
p. 300; 68L. J. U. 11. 184).
(«) /II re Betty, (1899) 1 Ch. 821 ;
68. L. J Ch. 435; He dyers, (1899)
2 Ch. 54; 68 L. J. Ch. 442; Re
Varrij ami l/opkiii, (1900) 1 Ch. p.
161 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 190 ; lie Smith,
Bull V. Smith (1901). 84 L. T. 836;
Re Waldrou, (1»04) 1 Ir. B. 240.
{x) 9te BUukmortv. White, {ISOB)
1 Q. B. 293 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 180;
Oalbraith v. VoynUm, (1905) 2 K. B.
p. 205 ; 74 L. J. K. U. 657.
(y) aalliraitli v. I'oyuton, (1905)
2 K. li. 258 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 649.
(z) AVii'M V. Maw, 3 East, 3K ; 6
B. E. 523 ; tiuwleiiand v. Xewtoii,
3 Sim. 460 ; 30 B. B. 186 ; Richard-
ton V. Ardlty, 38 L. J. Ch. 608 ;
Be Htdte, (1906) 1 Ch. p. 410; 74
L. J. Ch. 246 ; Re Lord ChetterJitUCi
,SV«W Kitates, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 241;
80 L. J. Ch. pp. 187, 18b.
LEGAL WASTE.
67
Cli«p. IV.
and agricultural fixtures (a). Chattels which have been
afBxed to the freehold for the purposes of trade {b\ and which
retain the general character of trade fixtures, -r^v : o y^zaoved
by a tenant for years during his term (c). Vho exception has
however been held not to extend to building vrh ■r h havo be»! i
let into the soil, although used for trading pi lyi st s. A tenant
for yeers, even under the most farottraWe circumstances, has
no right (d) to remove any building which he has erected
merely because it is used only for the purposes of trade (e).
The indulgence which exists with respect to trade fixtures T.»«t. tixt««.
extends also to many cases of fixtures put up by a tenant for
years at his own expense for the purposes of ornament or
domestic convenience, such as marble chimney-pieces, pier
glasses, wainscots fixed with screws, hangings nailed to the
walls, stoves or grates fixed into the chimney with brickwork
and cupboards supported by holdfasts and the like (/).
(a) See the Agriculttma Hold-
ings Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28),
m. 21 and 42; and the Small
HoMingg and Allotments Act, 1908
(8 Edw. 7, c. 36). 8. 47 (4).
(I>) See Meara v. CallenJer, (1901)
■2 Ch. 388 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 621 ; and
Jie Lord ChtKterfield'a SettM Estatrs,
(1911) 1 Ch. pp. 241, 242; SOL. J.
Ch. 187, 188.
(c) Lawtm r. LawUm, 3 Atk. 18 ;
Elwu T. Mfne, 3 Eut, 38 ; 6 B. B.
823; 3 Smith, L. C. 207-210;
Fiiey v. Addenbroke, 13 M. & W.
174; 14 L. J. Ex. 1«9; 67 H. R.
840; U'ardy. Counteat o/ Diidlei/, 5'
I>. T. 20 ; Mear$ v. ValUnder, {1901) 2
Ch. 388 ; TOL. J. Ch. 621 ; JieHuUe.
Btaitie V. HuUf, (1905) 1 Ch. pp.
410, 411 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 248 ; MowUt
V. Hiidton, (1BH) 104 L. T. 400;
Mid ••• the AsrieoHnnl HoMmg?
Act, 1908, i. 21, and the Small Hold-
ings and Allotmenta Act, 1908, 8. 47.
{<!) But 8ee the Agricultural
Holdings Act. 1908, sa. 21 and 49 ;
and the Small Holdings and Allot-
montsAot, 1908, a. 47 (4).
(e) Elwes v. Maw, ,J East, 38 ; 6
E. R. 523 ; 2 Smith, L. C. 208 ;
Whitehead \. Ilennett, 27 L. J. Ch.
474; but see Mears v. CalUnder,
(1901) 2 Ch. 388 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 821 ;
and the Agncultural Holdings Act,
1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. M). as. 21 and 42 ;
and the Small Holdings and Allot-
mentoAct,1908,8.47(4). See as to
rightof miners in certain districts to
remove buiMings erected formining
purposes, Wake v. Hall, 8 A. C. 193 ;
52 L. J. Q. B. 494. See also Ward
V. Cimtem 0/ Dudley, 57 L. T. 20.
If) S,jHierv. Maytr, Fieem. Oi.
248; 2 Eq.Jih. 430 .Btder.Btvow.
I P. Wma. M; Sxparft Quiney, 1
Atk. 477; Laiiion y. Lawton, 3
Atk. IS ; Zee V. SUdnn, 7 Taunt.
191 ; 17 B. R. 484,;,frOibb9, C.J. ;
Rex V. Si. Diin'tan'n, 4 I{. & C. 686,
per Bayloy, J. ; /„ re De f'nlbe,
Ward V. Taylor, (1901) 1 Ch. 623 ;
S. C, under name of Ltigk r
Taylor. (1902) A. C. 157, IM; 71
r. J. Ch. 272; In re Lord Chtritr-
Ml'* SiUUd BMate,, (mi) I Ch.
p. MS; 80L. J. Ch. pp. 188, 189.
6 — a
68
LEGAL WASTE.
Sect. 2.
WhnirHMTiUe.
Chap. IV. Chattels which have been annexed to the freehold by a
tenant for years, if remorable at all, should be removed by him
before the expiration of the tenancy (</) , or at all events before
the expiration of such further period of possession as he holds
the premises under a right still to consider himself as
tenant (h). A tenant whme interest is of an uncertain dura-
tion has a right to remove fixtures after it has expired, pro-
vided he does so within a reasonable time (i). Where a
tenant surrenders his interest to his landlord, the mort^gee
or purchaser from the tenant of his trade fixtures prior to
the determination of the lease is entitled to remove them
within a reasonable time after the surrender (A;) ; but where
a tenant surrendered his lease in order that a now lease might
be granted to him without any provision as to the removal of
the fixtures, he was held to have lost the right to the fixtures,
for a surrender of demised premises prima facie includes
fixtures {I).
Davim or heir- Questions respecting the right to fixtures may arise also
between tenant for life and remainderman, between heir and
executor, between vendor and purchaser, between mortgagor
and mortgagee, between devisee and legatee, and in other
cases (m). In cases between the devisee or heir-at-law and
(jf) Lyd« v. Suuell, 1 B. & Ad. and Leschallai v. Woulf, auj^ra.
394 ; 9 L. J. K. B. 26 ; 35 B. E. (t) See llcfto« v. ]\ u,„ho'k, I'uyh
327; /'(/</'/ V. Arton, L. K. 8 Eq. -9. Artmi, Ex parte Urook, aud In re
626; :i8 L. J. C'h. 619; In re Olaedir Cop}^ Work*, tu/ira (jf).
aiao^Hr (•op,<er W„rfis, (1904) 1 Ch. (k) In rt QUudrr Copftr Wurkt,
823, 824 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 461 ; In re tujra.
IIul»t, (1905) 1 Ch. p. 4 1 1 ; 74 L. J. (/) LtKhalloi v. Wod/, tupra {ji).
Ch. p. 248 ; LttchaUat v. Wool/, (») See Ualtg y. Uanmmtkg, S
(1908) 1 Ch. p. M2 i 77L.J.Ch.p. De O. F. * J. 687 ; 30L. J.Ch.771
3fil. See also the Agricultural (mortgagor end mortgagee) ; South-
Holdings Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. ;/or< Banking Co. v. 7'Ao»n/,«on, 37
28), 88. 21 (i.), 42 (ii.), (iii.), and the C. D. 64 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 114 (mort-
SmaUlluldingsand.-VUotmentsAct, gagor and mortgagee); In re De
1908 Edw. 7, c. ;i6), 8. 47 (4). lallie, U'anl v. Taylor, (1901) 1 Ch.
(/i) U'eeUm v. Wmxlcoek, 7 M. & 523 ; S. C under name Leiyh j.
W. 14 ; 10 L. .T Ex. 183 ; 56 B. R. Taylor, (1902) A. C. IM ; 71 L. J.
606 ; EmparU Brock, 10 C. D. p. 109 ; Ch. 273 ; In rt HuUe, (1909) I Ck.
Btufr. Probgn, U L. T. 118; 406 ; 74 L. J. Oh. 9M (traut tot
aaA»fInrtOk»dirOoff»rW»rk$, life utd nBUBdwBMUi} ; JTomM t.
69
Chap. IV.
Sect 2.
LEGAL WASTE.
the executor the general rule of law obtains with the most
rigour in favour of the inheritance and against the right to
consider as a personal chattel anything which has been
annexed to the freehold (n). In these case^ -o question of
injustice arises. There is no injustice, no fo.feiture of any
property, when a man who is owner in fee affixes his own
chattels to the freehold (o). In cases between the executors Kx«.tor«f
of a tenant for life and the remainderman the claim of the ISdJt^IirfSjL
former to fixtures is favoured (p), but not so much as that of
a tenant for yeirs in eases between landlord and tenant (q).
Successive incumbents of a benefice stand to each other some-
what in the relation of tenant for life and remainderman, but
m respect of the right to fixtures the law is much more liberal
m favour of a deceased incumbent than m the ordinary case of
tenant for life and remainderman (r). In cases between Vendor «.d
vendor and purchaser, or mortgagor and mortgagee, the right
to fixtures may depend on the terms of the contract (*).
Thus, on a sale of land, fixtures upon the premises will pass
to the purchaser by the conveyance in the absence of a con-
trary inteition in the contract (t), so also, a mortgage of pre- Uoh^^
mises will pass the fixtures upon the pr-ialaes, a mortgage of a
riarnei, (1901) 1 Q. B. 203; 70
J'- J. K. B. 225 (mortgagor and
mortgagee); Re WhtUty, (1908) 1
Ch. 619 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 367 (devisee
■nd legatee) ; In re Lord Chater-
JieWi SettM l'itaU$, (1911) 1 Ch.
237 ; 80 li. J. Ch. 187, 189 (executor
and deviaee or heir).
(») See 2 Smith, L. C. 215;
Korton V. Dathuood, (1896) S Ch.
497 ; 65 J. Ch. 7;17 ; /n n HuUe.
(1905) 1 Ch. 410, 411 ; 74 L, J. Ch.
-M8 . In rt Whalty, (1906) 1 Ch.
(il5. 620; 77 L. J. Ch. 8« : /n M
Lord CkfkrJMd'i Stttttd E»la(e».
(1911) ICh. 237 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 187.
(o) Per Stirling, L.J., in In re
fle Faihe, mir.lv. Tat/lor, (1901) 1
Ch. p. .Ml : TO T, J. Ch. p. 294;
In rt Hulte, (1804) 1 Ch. 410. 411 ;
74L.jr.Ch.p.ai«; InnWM^,
(1908) 1 Ch. 615, 620 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
p. 370.
(/') Jforton v. Dat/iwood ; In re
he Ffdhe, supra ; S. C. under name
of Leigh V. Tat/lor, (1902) A. C. 1S7 ;
71 L. J. Ch. 272; and aee /n n
Hulse, and In re Whulei/, tt^ra.
('/) 2 Smith, L. C., 214; Norton
v. Dathwood, In rt Hulte, tupru.
(r) Maninr.Bot,1B.ttB.3y! ;
26 L. J. a 3. 129; 110 H. R. 577.
(«) Ooltgmve ▼. IHat Santm, 2
B. ft C. 76, 80 ; 1 L. J. (o. S.)
K. ». 2.(9 ; see Haley v. Hammtrtlty,
3 De G. F. & J. 591 ; 30 L. J.
Ch. 771, 773; see R^noldt r.
AMy, (1903) 1 K. B. 87, 99;
(1904) A. 0. 466, 470 ; 73 L. J.
E. B. 346.
(*) CkMfnm T. Dime Bmtit,
) • f
70
LEGAL WASTE.
Ch«p. IV.
lease ui by a lessee will carry the fixtures of the property
in leas( , and the power to remove which fixtures was in the
tenant, and fixtures attached by a mortgagor to the property
after the date of the mortgage will also (unless jndcr special
stipulations) pass to the mortgagee (m). This, however, does
not necessarily prevent the mortgagor while in possession
from dealing with such fixtures. Thus if machinery is affixed
to premises in suth a manner as to become a fixture under a
purchase and hiring agreement, by which, as between mort-
gagor and vendor, it remains the property of the vendor, the
mortgagee has the right to take possession of the machinery as
part of his security, although not paid for by the mortgagor
under the purchase and hiring agreement, and although pat
up after the mortgage, and although the vendor had no
knowledge of the existence of the mortgage; but a mortgagee
who does not take possession would fail to obtain an injnne-
tion to restrain the removal of such fixtures unless he proved
that his security was deficient or would become so by such
removal (x). But where a company fixed on their business
premises machinery obtained from the owner under a hire-
purchase agreement under which the owner had power to
remove the machinery on non-payment of instalments of pur-
chase money, and the company -sabseqaentiy witiiout dis-
closing the hire-purchase agreement, created not a legal but
merely an equitable mortgage of their business premises, it
was held that the equitable interest of the owner of the
machinery under the hire-purchase agreement had priority
over the equitable interest of the mortgagee (y) .
(u) Jfetue JtKcbt, L. B. 7 H. L.
481 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 481 ; Holland v.
IMgson, L. E. 7 C. I'. 3l>8, ;j;)7 ;
41 J. C. P. 146 ; riinie v. Wood,
L. R. 4 Ex. 328 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 223;
Southfort Banlinij Co. v. Thompson,
37 C. D. 64 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 114;
dough T. Wood, (1894) 1 Q. B. 713,
718 ; 63 L. J. a B. M4; Hobmthy.
Oorringt, (1897) 1 Ch. 182 ; 6«L. 3.
Ok 114; Jloirft T. Bamei, (1901)
iaB.90Si7OL.J. K.B.ttA;
JlgmoMi T. Athby, tupra {») ; Ellia
V. alover it Co., (1908) 1 K. B. 388,
398, 399 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 281.
(r) KIlis V. O/ow, (1908) 1 K. B.
p. 399 ; 77 L. J. K. E p. Sft7, JMT
Farwell, L.J.
(y) In re Samurl Mien ifc Co.,
(1907) I Ch. iM ; 76 L. J. Ch.
3^ ; and m /« re Morritm, J«tm
and 3f%for, (1913) 10* L. T. «7«;
M T. L. B. 474.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
71
8KCTIOK 8.— PERSONS FOR AND AGAINST WHOM INJDNCTIONB j^"
ARE ORANTED.
An estate for life, whether it be given expressly by the Wante by teiuwt
instrument which creates it, or whether it arises from equit-
able considerations, is always impeachable of waste, unless
the contrary be provided Oy express stipulation (z). The
application for an injunction to restrain a tenant for life or
for years from committing 'waste is usually made by the owner
of the inheritance, but the application may be made by a
remainderman for life, as well as by the owner of the inherit-
ance ; and even without making the persons entitled to the
inheritance parties to the action (a) The intervention of
an intermediate estate for life does not deprive the owner of
the inheritance or a remainderman for life of his right to an
injunction (h). So, also, trustees to preserve contingent
remainders may bring a bill to stay waste against a tenant
for life (c). In Garth v. Cotton, Lord Hardwicke held that
trustees to preserve contingent remainders might have an
injunction against a tenant for life and a remote remainder-
man colluding to commit waste while the remainders were in
expectancy (rf). It would appear that trustees to presenre
contingent remainders may not only institute proceedings to
stay waste, but are bound to do so for the benefit of the con-
tingent remainders (e).
If the legal estate is in trustees upon trust for a tenant for
life, with remainders over, and the tenant for life commits
waste, the trustees have a right to file a bill to stay the
waste, and it is their duty to do so, if parties unborn are
interested (/). A remainderman, however, need not look to
(») CoUr. PesiOH, 1 Ch. B«p. « ; (e) Ptrrot r. Pmot, 3 Atk. 94 ;
WhU/Mdr. Biwit, a P. Wem. 240; Garth v. Cotton, ib. 781 ; 1 Dick.
In rt Bidgt, 31 0. D. 801, 60" ; 58 183 ; 1 Veu. Sen. 524, 546.
L. J. Ch. 263 ; Pardee v. I'ardoe, (rf) Seo miliams y. Duke of
(1900) 82 L. T. 547. Bolton, I Cox, 72; 3 P. Wmfc
(a) MoUineitx v. Powell, 3 P. W. 268, n. ; 4 E. E. 21.
268, n. ; Birdi-Wol/e v. Birch, {e) Stanijield v. Haheryham, 10
9 Eq. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 345. Ves. 278, per Lord Eldon ; 7 B> E.
(/() Traey v. Tracy, 1 Vern. 23 ; 409.
Farrant v. LovtU, 3 Atk. 723. (/) Dtfiom y. DtuMm, 7 Bmt.
72
INJUNCTIONS AGAIN8T WASTE.
Order XVI.,
r.87.
ch«,. iv. the trustees for protection (r;) ; and oven where an estate is
— — vested in tnistoos upon trust to sell and divide the proceeds
amongst a class of persons, any mombpr of that class may
apply for an injunction to restrain the tenant for life from
committing waste (p).
Order XVI., r. 37, provides that in all ca.sos of actions for
the prevention of waste or otherwise for the protection of
property, one person may sue on behalf of himself and all
persons having tlio same interest.
The remainderman of an undivided share of the inherit-
ance may have an injunction and an account (/i). When an
estate for life is given with certain directions which impose
an obligation on the tenant for life not to he guilty of waste,
either voluntary, or permissive, the Court will interpose to
prevent either him or his alienee from doing any act which
would be a breach of the condition or obligation ((").
As between coparceners, joint tenants, or tenants in com-
mon, the Court will not interpose to restrain waste (A;), unless
the wrongdoer is insolvent, or incapable of paying to the other
the excess of the value beyond his own share (/), or is
occupying tenant to the other (m), or unless the waste
amounts to destructive waste, or spoliation (n).
Teuaut in tail in A tenant in tail in possession is dispunishable of both
ponijuioa. equitable waste, because he may at any time bar
the entail, and acquire the absolute fee simple (o). It has
Wdste between
cojiarceners,
joiot tt'imntH,
and tenant* in
oommoi.
388 ; Piisr* t. Vmghm, 13 Bemv.
SaO ; U B. B. leO; Ftner r. Vaug-
han, 2 Bear. 409; 50 B. B. 249,
and see Order XVI. r. 8.
{g) Vintr v. Vatighan, supra.
(A) Co. I.itt. 63 b; WhM/Md t.
Iteii'il, 2 P. W. 241.
(i) Kinj/ham v. Lee, 15 Sim. 409;
16 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 74 E. E. 103. See
niaijrtirt v. Dlayrave, 1 De G. ft S.
2 i3; 16 L. J. Ch. 346 ; 76 B. B.
99.
(*) Twort ». Trnort, 16 Ves. 129 ;
10 B. B. 141. See Bailey v. //oiaon,
6 Ch. 182 ; ;fy I.. J. Ch. 270, where
a decree had been made in a parti-
tion rait.
(Q Smallman r. 0»imu, S Bro.
C. C. 620.
(m) Twort v. Tmirt, U Ve«. 138 ;
10 R. R. 141.
(n) Durham and Sunderland Rail-
v ay Co. V. Haum, 3 Bmt. 119;
52 R. h. 56; Artkmr r. Umbe.
2 Dr. & Sm. 4tt ; BaUeg r.
Uch*M, 5 Oh. ISO; 39 L. J.
Ch. 370; Jtib T. PottoH, 20 Bq.
84; 44 L. J. Ch. 262 (mine) ; and
see Qlyn v. HowtU, (1909) 1 Ch.
666. 677 : 78 L. J. rh. .391 (minn
trespass).
^c) Turner v. Wright, 3 Madd.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
been held that an infant tenant in tail in possession has the
same right as one of fall age against the remainderman, and
that his guardians might oommit waste, although by oonrert-
ing the nature of the property from realty into personalty the
next of kin of the infant would, in the event of his death, he
benefited at the expense of tbenin8ind<>-man(j9}. In SavilU'$
case (q), Lord King would not restrain by injunction the
guardians of an infant tenant in tail in possession from
cutting timber, whilst the infant waa in very bad health. After
the death of tlie infant, which took place shortly afterwards, a
bill by a remainderman for an account against his assets
was dismissed (r). An injunction may be had against the
guardian of an infant tenant in tail, if the application be made
on behalf of tlip infant (s). The right to be dispunishable of
waste extends not only to the grantee of a tenant in tail, but
also to the grantee of such grantee (<). In the ease of an
infant tenant in tail in possession the Court will authorise
the cutting of timber fit to be felled in a due course of manage-
ment, but where the infant is tenant in tail in remainder
subject to a life estate impeachable of waste the Court will
only authorise the cutting of timber where the interest of the
succession requires it (x).
78
CUp. IV.
Se«t.S.
A tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct, who has tawtiBWl
'tM pSMiWit]
iltiSi* MttiBOt.
been once in possession, is in respect of the estate of inherit-
ance, which has been once in him, as dispunishable of waste
88 a tenant for life, who is made so by express llmttati<m (y) ;
but he may not, any more than a tenant for life di^unishable
for waste, commit equitable waste (2).
The privileges of tenant in tail after possibility of issue
332;2DeO.KftXM«: »ImJ.
Ch. 601.
ip) I-yddall V. Clavering, cited
Amb. ail ; and see C. A. 1881,8. 42.
('/) Cited Moseley, 224.
(r) Sea TulUU T. TulliU, Amb.
aro; LyddaU r. ClamH »f, ib.
••!TI, n.
(•) lioba^ T. Btitiu, Hud. M.
(0 8 Bms. Ab. an.
(x) RobrHt V. Roberts, Hard. 96 ;
Cmise, Dig. tit. ii. c. 1, g. 32.
(y) Lewit HowUi' case, 11 Oo.
Eep. 79 b; irUliams v. Williamt,
15 Ves. 430; 11 R. R. 337. n. ;
Turner v. WrigH, 2 De O. F. * J
247i 29 L. J. Oh. 001.
(«} Ainhmm t. BM, Freem. Ch.
OS ; S Sw. 173, n. : Timm r. WrigU,
SDea.F.*J.M7.
74
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
ClMp.IV.
8m».S.
Tenaut in tail
with the rcTer-
tkm of tb«
Cnwa.
Tenant in f«e,
■abject to
«x«cntoi7 deriM
Heir by mult-
ing tmt.
Tenant by lease
tor liree iomw.
able for erer.
extinct are in respect of the privity of his estate and of the
- inheritance that was once in him: if, therefore, he COTveys
his estate tn unotlier, each person will be cimaidered as a
mere tenant for life (a).
A tenant in tail with the reversion in the Crown, and
tenant in tail under an Act of Parliament which precludes
the barring of the entail, have all the legal rights and incidents
which belong to a tenancy in tail, and are dispunishable of
waste whether legal or equitable (b). But where the rights
and incidents of the tenancy i i tail are specially qualified by
the provisions of the statute, the Court may feel bound to
interfere to prevent equitable waste (c).
A tenant in fee 8imi)le, subject to an executory devise over
is within the principle of equitable waste, but he is dispunisW-
able of legal wpste (rf), unless the testator has imposed on him
a condition not to commit waste (e).
An heir taking by resulting trust until the happening of a
contingency is within the principle of equitable waste (/).
Where a tenant for life under a will, who was also ap-
pointed executrix " with full and absolute control " over all
the testator's property, cut and sold timber, it was held that
the will did not make the tenant for life dispunishable for
waste, but only entitled her to cut timber in a due course of
management for the benefit and preservation of the estate (g).
The well-known tenure so common in Ireland by lease for
lives renewable for ever was considered by Lord Redesdale so
much in the nature of a perpetuity that he refused an appli-
cation for an injunction to restrain the cutting of timber (h).
(a) Co. Litt 28 a; Bke't cate, 3
Leoo. 241.
(ft) Att.-aen. V. Duke of llarl-
hormigh, 3 Madd. 498, S40; IS
R. B. 273 ; Davit v. Diihe of Mari-
horouyh, 2 Sw. 108 ; 53 B. B. 32 ;
Turner v. Wright, 2 l)e O. F. ft J.
246; 29 L. J. Ch. 6<)1.
(r) Att.-Om. T. Duke of Marl-
boroutjh, 3 Madd. 548 ; 18 K. S. 273 ;
Turner ▼. Wright, 3 De Q. F. ft J.
3«6; 39 L. J. Ch. eOl.
(rf) Turner V. Wright, John. 746;
2 De O. F. ft J. 234 ; 29 L. J. Ch.
598; Tn re Hanhury'i Settled Eitatte,
(1913) 2 Ch. 357.
(f) Bl<de V. I'eten, 1 De 0. J. ft a
346 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 2(M).
(/) Slantfield v. Habergham, 10
Ves. 273 ; 7 B. E. 409.
(S) I'ardoe y. Pardee, (1900) 82
L. X. 347.
(A) Qdvtrt T. Omon, 2 Sch. ft L.
Ml.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE. 75
But Lord St. Leonards, after a review of all the authorities, Olwr. IV.
diaapprovcf' of this decision, and held that a lessee for lives
renewable or ov<>r is not at liberty to eommit destmetiTe
waste (i). But he may, it would appear, commit meliorating
waste (k). He may not, however, commit equitable waste,
though he has been made expressly unimpeachable of
waste (/).
An injunction against waste will be g.antt»d at the suit of WttttlvMry.
a copyholder against his lessee (m), of a copyholder in re-
mainder against a copyholder for life (n), or of a copyholder
against the lord of the manor (o). 80, also, an injunction
against waste has been granted at the suit of a lord of a manor
against his copyhold tenants (p) tmd their under-tenants not-
withstanding his remedy by forfeiture (q), and an interlocu-
tory injunction has been granted, although the defendant
denied tiiat tiie lands were copyhold (r).
A mortgagee in possessimi with a suflScient security may w«.te bj
not commit waste (»); and he is bound, so far as thp rents °"[*yf** '°
and profits in his hands will admit, to do necessary repairs (t) .
If, however, the security is insufScient, he is entitled, ao long
as he is acting bond fide, to make the most of the property for
the purpose of discharging what is due to him. He may cut
(1) Coppinyer v. Ouhbint, 3 J. & M. & K. 632, 639 ; 41 E. B. 140;
L. 397, 411 ; 72 B. R. 81. Blackmore v. White, (1899) 1 Q. B.
(A ) Copidnger v. Oubbint, 3 J. Ic 293, 301 ; 68 L. J. K B. 180, 184 ;
L. 397 ; 72 R. E. 81. but «ee Oalbraith v. PogtOm, (ISOO)
(/} PenOand t. SomerviUe, 2 Ir. 3 K. B. 3M, 266; 74 L. J. K B.
Ch. 289. 849.
(m) Anton T. am, Ctoy, 88, (9) Curfrfon t. Jliirfcy, 7 Hk SM ;
90. 82 B. E. 66.
(n) Cornith v. Xein, Finch, 220 ; (r) CommtMioneri of Ortetufich v.
CahlirM V. BaylU, 2 Mer. 408 ; Bladtdt, 12 Jur. 151 ; 84 B. B.
16 B. B. 189. 866.
(n) Bowter r. Madtan, 2 De 0. (») Fammt T. Lovtll, 3 Att 723 ;
P. & J. 418; 30 L. J. Ch. 273; MaUtt t. Datty, 31 Bwt. 470.
Eardlty v. Lcrd OnmmUe, 3 C. D. See, u to cutting timbw, 0. A.
826 ; 45 L. <r. Ok. 868; aM Inland 1881, •. 19 (i.) (iv.), infra.
Jltvenue Commiuionm t. •/Mny. (<) Godfrey v. Wat»on, 3 Atk.
(1913) 2 K. B. p. 686 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 518 ; Wraqq v. Dtnham, 2 T. 4 0.
P ^8'- Ex- in ; 6 L. J. (K. &)B«. 88;
(p) Bichardt y. NobU, 3 Mer. 673 ; 47 B. B. 366.
17 B. B. 168.- Pmnm Mnmt.S
^* INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
<*NP^ IV. timber, and open mines or quarries, but he does so at his own
'■ — risk and peril. If he incurs a loss, he cannot charge it against
the mortgagor, and if he obtains a profit, the whole of that
profit must go in discharge of the mortgage debt (u). If the
security is sufBcient, and he has no authority from the mort-
gagor (x), he will under similar circumstances be charged
witii hid receipts and disallowed his expenses (i/). If the
mortgage be of an open mine, the mortgagee is entitled to
work it as a prudent owner would do, and he is not bound to
advance money for speculative improvements (z).
S'lSM.'"* ^"^^^ mortgage made by deed after the Slst
December, 1881, the mortgagee, in the absence of provision
to the contrary, may while in possession cut and sell timber
and other trees ripe for cutting, and not planted or left stand,
ing for shelter or ornament (a).
When a mortgagee in possession pending a redemption suit
committed waste, he was ordered on motitm to deliver up the
premises to the mortgagor ( ' ^
A first mortgagee in por ion will be restrained frwn
paying over the surplus rents to the mortgagor instead of to
the second mortgagee (c).
gSri-'i^- * mortgagor in possession of the mortgaged
riot, estate bears no analogy to that of a tenwt for life. A mort-
gagnr in powession is in equity - a owner of the estate, and
may exercise all acts of owne. ip and may commit waste,
provided he does not diminish the security or raider it insuffi-
cient (d), but if the security is insufficient he may not commit
waste (e). In order that an injunction may go against a mort-
(u) MiUett V. Davei,; 31 Beav. 378, 383.
"\ „ («*) Xtktwieh Marker, 3 Um.
(x) Norton V. Cooper, 26 L. J. Ch. ft O. p. 329 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 182 ; 87
470.
121
B. R. 99; and ieo EllU v. aiover
is) Thorneaero/t r. CrodMU, 16 an./ W>/«on, (1908) IK B i».aM>
am. 446 ; 80 B. B. 117; Hood t. 77 L. J. K. B p 2i7 '
Eaaon 2 Oifl. 692. (,) F^rrant v. Lov.H, 3 Atk. 723 •
(z) Rowt V. Wooil. 2 J. & W. 555 ; Humphrty, y. Harrimn. IJ 4 W
22 E R. 208. . ,4 i^. j g,. 244; 21 B. b!
(a) C. A. mi. .. 19 (i.) (iv.). 2V* ; King y. Smith, 2 Hare. 239 •
(6) Hanion v. Derby, 2 Vem. 392. 82 B. B. 93; Sarptr v. Aplin, M
(c) Dalmer v. Dathuood, 2 Cox, L. T. 383. *
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE. 77
gagor in poBsession, it muHt uppflar on the affidavits that the Cfcaj. 1?.
■ecurity is insufficient, or will be rendered insufficient or *«*•»•
scanty by the acta of wMte complained of (/). The mean* -
of the term " insufficieut " is thus expluined by Wigram,
V. C.. in King v. Smith («,):- ■ I think the question which
muat be tried ia, whether the property the mortgagee takes as
a security is sufficient in this sense-that the security is worth
so much more than the money advanced— that the act of
cutting timber is not to be amsidered as substantially impair-
ing the value, which was the basis of the ooatract between the
parties at the time i'k was entered into."
After a decree for foreclosure n»«i, a mortgagor in posses-
sion will be restrained tmm committing waste (A). In a case
where the mortgagor in possession was bankrupt, but no
assignees had as yet been chosen, he was restrained from
committing waste «), but in • case where he was merely in
prison for debt the appUectico for an injonetion was
refused (k).
After demand of possessim made by the mortgagee a
trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor will be restrained
from cutting crops and removing crops cut (I).
The owner of a rent-charge is not in the position of a mort- Owner of reot.
gagee, and cannot obtain an injunction to restrain waste by tu^t in
the owner of the land out of which the rent-charge issues («)
The Court will not grant an injunction to restrain waste at
the instance of a judgment creditor in an action by him
agamst the heir and persWL.! representatire of tiie debtor (n).
If a purchaser obtains possession before payment of the pur- Wm*. k«
chase money, he wiU be restrained from committing waste P"*-*'*^"
whereby the rendw'a secority would be diminished (0). So,
14 L. J. Bx. SM; 31
(/) Hippnlty V. Syencer, 5 Madd.
422 ; King v. Smith, 2 Ha. 244 ;
62 R. B. 93 ; and see ElU$j, CHmr
and Hobtun, lupra.
(•/} i Ua. 244 ; see Harpir r.
Aplin, 44 L. T. 383.
(A) aoodmmr.KiM,%^w.m.
lOS.
(*) Hmw^th^ r. IforrteM. 1 J.
& W. 682 ;
£. B. 238.
(0 BagnaU r. ViUar, » 0. D.
813 ; 48 L. J. (%. AM.
(m) Samdmtnt v. Suthtcm. 61
L. J. Ck. 136.
(») Lmie t. Bnkett. 1 Y. * .J
338; SOB. B. 794.
(o) OrmJ(ford y. Atatandtr, 15
V«i.lS8| WB.B.M; (kmm^
W INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
ckap' IV. altto, where moneyit due under » Mttlement ore unpaid, the
— ^mLt — Court hM juriadirtkm to frvrmt tnj wMte vbiefa mmj tend
to injure the security (p).
Undioru aod The Obligations impooed by the common law upon a tenant
iot life or years, or existing by the custom of the country^
•pply us between landlord and tenant, except in so far as they
may be excluded by the terms of the iigrwment which subsists
between the parties (q). Acts contrary to the obligation of a
tenant to deal with the premises according to the eiuUm of
the country or exprtiss agreement are not, properly speaking,
acts of waste, unless they are also breaches of the common
law, but being of a like mischief with acts of waste, they are
restrained u[)on somewlmt Hiiiiilur principles (r). There is,
however, a distinction in the general principles UTOn which
the Court proceeds in restraining acts of waste done in viola-
tion of an express agreement from those on which it proceeds
in restraining acts of pure waste at common law. In restrain-
ing pure waste, irrespectively of agreement, the Court pro-
ceeds upon the ground of irreparable damage, and will not
interfere if the damage he small (»). In restraining sets of
waste in breach of covenants the Court proceeds up(m the
principle that where parties contract that a particular act
shall not be done, either party has a right to insist upon its
literal performance by the other irrespectively of the question
of damage (t).
V. Strode, 1 Sim. & St. 381 ; 39 (r) Songhurtt v. Dixry, Toth. 254 ;
E. K. 339 ; Petley v. Kwstern Kimpton v. Eve, 2 V. 4 B. 349, 352 ;
Countiet Raihi aij Co., 8 Sim. 483; 13 B. B. 116. See the Agriculturai
H L. J. Ch. 209; Ilumjihreyt v. Holdings Act, «M/>ro.
Uarriton, 1 J. & W. 680 ; 21 R. B. (») Att.-Oen. v. ahtjfield Gas Ot.,
238- 3 De a. M. & 0. 821 / 28 L. J.
{;-) Turkington v. Kearman, LI. Ch. ill ; DohertpY.Attman, S A. 0.
& O. p. 46. p. 7Ja.
(j) WMr.Fhmmtr,iB.1tJai. (I) Dekvig r. AOman, 3 A. C.
74«; 21 B. B. 479; Phmpjf r. 729; and see Me Kacham v. CMon,
Smith, 14 M. ft W. 589; 15 L. J. -">n2) A. C. 107 ; 71 L. J. p. C.
Ex. 201 ; 69 E. E. 761 ; Jit ComtahU , .1 ; O,l,or:^ v. lirwlley, (1903) 2
an-l CransiM, 80 L. T. 164. See Ch. p. 451 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 61 ; For-nhy
the Agricultural Holdings Act. y. Bar.'.-sr, f! iMV}) 2 Ch. p. 643 ■ "2
1908 (8 Bdw. 7, e. 28), M. 26. 46, L. J. Ch. 721 ; EUiHaiw. Jbo^«r,
*»• (1908) 2 Ch. pp. as9. flW: 77
INJUNCTIONH AGAINST WASTE.
A tciinor will) lioIdH land itt u ground ront is us much cn-
litlcil to un injunction to stay waste by his underlessee as if
he bad an estate of inheritance (»). So, alio, may a receiver
liav.' an inj uni t ion to r.-sti uin the tenantt w under-tenanta
from committing waste (x),
Ab between landlord and tenant, no length of abuse «ill
k'ivi' tho ti'nant a right to commit waste. The allowance of
tho ubuse is only l.y the j)ormission of tho landlord, and cun
never be turned against liim by the tenant. The rights of
I lie l. iiant are to be ascertained by the lease (y).
At common law a dean and chapter, heing a corjwn.iion yrmtthf
iiggregale, could alienate their estates as fully and offecfi.ally
as a persw seised in fee. But bishops, deans, parsons, and
other corj)orations sole could not alienate t!;iir estate* so as
to bind their successors without the consent , other partiea.
(Irants made by bishops required confirmation by the dflae
ami chapter, those made by deans required c(mltrmati<m by
the bishop and chapter, those made by arcbdeacons and pre-
bendaries, by the bishop, dean, and chapter, and those made
by parsons and vicars required confirmation by the patron
.ind ordmary (2). Hy the restraining statutes (a), however,
all ecclesiastical persons were disabled from alienating the
possessions of the ehureh for a longer period than twenty-one
years or three lives from the making thereof (6). It was not
enacted expressly by these statutes that the lessees ahould be
79
L J. Ch. 628 J 78 L. J. Ch. 87.
See, further, m to injunctions
itfminst breaches of covenant, j>o»t.
Chap. X.
(") Fmrant v. Lnvtll, 3 Atk. 72.
[j-) .I/(is..)i V. MaMii, Fl. & K. 42'J;
.V<i),.//c V. I.vrd Fvnjal I 'T r. H2.
As u mlo a reteivor i., cana*
should upjily in the first initanos
tu the plaintiff at whose iustaaoe 1m
was appointed to make the neewaty
application to the Oourt f<w relief,
and on \m default may then insti-
tute the proceedings: Parker v.
Dmm, 8 fiesT. 497 ; 68 B. B. 171.
{y) Lurd Courtown v. U'unl, 1
Sch. & L. s : jiud see Flicu v.
(Irijith,8 C. I.. 521; 4H I.. J. Ch.
203.
(2) Phil. Kccl. Law, 1282.
(a) 1 Eliz. c. W, •. *; 18 BKs.
c. 10, •. 3.
(i) See 14 Elk. a 11, 18 EHs.
c. 11. See, howem, now 8*6
Vict c. 27, ib. c. M, ib. c. 108 ;
14 ft Ifi Vict. c. 104 ; 21 & 22 Vict,
c. 57 ; 23 & 24 Vict, c, 124 ! * u.'j
Vict. c. 105 ; 25 & 26 Vitt. c 52 •
31 4 32Vict. c. 114; SI 4 42 Viot!
e. 20 ; aho 8 Bdw. 7, e. 28, «. 46,
80
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
<^IV- made impeachable of waste (c), but it has been long decided
'■ — that ecclesiastical perscms an reskained by the equity of tiie
statute 13 Eliz. e. 10, fnan makiiig leassa dispunishable of
waste (d),
Warieby A parson being at common law able to alienate his glebe
^^^l^"**' land with the consent of the proper parties, might also, with
the consent of the same parties, commit waste; but without
such consent a parson has not at common law any more exten-
sive privileges as to waste in general than an ordinary tenant
for life (e). It seems, however, that in some respects a parson
is more favourably situated than an ordinary tenant for life
or years, and that some acts which are waste in ordinary
cases are not necessarily waste in his case (/).
Timber growing on the estates of ecclesiastical persons is a
fund for the benefit of the Church, and may not be felled
except for the repairs of the ecclesiastical buildings, ttie par-
sonage house, the farms, and the barns and outhouses belong-
ing to the parsonage (g). Timber growing in the churchyard
may not be felled except for the necessary repairs of the
chancel or the body of the church (fc).
There has been some controversy whether an ecclesiastical
person is bound specifically to apply the timber he has cut for
the purposes of repairs towards the actual repairs tor which it
was wanted. From a passage in Ambler (i) it might appear
that Lord Hardwicke was of opinion that a rector or vicar
ib. c. 36, 8. 40 ; 9 Edw. 7, c, 44,
Sched. I. (12), ib. c. 47, Sched.
(6) ; and Richard v. Graham, (1910)
1 Ch. 722; 79 L. J. Ch. 378.
(e) Co. litt 44 b.
((0 Dmn md Chapttr ^ Wartm-
fcr'* eow, 6 Co. Itop. 37 • ; Htnirtg
T. Jkam, of St. PauFt, 3 Sw. 492 ;
19 It. H. 2S9 ; WUktr v. DtaH and
Chajier of WitHktlttr, 8 Mw. 421 ;
17 B. B. 107.
(e) Kniyht v. Mottley, Amb. 176 ;
Htrarhry v. FrTS.-jj, 2 Atk. 216;
Duke of Marlborough v. St. John, t
D«0. ftS. 175; 21 L.J. Clt.3«l;
60 E. B. 48; Bccle$ioitical Com-
miuionert v. fVodehoute, (1894) 1 Ch.
p. 662 ; 64 L. J. cat. 829.
(/) Mm SL Alhan't v. Skip-
•vM, 8 Bmit. SM; 14 L. J. Ch.
247; 88 B. B. ill ; Bird t. Jidph,
4 B. ft Ad. 826 ; 2 Ad. ft R 773;
2L. J. (N.a)K.a»; 88B.B.
382.
(g) Strachfy v. Frami4, 2 Atk.
216; Sowerby t. f'rytr, 8 Eq. 417,
420 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 617.
(A) 3S Edw. 1, itat. 2.
Wire.
Ch.p. IV.
8e(!t..1.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
might cut and sell timber to any extent in order to provide a
fund for general repairs; but the report of the case is too .
imperfect and too doubtful to give the weight of Lord Hard-
wicke's authority io such a proposition (k). The rule on tiie
subject would appear to be that an ecclesiaaticai person may
cut and sell timber for the purpose of providing other timber
more suitable for the intended repairs, so long as no more is
cut than is necessary for the purpose; but that he may not
cut timber to defray the general expenses of his repairs (l).
An ecclesiastical person may continue the working of mines w«t. h,
or gravel pits already open, and which have been lawfully ^^^HH^
opened, but he may not open new ones (,«). Ecclesiastical
persons, whether aggregate or sole, may grant leases for a long
term of years for mining or other purposes with the sanction
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (n). But without such
sanction a parstm cannot make a valid lease of mines upon
hiH glebe, even though he has tlie censmt of the patnm and
ordinary (o).
In the case of a parson the application for an injunction to
stay waste should be made by the patron (p), or by the owner
of the next presentation (q); or, if the patron is a consent-
ing party to the waste, by the ordinary (r). Moreover, the
81
[k] JVither y. Dean and Chapter
<•/ WImhetter, 3 Mer. 421, 428 ; 17
E. B. 107, per Lord Eldon; Dukt
of Marlhorough y. St. John, A IM O.
& S. 180; ai L. J. (a. S81; 90
(0 Jf'ither r. Dean and Chapter
of Winrhetter, 3 Mer. 421 ; 17 R. B.
107 ; Duke of Marlboroui/h y. St.
'hhn, 5 De G. & 8. 181 ; 21 L. J.
< h. 381 ; 90 B. B. 48 ; Sojwiy r.
I ryer, 8 Eq. 417, 4S3 ; M L. J. Ch.
()I7.
[m] Knigkt r. MtmUg, Amk n« ;
IluHihy T. JtiMfrii, IS Q. a fiOl ;
18L. J.Q.B.238 ; 78 R B. 4SI ;
Aw T. Aindt, L. B. 3 C. P. 655,
670 ; and m Beetmattiail Commii-
<i-»nt V. W Wrtwwe , (IM) I Ci.
562; 64 L. J. Ch. SM.
(n) S * 6 Vkt a tot, 14 * tC
Tw^ c 101, 31 ft 23 V-ct c. 67,
83 ft 34 XvH. 0. 134.
(o) BecleiiaitiaU Commisnoiiert v.
n'odehoiise, (1895) 1 Ch. 652; 64
L. J. Ch. 329 : and see I/ol</en v.
H'eekes, 1 J. & II. 283 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
35; and BartUtt v. Philippt, 4
Do O. & J. 414.
(P) Xnight V. Mo$»ley, Amb. 178;
*»«»«Sr V. Fraitei$, 3 Aft. 318;
Mfk T. Uigh, (1902) 1 Ch. ]t. 408;
71 L. J. Ch. p. 196.
(?) Sowerby V. /Vjw, 8 Eq. 417 ;
38 L. J. Ch. 617.
('■) Iloldeii V. IVeeket, 1 J. ft H.
385 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 36.
82
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
Cbap. IV. Ecclesiastical Commissioners can maintain an action to
— ruetiain the working of mines in glebe lands otherwise than
under a lease sanctioned by them («). The right to an injunc-
tion to restrain a bishop from wasting the property of the
see resides in the Attorney-General, suing on behalf of the
Crown, the patron of bishoprics (t), and pomibly to name
extent in the metropolitan (m). So a dean and chapter may be
restrained at the suit of the Crown, but not at the suit of a
lessee holding under them, except in so far as he may have
derived any right or interest under the agreement (x).
DiitnrbiBg The Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction to interfere at
ebnrelijrud. gyjj qJ ^ parishioner to restrain the incumbent from
making alterations in the church, churchyard, or ther land
in his possession in right of his church, mr.jters wichin the
province ot the tieclesiastical Court (y). But it seems that
the High Court may, as ancillary to the Ecclwiastical Court,
grant an injunction to prevent an act in the nature of waste
being committed (z). The mortgagees of a chapel and burial-
ground were restrained from destroying family graves, and
removing or defacing tombstones, or obliterating or defacing
inscriptions thereon, in the burial-ground attached to the
chapel (a). So also an injunction was granted at the suit of
a bishop to restrain a corporatidn from disturbing s church-
yBrd (h). The lay rector of a parish, in respect of his free-
hold property in the parish church and churchyard can main-
(«) Eccleikutical CommiuioHtrt 4 De O. F. & J. 117, 123. Sm Wood-
Wodthnwe, (189S) 1 Oh. US ; 64 mnn t. SoUiutM, 2 Sim. N. 8. 204;
L. J. Ch. 329. BaUeH t. CMy, 41 0. D. 507 ; M
(<) Knight v. Mo$rley, Amb. 176 ; L. J. Ch. 849.
M'ithfr V. Oean ami Chapter of (j) Marriott v. Turplei/, 9 Sim.
mnchttler, 3 Mer. p. 427 ; 17 K. 1!. 279 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 245 ; 47
107. R. K. 241 ; Caniinalt v. .\Mi/neur,
(h) n'Uher v. Oean and Chapter 4 I>e G. F. A J. 117 ; Phil. Eocl.
o/ Winchester, ib. liSW, U22. Hut see Batten v. fledyt,
(i) Wither v. Dean and Chapter 41 C. D. 507 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 549.
of Winchester, 3 Mer. 421 ; 17 B. VL. (a) Mortland v. Richardim, 24
107; Herring y. Dtan and Ckapter Dear. 33; 26 L. J. Ch. 690; 116
(/ St. fiauet, 3 Sv. 493 ; 10 B. B. B. B. 18.
3M. {>■) Bishop of Durham v. C'or-
(y) KaH FUmeiBiam v. Moore, 'i poratum of Ntwcattk-upon-Ti/ne,
Ir. &{.«»; Oar4i)mar.Molyn*ux, I »et. 599.
EQUITABLE WASTE.
tain an action in the High Court against a trespasser (c).
The Court will not exercise its jorisdiction to compel by
mandatwy injanctton the natoration of a churchway at the ^^.Sdk^
suit of a parishioner when the Ecclesiaatical Court has juriB- ° *
diction to order the restoration (rf).
Chap. IT.
S«et. 4.
SECTION 4.— EQUITABLB WASTB.
The estate of a tenant for life or years is often declared by t«mi to lif.
the instrument which creates it to be " without impeachment
of waste. " The effect of the clause at law before the Judica-
ture Act, 1873, 8. 25, sub-s. 3, was not only to allow a tenant
for life or years to commit waste, but it was a special power
permitting him to appropriate the produce of the waste to
his own use (c). A Court of equity, however, considers the
excessive use of the legal power incident to an estate unim-
peachable of waste to be inequitable and unjust, and therefore
controls it (/).
It appears that if an owner in fee settles his estate on
himself for life with remainders over, he will not be allowed
any larger privileges than he would hare had if the settle had
been a stranger (g).
Waste which will be restrained as being an unconscientious
exorcise of a legal power, is called equitabh watte. An act
may amount to equitable waste although tiiere is a total
absence of malice. " The presence or absence," said Lord
Campbell, in Turner t. Wright (h). "of a bad motive will
not enable ua to draw any satisfactory line between what is to
be considered malicious and what is to be ooosidered equitable
(r) liatUii V. <h>ly(, 41 C. D. W,
.''16; 58 L. J. Ch. 549.
('0 lb.
(f) Lewit DoivM cam, 11 Co.
Sib; Kektwiek r. Marktr, $ Mmo.
& O. 327; ai L. J. Ch, 182; 87
R. B.89.
(/) Marktr y. Marker, 9 Ha. I,
1< ; 30 L. J. Ch. 246: 89 B. B.
J. fi04, «24 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 724. Bm
Bakr V, atbrij/kt, 13 C. D. 1T»,
186; «L. J. Oh. 65.
(g) FitecHU T. Spicer, 22 Bear.
380; aSL. J. Ch. 589; 111 B. E.
8« Fane v. Lortl Bam-ird, 2
Vera. 738,Prac. Oh, 464 ; Barry v.
Barry, IJ. & W. 652.
(*) 2 De O. P. * J. 234, 2M.
84
EQUITABLE WASTE.
Chap. IV. waste, and no line to regulate the interposition of a Court of
— — equity by injunctioi can well be drawn otiier than the recog>
nised and well-eetabliahed line between Ieg»I and eqaitable
waste (»■).
Judiwtnra Act, It is declared by the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 3,
rab^s.^ 0° estate for life without impeachment of waste shall
not confer or be deemed to have conferred upon the tenant for
life any legal right to commit waste of the description known
as eqaitable waste, unless an intention to confer such right
shall exiH^sly appear by the instrument creating such
estate.
Where an estate was devised to a person who was also
appointed sole executrix of the testator's will " with full and
absolute power " over all the testator's property during her
life, the Court held that the words " full and absolute power
over the estate," did not render the tenant for life disponidif-
able for waste, but merely conferred on her largs powers of
management (k).
Pulling Jown 'fhe csse which is frequently referred to as being the lead-
maMion-hoaM ... , -.i
or other ing decision on the subject of equitable waste is well known
buildingi. ^j^^ name of Lord Barnard's cane (l). It is however far
from being the earliest decision on the subject, as it appears
to have been a well-known branch of equitable jurisdictim
in the time of Lord Nottingham. In Abraham v. Buhb (m),
we find that great judge treating it as a settled point that if
a tenant for life does waste maliciously, a Court of equity will
restrain him, though he had an express power to commit
waste. He cited the Bishop of Winchester's case and Lcufy
Evelyn's case as instances in his recollection in which the
Court had so interposed. In several other cases about the
same period the Court declared that it would restrain both
tenant for life without impeachment of waste, and tenant in
tail after possibility of issue extinct, trom emnmitting
"wilful," "destructive," "maUcious," "extravagant," or
(0 Sea AHom t. AHm, 1 Vw. {[) Free. Ch. 4M ; 1 Sdk. 161.
Sen. 265. (m) SXq.Oa.Ab. 767; FrMB.
{k) Pario* V. FitrdM. (1%.' 82 Oh. 68; SSbow W,
L. X. MT.
EQUITABLE WASTE.
" humoreome " waste (n). These determinations led to the
remarkable case of Vane v. Lord Barnard (o). Lord Barnard,
who was tenant fbr life without impeachment of waste of
Raby Castle under the marriage settlement of his son, wift
remainder to his son, in consequence of some displeasure
which he had cmceired against him, got workmen together
and stripped the castle of the lead, iron, glass, etc., and was
proceeding to pull it down, whereupon Lord Cowper granted
an injunction and directed an inquiry as to the amount of
damage actually done, and ordered it to be repaired at the
expense of Lord Barnard. The ground upon which the
doctrine was as yet founded, was said to be the destruction of
the inheritance, and upon this principle Lord Hardwicke said
that if a tenant for life without impeachment of waste were
to pull down farm-houseb he would restrain him as much as
if it were the ease of a mansion-house (p).
Lord Hardwicke observed that if the decision in Lord
Bamard'B case could be made use of to permit a son to call
his father into a Court of equity for every alteration he might
make m puiling up the floor of the house, etc., it would be
better for the public that Raby Castle had been pulled down
than that such a precedent should have been set (q). If the
acts complained of therefore are of a trivial nature, the Court
will not interpose. To obtain an injunction the plaintiff must
prove that the r'^fendant's acts are prejudicial to the inherit-
ance (r).
The cutting of timber planted or left standir- for ornament n ^^il
comes within the principle of equitable waste. "The presumed
will and intention of the settlor or devisor being the ground
for the mterference of the Court, the Court does not proceed
upon any fancied notions of its own as to whether or not
timber may be ornamental (s), but confines its protectioB to
(n) ]Villiam$ v. Day, 2 Ch. Ca.
32; Cooke v. WliaUy, 1 Eq. Ab.
400 ; Anm., Freem. Ch. 278.
(») PlM.0k.4Mi 1 giift. 161;
2 Vera. 738.
(p) 1 Tm. Sea. MS. Sw Ao«
SomtrtiUt, 2 Bq. CSa. Ah.,til. Waat*.
4.
pL8.
(f ) fitn T. rtm% 1 V«* 8m. 681.
(r) Mmuer. Oobley, (1892) i Ok.
253 ; 6! L. J. Ch. 449.
(t) Marker v. Marker, 9 Ua. 1,
17; 20 L. J. Ch. 246; 89 B. S.
SM; MirklHAmaU v. MiMMmmt,
86
EQUITABLE WASTE.
tre«s which have been planted or left standing for ornament
or shelter by him {t). However ornamental in fact trees may
be, they will not be protected unless they have been dedicated
in some way or other by the settlor or devisor to the purposes
of ornament or shelter (u). Trees, on the other hand, which
have been treated as ornamental by him irill be considered
by the Court to be ornamental, whether they are or are nofc,
in point of fact, ornamental. The taste of the grantor is bind-
ing upon the tenant for life, and the Court will not inquire as
to what is beautiful or not. All it has to ascertain is the
intention of the settlor or devisor (r). Where land is taken
in exchange for settled property, timber left standing for
ornament or shelter on the land taken in exchange cannot be
cut down by the tenant for life ((/).
Trees which have been planted or left standing for the
purpose of excluding objects from view (z), or for the purpose
of shelter and protection to a mansion-house (a), are regarded
as ornamental timber. In Coffin v. Coffin (5), Lord Eldon
refused that part of the order for an injunction which had
been granted by the Vice -Chancellor, restraining a man from
cutting trees which protected tlie premises from the effects
of the sea. The reasons of his lordship are not given, and
it is difficult to see why that part of the order was refused.
It has been said that the protection of the Court is confined
to trees planted solely for ornament or shelter, and that trees
which have been planted tot profit as well as f<Hr <wiuunent
1 Da G. ft J. S24; 26 L. J. Ch.
721. 9MWM-Blut,i€at.Wcl$iUg,
(1903) 2 C%. 664, 660 ; 73 L. J. Ch.
i6.
(0 Marhtr v. Marltr, 9 Ha. 1,
17; 20 L. J. Ch. 246; Ford v.
TynU, 2 De G. J. & 127 ; HVW-
Blundtll v. Wolitlr'j, iuj.ra.
(u) lb. ; WUliamt v. Macnamara,
8 Ves. 70; HalliueU v. Philiiijn, 4
Jur.N.S.607; 111 B. B. 879.
(z) WombwM T. AtUnyM, 6 Yaa.
110, n. ; MarquU of DotimAir* t.
acmdy*, ib. 110; F»d v. Tpiit, 8
D« a. J. * H. 1S7 ; WM-Bhmm v.
Wd^Iey, (1903) 9 Ch. 670 ; 73
L. 1. Ch. 4S.
(y) il««6y T. HiMdb, M L. T. M7.
(*) Dtai T. Merry, 16 Ves. 376 ;
10 B. R. 200 ; Campbell v. Atlgood,
17 Beav. 627.
(a) t'hamherlayne v. Dummer, 1
Bro. 0. C. 166 ; 3 ib. 549 ; Tamworih
V. Lord Ferrern, b Ves. 419; Mar-
quis of Doii~mhirt V. Sandyi, ib.
107 : Coffin T. Coffin, Jae. 71 ; 23
B. B. 1 ; CkMQMf AOgoed, 17
(»} Jm. 71.
EQUITABLE WASTE.
87
or shelter will not be protected (c) ; but this statement seems chap. IV.
too wide (<!)•
The Court has often muoh difficulty in determining whether
trees have been planted or left standing for ornament. The
question in all cases of the sort is a question of fact, and the
muin difficulty lies in the evidence necessary to establish the
fact (c). Tiie existence of a mansion-house will in many
cases supply the Court with evidence on which to determine
the point as to the ornamental character of timber, for trees
when in the neighbourhood of a mansion-house will be
assumed to have been planted for ornament (/).
It is not, however, necessary that timber should be con-
tiguous to a house or park in order to entitle it to tiie protec-
tion of the Court as being ornamental {g) .
The Court has greater difficulty in determining that trees Onuuncnui
have been left standing or preserved for <Hiiamait, than in
determining that trees have been planted for ornament ; but
the leaving trees standing beyond the usual and provident
period of cutting, the clearing out of trees and surrounding
them by pleasure walks and seats, and other circumstances,
from which an inference arises that the settlor or devisor
regarded the trees with other views than as mere subjects of
profit, may be considered &^ primd facie evidence that trees
were left standing for shelter or ornament (/t). It is doubtful
whether the Court can ever go back beyond the time of an
absolute owner of the estate for the purpose of ascertoiaiBg
whether timber is to be treated as ornamental (t).
(c) Hailiwell v. Philipp$, 4 Jur. (</) See Marquit of Downihirt v.
N. S. 60S; lllB. B. 87»; and aee Simdy$,6\oa. 110; and Wombwdl
MiekUthwait T. Mkt-JethuHia, 1 De v. litUa$yH. 6 Ves. 110, n.; WM-
O. ft J. m : S6 £•. J. Oh. 729. mmkdtll y. HVitefay. mtyra.
(iQ 8m Adoym v. Nugent, 2S (A) LuMngUm t. BUdmnt, 6
L. B. Ir. 14S; Ford t. Tynte, i. Madd. 149; 22 S. B. 261. See
De O. J. * 8. m, 133. UaUiu ell v. I'liUipps, 4 Jur. N S.
(e) Marker v. Marker, 9 Ha. 17 ; 607 ; 1 1 1 H. B. 879 ; and fee Weld-
20L. J. Ch. 246. Blundell y. li'ol»eley, (1903) 2 Oh.
(/) Mickltthivati v. UickltthwaU, 668, 669 ; 73 L, J. Ch. 47.
1 De O. & J. 504, 526 ; 26 L. J. Ch. (t) Micklethwait v. MickUthvxiit,
729. Aa to evideiioe, see W«id- 1 De Q. & J. 504, 513 ; 26Ii. J. Ch.
mmMl T. Wolttey, (1903) 2 Ok 7».
8M,M1i TSJU J. Oh.iA.47.
88
EQUITABLE WASTE.
Although the Court will, as a general rale, abstain from
'■ — exercising a judgment aptm matters of taste, yet where • deed
of settlement provided that enough of the most ornamental
timber should always remain to leave the beauty of the place
unimpaired, and the deed evidently referred to the state of the
proj)ei ty at the time of its execution as the standard of beauty,
the Court directed an inquiry whether certain trees could be
cut without impairing the beauty of the place as it stood at
the date of the settlement (A;). " Although there will be, no
doubt," said Turner, L.J. (/), " great difficulty in executing a
trust or enforcing an injunction to preserve the property
according to a certain standard of beauty, the difBculty is not
such as it is beyond the power of the Court to grapple witij."
The question what a prudent owner would do in the proper
and ordinary course of management of his property, is not the
measure of the obligation which attaches in a Court of equity
upon a tenant for life without impeachment of waste with
reference to timber planted or left standing for ornament.
But if there be evidence to show that a wood planted or left
standing for ornament had been resorted to by the absolute
owner for the supply of timber for repairs or sale, a tenant
for life without impeachmmt of waste may do the same, pro-
vided he acts as a prudent owner in a due course of manage-
ment would do (m).
Thinniiijoi In V. Copley (n), where the defendant by his answer
stated that he had cut down trees for the improvement <rf the
estate. Lord Erskine granted an injunction against cutting
down ornamental timber and trees planted in the situations
of others cut down, but without prejudice to tiie thinning of
trees for the sake of ornament (o). So also if a tempest has
produced gaps in a piece of ornamental planting by which
unequal and discordant marks and divisions were occasioned,
(*) JIdfiw T. Martier, 9 Ha. 1 ; Barry, IJ. & W 054
20 L. J. Ch. 246; 89 E. B. 303. („) See uowsect. 28.8ub.8ect. (2),
(0 lb. 9 Ha. 18:20 L. J. Ch. 252. of the Settled Land Act. 1882.
(m) fWdv.Tynle.iDeQ.J.&a. which forbids cutting dowa.
127 ; and sec Buktr v. Sebright, 13 except ic proper thinniiix. tNM
C. D. 185; 49 L. J. Ch. 65. whWl hav* riwtrf W
(n} 3 Madd. 626. n. See Barry v. imrnrnmat aafo tin Act.
EQUITABLE WASTE.
89
the Court will not restrain the cutting of a few trees, M M to '^'"P
prodace a uniform and consistent appearance (p). *'
The cutting of saplings or young traes, not fit tor ^ pur- TomgUM* Md
poses of timber, comes within the principle of equitable waste. "P"^
The mere fact, however, that trees are being felled of younger
growth than would be felled by a prudent owner in the course
of a husbandlike management of the estate, is not enough to
induce the Court to interfere with the legal power of a tenant
for life without impeachment of waste. To come withia the
principle of equitable waste, a case of spoliation or destructiim
must be made out (q). In Hole v. Thomas (r), Lord Eldon
oimsidered the cutting of saplings and timber treea at un-
seasonable times to be » auiMcioas destruction, and granted
an injunction («).
The cutting of underwood of an insufficient growth or at Vuitnmi,
unscasmable times ecmtes also within the principle of equit-
able waste, when it amounts to a destruction or spoliation of
the property (0 and generally, it would appear that the
principle of equitable waste extends to any ac. which amounts
to malicious waste, and goes to the wantoa daatraetkn and
spoliation of the property (u).
If the tenant for life be expressly bound to keep certain Tenancy for Uf.
buildings in repair, this qnalifles the gift to him without ^C^^'mv
mipeachment of waste. The estate for life " without impeach- ^ v»«fc<i
ment of waste " is sometimes qualified by the clause " except
voluntary waste," or wwds to that effect. Ibis was ^ oaaa
in Garth v. Cotton (s). In his jodgmeot Lord Hardwieln mid
(p) See Lard Mmkm t. Lard 1 Bra. C. 0. 166 ; 3 i\ M» ; ANtfonii
Stanhope, 3 Madd. 523, n. v. SomerrilU, 2 Ir. Ch. 289.
(y) ffBrimy. 0'J9r»fn, Amb. 107 ; (() HoUv. Thorr.ai, 7 Ves. 689;
PaHinytoii't case, 3 Atk. 216 ; Afton 6 R. E. 195 ; Bryilgn v. Slepheni,
T. Aston, 1 Ves. Sen. 265; Lady 6 Madd. 270; 23B. B.217; 2 8w.
titralhmore V. Bouet, 2 Bro. C. C. 160,n.; Dmmi T.fvyim, L £. 7 Xa
188 ; 1 E. E. 76 ; Smythe v. Smythe, 143.
2 8w. 252; 19 B. B. 72; Lord («) Sm AMm T. A»lm, I Ym.
Tamworth v. Ftrrtn, 6 Ym. 418 ; Swi. M« ; BMUf ^ Ltmdm ». Wtk,
UJMunU T. Pkmfp$, 4 tvt. M. & IP. Wbh. M7.
608; 111 B. B. 87B. («) 3 Atk. 761; 1 Teik Ml; 1
(r) 7T«s.Me; 6&B.1M. 1^188.
(«} 8w Chttmbwimtn* t.
90
EQUITABLE WASTE.
Clup. IV.
.4.
T nutow of a
tan " vithout
impcadimuit
of
T«ny with
iapMAomit o(
WMtO.
LimilBtinn to
tenant for life
without im-
p«MhmeBt<rf
waite mad*
subject to
trustee for a
term.
incideutalljr that timber could not be cut, but no relief wm
sought in that case against the tenant for life. In Vincent
V. Spicer(y), Lord Komilly, M.R., considered the words
" voluntary or permissive waste " qualifying an estate for
life without impeachment of waste, at mwely Umtamount to
" s])oil and destroy," and held that the tenant for lite or his
assignee were entitled to cut such timber and other trees not
planted or standing for ornament, as an owner of an estate in
foe, having due regard to his present interest, and to the
permanent advantage of the estate, might properly cut in a
due course of management.
The terms " without impeachment of waste " as applied to
trustees of a term for special purposes, have a different sense
from that of the same words annexed to a tenancy for life.
Trustees of a term without impeachment ot waste are bound
to a more provident execution of their powers than a tenant fur
life, and muet act in their trust as the Court itself would act(z).
It probably makes no difference whether the estate which is
made unimpeachable of waete is freehold or a long term of
years, determinable on the death of the lessee for life (a).
But it seems that if a long term of years be declared at its
creation to be unimpeachable of waste, and be afterwards
settled on one for life, with remainder over, although the
tenant for life is not expressly declared to be unimpeachable
of waste, he will be so treated as between himself and tiitee
claiming the rest of the term (b).
The limitation to a tenant for life without impeachment of
waste is sometimes made by the settlement subject to a power
in trustees for a term to enter and cut timber. In a case where
a discretionary power to this effect was vested in trustees for a
term, the Court protected them in the exercise of their power,
there being an absence of all mala fides, or of any wanton or
unreasonable exercise of their discretion (e). So also where
{y) 22 Bear. 380 ; 2S L. J. Ch.
689; 111 B. B. 402.
{z) Marijuu of Downtkir* T.
iytindyt, 6 Ves. 107, 114.
(u) Oarth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. 7fll ;
1 Vm. Sen. 624, U6 ; 1 Diok. 183.
{b) Bridga v. Utepheru, 2 Sw.
160, n. ; 23B.R.217. SeeMarquii
of Downihire v. Sandyi, 6 Ves. 107.
(c) Ktkeuiich y. Markrr, 3 'iiae,
ft o. 311 : ai L. J. Gk. 18S: S7
B.B. W.
EQUITABLE WASTE. 91
ttie limitation to u tenant for life without impeachment of Ok^. I?,
waste waa aabjeot to the power in traateee witii the oooaent of ^Stt
the tenant for life, to cut timber for the purpose of paying off
a mortgage debt, the Court, upon the construction of the
settlement, restrained the tenant for life from cutting timber
for his own benefit (d).
A tenant for life without impeachment of waste will not be Tenant foriih
permitted to gain any undue advantage from the exercise of a pncbment of
poww or tniet for tale or eidumge ot the aettied eatates.
Thus in Lady Plymouth v. Archer (c), lands were devised »d»anu«efrom
uiwn trust for sale, the produce to be mvested other lands power of nu or
to be purchased and to be to the use of Lord Archer for life p"^"
without impeachment of waste, with remainders over, and
there was a declaration that the rents and profits of the lands,
until sold, were to be to the use of the person entitled to the
estate to be porehaMd. L<»d Ardmr wm hdd not wtitied to
cut timber on the lands devised, because, as he would have a
right to cut timber on the estate to be bought, that would be
giving him double waate. In • ease, Bwrgt$ Limlb (f),
before Lord Eldon, trustees for the purchase of real estate
were made <>u < dssively tenants for life without impeachment
of waste of the estate to be purchased. An estate having been
purchased with a disproporticmate quantity of timber upon it,
the question was whether the monies had been properly laid
out, and whether an injunction could be sustained against the
first tmant for life in entting ttmbor. Hii* qaertka Lord
Eldon would not decide, the frame of the record not being
such as to bring it properly before him; but he said that if the
timber bore a nrj eonsiderable proporticn to tito ndae of the
whole purchase, the tenant for life, who was me of tiie
trustees, could not be permitted to cut it (g).
A tenant for life in remainder without imptiuLltment of Wutob;
waste, may not eMnmit waste before his own estete has fi^len '
into possession by leave of a tmant for life in poaseaaiaa who
(d) Briggt T. Earl of Oxford, 6
De O. ft Sm. IM ; 1 Da d. IL ft
o.ses: tiL 4.c%.m; nB.B.
117.
(«) ! Bro. 0. 0. \S9.
(/) leVwLm; 10 3. B. 100.
(g) IK MYm.187 : lOILS. lao.
M BQUITABLE WASTE.
«»JjlJ-nr- isimpMelwblAfor wute (A;, o also the Court will
: — by injunction if th« toumt btt lilt mad ttie NnamdnraHHi in
fep, subject to conti-igent e^4tates, urn committing wasto in
collusion (<), or where waste is being committed by a
tenant Iw life in poiMMton, who has the nnt fwM mM»
of inhci'ituncn in K inainder, but aubjeet to intmroMdiat*
contingent estattiH (k).
K.ute for life Wh«re a uttlMoent ia directed to he executed for the uur-
uuder uecutorj , *^
trm. pose Of carrying out an executDi v Mv t, the estate of the
JodiciBT. Act, tenant (or life will not as u . il , .i .k', dispunishable for
Mb4.<. waste {I); but it is otherwise in tasun Aiicre the r ust is eie-
cuted by cutting down worda of inltorttanee to an aatate iet
life in the first taker (m).
mSw^X^oI Court will order ornamental timi>er, ox timber «Ueil
tiMCWt. torm a ahi^r or defence to a nianaiai- house to be friled,
wbww it is decaying or injurious to adjoining tre*-^, or where
It ia necessary for the well-being, lalubrity, u. ■ comfo> i of
the imnaion-houae that it should be cut, or wlMre aiu other
sufficient reason can be shown why it ahovid be eat (n). A
tenant for lif - .. ithout impeachment of waste lAo tftmitfl
equitable waste will not be allowed to derive any bvaeflt thMe-
fr<Mn (o); unleas it a^MMr that the timber ae eot by has is
such as the Court would u\)on a pioper applicatir have
directed to be cut for the preservation and improvement of the
remaining (nnamoital timber, in which ease he wki be alknrad
to retnn the proceecb of sale of tiie bmm (p).
(h) Lady Evelyn's case, cited 2 («) See Cnmpbeli s. A -id, 17
Preem. 53; 2 ^>r. 172 ; Dick. 309 ; Beav. 623; Ut.-Ufn. v. hnke „f
hlmnwiy. buttOf OmVi^tiiHA. Marlborouyh j Madil 280; 1,n ii li.
Dick. 209. 273; Luthitu/Umy. lioldero,ailtid<\
(•) (i,:rth V. Cotton, 1 Dick. 183 ; 149 ; 22 B. B. 261 ; Ford r. Tynt^,
1 Ves. >oii. 521, MS ; 3 Atk. 761. 2 De O. J. 4 8. 127, 129 ; Bmktr v
(*) n uiiann ». Dukt of BoUom. I Mr^U. » C. S. ITS. IM; «
Cox. 72:4B.B.21;«reA0^)</iv. J. Ok «5.
HW/*, 9 Eq. 683 ; 38 L. J. CiL S4S. (o) LugKingtm t. SoUrrv, 15 Be«v.
(0 Davenjtort t. Davenport, 1 H. 1, 7 ; 21 L. J. C*. .11 ; U-elU$lty
ft M. 775 ; Stanley v. Cuulthunt, WtlUttey, 6 Sim. 497 ; 38 R B '
10 Eq. 259 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 650. (;.) But as to tlie rigbt ot m
(m) lb. See Banke»v. Le Oetpeticer, remainderman to iwquin the -it-
10 Sim. 570 : U Sim. 508 ; 9 L. J. tilig to be done under the •
(N. S.} Ch. 185; 51 B. R. 313. viaioB oi th« Court, ne m0«.
raJUMCTlONb AGAINST WASTE.
Cktf. IT.
HMt. 5.
he tanqoire
no. — Accovvi.
Although a tenant for h'fo inimp<,i' ! - f( i .s) vs jH t>.
Ill owwi to kwp the proceeds of orna: ,i i.!al uiUt -ut by *
h:in. vbare tlw timb«r Meat i* audi m tiie Court wMild itwlf '
(litci : 'o ! i it for the Dreservii .on ftnd tmpri- I't
remainiiu omumental i,axii« i it does follow 'h>v !ie ,\
CoMrt will not, at tl» inatmee of tl • reman •t.-mwn, grunt -in [
injunction to restritin the K- .uni ,r life ran cattint? *t
mental timber wiiic^ it has
cut, Mnd direct that th« cutting n, under s su
Th( l emaindemian hM a right to th' protection 'h.
! ' prpvpnt the tenant fc life frm <•! ,t :
In one case (r) an lu. inc u i- antt
perflon who had eommitt^ w»«t«. -attiBg
from carrying the timlM>i \ : hi <>iBsdo
this is sound law, t)iougli trnpt , ^ t\
an infnnction migh^ be graoted oii ijroi!
to
n.
-t
timbar,
<; j1 Win ' bar
,)tionaI case.
rreparable
m'lsr f. An inju otwn n^rht, Jiow«Te< it .sppears ba
granted to restrain th- car> • 'ng awa^ ©f tii^aar atanding at
the time of process »«■ v od s
The proAaee of miw-^. ti) .pening
liplonp' as- n th«'
estttt*' uf ii <»ritan
t<»»orati«i
the
wii
eq.,:
life
tc-
nan'
^ ■ timber, '
(/) . Compenf
OF iiimi!#ala ii^i<*h
■ 'ife , ,r..
iui life, I aast
' ma; »rmai
ieh is waata, Praixrtj in
MMNil Binamli.
parts, o
mill.
er the flnt
louey j.did by a
-isv \j ha,n been
'3 not bolong imme-
ipportioned between
the number of years
c(; he worked out baing ascer-
m in. y divided into as many
-ts >' id to the tenani for
13 c D.
1.7. ^"^^ Stortgi
179 ; .. . Ch. Ofi
(r) I V«fc -J a. 93.
CL (ABMr.) 1^
V^UdM r. »f. < a P. Wbm.
840 » A- V. irAi<>/./, 3 r Was.
287 ; /iV BarringUm, 33 C. D. 627 ;
66 L. J. Oh. 178.
(n) a* JBhMmm'* Hifffasiiiif.
(lWl)SGh.I»,13S: aOLXCk
776; aai ass A J^Wbrtai. (UM)
94
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
Ckip.IT.
Sect. 9.
AeoooBt
In all cases in which an action for an injunction will lie to
- restrain fatare waste, a Court of equity will, xvpaa tiie jmn-
ciple of preventing a multiplicity of suits, give an account of
past waste (x), but where from the determination of the estate
of the wrongdoer, or some other reason, there is nothing on
which the injunction can oparate, and complete relief can be
had in damages, an action for an account will not, as a general
rule, lie (y). In a case where a tenant for life was executrix
of a preceding tenant for life, both being impeachable for
waste, and both having committed waste, although an injunc-
tion and account were granted against the existing tenant for
life, it was yet held that, as no injunction could be granted
against the preceding tenant for life, an account could not be
ordered against her executrix for waste committed by the
inreceding tenant for life (z) . But if the waste were of such a
nature, that there was no remedy at law, and a wrong would
be sustained, if equity did not interfere, an action for an
account would lie, although an injunction might not be com-
petent. Thus in (htrlh r. Cotton (a), a decree tot an aectnint
of timber was made against the assets of a remainderman in
fee, who had colluded with the tenant for life in cutting timber
before the birth of a contingent remainderman. So, also, in
cases of equitable waste, an action for an account will lie
against the assets of a deceased wrongdoer, though an in-
juncti(m is not competent (b).
Mines and collieries, being a species of trade (c), an aecoont
of profits will in all cases be granted, without reference to the
2 Ch. 138 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 655 ; cf. S46 ; 1 Dick. 183.
Be Barrington, Oamlon Y. Lyon, 33 (4) Marquis of iMtitdmontY. Mar-
C. D. 823 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 175.
(r) Je$u$ CMfye v. Bloom, 3 Atk.
263 ; Amb. 54 ; PoiroM v. Palnur,
3lC.ftK.a39: 41B.B.M9.
(y) Jmu* CoUtgn r. Blnom, 3 Atk.
263 ; Ainb. 54 ; Qriermm r. Egrg,
9 Vp8. 346; ParroU T. Palmer, 3
M. k iC. 632, 640, 642 ; 44 R. R.
149.
(i) j7';/"/<»i6i*JAa»» V. Ila'ilciM, 7
Ch. 676; 41 L. J. Ch. 828.
(a) 3 Atk. 761 ; 1 Vat. Sra. 624,
chumeu of Lanidvwne, 1 Madd. 116 ;
15 B. R. 225 ; Dtike of Lmli v.
Urd Amkent. 2 Ph. 117 ; 16 L. J.
Cb. 361 : 78 B. B. 47: Merri* v.
jr«rrM, 8 De O. ft J. S83 : 98 L. f.
Ch. 329 ; Bbiie Pe'er$, 1 De G. J.
ft S. 345 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 200. See
Phillipt V. Ilrmfray, (1802) 1 Ch.
466, 471 : 61 L. J. Ch. 210.
(c) Jejftif V. Smith, 1 Jao. ft W.
988,809 ; 91B.B.17t.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.
95
question whether or not an injunction will lie, or whether or Cfctp-iv.
notttorei8 8remedyatlaw(rf). ***•*•
An action for an injunction by the patron of a liring to stay
waste by an incumbent, or by the Attorney-General to stay
waste by a bishop, should not pray for an account of the profits
for their own benefit as patrons (e).
If one co-owner of land derives gain by committing destruc- Aeooa»»
tive waste on the common property, he is liable to account to lU! *
the other owners for theirAhares of the money so obtained (/).
The tenant in common of a mine is accordingly entitled to an
account of the monies produced by working the mine (g).
But in taking the acoomit the tenant in common who works the
mine is allowed to deduct from the value of the minerals in
account with his co-tenants the cost of severance and bringing
the minerals to the pit's mouth (A). A tenant in common in
occupation of an estate is not liable to '^ceoont for waste in
cutting timber which falls short of destructive waste (t).
The account is limited to the monies actually recei\ d and Aeeosnt limited
the profits actually made by the wrongdoer. There can be no i^"Ji^i„d.
account in respect of acts unatt^ded by >roflt. When,
accordingly, equitable waste had been committed by a tenant
for life without impeachment of waste in pulling down a man-
sion-house, and baiidit^ a new house with the materials of
the old one on another part of the estate, but it did not appear
that any profit had been derired from the sale of the materials,
the Court held fliat an aeeoont eoaM not be had against the
assets of the deceased tenant for life (k). The case would have
been otherwise, if he had sold the materials and received the
(<<) Jmu OOkft Umm, « (y) See Btntlry v. Batu, 4 Y. * (\
363 ; Amh. M ; Thomu t. (MUqr, Bx. Eq. 182 ; 9 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. J.q
M V«fc IM; 11 R. B. 181 ; PurrM 30 ; M E. R. 46fi. See also Cltyg
T. fti/m«r, 3M.ftK.642 ; 41E. R. v. Clegg, 3 Gifl. 322; Dtnyt r.
149; Elia, v. OriJM, • D. Sfhurkh,ir<jh, 4 T. ft O. Xt. B. 4g :
521,526,626. 64 R. K. 446.
(«) Knight v. UotOry, Amb. 176. (A) Job y. Putton, 80 Kq. 84, 97;
(/) Co. Litt. 200 b; MarUn r. 44 L. J. Ch. 263.
Knou^y,, 8 T. B. 146. See Twtrt (<) Orijkt v. Oriftm, i L. T.
v. ruort, 13 Vmm; 10 B.B. 141; 7l«:nWB.M8.
and Job T. AMm, M If, M; 44 {») Mtrrk r. MmriB. 3 Da O. *
96
INJUNOnONa AGAINST WASTE.
C^vr- profits (0- So also a tenant for life will not be charged ii4th
sums produced by technical acts of waste which have improved
the land (e.g.), cutting and selling turf (m). Credit also
will be given in taking the account for the application of the
proceeds of waste by the tenant for life in permanent improve-
ments (n).
» c***^"!^^ If a case for account be made out, the Court cannot inquire
oat, the law wiu whether the act complained of was or was not a sound exercise
whrthw or not °^ discretion with reference to the state of the property and to
the net com- the interests of the family to which it belongs (o) .
plained of wu « . . o \ /
■oiind exerciw A mesne remainderman for life, although entitled to an
of discretion. injuQcticm to protect his enjoyment, has no interest to call for
Reinainderman , / >
for life. an account (/>).
Dunagetfor When Ornamental timber has been felled and the rever-
•qaitabi* wMte. gj^ne, claims damages from the tenant for life in respect of
such equitable waste, the amount of damage ran only be
measured by the damage done to the inheritance (9).
sutou of In the case of legal waste, the Statate of Limitations begins
to run against the remainderman from the time the waste is
committed, and (in the absence ot disability or acknowledg-
ment) the action will be barred by the statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16,
at the end of six years (r). Where, however, the tenant tw
life is also owner of the first estate of inheritance, time will
not run imtil his death (s). In the case of equitable waste,
time does not run against the rrawinderman until his estate
falls into possession, and the action must tiien be brou^t
within twelve years (<).
{I) Morrill T. Morrit, 3 Be O. & Hastingt, 10 R<]. 4ti5 ; I,. J. Ch.
J. 328 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 329. 38.
(m) Harris v. Ekiiu, 20 W. R. (r) Seagram v. Knight, 2 Ch.
999 ; 26L. T. 827. 628; 36 L. J. Ch. 918; Iliggin-
(n) liirch Wol/e v. Birch, 9 Eq. botham v. Uawkint, 7 Ch. 676 ; 41
683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 346. L. J. Ch. 828 ; and Me Bireh Wof/k
(o) </ LmU V. Lord v. SireA, OBq. W3; S9 L. J. Ch.
AtiAtm, 3 ni. 117, 13S ; 18 L. J. 94S ; jKn^tM v. Stmpaon, 3 L. B. Ir.
Ch. 381 ; 78 B. B. 47. 308 ; Datkwood v. Magniac, (1891) 3
(p) Pigot V. BModc, 1 Ve«. Jun. Ch. p. 387 ; 60 L. J. Ch. p. 832, ;«r
479 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 838 ; 2 R. B. 148. Kay. L.J.
Soe Qent v. Harmon, John. 824 ; (») Birch H U/e v. llirch, L. R.
as L. J. Ch. 70. 9 Ell. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 348.
(y) Bttbb T, YdeertM, Sx j>rrU [t) Duk$ <^ Lttdi v. Amktra, 3
STATUTOftY ENACTMENTS APEECTINO WASTE. W
If, however, there has been long delay in bringing the cup-ir.
action, the Court will aaually endeaTOiir to deal libwally with ^ **
the estate of a deceased tenant for life, inasmuch as, in '***''■
many cases, it would not be for the benefit of the parties
concerned to go into a \oo% and expensive inquiry on the
subject (u).
Actions for an injunction to stay waste should not be P«rp«*ua
brought to a hearing when no account is sought, or the Jjjjj^*'**"
account is waived, and the defendant does not dispate the
right of the plaintiff to have the injunction continued, or
offers to submit to the injunction with coats (x).
The right of aetioa tot damages for waste is in respeet of KigfatofMtioii
a tort, and is theref(»e not assfgnable (y). ~'
SEOnON 6.— OBBTAIN STATOTOBT BMAOTHBNTB AJVBOTIira TBB
LA.W IB BBO&BD TO WASTB.
The statements made ir l!ie previous pages of this chaj^
in regard to the law of waste, must be read as modified bjr
various recent statutes.
For example, under the SeUUd Baiatet Aet, 1877 (a), the ^t»><x< ^.tatei
Court may authorise leases of any settled estate, or of any
rights or privileges over or affecting any settled estate for
any purpose, whether inirolving waste or not, subject to tt*
c<mditkMis titwein omitioiied (b).
i'h. 117; 15 L. J. Ch. Ml; TO
It. B. 47 ; Daihivood T. Afagniae,
(1891) 3 Ch. p. 386; 60 L. J. Ch.
p. 831; Beal Ftapettj LimitatioB
Aet, 183S. M. a, S, 94; Bwd Fto-
perty Limitation Aet, 1874, a. i.
(m) nai/ot V. Bagot, 32 Bmt. M^.
519; 33 li. J. Ch. 116. But
Duke of LeetU y. Lord Amhn.
20 IJoav. 239 ; 15 L. J. Uh. 361 ;
78 R. B. 47. S«e also Bayot v.
liayol, 32 Beav. 5>)9, 632 ; 33
L. J. Ch. 116, M to Moott&tt and
inquiries in a case of waste, botk
in timber and minee, preMntiiif
a great complication of cinnui-
■tanoea Sea atao Teekir v.
.iiMMiV, Sim. att; H B. B.
^, lor tlM font tt kifnby as to
.ber.
r) Harvey y. Ftrguttm,l$Jx,Clk.
, 7 ; Dunmny v. Dunn*, t78.
(*) Dffrif V. Milne, (IM^ I Ok,
08 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 1.
(a) 40 & 41 Viet a tt,
(6) 8eet.4.
7
98
STATUTORY ENACTMENTS AFFECTING WASTE
Oh«p. nr. Under tliis nci, the Court may also authorise timber (other
than oniaiuent&l timber) growing on a settled estate to be
sold (c), ai>.l may authorise part of the settled estate to be
laid out for streets, roads, and other works {d).
Settled Und Under the Settled Land Act, 1882, a tenant for h'fe may,
tjjj,^**** without any leave of the rou.t (inter alia), grant huilding
or mining leases (e), and in the latter case, whether the mines
be already opened or not (/). But unless a contrary inten-
tion is expressed in the settlement, part of the rent, in the
case of a mining lease, is to he set aside as capital ; namely,
where the tenant for life is impeachable for waste three-
fourths, otherwise one-fourth (tf).
In connection with a sale or grant for building purposes, or
a building lease, the tenant for 'ue, for the benefit of the
residents on the settled land, may cause any part of the land
to be laid out for streets, roads, squares, gardens, or other
open spaces (h). The Act also authorises capital money to
be ozpended in various improvements on the settled land (i),
and the tenant for life and persons emfdoyed by him may
enter on the settled land, and without impeachment of waste
execute any improvement authorised by the Act, or inspect
and repair the same, and for the purposes fiiereof may (inter
alia) get and work limestone and other substances, and may
cut and use timber not left standing for shelter or orna*
ment (k).
Section 35 provides that where a tenant for life is impeach-
able for waste in respect of timber, and there is on the settled
land timber ripe and fit for cutting, the tenant for life, on
obtaining the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an
order of the Court, may cut and sell sudi timber. Hiree-
(e) 8«ei 18. m to th* powar of tenant lor
(iO SMt 30. to grtnt a lease of a ij^ to lot
(•} 4S ft 46 Tict. 0. 38, •. 6, and down the surface of tb« land 1^
Settled Land Act, 1890 (63 4 64 mfiiing operations.
Vict. c. 69), 8. 8. aetlnrtAldam'a (y) Sect. 11.
Srttlfd Kttatt, (1902) 2 Ch. 46 ; "1 (A) Sect 16.
L. J. Ch. 662. (i) Sects. 26, 26, and 21 (iii.V,
(/) Sect. 2, sub-sect. 10 (iv.). and see sect. 13 of S. li. Aot, 1890.
See SitirtU v. Earl Lontlribnrmigh, (t) Soot. SB.
(1906) 1 Ch. 4fiO ; 74 L. J. Ch. 264,
STATUTORY ENACTMENTS AFFECTING WASTE.
99
fourths of the net proceeds of sale shall be sot aside as capital, ohap. iv.
and the rmnaining fourth shall go as rents and profits. Stet.6.
By section 28 (2) it is provided that a tenant for Iif«,
and his successors in title, who have under the settlement
merely a limited estate or interest in the settled land, shall not
cut down any trees tinted as an improvement under the Act
except in proper thinning.
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, provides (l) that a AgricuitB«i
tenant of a holding (m) shall be entitled notwithstanding any ^
custom of the country, or the provisions of any contrt. t of
tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of
arable luids or the disposal of crops, to practise any system
of cropping of arable land on ti>e holding, and to dispoae of
the produce of the holding, provided suitable and adequate
provision be made to protect the holding from injury or
deterioration in mmner flierein mmtioned. The enactment
however does not apply in the case of a tenancy from year to
year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding,
or any period after he has given or received notice to quit
which results in his quitting the holding, or in any othw caae,
as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of
tenancy. It is also provided that if the tenant exercises his
rights under the section in sueh a manner as to injure or
deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate
the holding, the landlord shall, without prejudice to any other
remedy vhidi may be open to faim, be entitled to recorer
damages in respect of such injury or deterioration at any time,
and, should the case so require, to obtain an injunction
restraining the exercise of the rights under the section in
that mannw. It ia ftleo provided (n) tint wiiere any mgine.
(/) 8 Edw. 7, c. 28. 8. 26.
(m} Sect 48. Holding 18 defined
as " any parcel of land held by •
tenant, which is either wholly
agricultural or wholly paitonl, w
in part a g i icult uHd Had as to ^
rendu* paatonl, at in whole or in
putoolttvatedas aaMriMgudan
Mtd it not M to tt* tMutat
during his continuance in any
office, appointment, or empIoyiBWt
held undor the landltnd."
(n) Seek. SI. Iba wHion apvliM
to • fiztoN or boiUing acquired
i^ue the 31st December, 1000, by
• tenant in like manner as it appliea
to a fixture or building affixed or
mttM fey a tMBBt, but doM M*
7— »
100 6TATUT0BT ENAOmiNTB AFFECTINQ WASTE.
Oi^. IV. mschinery, fencing or other fixture is sfBxed to s holding by
8MI.6.
- a tenant, and any building is erected by him thereOD lot 1
he is not under the Act or otherwise entitled to compensation,
and which is not so affixed or erected in pursituice of some
obligitiop in behalf, or mitaMl of toBM ixtnm or buiMlBg
betOBging to tlie landlord, such fixture or buildinp ahall be the
property of and be removable by the tenant bef(Mre or witim
a reasonable time after the determinatkm of flto taaaaoy on
the conditions therein mentioned.
It is also provided (o) that except as in the Act expressed,
nothing in the Act shall prejudicially affect any power, right,
or ronadr, of a bmdlonl, tmuit, or otter penon, veatad in
or exerciseable by him by Tiitne of any other Act or law, or
under any custom of the country, or otherwise, in respect of
a eantiaet of tenaocy, or oA«r contract, or of any waste,
tillages, away-going crops, fixtures or other thing.
Small Hoidiofi The Small Holdingt and AUotmetUa Act, 1908 (p) enables
An, ^808?*°** a tenant of any small holding or allotment (q) before the
expiration of his tenancy to remove any fruit and other trees
and bushes planted or acquired by him, and also certain build-
ings for which he has no claim for compensation.
apply to any fixture or building fixtures and enables auch tenanta
affixed or erected before the also to remove fruit tfMe on
1st January, 1884 (sub-sect 2). tain conditions.
See also sect. 42, subHMcta. (o) Sect. 46.
(ii.), (iiL), which extend the pro- {p) 8 Edw. 7, c. 36t*. 47 (4).
Timna of Met 21 to tba t«MBta (9) Seet 61 (1).
t gsHMa, M to MBMnral of
CHAPTER V.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TR1S8PA88.
Thk jurisdiction of a Court of equity to grant injunctions ch»p. v.
against trespass is comparatively of modem establiBhment(a). jariMiietMm!
The Court for a long time confined relief in equity to mwte,
founding its interference on the privity of title between the
parties (b). The rigour of the old rule in confining relief in
equity to warte^ wu rofc i Ksd for the first time by Lord Thnrlow
in a case where, Ihe party complaining being in possession of a
close, a wrongdoer was working into his minerals, and taking
away the very snbstanee of his estate (c) . In relaxing the rule
Lord Thurlow acted with reluctance, and was influenced solely
by the irreparable and destructive injury which would have
followed the refusal (d). The principle established by Lord
Thurlow in Flamang'i eate wu apfHrored by Lord Eldon, and
followed by him in some cases, but the law on the subject was
left by him in an unsatisfactory state. Succeeding judges
have, on more than me oecaaion, pointed this oat, and have
felt much difficulty in finding the principle ttpon wbiA to aot
in each case as it arose.
The state of the law, and the various authorities, were
reviewed with much care by Kii^raley, V.-C, in Lowndet v.
Bettle (e), who classified the cases under two heads: the one,
where the party against whom the application for the injunc-
tion is made is in posaenioa; wcA tiie othw, lAmt the
plaintiff is ia possesaion and is aaldng the Court to ^oteel
his estate.
(a) 3 Ra. Ca. 335. (</) 7 Ves. 308 ; 18 Ves. 186 ;
(A) Davenport v. Davtnport, 7 Ha. Talbot v. Hope ScoH, 4 K. & J.
217; 18 L. J. Cli. 163; 82 B. E. p. 122; 27 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 116ILB.
"fi; LomiikiY. SetHk.Zi'L.S.Qh. 271.
^^>- («) S3 L. J. Ol Ml. 8w FiU.
(e) Ftamang-t ea«^ di 6 Teb 147 ; hmM^t (torrf) v. funM, (1908) t
7Vw.SMi8T«s.WiMTM.188. Oh. p. lit ; 77 L Ok p. MM.
108
INJUNOnONS AGAINST TBE8PABB.
Okap.
In what cam
an iojunetioa
JaiUcatan Aot,
Nb4. 8.
The result of the cases (apart from the alteration made by
the Jodkatare Aet, 1878) wm flwi iriwre the idaintifl wu
out of poisession the Court would refuse to interfere by grant-
ing an injunction unless there was fraud or collusion, or unless
the acts perpetrated or threatened were eo injurious as to tend
to tiie destruction of the estate (/). Where the plaintiff mui
in fotiestion and the defendant was a mere tresfotser not
claiming under colour of right, the tendency of the Court was
not to grant an injunction, in the absence of special circum-
stances, but to leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law;
although an injunction would be granted if the acts com-
plained of tended to the destmctim of ttie estate. But where
the plaintiff was in posaeeskm and the defendant chimed under
an adverse title, the tendeney was to grant the injunction (g).
The diatinetitm, however, which has been takm between the
eases where the defendant committing the acts of trespass or
spoliation complained of is or is not in possession, and claims
under colour of title, or is a mere stranger, is not now of the
same importance ; for by sect. 26, aab-net. 8 of file Judica-
ture Act, 1873, it is provided that : —
"... if an injunction is asked, eiuier before or at, or
after the hearing of any cause or matter, to prevent any
threatened or apprehended waste or trespass, such injunction
may be granted, if the Court shall think fit, whether the
persm against whom such injunction is sought is, or is not,
in possession under any claim of title or otherwise, or (if out
of possession) does or does not claim the right to do the act
sought to be restrained under any colour of title ; and whether
the estates claimed by boUi ot either of Am parties ere legal or
equitable."
In Lowndes v. Betlle (h), the plaintifi and his ancestors had
if) Sm Talbet v. J7iqM 8eoU, 4
K. 4k J. 106 ; 27 L. J.Ot. 273 ; lt6
B. B. 271 ; A'ea/e v. Cripps, 4 K. T
472 ; 116 B. R. 413 ; and the other
cases cited by Kinderaley, V.-O., in
Lowndti V. BettU, 33 L. J. Ch. 461.
See (lao BbH^fifd v. Emtdtm, 9
Ch. 110.
(g) See Lowndet v. BOOe, 33 L. 3.
Ch. 451, 467; and Fiixhardiitgt
[Lord) V. Purtell, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 145 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 534.
(A) :« L. J, Ch, 451. See also
Stanford v. HurUtone, 9 Ch. 119;
Alien T. Martin, 20 Eq. 462 ; Ardiey
T. Quardttau of St, /Vmenit, 30
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
108
been in poeseMion of an estate for eighty years, and the
defendant, claiming as heir-at-law, mtered upon it, and
exercised acts of ownership by cutting sods and felling timber,
with the view, as he alleged, of prosecuting his claim as
heir onder the direetion of the Court, Kindersley, V.-C, con-
sidering that irremediable damage might result in the event of
his refusing to interfere, granted an interim injunction, and
afterwards made tiie injunction perpetual. If the trespass did Nalnd <
not amount to destructive trespass, but was a case of mere
ordinary naked trespass, the Court of Chancery would not,
under the old procedure, interfere by way of injunction (i).
Thus irtiere a claimant to pn^rty had been ntmsuited in
ejectment, the Court refused to restrain him from vexatiously
distraming on or otherwise moio: ting the tenants (;) . So, also,
where the owner t)i house property filed a bill fw an injune-
tion against a defendant who had been his lessee, but had
forfeited his lease, to restrain him from distraining oa the
tenants, a demurrer for want of equity was allowed (k).
But under the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 8, an
injunction may be had to restrain a landlord from exercising
his legal right of distress. lu Shaw v. Lord Jeraej/ (l) an
injunction was granted to restrain a landl<»rd from distoaining
for rent until the determination of an action brought by the
tenants against him to try his right to the rent on the terms
that the injnnctim should be granted for a fnrteigfat, and
continued only on the payment of the rent in the meantime
into Court. So, also, the Court may now restrain a toespass by Injanetioa
injunotim in cases where there has been no destructive tres- ^^TdtirtrwMiT*
peas. A lessor accordingly, who, in the absence of a power *
to enter upon the demised premises to repair them on breach of
the lessee's covenant to laffAr, entered for the purpose of exe-
cuting tepairs, was restrained by injnneticm, even though
T.. jr. Ch. 871 ; LmU Navigation Co. Bat we Bedgm» t. Am, 2 Jnr.
V. ifor$/aU, 3i Sol. Jo. 183. N. S. 1014.
(t) Oarttin y. Aiplin, 1 Madd. (i) Aldit T. Fnuer, 15 Beav.
152 : ■fa'-ktw Y. Stanhopf. 15 L. J. 220 : 92 E. B. 387.
Ch. 446; Cooper v. Crabtree, 20 (/) 4 C. P. D. 359, afflniiiiig48
C. D. 589 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 644. L. J. C. P. 308. See Onttr
(/} Beit r. Droit, 11 Ha. 369. Satmon, 4:{ L. T. 490.
104
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBBSPA88.
<»■>■ under a superior lease the lessor was liable to forfeitur* for
non- repair, and though he entered by leare of a ireekiy
tenant (m). So, hIho, h lessor was restrained by injunction
from entering upon the demised premises for the purpose of
rmnoring a political poster which the tenant had afRxed to die
house, the |)Ower of entry only being for non-payment of rent
or breach of the lessee's covenants (n). Where the lessor
eorenants to repair the demised premises, the covenant carries
with it an implied licence to enter upon the premises of the
lessee and occupy them for a reasonable time in order to do
what is necessary under the covenant (o).
When tKxpus The jurisdiction of the Court by injunction in cases of tres-
the breach clear, and serious damage is likely to arise to the
plaintiff if tiie defendant is allowed to .proceed with what he is
doing or threatens to do, an injunction will bo granted pend-
ing the trial of the right (p). But if the right at law is not
dear or the breach is doubtful, and no irreparable injury can'
arise to the plaintiff pending the trial of the right, the case
resolves itself into a question of comparative convenience (q) .
Iojo0etion ia Although actual damage need not be proved to 8uj)port an
aetitm f«» trespass (r), and rights of property as a general
proposition are entitled to protection by, if necessary, an in-
junction, the Court will not grant relief by an injunction
•hare the trespass is trifling, and canses no appreciable injury
to the plaintiff (»), for an injunction in trespass is not a
matter of course (t). Thus in a recent case (u), where the
(m) Stixker v. PUmet Building 416 (trespasu by commoner).
Sociefi/, 27 W. B. 877. See Barker {») Saunden v. Smith, 8 M . * 0.
V. Barlcer, 3 C. 4 P. M7. 711 ; 7 L. J. Ch. W ; Cbop$r w.
(n) rrffcJy T. Morhf. (1»10) »7 Omblne. 90 C. D. 589 ; SI L. J. CJi.
T. L. B. 20. IW; Llandudw District Council v.
(o) SniMr V. Batm. 1 C. D. 834. Wood, (1899) 2 Ch. 705 ; 68 L. J.
(p) See Cfoww T. Beck, 13 Beav. Ch. 623 ; Ikhre,,* v. Richard,,
847 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 505 ; Lownde$ y. (1904) 2 Ch. 614; 74 L. J. Ch
Beltle, 33 L. J. Ch. 441 ; Allm 615.
MaHil), 20 Eq. 466. («) H'aterhouie y. Waterhouie,
(?) r ? '•Jfi 2H, .;i9ft6) M L. T. 131 ; » T. L. 1.
(r) Rtiyere v . S/x/ir-. 13 M. 4 W. 195.
581 ; 15 L. J. i:x. 4!i ; see ffi.-jr v. {«) SMrMt T, BidUink, «Mini.
Brown, Durrant i Co., (1913) i Ch.
Mttter cf oMm.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. 106
plaintiff had purchased land on an unfrequented put of th« Ote»?.
coast, and lud fenced in some fbotpatts over the land wliidi
the Jefendunta claimed to use as being public highways, tht
Court refused to grant an injunction restraining the defen-
darta from removing the plaintiff's fences, on the ground that
thu plaintiff was not injorad bjr tb« then ri^t poUie nscr ot
(ho paths, and by way of relief made a dpclarntion in the
plaintiff's favour that the paths were not highways, and
awarded him nominal damages fOr tiie traapam.
Id thft caRo of trespass of a continuing nature, however, CoDtinniiif
the Coart will generally interfere by injunction (v), and the
Court will interfere by injunction wliere the tr:8paHH, although
not of a continaii^ mtore, it awioi^ or tiuwtMMd to to
repeated (x).
If the act complained of consists in the erection of works EncUooot
or buildings on the land of the plaintiff, an injaiMtioii may be ^"""■•^
hiid as long as the works are in an incomplete state ; but if the
works or buildings have been completed before action, the
Court will gmerally kftro tile pWalil to his reoiet^ in
damages (y). If, bowerer, the eondaet ol tka defenduit has
{v) Ooodtm V. Biekardiom, 9
221, 237 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 790, 791 ;
Allen T. Martin, 20 £q. 465 ; Ardley
V. (htanliant i<f St. Pancrat, 39
L. J. Ch. 871 ; Eardley v. Lord
UrnnHUt, 3 C. \). 826 ; 43 L. J. Ch.
6<>9 ; Batlertra Vettry v. County o/
f.onilun and Bruth, etc., On., (IMS)
1 Ch. 474 : 68 li. J. cat. MO;
LoHdmtmilfiira WmkntMaUwaf
Co. T. We$lmimUr Ouffuntiom,
(1902) 1 Ch. 269 ; 71 L. J. Oh. 94;
(1905) A. C. 426 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 629 ;
Marriott v. Katt Grin$leuH Oa$ and
Walrr Co., (19»>9) 1 Ch. 79; 78
L. J. Ch. 144 ; Schweder v. Worth-
ing Oat Light and Coke Co., (1912)
1 Ch. 83, 90 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 102;
Kwg T. AwMi, Dmrm* *
(s) Sm ArHwM V. Mbq^iW-
iM4, (1809)1 Q.B.^1M:6>I..J.
a B. p. 126; BaHtrtm Vmtry t.
Coimtjf </ LomdoH awl Brmh Co.,
(1899) 1 Ch. 483, 484 ; 68 L. J. Ch.
240; Hickman v. Maisti/ (1900)
1 Q. B. 762 ; 69 L. J. a B. 511 ;
Stajfonlthire and Worcettenhirt
Canal Narigntton v. Bradley, (1912)
1 Ch. 95 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 147 ; Lmti*
T. MtndUk, (1913) 1 Ch. 671 ; 109
L.T.94e; JTofw V. (Meme, (191^
9 349 ; King v. Brown, Durrtml
it Co., note (r), ntfra. As to when
an intended repetition of an act
will be inferred, see PhiMpt v.
Thomat, 62 L. T. 7«3 ; Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. ytal, (1899)
1 Ch. 807 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 378.
(y) Detre t. Oiml, 1 M. ft 0.
51G; 6 L. J. Ou 69; Mentmmij.
Hehardeom, 92 Bmv. p. 904; ML. J.
Cb. p. 997; in B. B. 901. 8w
I Mm m hr t. WtrOiitt OmtLifhtami
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
Cbap. V.
Patent tml
cbild.
Mnajcipal
OoryontiM
TrtMMM whea
kan fraudulent, vex ttious or oppressive, and the trespass is
of to Mrioas » nature tint tiie pftrties eumoft b* jrf»e«d in the
|H)8iti()n in which thoy were before the acts werr ronimitted,
without the iaterfern ce of the Court, the Court will interfere,
even though the Mt ocMnplained of hai been coinj)leted {:),
The Court will in u very grave case grant an injunction at the
uHtanco of a parent to restrain a son from entering hiM
parent's house (a).
In a recent ease (b) m injunction was granted reetraining
a local newspaper proprietor, who was also a burgi'sa and
ratepayer, from attending meetings of the borough council,
on the ground that such meetings were not public, and tiiat
a person who was not a member of the council had no right to
attend such meetings, either as a member of the public gene-
rally, or as a burgees and ratepayer, or as a representative of
the Press. But it is now provided (c) that representatives of
the Press are to be entitled to be present iit the meetings of a
local authority, subject to the right of the local authority to
temporarily exclude them when sudi exclusion is advisable
in the pul !'c interest.
A trespass may be justifiable, if in the circumstances it watt
reasonably necessary for the presenratkm Ot ^he defmdant's
property from a real and imminent danger, even though it
subsequently appears that the defendant's act was not in fact
actually necessary {d).
The Court will, in a ytoptt case, interfere by mandatcNry
G** Cb., Mvra; Lewk v. MmtiUh,
{x) 8m onlr, Tpp, 44—40.
(a) 8ttven$ t. Steven*, (1907) 24
T. L. R. 20 (injunction granted) ;
]Vaterho>iie v. ]i'at(rhoiut, (1906) 94
L. T. 134 (injunction refused).
(6) Tenhy Corporation t. Maton,
(1908) 1 Ch. 4S7 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 230.
(<•} 8 Edw. 7, c. 43, «8. 1 and 6 ;
and see aeoi 6 u to the admiaaion
ot tbe pabSe. As to patidi me«t-
ingi, Me M ft S7 Yict. o. 7S, •. 9,
Sdwdnle T., pt. 2 (13).
(<i) Gope V. aharpt [tTo. 2),
(1913) 1 K. B. 490 ; 81 L. J. K. B.
346. 8m « Bdw. 7, o. 11, a. 3,
whidi givw a nOwsy company
power to enter on a person'* land
and do all things " reasonably
necetisary " for the purpose of
extinguishing or arresting the
spread of fires caused by spatka
from their engines. 8ee also
Oreyvttuteyn r. Iluttingh, (1911)
A. C. 8»5 i 80 L. J. P. C. 1A8, M to
zi^lit b&dowu^f to protect
lud by driving off a twm «f
LN JUNCTIONS AGAINST TBBSPA88.
107
injunction against tredpnss (e). If the treapags or damage
is complete and the title is a pure legal title, the Court would f X T^^ ^ |,
not fat gaiMnil interfen bymjot mutdatory injanotkm. t h e i >— irftwuMi.
being a full remedy at law by ejeetment (/). But if the
damage ia serious, or the trespass is of a continuing nature, tha
Court may interfere by way of mandatory injunction, notwith-
standing the existence of a remedy at law (g).
In a case where the plaintiffs had made ou. ueir right at
law to build a bridge over the defendants' railway, and as a
temporary easement to emel pidea and othor tanporary ob<
HtructionH upon land adjacent to the defendants' railway, and
the defendants had, in order to prevent the plaintiffs from so
temporarily using timr Uati, bnlH np a wall whksh effeetoally
prevented the plaintiffs from carrying on their works, a
mandatory injunction was gisnied restraining the defendants
from emtinning to ase the wall and from preventing the
plaintiffs from making th«^ bridge (h). So, also, where watw
pipes (i), and electric light standards (;), and gas mains (k),
hud, without the consent of the owner of the » '\, been laid
(0 See ante, pp. 42— 4A, a. to
mau'UtrTy injunctioiM.
[/] ere v. Outri, 1 M. & C.
oKi, J L. J. Ch. 69; iV rtland v.
Itp hnrdtoi, '.?2 Beav. 604 ; 25 L. J.
Ih. 883 : 111 B. B. 601 ; we AU.-
<)tn. y. Manehetttr and Lttdt BnU'
tony Co., 1 £r. Ck. 436, and OmAm
V. ilie«ar«iM», L. 9St; 43
L. J. Ch. 790.
(9) Martyr v. Lawrtnee, i De
O. J. ft 8. 261 ; L-mdon and North
W**leni RaUuray Co. y. Lancashire
and Yorkshire Pnilivay Co. 4 Eq.
174; 36 L. J. Vh. 479; and see
Oo^lnm V. SiehardtoH, 9 Ch. 221 ;
London and North Wmiem Bailway
Co. V. H'efhnimfcr Corporvtim,
(1902) 1 Ch. 309; 71 L. i. (%. M;
8. C. (1906) A. 0. 428; 7* L. 3. Cfc.
M»; MmnioU t. EoH Qrnutfad 0,n
•mi WMtr Co., (1909) 1 Ch. p. 79;
TIL.;. Oh. 144; Amimmw.Ahm-
tillery Urban Council, ,
Ch. 398. 409 ; 80 L. J. Cli. " •
747, in/ro; Kynoek <k ) 'o. > V..
lands, (1912) 1 Ch. fi27; 106 "
316 (tipping rubbish) ; Sckwrdt-
IforMuv a- light oMi 0»k$ Co.,
(IMS) 1 (A. W. 90; 81 L. J. Ch.
103.
(A) aria North of England, He.
Jnniiim BaHv>ay Co. v. Clartwe
naOway Cb., i CoU. fi07. Sm
I'hUlipt V. Trt^, • Anr. M. a
999.
(•) Qoodton V. Richardson, Mar-
<-U)U T. East GriHttaad Om tmd
li'ater Co., supra.
OmmeiitMfHL
ik)achm»itr T. WMfOksf Om
LiyU and •'obe Co., t^ftm. Jm tUi
caM the gas main WM fiaoed i^OB
the plaintiiTB tunnel naiv aieai.
108
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
in the soil of a highway, an injunction was granted to restrain
the continoance of the trespass. So, also, a railway company
was restrained from permitting trucks or carriages to stand
across level crossings so as to obstruct or impede the user of
thc«n by the [dsintiff (t). So, also, parties wen restrained
from continuing to put a tramway upon a road (m). So, also,
a man was restrained from leaving logs of timber on premises
of which he had agreed to give up possession at the end of
his lease, and from which he was evicted by a writ of posses-
sion (n). So, also, where the lessees of a coal mine had
made apertures to ventilate the mine through the land of the
plaintiff, and had mortgaged tiieir interest in tiie mine to the
defendants, who began to work the mine and continued to
use the apertures, the Court granted an injunction which was
in some respects of a mandatory nature, restraining them tnm
continuing to use the apertures, but declined to ^rant a
mandatory injunction ordering them to fill up the apertures
inasmuch as they had not made them (o). So, also, a coal-
owner who had worked into the mines of his neighbour was
restrained from permitting the ways, passages, and apertures
made by him to remain open (p). So, also, the lessee of a
coal mine was restrained from conducting or allowing to pass
any water into a neighbouring mine by means of troughs,
bore-holes, or air-drifts (q). bo, also, the trustees of a road
were restrained from making an encroachment upon tiie plain-
tiff's land by making buttresses, etc. (r). So, also, a man
was restrained by mandatory injunction from permitting a
building which he had erected on the roof of a neighbour's
house to remain tiiere (•). So, also, a mm was rattrained
(/) I'nitril Land Co. v. (Irent
Eatkm SaUimy Co., L. B. 10 Ch.
p. Sn ; 44 L. J. Ch. 686.
(m) Neatk OamU Oo. t. Tnimrwtd,
tie., CoUierg Co., L. R. 10 Ch. 450.
See also Att.-Oen, v. li'itlna Bail-
way Co., 22 W. fi. 607 ; 30 L. T.
449.
(n) Ouimiet$ v. Fitzaimona, 13
L. B. Ir. 73.
(o) PoivtU V. ^t^M, 4 K ft J.
366; 116 R. B. 368.
(p) BtU J. JoM, 1 MS.
(«) WtitmiMttr Bff m i a Coal, «fc..
Co. T. (UjfUm, 38 L. J. Ch. 476.
See Waul T. Sktt. 21 L. T.
106.
(r) Holmet v. CptuH, 9 Ch.
214, n.
(«) Martifr t. Lawrmet, 2 De
Q.J.ttB. Ml.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
109
from making such alterations in a building as to oorer up a Ch*p. v.
fascia which «m parcel of the hoaae of his neighbour (<).
So, also, a man was restrained at the suit of his wife from
continuing in possession of a house which formed part of her
■epMrate ectate (»). So, also, the managw of a business wm
restrained from excluding the owner <rf the business from the
businef s premises (*). In a case where a wall had been
knoc'ied down, the Court would not interfere by way of manda-
tory injunction so as to order it to be built again, bat left
the plaintiff to his remedy by damages at law (y).
An action of trespass is founded on possession (2), and Action of
in order to soeeeed, the fdaiutiff mast show possession of the founded
lands on which the acts complained of were committed, at the
date of such acts. If possession be shown, the defendant is not
at liberty to set up tiie tifle «rf a third party unless he justifies
what he has done undo* a licence from such third party.
When, however, a {daintiff in trespass not being able to prove
actual possession proposes to show possession at law by
proving his title to the property, the defraduit may, if he can,
show that the title is not in the plaintiff, but in some third
party (a). In an action of trespass the right to sue as against
a wnmgdoer relates faaek, after entry mto possession, to the
time at which the right to enter accrued, so as to give a
right of action for a trespasa committed between the date of
the right to enter and that of the actual entry (b).
An action for trespass is usually brought by the ooeofist ynrntttgrnt-
or tenant of the land, whether tenant for jrears or from year to
{*) rrancU r. Hagtetri, S C. L.
tTV; SSL. J. Ch. Ml.
(«) 0i«Mv. Onm,tIbL 400, n. ;
1 B. B. Ml.
(a;) Eaehui j. Mom, 14 W. B.
327
(y) Doran v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch.
379.
(z) Fitzhardingt{Lord)f.Pwrt»ll,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 144 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 094.
And Mt WaUu r. Htmd», (MM) %
Ol 7«; M L. J. Ch. m i (Urn.
wood LmtOtr Ok. v. PkiUf, (1904)
A. 0. p. 410; 7S L. J. P. 0.
•4; Foiter y. Warblinglon Crban
Ootmcil, (1906) 1 K. B. 671; 78
L. J. K. B. 614 ; Kynock <fc Co. v.
Bmclandt, (1912) 1 Ch. 627; 106
L. T. 316.
(a) FUzharditu/e [Lord) v. PuraU,
$uyra.
(i) Ocmm Aeeidtnt and Ouanmtm
Oarptniiam v. /(Ami Om Ck.,
(iaM)8K. B. 493 ; 741.. J. K. B.
7W (a«tioB by equtebb Bort.
110
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
^'"P-^- year, Tvhose possession is interfered with, bat the owner may
sue on the ground of injury to his property, either alone or
conjointly with the tenant. In order that a re ersioner may
maintain an action for trespass, it is necessary that he allege
•ad {wore tii»t the wrong oomiriMned of is an injury to the
reversion, either uy being of a permanent nature or as operat-
ing as a denial of right (e). A mortgagee, after entry into
possession, esn sue in respeet of a trespass to the mortgaged
jMremisss committed prior to entry, but after his right of entry
arose (d). If the act complained of affects the public interest,
the remedy is by action in the nature of an information at
the suit of the Att<»ney-Oeneral (e). The Attomey-Oenersl,
however, is not a necessary party and should not be joined in
proceedings to protect rights of property enjoyed not by the
eommnnity in general, but only by a limited section of the
public, Ruch as the inhabitants of a parish (/). A local autho-
rity may act as relators In an action brought by the Attomey-
(r) Jaekton v. Petked, 1 M. & S.
234; 14 B. R. 417; Himpiwi v.
Savage, 1 C. B. N. 8. 347 ; 26 L. J.
C. P. 60 ; 107 R. R. 688 ; Bell v.
Mitlland Sail nay Co., 10 C. B. N. S.
287 ; 30 L. J. 0. P. 273; KidgiUY.
Moor. » C. B. 364 ; 1» L. J. 0. P.
177 ; 82 B. B. 3M; Mn^wm r.
FoUy, 2 J. ft H. US; iMhMd v.
BMiMon, 4 Ch. 388, 39d ; 20 L. T.
3M ; May fair Property Co. v. John-
»ton, (1894) 1 Ch. 508, 516 ; 63 L. J.
Ch. 399, 402 ; Shelfer v. City of
London Electric Light Co., (1895)
1 Ch. 314, 317 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 224,
226 ; Colwdl v. St. Panenu Boretigk
Cnmctf, (19M) 1 Ch. p. 713 ; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 279 ; Jam r. Uanrwtt
Urban Counea. (1911) 1 Cfc. SM,
404 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 150.
('/) Ocean Accident awl (Imrantef
Cor; oratton v. liford Qae Co., (1905)
2k.B.4M; 74KJ. K.&
799.
(e) See Thome v. Taw Vale Bail-
toay Co., 13 Bmv. 10 ; BmrmmuUe^
Ventrt/ V. Brown, 1 E<i. 204, 215;
WaUanfij Local Board v. Oraeey, 36
t. D. 693, 597 ; 66 L. J. Oi. 739;
Tottenham District CounfU r.
n Ulianuum, (1896) 2 a B. 363 ; M
L. J. a B. 69i ; SMit fMtk
Citmeil y. Prire. (1899) 3 Ch. 377 ;
68 L. J. Ch. 147 ; Ihvonport y. Towr,
(1903) 1 CI... 759, 762; 72 L. J.
Ch. 411 ; Boyce v. Paddiugton
Borough Council, (1903) 2 Ch. 6W ;
72 L. J. Ch. 32 (reversed on other
grounds, (1906) A. L. 1 ; 75 L. J.
Ch. 4) ; Watton v. Hythe Corpora-
tioH, (1906) 22 T. L. B. 246 ; Att.-
dm. T. Owrmr, (1907) 3 K. & 43S.
488; 76 L. J. K. B. 96«, 968 Mtt.-
OtK, T. Ch*md Jumttim Canal,
(1909) 2 Ch. 606, 617; 78 L. J.
Ch. 81 ; All. -den. v. Birmingham,
Tame, etc., Druinage Board, (1910)
1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch. 139;
Att.-(len. V. Lewtt Corporation,
(1911) 2 ClL 496; 27 T. L. B.
681.
(/) AtL-Om, T. Qwrmr, (18M)
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
General (g). Private persona or local authorities may sue
alone erea Aoagh ttie aet oomplained of may affeet the public
interest where their proprietary rights arc intorfmd with,
and they can make out a case of special damage, or can show
that greater damage is caused to them liiereby than is caused
to the King's subjects in general (fc). So, abo, where a ear-
poration exceeds its statutory powers and commits a trespass,
the owner of property injured can sue and raise the question
of uUra vire$ wiflwat jdniog the Attomey-GenwBl (i).
Where an Act of Parliament contains a provisioD for the
special protection of an individual, he may enforce his rights
thereunder by an action vithout either joining the Attorney-
General as a party, or showing that he has sustained any par-
ticular damage (;). Where an illegal act is being committed,
whidi in its nature tends to the injury of the public (such as
un interference with a pablie highway w a nav^Ue river),
the Attomey-Geoeral, tm bdialf of the pablie, ean aunlain
2 K. B. 480, 487 ; 78 L. J. E. B.
965, 968.
(y) Att.-am. V. Icgan, (1891) 2
a B. 100; « L. T. 162. See
Stoke Purith Ckmneil t. Prire, (1899)
2 Ch. 277; 68 L. J. Ch. 447;
Ikionpart Corporation v. Tozer,
(1903) 1 Ch. 789, 762; 72 L. J. Ch.
416; Att.-<itn.y. Oamtr, (1907) 2
K. B. p. 4tf ; 76 L. J. K. B.
SWH.
(A) Cook V. Mag«r, Kc, of Bath, 6
Bq. 177; ITiMnMfom v. Lord
Ikrbg, 38 L. jr. Bji. 194 ; Cunliff
Cvrporatioii y. Cardiff WaUrtrorka,
4 De a. ft J. S96 ; 124 R B. 400 ;
Witllatey Local Board v. Gracey, 36
C. D. 593 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 739 ;
LouiliiH Association of Shipowners v.
London ami India Dock* Com-
mittre, (IN92) 3 CL p. 270;
62 L. J. Ch. p. aiij tmm-
ham. VHmm Cbimea v. WUUmimn,
(1898) 3 Q. B. 3M ; 8S L. J. Q. B.
592 ; Bogei t. P a iding tm Borough
Cotmea, (INS) 1 C& UO; 7S L. J.
Ch. 28 ; Shtrrittgham United Diitrict
Council /Tobey, (1904) 20 T. L. B.
402; Wedneslmry Corporation v.
Lodge Hola Colliery Co., (1907) 1
K. B. p. 90 ; 76 L. J. K. B. p. 73
(reversed oii other grounds, (1908)
A. C. 326; 77 L. J. K. B. 847);
Alt.-Gen. v. Qnmer, (1907) 2KB.
487 ; 7S L. J. £. B. 966; MarriM
V. Ah( OriMkmi Oa$ Co.. (1009) 1
C9l p. 78; 78 L. J. Ch. pi 143 ;
Fohg't Charify TVwfaH v. Dwlfey
Corporation, (1910) 1 K. B. p. 322 ;
79 L. J. K. B. p. 413; Campbell
V. Paddinijtim Corporation, (1911) 1
K. B. 869, 874 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 743 ;
and see Att.-Qen. v. Lewes Corpora-
tion, (1911) 2 Ch. 495 ; 27 T. L. E.
581.
(«) Marriott v. Sad Oriadmd
OoM Oo.. (1908) 1 (%. 70 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 141.
(y ) Mayor of Dtvouport v. Ply-
TMuth Tra mwoft Co., 88 L. T.
161.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRB8PAS8.
Cfc>y- V- an action for an injunction vithout adducing evidence of
actual injury to the ^lie (k).
An officer of the Crown may be restrained from committing
a trespass purported to be done in pursuance of an xVct of
Parliament, bat, in fact, outside ttie atatetory aatiKnity (Q.
An action for trespass oammitted or intended is not maintain-
able against the Crown, or against any officials of the Crown
or Qoremment sued in their official capacity or as an official
body. Officers of State are liabls as ordinary individuals for
trespasses which they bsTS persmudly committed or ai^ho-
riaed (m).
TwjM*!* The principles ^Mn whidi the Court acta m restrmiiiut
or pablie faodiw. trMpass on the part of companies or bodies havmg compulsory
powers to take or enter upon or interfere with lands, differ in
some respects from those upon which it acts in restraining
trespass by individuals. A private person who applies for an
injunction to restrain a public company or body from entering
illegally on or interfering with his land is not required to
make out a ease at deskaetife trespass or irr^rabla
damage (n). The inability of private persons to contend with
these powerful bodies raises an equity for the prompt inter-
ference of the Court to keep tiiem from deviating from the
terms prescribed by the statute which gives them authority.
If they enter upon or interfere with a man's land without
taking the steps required by the statute, the Court will at
once interfere. A man has a rqfht to ny that they shall not
affect or interfere with his land by stirring one step out of
the exact limits prescribed by the statute. The principle upon
{k) At(.-(l,ii. V. Shmvtbiiri/ Oh. 73, 78, 79 ; 67 L. J. Oh. 39 ; flow.
Bridge Co., n C. I). 762 ; 51 L. J. Gh. bridge v. Poamaatr-amtrtd, (1906)
746; Ltmdon AfodatiMt nf 8k^ I IL B. 178, 193; 74 L. J. K. B.
ommn v. Ltmdm mi India Dmkt SM; we PHdgHm v. MtUor. (1913)
CmtMrliM. (lan) 3 870 ; « 28 T. L. R. 261 (TreMury solicitor).
L. J. Ch. p. 311 ; Att-Om. v. LoMhm (n) Liverjiool Varimration ?. Chor-
and Xorth rTerierH Bailiuay, (1899) 1 hy Waterworks Co.. 2 De O. M. i O.
aB. 72; 69L. J. Q. B. 20; .^tt.. 852, 860; Canliff CoTforation v.
Om. V. Barker, (1900) 83 L. T. 246. Cardiff Waterworkt Co., 4 De O. &
(/) NireakiTamalny. Baker,(^im\) 3. .MW; Marriott v. Ead QrinHead
A. C. 661, 576 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 8«. Hat and Water Co., (1909) 1 du 70 ;
(«•) lUiMgk y. C/McAoi, (ISK) 1 ISL. J.Ch. 141.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. 118
which the Court grants relief in such cases is not so much the c>«» V.
nature of tiie trespass as the necessity of keeping such bodies
within control (o) . It is incumbent upon such bodies to jmwe
clearly ami aistinctly from the statute the existence of the
power which they claim a right to exercise. If there is any
doubt with regard to the extoit of the power elaimed by them,
that doubt must he for the benefit of the landowner, and should
not be solved in a manner to gire to the company any power
that u sot dearly and rainessiy defined in the statute (p).
A company authorist d by the legislature to take land com-
pulsorily for a definite object, will, it attempting to take it
for any other object be restrained by the Court (g). Public /
bodies invested with statutory powers must take care to keep '
within the limits of the authority committed to them, and in
carrying out their powers, must act in good faith and reason-
ably and with 8<mie regard to the interest of those who may
suffer for the good of the community (,>). The Court has not
only jurisdiction to interfere to restrain a company from affect-
ing a man's land by stirring out of the exact limits prescribed
by the statute which gives them authority, but will, as a matter
of course, interfere (»), unless no iujrry has &iamx or is likely
(o) A'env y. LemAm w»d Brighton North London ttaHway t'o., L. B. 4
I^ilimty Co., 1 Ba. Ca. *96, SOi ; Ch. 822; 17 W. E. 746.
Freirin v. Levii, 4 M. & C. 249, (,) Galloway v. Ara,/. (Wjwra-
•2m ; 48 B. B. 88; Pinchin v. /.on- Hon, L. R. 1 H. L., 34, 4;i ; 35 L. J.
'hn ami Uhrk tcaU Ilaihra,/ Co., 5 Ch. 477 ; London and y„rth ft ettern
I »o O. M. & O., p. 860 ; 24 L. J. CU. Jtailwa:, Co. v. IVeHminrier Corpora.
117; 1(H R. R. 810; !<utU,n v. <ton,(l}«)4) 1 Ch. p. 770; 73 L. J.Oi.
Mayer of Norwich, 27 L. J. Ch., p. 390 (reversed on other gmmdi,
pp. 741, 742; .fiaymr t. St^mtg (1906) A. C. 486 ; 74 L. J. Ch. «S1).
CorporaHm, (IMl) 3 S12; 80 And aee AU.-Om. r. Frimley and
L. J. Oh. 878. Whm • loeal Famborough ITattr Co., (1908) 1
authority was rwtraiaed from en- Ch. 727 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 442.
forcing a closing order under the (r) Wenimimtfr Corjmmfion v.
Housing, etc.. Act, 1909, the order Lonloit and North-WesUm Rdlirai/
not containing the statutory note Co. (1905) A. C. 430, 433 ; 74 L. J.
iriforining tho landowner of his Ch. 629, 633.
1 ight of appeal to the Local Govern- (») See River Dun Navigation Co.
nioiit Hoard. v. North Miihnd AitltM^ Co., 1
(;-) «»m/«o» T. South StuforU- Ba. Cik. p. IM; AU.-Oen. y. Jfirf-
>hire Railvay »>., 34 1.. J. Ch. 380. A«ii<, tic., &Mwag Co., 3 Ch. 100
387; 4 D.O. J.*&68«: LmAr. 104; Att..am.r. LmtimtmdS^
K.I.
8
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
to arise, or unless the injury, if any has arisen, is so small
as to be hardly capable of being appreciated by damages (t),
or unless the remedy by damages is adequate and sufficient, or
is, under the circumstances of the case, the proper remedy (»),
or unless the trespass is one merely of a temporary natare(v).
In a case where a company acting hand fide had taken posses-
sion of property by mistake, and the question at issue between
the company and the landowner was only a questi<m of valae,
the Court would not interfere, there being no evidence to show
any culpable negligence on the part of the company (w). Lord
Bomilly, M.B., thought himself justified in taking into con-
sideration in such a case flie inconvenience which the public
would be exposed to from granting the injunction (x). So,
also, where a corporation in executing works under statutory
powers inadvertently trespassed on the plaintiffs land, the
Court awarded damages as the injury to the plaintiff was small
while the removal of the works would have cost a considerable
sum {y). The Court will not restrain the completimi of
works authorised by statute simply because the company has
WeMtfm Builwai/ Co., (1900) 1 Q. B.
78, 09 L. J. Q. B. 29, and Saiinby
V. Loniltm (Out.) Kafer f'om-
miuionert, (1906) ; A. C. 110, 115;
75 L. J. P. C. 27; WeHmintUr
Corporation v. Lmdon and Jforth
ir««mt RaHtBi^ Co., (1906) A. C.
426 ; 74 L. J. Ch. S29 ; Marriott v.
Satt Grituttad Oat Co., (1909)
I Ch. 70 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 141 ; I'lgnott
r. Middleaex County Council, (1909)
1 Ch. 143, 144 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
813.
(<) Wanltn nf Dover Harhour v.
South Eatttrn Sailway Co., 9 Hs. p.
493; 21 L. i. Ch. 8M; Wart r.
a»gm»(t Ocmia Co., S De O. * J.
2ia.229;28L. J.Ch. 103; mB.R.
80; Wanilfworth Board of !!'</»*» v.
Lonilon and South We»ltrn Haihmi/
Co., :n L. ,T. Ch. 854 ; rhwlhi;/ V.
Pouli/iiool, etc., Railimi/ Co., 18 E(i.
714; 43 li. J. Ch. 7B1 But sco
Ooodtm T. JUehardum, 9 Ch. 221 ;
43 L. T. Ch. 790; and .Varriott v.
Eait Orinitead Oat Co., (190!») 1
Ch. 70; 78 L. J. Ch. 141.
(tt) Turner r. Blamire, 1 Drew.
402 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 766 ; 94 B. B.
734.
(v) Standiih v. Mai/or of Liver-
pool, 1 Drew. 1; 94 B. B. 571.
See 8 ft 9 Vict. c. 20, w. 32- 42, an
t<) the powers (rivon to railway
companies to take temporary pos-
seraion of land.s abutting on the
intended railway for certain pur-
posen.
(w) Wood V. Charing Cram Bail'
uay Co., 38 BwT. 290 ; Dowting r.
Pontypool Caerleon,eie.,Satiwaj/ Co.,
18 Eq. 714, 747; 43 L. J. Ch.
7fil.
(x) Wval V. Charing Crnst Hail-
ivfty < 'o., aiijira.
(,v) Riley V. Halifax Corporation,
(1907) 97 L. T. 378; S9 T. L. B.
613.
116
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
exceeded its powers, if the excess be abandoned and satisfac-
ti(m be made for any injury caused, either by payment of
money or by restoration in fact (z).
If a company is in possession under a title acquired through Injanction
the apparent owner of the property, the Court will not in JCT^c^TitoSto,
general, at the suit of a penon alleging an adverse title, inter' " » '■■■''■•
fere to restrain the company from continuing in posses-
sion (a), but if land has been taken by a company improperly,
or if the conduct of the cmnpany has be«i Texatious, unreason-
able, or oppressive, the Court may restrain them from con-
tinuing in podsession until a proper compensation has been
made (b).
In spite of the view expressed by Lord Eldon in Agar't
case (c), it seems to be now established that a landowner can-
not maintain a suit to restrain a company from exercising
their ooropulsory powers over his land on the ground either
of the resources of the company being insufficient for the com-
pletion of the undertaking, or of a material variation being
made or intended to he made in the construction of tiie worta ;
unless the plaintiff can prove to the satisfaction of the Court
that he will suffer actual and material prejudice by the com-
pany's failure to complete the undertaking, or by the proposed
variation, as the case may be ^d).
Where persons are empowered by the legislature to take Ptmm,
lands compulsorily for tiie purposes of an undertaking, Ujey SErtJITlifci
iMdtMV tab
(;) See fVettminater >'orjioration
V. London and So.-th Wnttrn Bail-
way Co., (1905) A. C. at p. MO; 74
L. J. Gh. at p. 636.
(n) ]Veh$trr v. South Eattem
RaUwaji Co., 1 Sim. N. a 272 ; 30
L. J. Ch. 194.
(6) Berk* T. iryeomi* tUMwa^
Co., 3 Oi«. 686, 673 ; Lord XeUon
V SalUbnrjf and Dornt llnilway
Co., 16 W. R. 1074; (1868) W. N.
lf<0; Strettim v. Urtat Wetttrn
/tat/way i o., L. R. 6 Ch. 751.
('•) Coop. 77; H R. R. 217 ;
cited 1 8w. 250; aadMO Blakemort
V. Glamorganthire Railway Co., 1
My. & K. 154, 164 ; 2 L. J. (N. a)
Ch. 95 ; 36 R. R. 289.
(d) See HUyoalet t. Shrtwtbury
and Birminghtm Mailtuay Co., S
Ba. Ok 43i; Wintle v. BrUM and
Sottlh Watt* Union Railway Co., 10
W. R. 210; 125 R. R. 946; Zee v.
Miln^, 2 Y. & C, Ex. 611 ; 47
R. R. 463; Salmon v. Randall, 3
M. & C. 439, 445; 43 H. R. 306;
Ware v. Rrgenl't Canal Co., 3 Be O.
&J. 217, 228; 28 L. J. Ch. IM;
121 B. B. 80.
8— a
116
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
vbattheyikall
10 long *« thcra
are the proper judges of what land they need (e). They may
take aa mnch land aa they deem necessary for the proper e(m>
struction of the works which they arc authorised to make, and
of the works incidental to the main purpose of the undertaking,
provided they aet bond fide ; but they may be restrained from
eiereising those powers for any purpose of a collateral kind,
that is, fmr any purposes except those for which the legislature
has inTested them with extraordinary powers (/). An injunc-
tion will, accordingly, be granted to restrain a company which
has powei to takn land from taking the same for the purposes
of anotlier company which has not power to take the land (g).
Although a company, having power to take land, may not take
it for the purjiose of another company which has not power to
take it, a company which has legally taken land may enter
into an agreement with another company for the joint use of
it. The arrangement between the companies does not vitiate
the title which the company has acquired to the land (h). If
there is evidence to show that a company is taking land which
is not bond fide reqaired for the pnqwr purposes of tiie under-
(e) Slocklon and Darlington Rail-
way Co. V. fln/itw, 9 n. L. C. 286 ;
Ltwit T. Wr*'<m-*iiprr-Mare Local
Board, 40 C. D. U, 62 ; S8 L. J.
Ch. 39 ; Limdon an'! Ntirtk Wttlern
Rai^n ay Co. v. W- 4mi»sftr Cor.
pnraium, (1904) 1 ("h. 766; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 39(1 (reversed on other
grounds lu H. L.); (1905) A. C.
426, 433 ; 74 L. J. Ch p. fi.Jl ; niid
see Pe-r v. liritihlon <\>rj>orat<on,
(1907) 23 T. L. B. 442.
(/) Wtbb V. Manrhtfter and
Le«ii BaUwatf 0>., 4 U. ft C. 116;
48 B. B. 28; Stockton and DarHmg.
ton Bailtray Co. y. Brovm, 9
n. L. C. 256; Simpson r. South
Staffnrdfhire Walenrorka Co., 4 Do
J. & S. f;79, 689 ; 34 I,. J. Ch. 3S0 ;
Gall.iway v. Mayor, rlr., n/ /..m/im,
1 L. R. H. L., 43 ; Le^fit JVrttnn-
inper-Mare l.ncnl Hoard, 40 C. I).
66, 62 ; 6S L. J. Ch. 39, 43 ; Jame$
T. Lova, 36 W. B. 628; Stnmd t.
Wanihworth Ditirirt Board of
Workt, (1894) 1 Q. B. 68; 63 L. J.
M. 0. 88 ; BattoH cmd Jcywer
LoikiiM Stkeol Board, (1903) 20
T. L. R. 23; London and North
Western RaUivay Co. Wettmirtsttr
Corjxyration, (1904) 1 Ch. 772; 73
L. J. f h. 390 (reveroed on the
facts, (1905) A. ('. 426; 74 L. J.
Ch. 629); llradthatr y. Ilray C. D.
C., (1907) 1 Ir. 158 ; Rct v. Rn-ihton
: itrporntiim, (1907; 23 T. L. R. 441 ;
*«! Jtf.-Ot». \. Frimtejf and Fam-
bonmgh n'ater Co., (1906) 1 Cb. 727 ;
77 L. J. C3h. 442.
(g) Wood V. Epsom and Leather-
hearl R-iilwaij Co., 8 ('. B. N. S.
731 : 30 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 125 R. B.
863 ; Vane v. Corkermoiith and
Iktrlinyton Railway Co., 13 W. R.
1015.
(A) Wood V. Epsom and Leather-
head Railway Co., 8 C. B. N. 8. 731 ;
»)L.J.C.P.82; 12SB.B.Ma.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
taking, it is not enough that the engineer of the company may
have made an afllibTit tiiat the land is or would be wanted for
the purposes of the undertaking. The purposes must be
specified so that the Court may judge whether the land is
bond fide required (t). But the moment the Court is aatisfied
with the bona fides and honesty of the engineer, that ia lufi-
cient (j). The burden of proving want of bona fidet rests
upon the party opposing the purchase (k). If there is no
ground to suspeet mols fidtt, the Court will gire eredit to the
testimony of the engineer as to the quantity of land required
for the purposes of the undertaking, or as to what would be a
proper execution of the wwks (I). If there is more than one
way of making the works which the company is autiMnuad to
make, and if the company are acting bond fide, the company
by their engineer are the sole judges of the way to be
adopted (m). Whether land is necessary fw tiie purposes of
the undertaking is a question of fact for a jur^ (n). But
everything which is reasonably required for the purpose of
completing the undertaking which the etmipany are autiiorised
to make, such, for instance, as land for accommodation works,
etc., ib land required for the purposes of the undertaking (o).
Where the legislature has conceded powers to a emnpany
for a certain purpose (e.g., the formation of a railway), sudi a
company must not, in order to effect its objects, exceed the
limits of its powers. But where an existing public body, such
as the corpwaticm of a eity, is mtrusied by the legislatare witii
117
(•) Flower t. London, BrighUm,
and South Coatt BaUvay Co., 2
Dr. & 8m. 330 ; 34 L. J. Ch. S40 ;
A'«n;i v. Soil < A EaUem Bailway Co.,
7 Ch. 364, 375 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 404 ;
LtwU r. Wmim-mfm-Main Local
A>ar<l,40O.D.«,6S,68; ML.X
Ch. 43.
U) WiOdiucn T. HM, lU., RaU-
ivay and Dock Co., 20 C. D. 323 ; 51
L. J. Ch. 788 ; Lewii v. Wuton Loeal
Board, 40 C. D. p. 68 ; 68 L. J. Ch.43.
(A) ErringUmv. MttropolUimDii.
trict Railway Co., 19 0. D. «W,
571 : 61 L. J. Ch. 904.
(I) T. CMm ra%, etc.. Bail-
vmt Co., low. B. 661 ; 126 B. B.960.
(«•) Wilkin»nn v. Hull, etc., BtdU
wag tmd Dock Co., 30 0. D. 8U;
61 L. J. Ok. 788; Me Jte t.
A%Um OrponOkm (1907), 23
T. L. B. 441 ; and we Dtmifhy y.
Montreal Light Co. (MOT) A. a 4M;
76 L. J. P. C. 71.
(n) Doe V. North StaffortUhire
Railway Co., 16 Q. B. 626 ; 20 L. J.
Q. B. 249; 83B.B.677.
(o) Wakinmm HuU, tfe., BoU.
wot) and DoA 0*^ » a D. MS;
SlL.J.ClL7tt.
118 INJUNCTIONS AnAlNS? TRESPASS.
^- the duty of making public improrementa, the powers thun
•ntriittcd to it will net he rabje<4 to • atriet mmI rMtrtetiT*
construction (p).
Undi CkiuM The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (q) in luittilj inoor-
Art,**'* po rated with all Acts giving corporations power to take land.
IMA. Where the comiMny is a railway company, the Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act (8 9 Vict. c. 20), as wt ll as the
Lands Clauses Act, is generally incorporated with the i iul
Aet in all eM<ia where tiie special Aet has been obtained Since
the enactment of the two general Act'^. Thesr Acts, however,
do not interfere with private contracts. They were intended
oa\y to apply where the parties hare omitted, or are muMe
to determi'ie tin m rights by agreement, and will not be allowed
to override or control the provisions of a deed deliberately
raeeated for the purpose of determining the rights of parties
and in which they are not referred to (r).
All companies incorporating these two Acts with their own
special Act are bound to adhere strictly to the powers of taking
land prescribed by these Aets, and to proceed <»ly in the
mode and with the formalities required by them. The
attempt to take or enter upon lands otherwise than in
aeecnrdanee with the mode pointed out by these Acts, except
in so far as they may be modified by the special Act incor-
porating the company, is a trespass, and will be restrained by
injunction (a).
(/.) Oallownif V. Mai/or, He, of (</) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18.
Loudon, 1 I.. R. II. L. M ; Korth (r) Sawltrson v. Cocltermouth and
London Rnilirnij v. MetrojHilitan Worlcinyton Railway Co., 19 L. J.
Board of ]\;,rkt, 1 John. 405 ; 28 Ch. 603 ; Clarke v. Manehitkr,
L. J.Cb.»0;i, 12.) P.. R. 166; Bolt$ Sheffield, ond LincoltMir* Batiuag
\ . Sihwl Ikurd i,f London, 27 0. D. Co., lj.it 631.
63», 643; Leuiu y. Wea4m-*iper- («) F«*$ T. Wilti, Bemt-eet.mid
Mart Local Board, 40 0. D. 55, WtfmotM BMway Co., 5 Ha. 199 ;
68; SSL. J. Ch. 89, 42; Stroud v. Stoni v. Qmnmrial Railway Co.,
WandtworthDutrict Board of ff^ork*, 4 M. & C. 122; 48 R. B. 32 ;
(1891) 1 a. 15. p. 08; 63L.J.M.C. Sihu-inye v. Lmdm and Blarhmll
88. '.(1; and see Hill v. Wnllasty Bai'iray Co., 3 Sin. & O. 30; 21
Loral Hoard, (1894) 1 Ch. 133; ()3 L. J. Ch. 408; 107 B. R. 3 ; Onui
L. J. Ch. 3; but see AU.-(Jen. v. HWem Railway Co. y. Swindon
L. C. C, (1901) 1 Ch. p. 788; (1902) Railway Co., 22 C. D. 677 ; 62 h. J.
A. C. 165. Ch. 306 ; 9 A. C. T37 ; 63 L. J. Ch.
IKIUNCTIONS AOAtMST TtdSftPABS.
By sect. 18 • oonpany, before taking or entering upon c^.^.
lands iriiieh titey w MttboriMd to teko, moit mm apon the Swt is.
1;, 'owner or persons interested therein, or enabled by the
Act to sell and convey the same, a notice to treat, specifying
the laad wbitk they require (i). Notiee to trwt moit b*
senred <m the tcoMite nbo have ui interest in the land (u),
every lessee and Bub-leaaee being entitled to a sepafste
notice ( ir ) . But notice to treat need not be served upon
tenants iriio hold on quarterly or other short tenancies, if the
compuny iicquires the rcverHlon and gives notice to quit
ti rminHting before it enters upon the land (x). Notice to
treat should be served upon mmrtgagees as well as opon tiM
mortgagor (//). Where notice to treat was served only upon
the mortgagor, and the corporation duly proceeded thereunder
and entered into possession and then served the mortgagee
with a notice to treat, it was held that the conii>any were not
precluded by having taken posbcasion from exercising their
statutory right to give notice to treat to the mortgagee, and the
mortgagee's application for an injunction to restrain the cor-
poration proceeding on their notice to treat was refused (y).
If the lands are in the possession of a receiver, or of the com-
mittee of • hamtie i^pointed fagr tiie Court* tiie company sboaM
make a speeial appIicatioD to the Ckmrt. If ttiqr i^oeeed.
107A: Battmnutd Jefmr r. Ltmim
School Bttmt{\m). 20 T. L. B. 23 :
PiggoU v. MUdUmx Coimfy Cotmct/,
(1909) 1 Oku pw 144; 77 L. J.Cli.
813.
(<) See Mariiu v. London, Chat-
ham and Dover Railway Co., 1 Ch.
501 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 795 ; SirtOon v.
Qrtat Wti*tm Baiiwag Co., S Ch.
761 ; 40 L. J. Ch. M; IkmU»t v.
I'ontypod, tie., Saihsmf Co., It Kq.
714 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 761 ; FrtttUro v.
Tottenham and Fareri Qate Railway
Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 278. The placing
of a post under the powers of a
local Act (which incorporated the
Lands Claoaes Consolidation Act,
1846), in the Mil under the pave-
mant tor the paipow «t wathiag
tramways wM lidd not to be a
taking of land w to make Mot. 18
apply : Etcolt v. Mayor of Newport,
(1904) 2 K. B. 369 ; 73 L. J. K. B.
693.
(u) Rogtri V. Hull Dork Company,
34 L. J. Ch. 166.
(iff) Abrahamt j. Mayor, etc^
£«HiMh6Bi}.«6;37L.J.C9L733.
(tf ) 8ff$it V. MnlfcpttittM Boufd ^
Woi*», 36 L. T. 277 ; Ex parU
Nadin, 17 L. J. Ch. 421 ; Reg.
PouUer, 20 Q. B. D. 132 ; 57 L. J.
Q. B. 138; and see sect. 121.
(v) Vookt V. / ondon County Coun-
c«;, (1011)1 OL «•{ W L. J.Oh.
426.
120
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
Ch>p. V. without the sanction of the Court, to enforce their statutory
powers, an injunction may be obtained to restrain them (z).
Entry on a person's land which is not included in the notice
to treat is a trespass, although a subsequent notice to treat
be served in respect of such land (a).
The notice to treat should state accurately the quantity and
situation of the land required (b). A. plan is generally annexed
to the notice (o treat. If any mistake is made on tho face of the
plan the company will be unable to enter upon any land which
may be omitted (c). Notice that land is wanted for the pur-
poses of a railway is sufficient ; and accordingly the notice
need not state that the land is wanted for the purposes of a
station (d). A company is not bound to comprise the whole
of the land which they may require in the first notice, but may
from time to time, until the compulsory powers expire, serve
fresh notices to the same landowner for taking any additional
land which may be requisite for the works (e).
Effect of notice After notice to treat has been given neither party can get
totiMt. ^jjg obligation. The relationship of vendor and pur-
chaser is to a certain extent, and for certain purposes, created
by giving the notice (/). The land to be taken is fixed, leaving
only the price to be ascertained ; the landowner can still sell
his land subject to the notice to treat, but he cannot create any
(z) Me Taylor, 6 Ba. Ca. 741 ; 1
Mac. & O. 210 ; Tink t. liundlc, 10
Beav. ;il8; 76 11. E. l;}9 ; Itkhardt
V. llii hurds, John. 256 ; 123 R. R.
102.
(n) Carilwell v. Midland Railway
Co., (1903) 20 T. L. B.364; (1804)
21 T. L. B. 22.
(6) StoM v. CommertM Railway
Co., 4 M. ft C. 122 ; 48 R. R. 32.
(f) Kemp V. London, Brighton,
f^■., Railway >'„., 1 Ra. Cu. 495.
Sic, huwever, as to the correction
ol mistakes in tho plans and books
of reference of a railway company,
8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, 8. 7 ; Keinp v.
Weet End Railway Co., 1 K. & J.
669; 103 B. B. 331, and m to the
importance of the plana being
accurate : Herron v. Bathminei
Improvetneiit Cointnimonen, (1898)
A. C. 498, 013.
(</) Woiid V. KjiKm and Leather-
head Railway Co., 8 C. B. N. S. 731 ;
80 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 125 E. B. 863.
(e) Stamp* r. Birmingham and
Stour ValUg Bailuny Co., 2 Fh.
673 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 431 ; 78 B. B.
240 ; Simpton v. Laiicatter Railway
Co., 15 Sim. 580; Kemp v. South
Eadirn Railway Co., 7 Ch. 306 ; 41
L. J. Ch. 404; aee 26 * 27 Vict,
r 92, 8. 8.
(/) Marijuit of Salitbiiry v.
Oreat Northern Bailway Co., 17
Q. B. S40; 31 L. J. 0. B. IM; 86
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.
121
interest therein to the prejudice of the company (g). The Cl»*p. V.
landowner to whom the notice ia given {h), and the company
giving the notice are equally bound (i). The notice cannot be
recalled or varied without the consent of the landowner (;),
" if he insists upon holding them to it ; but it is other-
wise if the landowner for any reason either chooses to allow
them to withdraw the notice or admits that it ia informal or
bad in any way " (fc) . The landowner, however, cannot accept
the company's notice as to part of the land, and treat them
as bound by it, and repudiate the notice as to the rest of the
land. If the landowner repudiates the notice to treat, it can be
withdrawn altogether, and the company cannot be compelled
to proceed with that part of the notice which is acceptable
to the landowner (2). The company cannot set up that there
are no funds to go on with the undertaking (m). But the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests were held entitled to
E. R. 691 ; A(lam» v. London and
Bhuhwall Railway Co., 1 Mac. & O.
118; 19 L. J. Ch. 557; 86 R. R.
37 ; Haynet v. Haynet, 1 Dr. ft Sm.
126, 400 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 578 ; Tivtr-
ton OMd North Devon BaUwap Co.
Looimnrt, 9 A. 0. 488, 003 ; S3 L. J.
Ch. 812 ; Mereer y. Liverpool Sail-
timy Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 662, 661 ; 72
L. J. K. B. 132 ; (1904) A. C. 461 ;
73 L. J. K. B. 962 ; Wild v. Wool-
tnieh Borough Council, (1909) 2 Ch.
293, 294 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 63U ; (1910)
1 Ch. 30; 79 L. J. Oh. 13a
(y) Stwtll T. Harrow and Ux-
hridy. Railway, (19)3) 19 T. L. &
130; (1904) 20 T. L. B. 21;
Mercer y. Liitrpool Railway Co.,
luiira ; Dairmn v. Oreut Northern
and City IJailtvay Co., (1906) 1
K. B. 268 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 194 ;
y.ick V. London Untied Tramway$
Co., (1908) 1 K. B. 616 ; 77 L. J.
K. B. 316; (1908) 3 K. B. 186; 77
L. J. K. B. 940.
(A) Mobrofotitan Sailway Co.
H'odeAaHM, 34 L. J. Ch. 297 ;
Brisldl, etr.. Railway Co. v. Somermt,
etc.. Railway Co., 22 W. R. 399.
(»■) Sparrmo v. Or/ord, Worceifer
and Wolvirhampton Railway Co., 9
Ha. 436; 3 Da G. M . ft O. 94 ; 31
L. J. Ch. 731 ; 95 R. R. 21.
{f) Tawneif v. Lynn and Ely
Railway Co., 16 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 73
R R. 771.
{k) Athlon Vale Iron Co. v. Britlol
Corporation, (1901) 1 Ch. p. 699;
70 L. J. Ch. 23:), j«r Homer, L.J.
(1) Haynet v. Hayntt, 1 Dr. & Sra.
450 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 078, 081 ;
Wild T. Wodwiek Benmgk Oounea,
(1909) 2 Ch. p. 394 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
639 ; (1910) 1 CSi. 30; 79 L. J. C%.
130.
(m) Rex V. Ilungerford Market
Co., 4 B. & Ad. 327 ; 38 R. R. 253 ;
Birch V. Mari/lelmie Vettry, 17
W. E. 1014 ; Reg. v. Commi»»iontri
of HWi ani FortOt, 16 Q. B. 773 ;
19 L. J. Q. B.497 ; 81B.B.794;
fitafa Jfiqper of lAmttA, 14
W, B. 811.
12S
iKJtNCnONB AGAINST TBSSPASS.
V- recede from a notice to treat, <m the ground of a deficiency of
funds (n). Notice to treat will be considered as abandoned
if there is great delay in proceeding under it (o). When
the notice to treat is met by a counter notice, under the 92nd
section of the Act, requiring the company to take the whole
the property, the company may recede from the notice and
refuse to take any part (p), and the company may afterwards,
if they wish, serve a fresh notice in respect of the same land,
or any part thereof, and upon that being validly withdrawn
may serve a third notice, and so on during the time limited by
their special Act for the exercise of compulsory powers (q).
Where a landowner has waived the service of notice, he cannot
take an objection for wunt of it (r).
BMMMato. Section 18 of the Act does not apply to easements («). It is
not necessary to serve the owner of a mere easement, as a
way-leave over the property (t). Easements may, however,
come within the Act when taken in connection with the special
Act (m). Where an easement is interfered with the remedy
(m) Seg. T. Committimert of
Wood* and FvrtUi, 16 Q. B. 773;
19 L. J. a B. 497 : 81 B. B. 794.
(o) Hedgtt t. MelropoliUm Bail-
loay Co., 28Beay. 109; \m B. B.
48. Sec Ituhmonil :. Xorth London
Railway Co., A Ch. G79; 37 li. J.
Ch. 886; Yitalijftra Iron Co. v.
Neath ami Brecon Railway Co., 17
Bq. ISO; 43 L. J. Ch. 476; 7'»»er-
(on and North Devon RaUuiay *.
Loomnort, 9 A. 0. p. 4W; 53 L. J.
Ch. 820.
(p] Reg. T. London and South
Western Railway Co., 12 Q. B. 775 ;
17 L. J. Q. B. 326 ; King v. Wycombe
Raibvay Co., 28 Beav. 104 ; 29 L. J.
Ch. 462 ; 126 B. H. 45 ; Orierton v.
Chethire Linet Cummittte, 19 Eq.
83 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 35 ; Thompton v.
Tctttnlam and Fontt CMt BaUway
Co., 67 L. T. 416 ; Will v. Wool-
with Borough Councti (1910), 1 Ch.
38 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 1-30.
(j) AthUm Vale Iron Co., Ltd. v.
Mayor, etc., of Bristol, (1901) 1 Ch.
591 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 49 W. B. 295.
(r) Bex T. 8o¥ih Holland Drain-
oye, 8 A. ft E. 429 ; 8 L. J. (N. S.)
a B. 64 ; 47 B. B. 618 ; Tower v.
Ealtern Vountiet Railway To., 3 Ba.
Ca. 374 ; Lt/neh v. CommiMionert of
Sewtr$, 32 0. D. 72 ; 65 L. J. Ch.
409.
(a) Hnchin v. Lomlun and Dlack-
vrnll RaUway Co., 5 De O. M. & O.
862 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 104 B. B.
810; BtBarrow-in-Fwmett Corpora-
tion and Bawlinmn'i Contract, (1903)
1 Ch. p. 350 ; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 239.
(<) Thiclcneatev. Lancashire Canal
Co., 4 M. & W. 472 ; 8 li. J. (N. 8.)
Ex. 49 ; 51 E. B. 692.
(m) (Jrtat Western Railway Co. v.
Swindon, etc.. Railway ('o., 9 A.
C. 810; 53 L. J. Ch. 1075; ffitt
T. Midland BaUway Co., 21 0. D.
143; 51 L. J. Ch. 774; and see
Farmer v. Waterloo and City Rail-
way, (1896) 1 Ch. 527 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
LANDS CLAUSES ACT.
128
of the dominant owner is to apply for compensation onder c^p-
section 68 of the Act and not for an injunction or damages (x).
There has been much difference of opinion whether, after Contract
the service of notice to treat, the landowner and the company notioe'to*trMt
are brought within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court as
to the specific performance of contracts. After an elaborate
review of all the authorities, KindersLy, V.-C, held that,
though to a certain extent and for certain purposes the notice
to treat places the parties in the relation of vendor and pur-
chaser, and involves some of the consequences which flow
from actual contract, it does not amount to a contract which
a Court of Equity will enforce upon a bill for specific per-
forniunce, even when filed by a landowner against the com-
pany, still less that it constitutes a contract by the landowner
to sell his land (y). But a notice to treat, followed by the
subsequent fixing by arbitration of the purchase and com-
pensation money, does create an enforceable contract (z) , The
company are bound to take a conveyance from the landowner,
and cannot claim to complete by merely paying the purchase
money into Court and taking possession (a).
By sect. 84 the promoters of an undertaking are forbidden SecUou 84.
to take poMession of lands until after payment of the
338 ; Barrow-in-Furness f'orporalion
and Raw'iruou'$ Contract, note (a)
iupra; City and South London SaU-
tray v. 8t. Mary Wbcliutk, (1903)
•2 K. B. p. 737 ; 72 L. J. K. B. W4;
(19<)5) A. C. 1 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 147.
(x) Clark y. School Hoard for
London, 9 Ch. 120; 43 L. J. Ch
421 ; Wigram r. Fryer. 36 C. D. 9S ;
66 L. J. Ch. 1098 ; Kirbij v. School
Board/or Harrogate, (1896) 1 Ch.
442; 66L. J. Ch.376; L<mg Eaton
BermUiom Oroimd Co. t. Midland
Railway Co., (1903) 2 K. B. 5*3;
71 L. J. K. B. 837.
{y) Adami y. London and Bluck-
irall Railway Co., '2 Mac. & O. 118 ;
19 L. J. Ch. 557 ; S6 E. E. 37 ;
Haynu v. Hayne*, 30 L. J. Ch. 678 ;
1 Dr. & Sm. 426, 444 ; Tiverton and
North Devon Railway Co. y. Loom-
mart, 9 A. C. 4S0, &U ; In rt Oary-
Elwtt Cmtroei, (1906) 3 Ch. p. 149 ;
75 L. J. Ch. 674.
(z) Matm y. Stoket Bay Pier and
Railway Co., 32 L. J. Ch. 110;
Harding v. Metropolitan Railway
Co., 7 Ch. 154 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 371 ;
Rigint'$ Canal Co. v. Ware, 23 Beav.
575; 26 L. J. Ch. 666; IHggott y.
Great Wtiltm Railway Co., 18 C. D.
146; AO L. J. di. 679 ; Jb Cbry-
£7i0W, Ckmtract, (1906) 2 Ch. 143,
148 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 671, 674 ; Wild
y. Woolwich Borough Council, (1910)
1 Ch. pp. 4 1 , 42 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 130.
(ci) Ec < 'ary-El:Lxs ( 'imlrad, (1908)
2 Ch. 143 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 671.
124
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
purchase monies in the mode prescribed in the Act, provided
always that they may, upon a certain notice therein specified,
enter upon lands for the purpose of surveying the ground
or setting out the line. The making a tunnel under a high-
way, without disturbing the surface, is an entry upon land
...thin the section (6). A company will be restrained by in-
junction from entering upon land until the monies awarded
have been paid or deposited, as required by the section (c).
When a company enter upon land for the purposes of making
a survey without giving the notice required by the section, they
may be restrained (d).
By sect. 85, where a company is desirous of takinp pos-
session before any agreement has been entered into, wward
made or verdict given, it is authorised to do so upon payment
into the bank of the sum claimed by any party, who shall net
conser', or such as shall be determined by a surveyor, ap-
pointed by two justices, to be the value of the property, and
giving a bond with two sureties for payment of th< purchase
monies and compensation to be ascertained under the pro-
visions of the Act. It is incumbent on those who seek to avail
themselves of the provisions of the section to show clearly
and satisfactorily that they have fulfilled its conditions and
complied with its requisitions (e) . .
Where a landowner refuses to allow a company to enter
upon land on which they are entitled to enter under sect. 85,
but does not actually resist their entry, they are justified in
entering peaceably without calling on the sheriff under
sect. 91, to give possession (/).
{/<) Ramtden v. Manchttttr, etc.,
Batiway Co., I Ezch. 723. 6 Ba. Ca.
662 ; 74 B. B. 890; Farmer v.
Waitrloo and City Jtailway Co.,
(1896) 1 Ch. 527 ; 64L. J. Ch. 338.
(r) Lee v. Milmr, 2 Y. & C. 617 ;
47 It. B. 4G3 ; llirmitiyhum and
District ' vid Co. v. I.ondt n and
Nurth Western Huiluay Co., 36
C. D. 660 ; 57 L. J. Ck. 121,
■ffirmod, iO C. D. 2fi8.
(rf) See 1W» WilU, Sorittmtt,
and Weynti Uth Railittly Co., 6 H&.
199, 4 Ba. Ca. 210.
(f) Barker t. IftHh "'.affordthire
Railway Co., 2 De 0. & S. 55. 5
Ba. Ca. 401 ; 79 B. B. 126 ; Field v.
('timarvon and Llanhirit Railway
Co., Eq. liH) ; 37 L. J. Ch. 176.
(/) I,oosem<.re v. Tiverton and
North Devon Railway Co., 22 C. D.
41 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 670 ;» A. C. 480;
SSL. J. Cb.812.
LANDS CLAUSES ACT.
12S
Section 85 applies only to lands taken, and not to lands CWr. T.
injuriously affected by the works (g). Scotion 8S doe*
Possession should not be taken by a company until a settle- 1" n.u''fnjarioa.iy
ment has been come to with all parties interested. The taking *^«t«<>-
possession after a settlement with the persons in possession iT^^litx"^
only is erroneous, and contrary to the provisions of the Act(fc). ^
In cases of the sort, the Court will usually, on the motion for
an injunction, order it to stand over upon the terms of the
company undertaking to lodge the money, and giving the usual
bond under this section of the Act (i).
Persons who take lands irtiieh they are authorised to take, Pirtie* who Uy
with the consent of owners or occupiers, cannot afterwards be ^JguUHT^n'^"
treated as trespassers (fc). Where a railway company had ^ -
complied with the provisitms of the section, and had entered ''"**'""*
and taken land within the prescribed period for exercising the
compulsory powers, their continuance in possession after the
prescribed period without haring the compensation assessed
and the land conveyed to them was held lawful (l).
By sect. 92 it is enacted that " no party shall at any time Stction 92.
be required to sell or convey to the promoters of the under- CompMiy eumot
takit^ a part <mly of any house, or other building, or mann- tat^'^Irtof
factory, if such party be willing and able to sell and convey the '
whole thereof." Owners under disability may avail themselves
(7) Hidton V. Londt.n and South
Wedern Raihony Co., ' Ha. 262;
18 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 82 R. R. 99 ;
Lister v. Lobley, 7 A. 4 E. 124 ; 6
L. J. K. B. 200; Maeeg v. Metro-
poliUtn Board iff Wbrk$,3»'L.J.Ck.
377.
(A) Inijr V. Birmingham, Jf'olver-
hamplon and Stour Vallty Railway
Co., 3 De O. M. & G. 666 ; 98 E. E.
274 ; Martin v. London, Chatham,
and fhver Raihnay Co., 1 Ch. 501 ;
3.; L. J. Ch. 800 ; but see aa to settle-
ment with the mortgagor, followed
by notioe to treat to the Bwtgagee,
Coakt T. Lmim Oowd^ OmneU,
(1911) 1 Oh. 604 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 425.
(i) AUtm V. Eattern Coantiei
Railway Co., 1 Jur. N. 8. 1009;
Carter \. Great Eatttrn Bailwag Co.,
9 Jur. N. 8. 618.
(i) Doe KeHh ^oriUUre
BaUwag Co., 16 Q. B. 20
L. J. Q. B. 249 : 83 E. E. 577 ;
Due d. Hudmit v. Letdt anff Bnid-
ford Railway, 16 Q. B. 796 ; 20
L. J. Q. B. 486 ; Kmpp v. London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway Co., 2
H. & C. 212 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 236.
(I) Doe y. Ni^h atafordekire
Bailtvag Co., 16 a B. S26 ; 20 L. J.
Q. B. 349; 83 B. B. S77 ; Tiverton
and North Devon Railivay v. Loose-
more, 9 A. C. 405; 63 L. J. Ch.
812.
136
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.
0<"»^- of the provisions of the section (ni). The section applies,
although the landowner has only a leasehold interest (n), and
holds the property in question under different demises (o) ;
but the option of tho lessee does not affect the owner of the
fee (//). An owner wiio has l)een served with notice by a
compuny to t«ive jwrtof his premises niuy, under the section,
refuse to sell less than the whole thereof : but he cannot by
reason of such notice require that the whole be taken. The
company may, on hia refusal to sell less than the whole,
abandon their notice, and refuse to take any part (q). If
the counter notice comprises any land which the company is
not bound to take, the company may disregard it (r). The
acceptance by the solicitor of a company of a coimter notice
to take land which the company cannot be compelled to take,
is not binding on the company (s). The giving a counter
notice under the sectiu.. creates an equity against the land-
owner, whether the original notice be Talid or not. In sudi
a case the Court will not in general interfere by injunction,
even where the company serves a new notice after its com-
pulsory powers have expired ; except upon terms putting the
landowner to sell and convey the property which he has, by
his counter notice, offered to sell (t).
• Hou«e. ' The word " house " in the section means all that would pass
under the grant of a house in a conveyance, and will include
(m) 8t. Thcmat'i HoopUul y.
Charing Crott Railwag Co., IJ. ft
H. 400; SOL. J. Ch. 396.
(>() riiHini/ y. Lniidoti, Clmlham,
ami horer Hailnny Cii., .'i D. J. &
S. im : .» Ti. .1. Ch. 505.
(o) Mar<ireijDr v. Mctrnj^ilnii
Raihraii >'„., H I.. T. ;{o4 : ,S->(/e«-
berg v. Mttropolitan Ditlri't Jtail-
wai/, 32 W. B. 654.
(p ) 3 De G. J. & S. p. 667 ; 33
L. J. Ch. p. 606.
(9) Hey. V. f.oiiihiii ami Sniitli
WetttTH llnilirini Co., 12 Q. 15. 775 ;
17 L. 3.0,. B. ;}26; 76 K. K. -127 ;
King y. Wyrfmbe Railway Co., 2H
Bear. 104; 29 L. J.Ch. 462; 126
B. B. 45 ; rAomfwon t. ToUtnham
and ForulgaU Railway Co., 67 L. T.
416 ; Ashton Vale Iron Co, y. Mayor
of Bristol, (1901) 1 Ch. 891 ; 70
L. J. Ch. 230 ; iVtid y. Wvolunch
Borough Council, (1910) 1 dl. 35;
79 L. J. t'h. 125.
(r) /.ootenutre v. Tivtrlon and
North Dnon Railway Co., 22 0. D.
35 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 570 ; 9 A. C. 607 ;
53 L. J. Ch. p. 826.
(») Treiidwtll y. London and South
V.'ealeni Ruilirai/ l't:,5i L. J. Ch.
565: (1884) \V. N. 233.
(<) I'itichiii V. LonrJoH itnd Black-
Railumj Co., 5 De O. M. & G.
851.865; 24 L. J. Ch. 417.
LANDS CLAUSES ACT.
197
the curtilage and garden, and all that is necessary to the CW». Y.
enjoyment the house (u). A house is not the less a house
beeanse it is , pablic-house or an inn ; nor is it the less a
hous'. because it compriaea or ia used tm tiie purpose of a ahop,
or because it comprises or is used for the purpose of a work-
shop or storehouse (j;). The word, however, includes only
what ia neoesaary tor the ctmrenient use and oecnpation of
thp house, and not also what is subsidiary to, or necessary
for, the convenience of the occupant of the house (y).
What is a " manufactory " within the meaning of the section " Manufactory."
is in each case a question of fact. The word haa been inserted
in the section to provide for the case of a manufacture being
carried on in premises where there is no house or buildings,
bat there ia a manafaotory in the sense of ita being appropriate
for the carrying on of what may be called a manufacture (z).
A . jfactory may be a house or a building, or may be
something more ; it may be more than one house or more
than one building (a), or it may consist of neither houae nor
building, but only of land used for a purpose of manafac-
taring (b).
Under sect. 114, if a mortgagee ia required to accept pay- SMtioa lu.
ment of his mortgage money at c time earlier than the time
limited by the mortgage deed, he is entitled to compensa-
tion in respect of the loas to Y ■ "A by him by reason of
(u) Orotvenor v. Hampstead June- ramimyi Co., 9 0. D. 432,
iiiin Raihmy Co., 1 De O. & J. iH,, ues, L.J.
454 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 1 18 B. R. 165 ; > Sittk v. Midlmtd BaUwag Co.,
St. Thnn»a$'$ Hotpital v. Charing 1 Cb. 276; AUhutu r. Eating and
Oro$$ SttUwag Cb., 1 J. ft H. 400, 8oM Harrow tUriltoag, 78 L. T. MA.
404 : Kingr. Wjfeomht Raitwag Co., (() Hichard$ r. Swamta /mprgve-
28 Beav. 104; 29 L. J. Ch. 462; ment and Tramtoagt Co., 9 C. D.
1 20 B. R. 4« ; Salkr v. Metroimlitan pp. 434, 4a7.
Railway Co., 9 Eq. 432 ; 39 L. J. {«) See Hrook v. Manchester,
Ch. 567 ; Barnes v. Simthiea Hail- Sheffield, and I.incolntliire Itailway
iray Co., 27 U. D. 636 ; Kerford v. Co., (1893) 2 Ch. 571 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
Seacombe, Hoylake, etc., Itailioay Co., 890.
67 L. J. Ch. 270 ; Low v. Stainei (b) Richards Swantta Improvt'
JiiMenmr CommlMw, 16 T. Ij. B. 184. ment and Tramteag Co., tupra.
See Rtgent't Canal and Docks Co. v. Aa to meaning ot " other building "
London County Cnuncil, (1912) 1 in Sect. 92, see Aeyenft Cuna{ Co. v.
Ch. 689, 690 ; 81 L. J. Ch., p. 381. London County Council, (1918) 1 Ch.
(z) Richards v. Swansea Improve- 683 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 377.
128
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPA8S.
Section! 181 U
122.
Tenancy at will,
anil from year
Section 123.
Term for com
pnliot; par-
his mortgage money being prematurely paid off. Where a
company had taken possession without providing for such com-
pensation an injanction was granted (c) .
I Where the occupier of lands is a tenant at will, or from
year to year, his interest is to bo assessed summarily before
two magistrates, and u(>on jmynient of the amount he must
deliver up possession (d). If any lessee, on being required to
do so, does not produce his lease or grant, or give the best
evidence thereof, he may be treated as a tenant from year to
year, and be dealt with accordingly (e).
Where an application is made to justices under sect. 121 to
determine the compensation to be paid to a person claiming
to bo interested as yearly tenant, the justices have no jurisdic-
tion to inquire into the title of the claimant to his allAged
interest ; but they are bound to inquire whether the claimant
has been required to give up possession before the expiration of
his term or interest, as it is a c(mditi(m precedent to the right
to compensation that the clainnnt should hare been ao
required (/).
Section 121 does not apply to a person who produces a lease
which, though void at law, is equivalent in equity to a lease
for a greater interest than a yearly tenancy (g).
Unless otherwise provided for in the special Act, the powers
for the compulsory purchase or taking of lands are not to be
exercised after the expiration of three years from the passing
of the special Act (/i).
A railway company, after the completion of their railway,
can, under their general statutory powers, purchase land
(c) Banken r. Satl and Wtrt India
DocJt Co., 12 Bear. 298; 19L.J.Ch.
163; 85B. B. 95.
(i) Section 121. See Reg.Y. Great
Nvrthern RaihiHiy <'„., 2 Q. 11. D.
151 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; <ij<r v.
MttroiKihtiin Hoard of M'vrlit, 36
L. T. N. S. 277 ; ,1876) W.N. 306 ;
11877) W. N. 41.
(<) Section 122.
(/) Ortat Ninihem and Vily
BaVw^s Co. T. TUlett, (1902) 1
K. B.874 : 71 L. J. K.B.626.
{g) Sweetma* v. Mttropob'km
Railway Co., 1 H. ft M. 643.
(A) Section 123. See Sparrow y.
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhamp-
ton Railway Co., 9 Ha. 444 ; 2 l)e O.
M. & G. 994; 21 L. J. Ch. 731 ;
96 R. B. 21 ; Seymour v. Lomim
and South Wettern RaUway Co., 33
L. T. 380; QMmith'* Co. v.
Wm MOnfoltkM Railway, (1904)
1 K B. 1 ; 73 Ii- J. K. B. 931.
LANDS 0LAC8BB ACT.
1S9
within the limits of deviation of their deposited plans which is o>»>. V.
reasonably oeceaaarf tot or incident to the maintenance of
tueirllne(0.
If the notice to take lands has been given within the period N 'tice Mrrci
prescribed l.y the section, it is immuterial that the purchase n^X^rita"""
has not been completed before the time limited by the section.
The landowner or the e(»npBny may take the proper steps to
ascertain the price notwithstanding that the prescribed jjoriod
has gone by (k). So, also, if a company give notic»> to take
'and and enter on the land after taking the steps required by
sect. 85 before the expiration of the period prescribed for
the exercise of the poweri? of coinpulsoi < purchuHP, they may
continue to hold the land after the expiration of that period(2).
Where there has been a lawful entry under sect. 85, the pro-
moters of a company may use the land though the time for the
exercise of the powers given by the Act has elapsed. There is
nothing in the Lands Clauses Acts which engrafts on the
absolute power of entry on giving security for the value of
the land given by sect. 85, a qualification that possession
must be taken not only within the time prescribed by the
special Act, but also so long before its expiration that the
works may be made on the land within the time named in the
special Act (m). Where a company have before the expira-
tion of the time prescribed by their Act, lawfully acquired
the right to use the land for the purpose of making their
railway, they can construct it under their common law powers
notwithstanding the expiration of the period fixed by their
Act (n).
(0 Tkompmm r. Biekmm, (1907) L. J. Q, B. 249 ; 83 H. R. 577 ;
I Ch. MO ; 76 L. J. Ch. 254. Titerton and Nm-th Peron Ilaila oy
(i) Rrg. v. Birwimiham and Co. v. Looteniore, supra.
Oxford Junction Rnihiay Co., 16 (m) Tivtrton and North Devon
U. li. 034; 19 L. J. Q. 1$. !53; 81 /laUwaff Co. v. Looaemore, 9 A. C.
li. h. "Hi; Yafah/frra Iron Co. v. 480; 83 L. J. Ch. P12; Midland
Sfath and Ilreeon Utiiliiay Co., \' Railimy Co. ▼. Ortat Wtttem
Kq. 149; 43 L. J. Ch. 476; sad flatfuwy Cb., (1908) 2 Ch. 439, 644 ;
see Tiverltm and North Devon Bail- 77 L. J. Ch. 820 ; ( 1909) A. C. 445 |
tt-ay Co. T, Loomnorr, 9 A. C, 78 L. J. Ch. 686.
p. 493 ; 53 L. J. Ch., p. 818. („) Midlan.1 Bailiiay Co v, Ortat
{I) l')e V. yorth Htaffordthire Wntem Baikeag Cfe, «MBra.
Ruilumy Co., 16 Q. B. 626; 20
I
1«0 INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T TREBPASS.
Cfcf. T. A com|)any which has given notice to troat within the pre-
scribed period and has taken the step* required by sect. 86,
may enter after the time for tiie exercise of com|MlBory powers
has expired. " The power of entry is a power necessary for
thp completion of tho purchase, but is not itself one of ths
poweru of compuUory purchase (o).
UMatMiy Mere delay on the part of the promoters after ssrriee of
notice to treat doeH not raise any equity, because the land-
owner has u remedy by mamiamua, compelling the promoters
to proceed (p). But if notice to treat be given by a company
immedi ;ely befoie the expiration of their compulsory powers,
and there is great delay in completing the purchase, and the
conduct of the promoters is such as to lead the landowner into
the belief that the undertaking has been abandoned, an injnne-
tion may be ohtiiined to {nreTent the company proceeding with
the purchase {q).
Sestiim 124. By sect. 134 provision is made for the purchase by pro-
Jj'J^JJj'*'^ meters of companies of interests in lands, the pnr«base of
which has been omitted by mistake (r).
8 fc 9Tiet.c. 18, By sect. 128 the right of pre-emption of superfluous lanf's,
s. 128
SaiKriiudin ▼b'c'* havo been taken by the promoters of an undertaking,
laadi. is given in the first place to the person entitled to the land
from which the same have been originally severed, and in the
next place to the person whose lands immediately adjoin saeh
superfluous lands. The right of pie-empti<m extends to 1«
(o) Mnrqitii of SnlMtiry v. Great Xealli nml Drtcon Raihmy Co., 17
Northtrn Railway To., 17 Q. B. H40, Kii. \V1 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 476 ; Tivtr-
8i;5; 21 L. J. Q. li. 185 ; 85 E. H. Ion and Xorlh Devon Railway Co. r.
691 ; nrertoH and North Dtitm Loonnmre, 9 A. C. 460; A3 L. J.
BaUtettif Co. r. Lootmon, 9 A. C. Ch. 812.
480 ; 53 L. J. Cb. 812. (r) 8m Mmrq-U of Salithfirg r.
{/>) R'lj. V. Birmingham and Ortat Northern Hai'w^y Co., bC.'i.
Orjhril Jiimtion Railira;/ Co., 15 N. S. 174; 28 J. 0. P. 40; Jollif
Q. B. 034 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 453; v. U'imhl ilvn ami Dorhimj [Railway
Pimhiii V. l.o,„lo)i and litarhraU Co., I B. 4 S. S21 ; 31 L. J. Q. B.
Railii ay Co., i l)e G. M. G. 864 ; 95; 124 R. R. 75!» ; Stretton v.
24 L. J. Cli. 417; 104 B. R. Grtat Wettem and Br.ntfn d Rail-
810. leoy Co., 5 Ch. 741 ; 40 L. J. Ch.
{q) Htdgu T. MebropolikM B>iU- M; CardntM MMkmd Bttiluvf
i'Hxy Co., 28 Bwv. 108; 126 B. B. C«, (1904) 31 T. L. B. 23.
48. But see YMyftn Iron Co. v.
UND8 CLAUSES ACT.
Itl
for ye»r8 of such adjoining lands ; and m iojonetioa wiU CU^T.
bo granted to enforce the right («).
When the onderteking is a railway emnpttny, the special BpmW Ad
Act UHually enacts that it shall be lawful for tlu promotars of ^tS^^'t?
the undertaking to niuko and maintain the railway and works " '■"•v-
in the line and upon the land delineated in the plans and
described in the bot^ <4 nfwtnce, and to enter aptm and take,
and use such of the laid land as shall be neeessary for sueb
purpose.
Plans deposited in compliance with the standing v - iers prior Pi»n.
to tho introduction of a hill into Pui liament do not form any ',"i,h?,!ld'i!5
part of the Act, except in so far us they may have been
incorporated wif'jin its provisionn ; nor can they be otherwise
referred to for the construction of the Act (t). Adherents to
the deposited plans is not required by the Act (m.).
The plans are only binding to the extent of determining the
datum line and the line of railway measured with reference
to that datum line, but not with reference to the surface
levels, unless the Act incorporates them within its provi-
sion («). The particular works intended to be made need not
appear on the dcpDsited plan. It is enough that the land
required shall be within the limits of deviation (>j).
lly the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act (8 k 9 Vict. iuiu-.y,,cu»«f
c. a)), ss. 11—16, a railway eompany may deviate a hundred
yards from the datum line. The expressitm " deriatitm " ia to il^SkL
(«) CoMHtry T. London, Brighton,
etc., Railwuy Co., 6 Kq. 104 ; 37
li. J. Ch. 90.
(1) Sorth Britith BaHiitii/ Co. v.
T. dd, 12 CI. cS; Fin. ^32; 69 R. R.
180 ; ISeardmfr v. f.onditi and
yorth Western Bailiviiji Co., 1 Mac.
& O. 112; 1 U. & Iw. 161; 18
L. J. 84B.B.27.
(m) Broiihaw v. Srajf Crtan
nUtrict Vnauril, ( 1 906) 1 1. R. 870—
574; (l»o;) I I. R. 132.
(/■) North British Bailii'ay Co. v.
'Ml, 12 CI. & Fin. 722 ; 69 R. R.
180 ; H are v. Btgeat's Caual Co., 3
D*0.*J.913; 3SL. J.Oh. 1«3;
121 R. R. 80; Att.-a,n. v. Ormt
Eastern Railuay ('..., 7 Ch. 482 ;
41 L. J. Ch. 503; L. R. 6 H. L.
367 ; Edinburgh, rtc.. Tramway* Co.
V. lllack, L. R. 2 11. L. So. 339.
[y] H eld V. SoiUh Ea*Ur» BaO-
tvy Co., 33 L. J. Oi. 14S : 8 L. T.
N. S. 13. S««at to the ractiiicatioii
of niitidw* in the plana and books
of reference, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 7 ;
Taylor v. Cltmtmi, 2 Q. B. 978 ; 11
CI. & Fin. 610; 11 L. J. Ex.447;
65 B. B. 273; Kemp v. Il>»t A'nd
of London and Crystal Palace Rail-
««y ''o., 1 K. 4 J. 681 ; 103 E. B.
m.
9—9
182
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
Ch»p. V.
DcTiation in
respect of a
tunnel or
Tiadnct.
8 k S rict e. SO,
1. IS.
26 & 27 Vict,
e. 92, a. 4.
Notice of
dtrialion mast
bagiTtn.
be taken with reference to the line of railway only: that is,
the lino of railway actually laid down shall not deviate more
than a hundred yards from the line delineated in the Parlia-
mentary plans, the medium filum of each being the com-
mencement and termination in measuring the hundred
yards (z).
When a viaduct or tunnel was marked on the p'ans deposited
as intended to be made, no deviation could, under the Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 13, be made
except with the consent of the landowner. It was necessary
that the work, if made, should be n\adc accordingly («). But
under 26 k 27 Vict. c. 92, s. 4, a railway company in the
construction of the line may deviate from the line or level of
any arch, tunnel, or viaduct described on the deposited plans
or sections, so as the deviation be made within the limits of
deviation shown on the plans, and so as the nature of the work
described be not altered ; and may also, with the consent of the
Hoard of Trade, substitute any engineering work not shown on
the deposited plan or sections for an arch, tunnel, or viaduct,
as shown thereon.
The promoters of a company must give notice of their inten-
tion to exercise their powers of deviation ; and the owner
of any lands prejudicially affected may apply to the Board of
Trade to decide whether the proposed deviation is propar to
be made (h).
Ch. 490, and as to the im-
portance of the deposited plans
for the protection of owners, see
TFare v. Stgrne* Canal Cb., 3 De O.
ft J. 223; 2S L. J. Ch. 103; 121
B. R. 80; Herron v. Rathmina
Imjimement Commisficntrf, (1892)
A. ( '. 498, 513 ; AV.-Hen. v. FrimUy
ami Far nhorovgh Distri' t IlVi^fr Co.,
(1908), 1 Ch. p. 732 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 445.
(<i) Littlev. Xetrjiorl and Herr/cril
JtaUway Co., 12 C. B. 702; 22
L. J. C. P. 39 ; AH..atn. v. Ttwkn.
bury and Mali-em Sailwap Ch., 1
De a. J. ft S. 423 ; 32 L. J. Oi. 482.
(») S ft 9 Tiot e. 90, ■. IS. 8m
(z) Doty. Briitol and Exeter Ilail-
ttxtti Co , 6 M. 4 W. 320 ; 9 L. J.
(K 8.) Q. B. 232 ; 68 B. B. 632;
Doe V. North Slafordthire Itaawai/
Co., 16 Q. n. 526 ; 20 L. J. Q. B.
249; 83 R. R. 577; Bowling v.
Potih/fMl, etc, Itoibcay Co., 18 Eq.
714 ; 43 T,. J. Ch. 761. See Finck
T. London and South ]\'e»lern Jinil-
way Co., 44 C. D. 330 ; 69 L. J. Ch.
4S8; lyiiheroY.ToUenham Railway
Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 278; and see
Herron v. Rathmivte Im/nrvment
(1892) A. C. 498;
Cardiff Jliiilway V. 'Jaff VaU Rail-
way, (1906) 2 Ch. 289 ; 74 L. J.
RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLmATION ACT.
188
Landowners who wish to prevent the promoters of a rail- chap. V.
wuy company from using the powers of deviation reserved to
them under 8 4 9 Vict. c. 20, as. 11—15, should have uppro-
priate clauses inserted in the special Act (c). If there be
nothing in the special Act, or the matter in dispute having
been referred to arbitration, there be nothing in the reference
to arbitration, or in the award consequent thereon, to prevent
them from doing so, a company may exercise the powers of
deviation us they tJiink best within those limits (d).
A landowner is not entitled to an injunction to restrain a Party who m*I»
railway company from proceeding with tlieir works, although e°,^,^'',*'"rom
they are deviating to a greater extent than is authorised by <ieviuiiun wust
8 fe 9 Vict. c. 20, 88. 11 — 15, unless he can show that he is iajarad.
substantially injured by the deviation (e).
Land which is necessary for the erection of stations and UnJ neewaary
other conv eniences for the proper working of the railway, or may bTukenr
for the purpose of constructing the works authorised by 8 & 9 [|l°"f^i^^°("'*
Vict. c. 20, s. 16, may be taken, though it is beyond the limits Je»i»tioii.
of deviation (,/), provided such land be scheduled in the Act
and included in the plans and books of reference (g).
On the other hand, a company may be restrained from Undmaynotb*
taking land n(^requured for the purpose of raabling its works ^« proi«"pur"
paM «l tht Act,
Prarce y. If jfcomie XaUiei^ Co., 1 8add v. Muldon, Braintvrt, ami altkoagh withia
Drew. 244 ; 17 Jur. 6flO ; 94 B. R. Withnn /tailii a,/ f "o. . 6 Excli. 143 ; ^tiHj?^
635. 20 L. J. Ex. 102 ; 8ti B. B. 199. *
('•) Kton I'ollnje V. Ureal Wtttern See W'timl v. t'-iitom and Leathtrhtad
Jluiliray Co., 1 Ba. Ca. 2()0. I!ailira;/ Co., S C. B. N. S. ".'U ; 30
{(/) II ax/ V. North Stuffordshirt L. J. C. P. 83; 125 B. B. 863;
Ilailway Co., 1 Mac. & O. 278, 284; and see LttvUand Solomey. Charing
Selby y. Colne Vallty and HaMead Crou, Entton, tte., Bailway, (1906)
Jiailway Co., 10 W. E. 661. 1 Ch. 608, Aid ; 76 L. J. On.
(r) Huljfoake v. Shrtvr^ry and 282.
llii mingham Ruiluay Co., 6 Ba. C». (y) Doe v. North Staffordshire
421,427. See iVintle\. Bristol and Kailiniy Co., 16 Q. B. o26; 20
Hoiith ]\'ale» I'liim JIailiray Co., 10 L. J. Q. B. 249; 83 B. B. 577;
\V. B. 210 ; I'iuik V. I.imdon ami Jhirting v. i'ontypool, etc., Jiiiilway
>ii'i(lh U'eslen, liaihr.iy Co., 44 f. I). Co., 18 Eq. 714 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 761 ;
3;i() ; 59 L. J. C'h. 458 ; aud brad- Fiu> k v. London and South n'e$tnrn
Imw V. limy Urban (VMiiei7, (1907) Baihvay Co., 44 0. D. 330 ; 09
1 1. R. p. 167. L. J. Ch. 468 : and we Prvthrrot v.
(/) Vathtr V. Midland ilmftooy TBUmham.tU., amlway Co., (1891)
Co., 2 Ml 439; 17 L. J. Ch. »6; 3 Ck. 278.
184
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
ci^p- V- to be constructed in a proper and convenient manner, even
although such land be within the limits of deviation. Thus a
railway company was restrained from taking a piece of land
for the purpose of innking an embankment and a greater slope
on each side of a cutting, and from claiming more land than
was declared by a referee to be necessary for the purposes of
Ihc Act {h\ So a railway company was re-trained from taking
land for the purpose of excavating materials therefrom to be
used in completing an embankment, though it was within the
limits of deviation (i). So, also, a railway company was re-
strained from taking land for the purpose of altering a road,
so as to be convenience to a neighbouring proprietor, though
the land lay within the limits of deviation (k) ; and where a
railway company had served notice under sect. 32 of the Rail-
ways Clauses Act, 1845, with the intention of taking tem-
porary possession of land and constructing a railroad thereon,
an injunction was granted ({).
Company— when The Court wiU not, it seems, on the ground of public incon-
«ercuing,««r» venience, restrain a railway company keeping within their
ofderUtioii. powers of deviation, ffom deviating from the plan, unless it
can he shown that they are acting capriciously (in.).
8 * 9 Vict. c. 20, By sects. 16 and 19 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation
"■ Act (8 t 9 Vict. c. 20), railway .companies are empowered
to execute certain works in the mode and in the manner therein
mentioned (n). By sect. 16 it is declared that they shall
in the execution of such works do as little damage as can
(A) IVebb T. Mauchesttr and Ijttdt
Raihvay Co., 4 M. & C. 116; 48
B. B. it8. See abo Bimf»im
Sonth Stafcurdthin Wattrua^k* Co.,
4 I>e a. J. ft 8. 679 ; U L. 3. Ch.
380.
(i) EifrHlhlil V. .\lul-Suste.r Itiiil-
way 6 lleO. & J. 2m; 28 I,. J.
Ch. 107; 121 U. R. l'2;t. See also
Jitntiuek v. Norfolk tUinary <'o., 8
De O. M. & G. 714 ; M L. J. Ch.
404; 114 B. B. 297.
{k) Dodd V. SaiMurg unU Ymiil
Bmilway Co., t Oiil. 1«8, 163;
affirmed, 33 L. T. O. S. 311 ; 114
B. R. 389.
(/) Morrit v. T\4ttnham and
Farta Oate JlttUmtf Co., (1892) 2
Ch. 47 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 213.
(/n) AU.-Oin. v. Qrtat If>»tem
Jtailwofi Co., 14 W. R. 726.
(«) .See Itanythi/ v. Midland Hail-
uui/ Co., 3 Ch. 306 ; 37 L. J. Ch.
313; .Att.-Ofii. V. FAji, ttc, Jiailivay
Co., 4 Ch. ISM ; 38 L. J. Ch. 258 ;
Lewu v. Charing Crott, EmUm and
Utmptlmi MMmtf Co., (1906) 1 Ch.
MS; 7AL.J. (%.m
fiAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT.
185
be (o). A railway company may erect buildings over streets chop, v.
in a town for the construction of stations, warehouses, etc.,
or may divert the course of a road or river, if it is necessary
or reasonably convenient for the purposes of the line (/)).
But an act is not necessary within the meaning of the clause
merely because it enables the company to execute their works
more economically (q).
Section 53 of 8 1 9 Vict. c. 20 provides that if the company RuuU.
find it necessary to interfere with any road, either public or
private, so as to make it impossible for or dangerous or
extraordinarily inconvenient to passengers or carriages, or to
the persons entitled to the use thereof, they are first to pro-
vide a suffieirat road in substitution for it (r). This section
applies to a permanent diversion, as well as to a temporary
diversion of a road (s).
By 8 fc 9 Viet. c. 30, s. 76, the owners or occupiers of lands 8 ft » Viet. b. so
adjoining a railway are empowered to lay down branches com - gjj,||^ ^
municating with the railway, and the railway company is railways,
required to make q)enings in the line or sidings for the
branches at places to be approved by the company (t), and
by a recent Act are required to give reasonable facilities for
(o) See WutmiiitUr Corimratiou fVattr Co., (1891) 2 Ch. 409 ; 60
v. LomUm and North Wt^em Sail- L. J. Ch. 69a
wag Ch., (liN»} A. C p. 433 ; 74 (r) F«e Kemp v. /Won <md
L. J. Ch., p. 63.I. Brightm Railu aif <'o., 1 Ea. Cb.
(/i) Att.-(len. y. Eastern (\>untie» o0.j; Alt.-deii. v. (r'reat Saitliern
llailiraii Co., 2 Ra. Ca. 823; I'ligh Rnilimn Co., 4 De O. & S. "o ; «7
V. <lol len I'allei/ Hailii-ay Co., 15 1{. K. 294 ; Att.-Oen.y. London and
C. D. :W(t ; 49 L. J. Ch. 721. iiouth Weitei n Railway Co., 3 De G.
(9) Fenwiek v. East London Rait- Jt S. 439; Att.den. v. Barry Ducka
tvay Cb., 20 Eq. M4 ; 44 L. J. Ch. Railway Co., M C. D. dTd; 66
608 ; T. OoUm VtMtg Bail- L. J. Ch. 1018. A road already
nap Co., U 0. D. 33B ; 4B L. J. wditiag ia not a substituted road
Ch. 721 ; Morris v. ToHmham and within the meaning of the clause ;
Fiire»t (tale Raiitoay Co., (1892) .Ht.-Oen. \. (Ireat yortliern Railii-ay
2 Ch. 47; 61 L. J. Ch. 215; Att. Co., 4 DeO.&S. 75; 87 R. R. 294.
den. V. Metropolitan Railway Co., (») Att.-Uen. v. Harry Docks, etc.,
(I89t) 1 Q. U. 384 , 390 ; 69 L. T. Co., 35 C. D. 673; 56 L. J. Ch.
811 ; Emtlry v. North Eastern Rail- 1018.
way Co., (1886) 1 Ch., p. 434 ; «A W See Woodruff v. Br»-on and
L. J. p. 3M. But see Uar- Merthgr BaUwas Co., 28 C. D.
rwon v. BmOkwurit and FaadUtf 190; M L. J. Ol 620.
136
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
Ch»p. V. the junction of private sidings or private branch lines with
the company's railways (u).
Powenof H k 9 Vict. c. 20, H. 87 (x), railway comixinies areein-
Hb«.'"' powered to enter into contracts with other railway companies
for passing over each other's lines upon the payment of sach
tolls and undi r such restrictions as may be mutually agreed
upon, and to enter into a contract for the division or appor-
tionment of the tolls with the view of carrying out this object.
The section does not authorise an agreement which will
amount in fact to a lease, or to a transfer of the undertaking
to another company (y), or which will have the effect of
enabling one company to carry the whole of the traffic of
another company, under colour of passing over the line of the
other company (z) ; but merely gives to one party a limited
power to run a portion of its traffic over the other line (a).
An agreement between two railway companies, giving one
company the power to pass over the line of the other on
certain specified terms, confers rights v^f a permanent nature,
and is not a mere licence determinable at will. The terms of
the agreement are not toe vague, but will be ' eld to concede a
user consistent with the proper enjoyment of the railway, the
subject-matter of the contract, and with the rights of the
granting party (6).
8 fc » Vict c. 20, Where a railway company refused to allow the plaintiffs to
run engines and carriages over part of their, line under the
powers of sect. 92, the Court would not, at the suit of the
plaintiffs, restrain the company from preventing the exercise
of the right. The ground of the decision was that inasmuch
(it) Bailwayg (Private Sidingg) (z) Simpum v. Denitm, 10 Ha.
Act, 1901 (4 Edw. 7, c. 19). See 61 ; 90 B. B. 376 ; cf. Midland
Oittnwodil V. Cht*hirt Lint* Com- Builway Co. v. Oreo* Wmtem Rail-
vnilire. (1909) 13 Ba. Ca. 189. teoy Co.. 8Ch. 841 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 438.
(.'■) Amended \>y 26 ft 27 Viet («) Wuirk v. ISirk-rnhead Raihmy
0. !)-', S3. •J2 29. Co., 5 De. G. & S. 862; 90 B. B.
(//) (Irait \nrtlirni Uailiraij Co. HH ; Siinjuon V. IMn%9Qn, 10 Ha.
V. i:<ul,rn roiiiififs lUMivay O.., 9 51 ; 90 E. R. 276.
Iln. ;iO.; ; 21 I;. J. Ch. ; S9 {h) f.hwelly Railiinu, etc., Co. v.
B. B. 4.56 ; cf. Miilland RaUwny Co. Ltmilon and North Wttttrn Rttilway
T. Great llVdem Sailwag Co., S Gi>.,4dL.J.Ch.H8; L. B. 7 H.L.
Ch. 841; 43 1^ J. 0)1.488. UO.
92.
RAILWAYS CLAUSES' CONSOLTOATION ACT.
187
as tho plaintiffs could not run over the lines unless the points cb«p. V.
and signals on the line were properly worked by the railway
company, the Court could not grant relief, as it does not order
the performunco of a continuous act like working signals, the
doing of which requires continaous attention, and cannot be
scon to by the Court (c).
Where a railway company is empowered by its Act to form Junciion*.
a junction with another line of railway, the latte^- company
will be restrained from interfering with the former company
in making junction (if). But in making the junction a
company may not take the iand or interfere with the works of
tho company or person to whom the other railway belongs, or
any of the works thereof, further than is necessary for making
the junction (e).
The fact that a particular penalty is imposed by statute (/) Injunction to
in the event of engines employed on a railway being so con- Mtaiae«r~*
structed as not to consinnc their own smoke, does not, it
seems, preclude a person from applying for an injunction to
restrain the nuisance (g).
The Court will enforce by injunction the provisions of the Cam»g«» and
115th section of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, that btSifat mi**
no engine or other description of moving power shall be ••"•v-
brought or used upon a railway, onless the same shall have
been approved by the railway company as therein mentioned,
notwithstanding that to enforce such right of inspection would
occasion great inconvenience to the public traffic (h).
(.) l'(,ir,ll Diiffnju Steam Coal 145; and b. 19 of 31 & 32 Vict.
V. Tag Vale J!ailiray Co., 9 Ch. c. 119. See London County Council
331; 43 L. J. Ch. olo ; uud see y . Great Eaitem Railwaf/ Jo., [1909)
Ityau V. MtUutd Toutiue H><tmtiu<er 2 K. B. 312 : 76 L. J. K. B. 490.
Chamber! Aitneiiaicn, (1883) 1 C9i. (g) Smith Midland Railway,
116, 128; 62 L. J. Ch. 282, 246; etc., Co., 25 W. R. 861; (1877)
Oreat Central Railwaii Co. v. MU- W. N. 200. See also Andrewt v.
laml Railwaii Co. (1912) 1 Ch. p. Great Eaitern Railway Co., (1866)
217 : HI L. J. I'h. J). 127. 2 T. L. R. 664; Cull and Roolo' v.
('/) >ireat Xortlierii Itailivoy Co. Great Kattern Itiiilway Co., (1900)
V. Kttst and West India Dofks, etc., 64 J. P. 216, and ante, pp. 8 and 9.
Rail mil/ Co., 7 Ha. Ca. 336. {h) Midland Raduny Co. t. .4111-
(r) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 92, b. 11; htrgate, Hettiagham, efe., MaUtiiay
and tee fi» * 60 Tiet. e. 48, a. 83. Cb., 10 Ha. 3W ; 90 B. B. 896.
(/) S * » Yiet e SO. m. 114,
188
f y- Tht' Court will also enforce by injunction the provisions of
H & 9 Vict. e.20, the 117th section of the Railways ClansM Gonsolida^ Act,
that no carriage belonging to another company having the
right to run over the line, shall pass along or be upon the
railway unless it he at all tiuMB, so long as it shall be used
or shall remuin on the railway, of the construction and in the
condition which the regulations of the company for the time
being shall require (i).
Clause prohibit- Where the special Act prohibits a company from entering
iiig a compaay . . ■ i . . . . ■ i_ ■
fram ukiug land upon Or tiiKiiit^ lunns Without the consent of the owner, his
wiiboat coii«ei.t. ggjjgpjj^ jj^yg^ obtained before the lands are taken. A
rival company may, under the provisions of the clause, refuse
to allow their railway to Le crossed, although the effect may
be to prevent the undertaking from being carried into
execution (fc).
Owner a rigiito After a Company hare taken lands under their ctmipulsory
taken 'by'^"'" '' powers and paid the money, the owner of the land cannot
ci>mp»Bj. restrain them in the mode of using the land for the purposes
of the company (I) . Nor can a nmn who has sold bis land to a
company and given them possession, have an interlocufory in-
junction to restrain the c(Hnpany from continuing in posses-
sion of the land in default of payment of the purchase money.
His proper remedy is to enforce his lien or to hare a receiver
appointed (w). But a vendor of land to a railway company is
entitled to the same lien on the land for the unpaid purchase
money, and the same remedies for enforcing it, as an ordinary
vendor (it). Where, therefore, the unpaid vendor of land
taken by a railway company has recovered judgment in ait
action against the company .to enforce his lien, the Court
will on default in payment of the purchase money, <iiere being
(t) See iJAymney Satiway Co. y.
Taff Vale Uailtviy Co., 29 Beav.
163, 160 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 482.
(A) Clurmir /lailwai/ f'o. v. Great
Xoi th of F.nglanil, etc., Rail'iay ('o.,
4 Q. B. 46 ; Oray v. LiitrjoiJ and
It«rv i;,uhrn>/ Co., 9 Beav. 35»1.
(/) Kaat and ff'rit Intlia Doclet,
etc., Bailway Co. v. Dawn, 11 Ha.
363.
(m) PM T. Ni^tkamfitm, etc..
Hallway Co., 2 Ch. 100 ; .36 L. J.
Ch. 319; Munnt v. hie of Wight
liaila-ay Co., 6 Ch. 418; 39 L. J.
Ch. 522 ; Latirm ry. A ylethnry, <fe.,
RaH-'^y f Of. P. .-J^S.
(n) Wing v. 7'vttenham, etc., Jiail-
woy Cb.. 3 Ch. 740 i 37 L. J. Ck. 064.
RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 189
evidence that the knd is unsaleable, grant an injunction to citT- V-
rMtrain tiie emnpmy from miming tosins omr the nihrty
and continuinf in possession of the land (o).
Where a railway company had paid part of the purchase
money and had taken pOBsession, but retained Ihe balance
until a good title could be shown, the Court held tiiat they
had purchased the right of possession and would not restrain
the company from continuing in possession of the land until
paymoit of the balancr into Coort (p).
Afari from any facilities granted by the Railway Commis-
sionws, a railway compuiy hare the right of excluding from
their stations all persons except those using or desirous of
using the railway, and may impose upcm the rest of the public
any terms they think proper as the condition of admittance.
Accordingly, i railway company having a hotel of their own
within the limits of the station may qualify their permissicHi
to other hotel proprietors and their servants to have froe
access to the platform by the condition that such servants
when attending at the platform shall not wear a distinctive
badge or livery (g).
The Commisbioners of Sewers have power under Michael 67 Qm. III.
Angelo Taylor's Act (r) for the purpose of widening, altering, *• *»**•••■*'.
and improving streets and public places in the Metropolis, to
take houses and lands or any part thereof which shall be
adjudged by them to be necessary for carrying out the pur-
poses of the sectitm. They have no power to take houses or
lands simply for the purpose of altering the levels, and in
order to take lands for the purpose of widening or altering a
street there must be a bond fide belief that the widening or
altering of the street is wanted for the improvement of the
(o) Allgood V. Merryhmt, etc., of tlw OooUBUcioners of Sewew
Railway Co., 33 C. D. 871 ; 55 have been transferred to the Com-
I.. J. Ch. 743. nion Council of the City of London
( p ) Cappt V. Norwich and SpaW- by 60 & 61 Vict. c. cxxxiii. See
ing Railway Co., 9 Jur. N. 8. 635. alao sect 90 of the Metropolis
(7) Perth Oenrral Statiim Com- Uanagement Act, 18U, and Mot 73
mittee v. Ro$$, (IM?) A. 0. 47* ; M e( tto Hstropolu MuMgemsnt Act,
L. J. P. C. 81. ISsa, aad sects. 6 and 213 of the
(r) 67 Qto. III. 0. xzix., ■. 80. London BnMng Act, 1894 (57 ft
The powen, dntiM^ and IkUlitiM M Viet 0. aesiiL).
140
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
- street within the meaning of ti»e section. An adjudication
by them that houses or lands are necessary for carrying out
the i)urjX)8es of the section must, in order to be final and con-
ciusivo, be an honest and bond fide adjudication. It must also
be an adjudication which bears aime relation to reasm. If
they come reasonably to the conclusion that the whole of a
house or piece of land is required for enabling them to carry
out improvements in respect of wiiich they can take land
compulsorily, their adjudication will be upheld. But they
hiivc no power to adjudicate that the jmsscssion of the whole
of n '^ouse or i)iece of land is necessary for tjie purpose of
imptuvements where they only intend to use a part of it for
that puiiKJse, thougli if they made such adjudication in the
bond fide belief that they would require the whole for the
improvements, the correctness of the adjudication could not
be questioned («).
Notice to treat. A njtico to treat under Michael Angelo's Act does not in
substance differ from a notice to treat under the Lands Clauses
Act ; in either case the notice defines the land to be taken, and
an owner must either treat the notice us good or repudiate it as
a whole ; he cannot accept it in part. If the owner repudiates
it in part, the local authority are entitled to withdraw their
notice altogether and need not make compensation for any
expense incurred by the owner in consequence of the service
of their notice to treat (<).
When an owner Where a landowner desires to retain part of a bouse, the
ofhuhomr" loi^fi' authority will be restrained from actmg on a notice to
treat for the whole, unless the remaining part will be useless
as a house (u) . Whether the part which is left will be available
(») Oard V. Commiuioners of (t) Il'iVrf v. Woolwich Borvugk
Stwen, 28 C. D. 486; S4 L. J. Ck. Council, (1910} 1 Ch. 38; 79 L. J.
688; XyncA v. CvmmiMimtn Ch. 126.
8rwer$, 32 C. D. 72 ; 5d L. J. Ch. (u) Tenlim t. Valry of St. Mary
409 ; Pncod v. WeHmintter Corporn- Abbotta, 30 C. D. 642 ; 35 I.. J. Ch.
tioii, (T!H)5) 2 Ch. p. 487 ; 74 L. J. 23 ; Dmn.anv. Weslmiimter Uorpora-
Ch. (iCS ; iMnman v. ]f'tatminater Hon, (190B) 1 Ch. p. 478 ; 75 L. J.
Cur/iwoid*, 11900) 1 Ch. p. 476 ; 75 Ch. 272; see Daviet v. City of
X.. .T. f'h. 272 ; IhiiHt* v. <Hiy of Limtlon Corporation, (1913) 1 Ch.
Lon</<jn Corporation, (1913) I Ch. p. 424 ; 83 L. J. Ch. p. 290.
p. 421 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 289.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.
141
88 a house or not, is a question of fact to be determined in Oht^. T.
each case, but the circumstance that the part left will require
some reconstruction n not omclnsire widenee that it will
not be a house (r). On the other hand, a local authority will Whenloe»l
be restrained from proceeding with a notice to treat to take
part of a house, where the removal of such part will sub- »^'"«p««.
stantially injure the enjoyment of the house in the manner
in which it was formwly enjoyed (x).
Section 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which vests Ve.ti..Bof,treeM
certain streets in an urban authority does not vest in the local i"{S^t,.
authority the soil bolow the siiifuco of the street, or the air
al)ove the surface, beyond what is reasonably necessary for
the control, protectim, and maintenance of the street as a
highway (y) ; and the law is tho same in the cato of streets
vested in a local authority under sect. 96 of the Metropolis
Management Act (z), and in the case of main roads vested
in a county council by sect. 11 of the Local Government
Act, 1888 (a), and in the case of roads constructed by the
Road Board under 9 Edw. 7, c. 47 (b). Accordingly, where
an urban authority was empowered by Act to erect on land
belonging to them, or under their control, lavatories for the
((■) Ihiimnn v. Wtstminster Cor- Ch. 286.
poratinn. (liKMi) 1 (^h. 4()4 ; 7-^ L. J. (i/) Maijirr of Tunbridge WtlU v.
Ch. 27-2; /Mi,/><i v. Cit;/ I.<m-l,m liairtl, (1896) A. C. 434 ; 6fi L. J.
Coi-IKirntion, (litl.l) 1 Ch. 425; 82 Q. B. 461 ; M'andtwortk Board of
I,. J. Ch. p. 29<). Wark$ V. United Tdtphone Co., 18
(x) Qordon v. Vu*ry o/ 8t. Mary Q. B. D. 904 : S3 L. J. Q. B. 449 ;
A bb,4,. (1894) 2 Q. B. 742 ; 63 L. J. FincUey Electrir Light '.'o. v. Finch-
M. C. li)3; AWt V. London Cor- Urban Cui(nril,{\903) 1 Ch. 4^7 ;
imratlon, (1899) 2 Ch. 169; 68 li. J. 72 L. J. Ch. 297 ; I'olfijs Chnr.ty
Ch. 576 ; Giliboii v. I'addinylon Trit$iee» v. Diulley CorjHiration,
Vfstn,, (1900) 2 Ch. 794; 69 L. J. (1910) 1 K. B. 322, 324 ; 79 L. J.'
Ch. 746; Peacodv. tyeittninttfr Cor- K. B. 410; and tee Andrews v.
ponition, (1905) 2 Ch. p. 488; 74 AlxrtUlery Urbun Council, 2
J. Ch. p. (ifS ; rhom,,$on v. Ch. 406, 40T ; 80 L. J. C*. 724.
llammfrimUh Corporation, (1906) 1 (j) St. Mary'$ Vtitry, Batteriea
Ch. 299 ; 74 Ti. J. Ch. 129 ; /'cntiMn v. Coun'y of London and Bruth
V. HWoiMtfer Pvrp ration, Bii/ira ; hlairic Lighting Co., (1899) I Ch.
Orren v. Hacknry Corporation, 474 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 238.
(1910) 2 Ch. 105; SOL. J. Ch. 16; (.<) See Att.-Oen. r. Barker,
Davie* v. City of London Corpora- (1900) 83 L. 'f. 245.
tion, (IMS) 1 Ch. 416; 83 L. J. (i) See Mot 9(1).
INJUNCTIONS AOAINST TB18PA88.
use of the public, it was held that the local authority had no
power to ezcavate the loil and erect lamtoriee below the sur-
face of the atreet (r). So, also, a Motropolitan Board of
Works was held not to be entitled to maintain an action for an
injunction against the erection of a telephone wire across a
street under their control, as the wire was cr^'oted at a great
height and caused no npprpciahle dangor to the public or to
llie traffic in the street {(/). So, also, an Urban District
Council was held not to bo entitled to prevent electric wires
being oai rird over a street at a height above the area required
for the user of the street (c). So, also, where an electric
lighting comjiany had illegally broken up the surface of a
street within the district of a vestry in the Metropolis and
placed their pipes and wires at a depth of about two feet
below the surface, it was held that the vestry could not main-
tain an action for an injunction to compel the company to
remove their pipes and wires (/). So, also, u local authority
was held not to be entitled to an injunction to restrain a com-
pany from making a tunnel under a road which did not inter-
fere with the use of the road {[)).
Where a local authority, having statutory jxiwers to erect
pillars in or under their streets for the purjwse of working
their tramways, erected a pillar in the pavement and sunk it
in the i)laintiff's subsoil henpath to a depth of six feet, it
was held that the local authority's act was not a * puss,
(.) Mni/ir if Tni.i'riil.jf U'flU v.
Iliih l, {inm) A. I'. J;J4 ; 05 L. J.
Q. IJ. 451 See n'>w sects. > (2)
and 47 of the riil.Uc Health
Amendmvnt Act, l!»i>7, and sect. 44
of the Public Heaii .. vLondon) Act,
18<)1 ; and \V$$lmiiuttr Curi>oratitm
V. Lniiilon and Nirrth Wnttrn llail-
>,■„!/ <:,... (19(») A. C. 4M; 74 L. J.
I'h. (i29.
(//) iVanilKirorth V-mrJ of Workt
V. Vnit d 'lehphntte Co., 13 Q. R D.
, 53 I,. J. d B. 449. See
Ue Klectiic Lighting Act, IWi,
8. 14, an I the PuUic Health Act,
1890,8. 13(1); audsMtbsLoadon
Oveihoii.l \Viic^ Act, l«!)I,c. Ixxvii.
(.) riurl.lni i::,rtrir I.ijlit r„. v.
J-'imhlei/ I'rtmii Diatrit Couti'tt,
(1903) i Ch. 437 ; 7J L. J. Ch. 297.
(/) St.Mary'f Visfry, llnltirsfay.
Cuuiilyof London and Itriuh KIti trie
Lighting Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 474 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 238. See the Electric
Lighting Act, 1X8'.', s. 12 (2 ), 13, and
the Kiocfric Lijjhtiiif; (Claii-es) Act,
189!), ff>. 11—20. Klectric Lighting
Act, 1909, s. 3, and Amliewt v.
AUrtilleri/ I'rbaii Ihatiiit CmncU,
(l«ll) i Ch. 398; 80 L. J. Ch. 724.
(j) I'l-pliirGrixraiionv.MiUuMlU
Dock Co., (1901) M J. P. m
INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T TRESPASS.
148
as it had been done imdw their statutory nowers. and that the ciwp. v.
ereetkm of tbo piliw in and under the parement was not a
taking of the plaintiffs land within the mealing of sect. 18
of the Lands Clauses A- ',, 1845, and that the phiinfiff's
remedy, if any, was to claim compensa ■ m under sect. 68
of that Act, if he could eatabliah that hia property had been
injuriously affected (h).
Under the Metropolis Management Act, 18ft2, 25 k 26 Vict. BaiidiB« Hm.
c. 102, as. 74, 76, the Board of Works, constituted under the
Metroiwlis Management Act, lH-,5, had power to require
buildings and structures to be set back, paying compensn-
lion to the owners; and were also empowered to pull down
houses which interfered with the general line of buildings
in a street. These provisions are repoiiled but in substance
re-enacted by the London Building Act, 1894 (i). Where the
provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, had not
been complied with by a local authority, the Court grante<l an
injunction restraining them from interfering with an owner's
buildings (k).
Where a local authority had prescribed the line in which a
building, which had been pulled down, should be rebuilt, the
Court restrained the owners from rebuilding otherwise than
in the manner prescribed (I). WTiere a building was erected
in contravention of sect. 3 of the Public Health (Buildings
(A) AW< V. Ncu,port Corporation. 73 L. J. K. B. l(m ; r.o.uh,. Countt,
(1904) a K. B. 8W ; 78 L. J. K. B. Co»mil r. Sr**«tt. ( 1905) 2 K B.
M. „ ... «M; 74 L. J. K. H. 959 ; /.o».lor.
(!) Si ft S8 Vict. e. ecwil., s. 22, Oauntt/ Conncil v. Han'-ork (1907) 2
which provides thai no •• bnilding or K. B. 43 ; 76 L. J. K. B. .526.
•tructnw ihaU without th« consent [h) A,.ckU,„d v. ir.v»„»J?,r /);,.
in writing of the London Coimty tricl Koanl uf WorH, L li 7 Ch
(ouncil be erected beyond the 697; 41 L. J. Ch. 723 ; of. Lm.ion
general bui'-'mg line of buildingB Coimtii Cvuniil v. /Vyor. (1896) 1
in a street." See Lon.loi, Coimly Q. B. 330, 463 ; 6d L.' J. M. C
<'miiicil V. Melmj^olitai, Railtiay Co., 89.
11909)2 K.B.317; 78 L. J. K. B. (I) Xewhavex Local B.anl v
830;8.C.(19n)A.0.1:89L.J.K. ffnthar^ Sc/.ool Board, 30 C D
B.34; andKeaMt.a3. Astowhat 330,365. See Att-G.,,. y. Ha'rh
are Imadings or strnclnre* within (1893) 3 Ch. 36; 62 L. J. Ch. 857*
themeaningof this Act, see London Att.-Oen. v. Parish, (1913) 109 L T
Co^nlg Commit v. IlluminaM Ad- 57 ; 29 T. L. E. 608 (mandatory
pertmmtnt, Co.. (1904) 2 K. R 888 ; injunction to puU down gnmt«I).
IN.H Nt'TIONS A(iAINRT THKHPARS.
t iMlp. V.
Wllltll of ll«W
Mnet*.
Thuiiiei
BuhiakBMit
Act, 1«62.
Thiinies
Ctfiispt viincy
Acu.
in Streets) Act, 1888, the Court, ut the suit of tiio Attorney-
Oenernl (m), granted a mandatory injunction compelUng the
(jpfendaiits to pull down so much of the builtiinR iis itifi in|»o(l
the l)uil(lin(» lino, notwithstnndinR that the .section of the
Act iinitosed ii jienalty for breach of the prohibition, and that
the defendants had already been ocmvicted and fined by a
Coiiit of suniiiiiiiy jurisdiction («)•
Section 157 of the Public Ilettlth Act, 1875, ciuiwwcrs un
urbnn authority to make bye-laws with respect to the width
and construction of new streets, and an injunction will be
pi iinted at the suit of the Attorney (ioneral aguinst an owner
of land constructing or allowing to continue constmoted a
roadway which is not made in accordance with the bye-
laws (()).
The Thames Embankment Act, 1802, '25 k 26 Vict. c. 03,
incorporates the Lands Glauses Act, 1846, with the additional
provision tliat the word "land" shall include easements and
interests in land. The owner of a wharf on the Thames had
a right of free access to the river, and also the right of loading
and unloading his barges at the wharf, but there was no
e;ini|)sbe(! or bard. The barfjes only rested at low water on
the mud of the foicsiiuie. The Court held tiiat the filling
up of the rivpr in front of the wharf was not a taking or
using, for tbi^ p ' > of the uiidc takin'j, any easement i>r
interest, and ref i J restrain the defendants from proceed-
ing with their wo until they had complied with the pro-
visions of sect. 84 01 the Lands Clauses Act (p).
Hy sect. 83 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, which
incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, the Conservators have
power to dredge the bed of the river for the purpose of im-
(.„} Se.>.V»'Vnv. //"Wiir./, (190;i) Th,i„„>nrt v. Ti'-.tr, (190;5) 1 Ch.
■J Ch. !it \K ; 72 Ti. J. C h.
hi) Alt.-deii. V. Wiinblrdon Hun^r
Eatatr Co., (liH^) 2 Ch. 34 ; 7.1 L. J.
Ch. S93. See Dtvonport v. Tiaer,
(1903) 1 Ch. 759; 72 L. J. Ch. 411.
(o) Att.-Oeii. V. Oibb, (1909 - 2
Ch. 2tij; "S 1.. J. Ch. ftJl. As to
what con!<titute8 laying-out and
leiBiBtrttctiDg • new stiwt, mg
75i) ; 72 I.. J. Ch. -Ill ; and Alt-
(irn. V. n,n-i,i. (1912) 1 Ch. 369 ;
81 L. J. Ch 225.
(yi) yiiirt 'i V. yfrirujioHl'in Board
vf Workt, 33 L. J. Ch. 377. See
Tht Ttmple Pier Co. t. MrtropiMan
Board of Work*, 34 L. J. Ch. 262 ;
cf . Clark T. Sthaol Uoardfat London,
9rh. 124; 43 L. J. Ch. 421.
H5
CIm|>. V.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST I'UESI'ASS.
proving the navigtlioii. The Bection, however, is not iin]>cru-
tin, nd ih» CooMmUon will be r««trai»Mi from exercising
their powers so as to injure the property of other purtit's (q).
Where ui owner'a property ia injuriously affected by the Comvmmnim.
proper ezercise by corporations of their statutory powers, the
remedy of the landowner is to claim compensatim noder the
compensation clauses of the statutes by which the Act is
authorised, and not to proceed by action for an injunction
or damacaa, but iriwre corporations interfere with an owner'e
|»roporty in u manner not iiutiioriscd l)y their statutes, they
will be re8tru...od from so acting, and the owner will not bo
left to bis remedy under the compensation clauses of the
Acts (r).
The account in cases of trespass for the underground work- Area«Bti>
ing of mines will, in the absence of fraud, fie limited toJ^^iiSS'^
minerals gotten within aii years before the bringing of the
action («). Hut the account will be limited to minerals
gotten within six years from the bringing of the action, if the
mineralii hare been ««ken by a concealed and fraudulent tres-
pass, so long 03 the party defrauded remains in ignorance
without any fault or laches of his own (/).
In taking the account in trespass for the underground work-
ing of mines, where the minerals have been taken fraudu-
lently, the wrongdoer will be charged the full value of the
(7) A'(i»( I.umlon Mailivay Co. v.
Tliaiiu) Ciinttrmtors, (1904)
T. L. B. 378. See also tho Thuinea
(.'oiiservawcj- Act, IHlW (5 EJw. 7,
c. cxeviii.), ss. 3 ai J us to con-
struction ol men and dredictng tie
bed.
(r) 8m Impmial (hi Liyht ami
Coke Co. T. Hroadbt , i, 7 II. L. C.
600, C12 ; 29 L. J. Ch. :)-U ;
V. .Wat!oc': Hath L,,ul /A,m/, 14
4. U. l>. 928 ; 52 L. T. TOJ ; Jle'lf„>:l
[Ituke) V. Ikuvtun, L. B. '10 K.i Aai ;
44 h. J. Ch. 549; (/ran./ Junction
t'linai Co. V. S/tuyar, L. E. 6 Ch,
481; 34 L. T. m-. Wigmm r.
Fryer, 36 C. D. 87 ; 56 L. J. Cll.
K.I.
1098; Kirby v. Ilarroyate Sr/ioul
Uuanl, (1890) 1 Ch. 440; Oi
L. J. Ch. 37(i; Bamurd ». Gnat
WaUrn Bailway Co., (1008) 86 L. T.
<B6; Pigjf4t T. MiddleHx Cottnty
Consttf, (19W) 1 Ck. 134, 14A; 77
L. J. Ch. 813.
{») Dmn V. Thu-aite, 21 15eav.
C2.i; 111 R. E. 128: Itawts v,
Haijmll, 23 W. E. 690 ; TrvUer v.
Marlean, 13 V. I). 587; 49 L. J.
Ch. 256; Olyn v. /luwed, (1909)1
Ch. 666 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 391.
(0 Bulli Coal Mining Co. r.
O^xunt, (1899) A. C. 361 ; 68 L. J.
P. 0. 4».
10
146 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.
ca»p.V. minerals when gotten; without being allowed the expenses
of getting or severing tlu ui, although the expenses of raising
the coal to the pit's mouth will be allowed (tt). But if there
be no suggestion of fraud, the trespasser will be treated as the
purchaser at the pit's mouth, and must pay the market raiue
of the minerals at the pit's mouth, less the actual disburee-
ments (not including any profit or trade allowances) for sever-
ing and bringing them to bank, so as to place the owner in the
same position as if he had himself severed and raised the
minerals (x) .
Dmd««m. If there he evidence of damage to the mine from wrongful
working, an inquiry will be directed as to what should be
allowed to the plaintiff as compensation for such damage (y).
The defendant may be ordered to pay the plaintiff compensa-
tion for tlie damage done by breaking down the barrier
between the mines (z), or for the damage sustained by the
plaintiff in being obliged to leave additional barriers (a). He
may also be charged with a way-leave rent in respect of air
courses and roads through the mine of the plaintiff (ft).
If a man trespass on the mine of another and wrongfully
T\-ork it, and get coal there, but in the course of his working
leave other coal unworked, which by reason of his wrongful
working becomes so diminished in value that he cannot work
it at a profit, the mine owner is entitled to damages for the
(«) Martin y. Porter, 5 M. & W. 40; Trotter v. Maclean, 13 C. 1).
331; 82 B. E. 14oi J'liiUij>l v. 587; 49 I-. J. Ch. 256. See
Uom/ray, 6 Ch. 7"0 ; Llgnti Co. Atliorrr Fluor SjHir Minet Co. v.
V. Brogdtn, 11 Eq. 188; 40 L. J Jacktm, (1911) 2 Ch. 3o6 ; 80 L. J.
Ch. 40; Trotter v. Marltan, 13 Ch. 687.
C. I). 5H7; 4!i L. I. Ch. 25t. , {if) Jeijonv. Vi^)iati,*Hfra; Taylor
T(i'il"r V. Mofijin, C. 1>. 226; ba v. Mottijn, mi<ra.
I J. Ch. 8!i:f ; ami -I P ]\ hUwUnm (2) I.lynvi v. liro^jden, 11 Bq.
V. Weatminsler llrtjmho (\kiI. ef<:, 188, 192 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 46.
Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 538; llulli Conl [a) ]'<r>rell v. Aikin, 4 K. A J.
Miuiny Co. v. Otbome, (1899) A. C. 343 ; 110 K. I!. 353.
p. 362 ; 68 L. J. P. C. 62. ('-) ./';/"'' v. r,riV„, 6 Ch. 742 ;
(i) Jeyon v. Virion, 6 Ch. "42 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 389 ; rhilip$ v. Horn-
40 L. J. Ch. 3 j9 ; lie Vnited Merthyr fray, 6 Ch. iTO ; wid see WhUwIutm
(\,lli(riea 15 K.). 47 ; .tnhton T. WestminMer Brymbo<Joal,ete.,Co,,
Stock; 6 C. 1 ). 19 ; Lmwjitone v. (1896) 1 t1i. 884 ; (1890) 2 Ch. S38.
Bawyard$ Coal Co., 6 A. C. 2A,
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. j
coal 80 rendered useless, as well as for that actually gotten by aty-Y.
the defendant (c).
Coprolites beneath the surface of a copyhold tenement
are minerals, and the property in them is in the lord, who
cannot, however, dig for them without the copyholder's per-
mission. In a case where the lord of a manor had entered
upon a copyhold tenement and taken coprolites without the
consent of the copyholder, it was held that the copyholder
could maintain an action for an injunction and damages, and
that the proper measure of damages was the gross amount
produced by the sale of the coprolites, less the expenses of
the working, and such a sum by way of profit as would have
induced a stranger to undertake the working (d).
(e) WiUiamt y. Baggttt, 25 W. E. (,/) Att.-Gen. v. Tmnlint, 6 C. D
874 ; 4«L. J.C1I.M9. 7fiO ; 46 L. J. Ch. 644.
I
10—2
CHAPTEB VI.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
ill-
Clwp. VI.
S«et.l.
Xnuance as
diitingniahed
SECTION 1.— PRINCIPIiKS ON WHICH TriB COURT ACTS IH
B8STBAIKIK0 NUIBAITCB.
Thk jurir-'iction of the Court by way of injunction in cases
of nuisance is in aid of th legal right, and has for its object
the protection of property from irreparable or at least from
substantial and material damage pending the trial of the
right. If the injury is of so material a nature that it cannot
be well or fully compensated by the recovery of damages, or
be such as from its continuance and permanent mischiAf
might occasion a constantly recurring grievance, a foundation
is laid for the interference of the Court by way of injunc-
tion (a). The jurisdiction was formerly exercised sparingly
and with caution (6), but it is now fully established, and will
be exercised as freely as in other cases in which the aid of the
Court is sought for the purpose of protecting legal rights from
violation.
A nuisance is an act unacct Mpanied an act of trespass,
which causes a substantial injury to the corporeal or incor-
poreal hereditaments of other persons. In the case of tres-
pass it is the immediate act which causes tiie injury; in the
case of nuisance the injury is the consequence of an act dwie
beyond the bounds of the property affected by it (c).
Nuisances may be either of a private or a public nature.
(a) Att.-atn. T. NichoU, 16 Ves.
338 ; 10 B. B. 186 ; AH.-Oai. v.
Sheffield Oat Co., 3 De O. M. 4 O.
p. 319; 22L. J. (h. 811; WiUony.
Towneuil, 1 Dr. & Sm. 329.
IJt) lUmri (Earl of) v. Ilobart, 3
M. 4 K. p. 180 ; 3 L. J. (N. S.)
Ch. 145, per Loid Brougham.
(c) Bei/nMs v. Clarke, 2 Tioro
Baym. 1399 ; WetUm r. WoocUork,
6U.iiVr. S94; 10 L. J. Ex. 183;
56 R. B. 606; Lemnum y. WM,
(1894) 3 Ch. 1, 24; 63 L. J. Ch.
570; (1K95) A. C. p. 8;
V. OiUdy, (1904) 2 K. 11. 450; 91
L. T 296; Kimy. J«Uv, (190S) 1
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
149
The only distinction between the two cases is, that a private Chap. VI.
nuisance is an injury to the property of an individual, while a .
public nuisance is an injury to the proj)erty of all persons who ^^jJ^J^rfJii^
come within the sphere of its operation (d). "I conceive,"
said Kindersley, V.-C, in Soltau v. De Held (e), " that to con-
stitute a pablie nuisance, the thing must be such as in its
nature and consequences is a nuisance, an injury, or damage
to all persons coming within the sphere of its operations,
thou^ it may be so in a greater degree to some than it is to
others. For example, take the case of the operations of a
manufactory, in the course of which operations volumes of
smoke or of noxious effluvia are emitted. To all persons who
are at all within the range of '^hese operations, it is more or
less objectionable, more or less a nuisance in the popular
sense of the term. It is true that to those who are nearer to
it, it may be a greater nuisance, a greater inconvenience, than
it Lb to those who are more remote from it ; but still to all who
are within the reach of it, it is more or less a nuisance or an
inctrnveaience. Take another ordinary ease, the most ordinary
case of a public nuisance, the stopping of the king's highway,
that is a nuisance to all who may have occasion to travel that
highway. It may be a much greater nuisance to a person
who has to travel it every day of his life, than it is to a person
who has to travel it once a year or once in five years ; but it-
is more or less a nuisance to everyone who has occasion to
use it. If, however, the thing complained of is such that it
is a great nuisance to those who are more immediately within
the sphere of its operations, but is no nuisance or inconveni-
ence whatever, or is even advantageous or pleasurable to those
who are more removed from it, then, I conceive, it does not
come within the meaning of the term public nuisance (/). The
case before me is a case in point. A peal of bells may be and
is no doubt m extreme nuisance to a person who lives within
Ch. p. 487 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 184 ; and L. J. ^'h. p. 813.
■M Price'* PattHt Candi* Co. v. («) i Sim. N. S. p. 142 ; 31 L. J.
Ldtim Cmmlg Omnea, [IWt) 2 Ch. 1 iS ; 89 B. B. 245.
Oh. «36, 650 ; TB L. J. (%. 1. {/ j 8e« Sgnirt t. CampbeU, 1 If.
{di 8m Att.-am, V. Sh^fiM Gat * 0. 4S», 486 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Cb.
C>k, S De O. ML * a. p. MO; n 41 ; 41 B. B. Ml.
180
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Cbap. VI. a very few feet or yards of them; bat to s person who lives
— at s distance from them, although he is within the reach of
their sound, it may be a positive pleasure, for I cannot assent
to the proposition that in all circumstances and under all con-
ditions the sound of bells must be a nuisance. ... I raay
further say that it does not follow because a thing complained
of is a nuisance to several individuals, that therefore it is a
public nuisance. One may illustrate this very simply by sup-
posing the case of a man building up a wall which has the
effect of darkening the ancient lights of half a dozen dwelling-
houses. It does not follow, because half a dozen persons or a
dozen persons are suffering by the darkening of their ancient
lights by the one wall, that therefore it is a public nuisance
which can be indicted at the suit of the Crown, or for which
the Attorney-General can file an information in this Court. It
is a private nuisance to each of the individuals aggrieved "(g).
Public Buiunce. If the thing complained of is in its nature a public nuisance,
Wfco thonid iue. ^jje remedy is by action in the nature of an information at the
suit of the Attorney -General (h) . The circumstance, however,
that the thing complained of may be a public nuisance, does
not prevent an individual who has sustained special damage
from bringing an action (i). There may, in such cases, be
(g) See Att.-OtH. r. Sheffield Ga» L. J. Ex. 194 ; Benjamin r. Storr,
Co., :» De G. M. ft G. 304 , 325; L. E. 9 C. P. 400, 407 ; 43 L. J.
'22 L. J. Ch. 811 ; Atl.-Oe^t. v. C. P. 162; Att.-Oen. v. Logan,
lirighUnx, etc., Hupphj A»iii:c'"1inn, (1891) 2 Q. B. 100 ; B«W*r v. Pew/fy,
(19«)0) 1 Ch. 276 : 69 L. J. C» '04. (1893) 2 Ch. 447 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 623 ;
{k) Soltau T. De Held, 2 Sim. Martin t. London CouiUy Council,
N. S. p. IM; 21 L. J. Ch. 153; 89 (1899) 80 L. T. 8«6 ; Ckoflm * Co.
B. B. 245 ; Tottenham Urban Di$- y. WutmitMler Vorforation, (1901)
irirt Couneil v. Williammm and 2 Ch. p. 334 ; 70 L. J. Oh. 679 ;
Snni, Ltd., (1896) 2 <i. IJ. 353 ; 66 Att-Oen. v. Brighton and Hove Cor-
L. J. Q. B. 591 (0. A.); Att.-Oen. jmratum Association, (1900) 1 Ch.
V. Hcott, (1904) 1 K. B. p. 407 ; 73 276; 69 L. J. Ch. 204 ; Smith v.
L. J. Q. B. 196; (1905) 2 K. B. U'i7«o)i, (1903) 2 Ir. B. p. 75 ; Boyce
160; 74 L. J. Q. B. 803. v. Paddington borough Council,
{i) Saltan t. De Held, 2 Sim. (1903) 1 Ch. p. 114; 72L.J. Ch.28;
N. S. p. 151 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 89 Shtrringham Urban District CotmcU
B. B. 246 ; Cook v. Magor, etc., qf v. UoUeg, (1904) 91 L. T. 2Us
Bath, 6£q. 177,180; WtnterbelUm Catan Ceun^ CbtMiejl v. Kam *
v. £onli)M%,L.B.9Ex.316; 96 (IBIO) 3 Ir. B. 644 ; CbayMi
nWUNCTIONB AGAINST NUISANCE.
ISI
both an mformstion and an action. The Attorney-General vi.
may file an information to restrain the thing complained of as '~
a public nuisance, and the individual who sustains a particular
damage may join as plaintiff, as well as relator, and hare the
remedy for himself by acti<m (k). The fact that an mdividual
may be nearer a possible cause of injury, does not entitle him
to maintain an action if he has not sustained any privjate
damage, and there is no reason to apprehend that he will
sustain any (l). N ir can an individual sue, though he may
be more damaged by the act complained of than the rest of
the public, if it has been authorised by statute, and is one
which frmn its nature must necessarily prove a nuisance, to
some one or other of the public A public company ex-
ceeding its legislative limits cannot be restrained by injunc-
tion at the suit '>f a rival company, whtcl) does not allege that
it has sustained dome private injury by such excess, though
the act complained of may be injurious to the public
interest (n).
The right of prosecution given to the Home Secretary
by the Act 21 k 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 31, does not supersede
the right of persons aggrieved by a nuisance to have an
injunctim (o).
V. Faddinyton Corporation, (1911) 1 De O. £ J. 212 ; S8L. J. dt. 1A3 ;
K. B. 868, 974; 80 L. J. K. B. 131 B. B. 80.
7.39. (m) Att.-Qm. T. Tkamt$ Cimier-
(i) Aa.-am. Forbt$, 3 11. ft vaton, 1 H. ft M. 1 ; Att.-Gen. t.
C. 123 ; M B. B. 18 ; iMtau r. De Metrcpolitan Board of Worki, ib.
He:d, 2 Sim. N. 8. p. 151 ; 21 L. J. p. 313. See Bxddulph v. St. Oeonje's
Ch. 153; 89 B. E. 245: Att.-Gen. Vestry, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33
V. United Kingdom Electric Tele- L. J. Ch. 411 ; t7io;)/in<t r'o. v. IIVs<-
(/rffl/)A ('o.,30Beav.28"; x-lM.-Oe/i. V. mintter Corporation. (1901) 2 Ch.
Lord LuntdaU, ' Eq. 37" ; 38 L. J. 329 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 679.
Ch. 335 ; Att.-Qm. v. Lotjan, (1891) (n) Stockport and Dutrirt Water-
2 Q. B. 100; *xA CM AH..Qtn, t. toorft* Co. t. Mat/or, tie., of Man-
BrighUM Supply A$»ociiaioH, (1900) ehultr, 9 Jur. N. & 386 ; 7 L. T.
1 Ch. 376 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 204 ; 348 ; Pudtey Oat Ch. y. Corporation
Att.-Gen. v. ScM, (1904) 1 K. B. o/ Bradford, 15 Eq. 167. Se«
404 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 196 ; (1905) 2 Marriott v. Eatt Orinttead Oat Co.,
K. H. 160; 74 L. J. K. 11. 803; (1909) 1 Ch. p. 78 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
Att.-Gen. V. Letvet Corporation, 141.
(Kill) 2 Ch. 195 ; 27 T. L. E. 55i. (o) J«.-f7c7j. v. .i;rf-,7^o;iiaa
(0 H are t. Begent't Canal Co., 3 Board of Workt, 1 H. & M. 298.
isa
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Chap. VI.
Sect I.
(ii-uHiiils for
iiijiinction.
1-j
The motives with which a suit ia instituted to enforce a
right are not generally to be re^rded, but if it cnn be shown
satisfactorily that the suit has ■ een instituted by one man
merely for the purposes of or at the instigation of another, the
Court will not relieve (p). The fact, howerer, that tiie suit
may have been got up by a third party is not enough to deprive
a man of his right to have a nuisance discontinued (q). Nor
is it wholly immaterial, where the public interest purports to
he asserted or an injunction is sought on public grounds, at
least upon an inferlocnfory application, to look into the
motives from which or under which the matter is brought
forward. If a lurge number of the public are in favour of tile
acts sought to be restrained and no prnnf of serious damage
to individur'" be made to appear, the Court will not interfere
upon an interlocutory application unless the public good re-
quires the issuing of the injunction (r).
Wbo •honld aue. The action is usually brought by the occupier or by the
lessee in possession, but the owner may sue on the ground
of injury to his property, either alone or conjointly with the
occupier (s). A lessee whose tenancy has expired during
the establishment of the nuisance, but who has agreed for
a renewal of the lease, may maintain an action (t). So
also may a tenant from year to year, or even, it seems, a
weekly tenant (u), but not a person in possession of prranises
{p) Ptnlnty r. Lynn Commit-
aioiieri, 13 W. B. 983. 8e« Darifs
V. 'Inn I.i.jht ami (\J<e Co., (1909) 1
Ch. p. 2j4 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 448.
(f/) Turner V. MirJMd, M Bmv.
390, 392.
(r) Att.-deii. V. Sheffield (/at Co.
3 De O. M. A G. 311, 312 ; 22 L. J.
Ch. «11; AM.'Gm. v. OamMdgt
Conmmert' Oat Co., 4 Ch. 71 ; 38
L. J. Ch. 94.
(fl) friV,«»i V. T-mifwf, 1 Dr. &
Sin. 324 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 25 ; Jarksnn
V. Pide of Xricrattle, 3 IJe O. J. 4 S.
275 ; 33 li. J. Vh. 698 ; llroiler v.
iSaillard, 2 C. I). 692 ; 45 L. J. ( h.
14 ; Hhtl/er v. CUy of London
Electric LighHiig Co., (1895) 1 Ch.
p. 314 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 216 ; Colwell v.
.S'<. I'tiiirrat IJoroiiyh Vimncil, (1904)
1 Ch. 7))7 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 275 ; and
iee Jntietv. I.lanrwit L'rbun Cmmril^
(1911) 1 Ch. 393, 401 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 150; Alt. -Oen. V. Leieet Corpora-
tion, (1911) 2 Ch. 495 ; 27 T. L. B.
Ml.
(0 dale V. Abbott, 8 Jttr. N. S.
987 ; 10 W. B. 748.
(») .S(»i/xr V. FtJei/, 2 J. * H.
555; liirhhnlil y. Rohirunn. 4 Ch.
388, 39.i; 20 L. T. N. t<. 259 i
Jotiety. Chainitn, 20 Eq. 639, 344:
44 L. J. Ch. 658. 8m PMtt v. HaU,
31 Sol. J. 744.
INJUWCTI0N8 AGAINST NUISANCE.
168
who has no interest in, or right of occupation of the pro- Cbap. vi.
petty in the proper senae of the term («).
A mortgagee of land after entry may maintain an action Horip«Ni.
for a nuisance eommitted between the date when his right to
en1«r accrued and that of his actual entry into possession {y).
In order that a rerersioner should be able to bring an action Suit by
for a nuisance it is necessary that the wrong complained of
should operate injuriously to the reversion, either by being of
a permanent character or by operating as a denial of right (z).
One of several tenants in common of a reversion can sue
in respect of wrongful acts causing injury to the rever-
sion (a).
If the action is brought by the occupier or lessee in posses- I^mc*.
sion, the landlord or reversioner need not be made a party (6).
An undischarged bankrupt who is in possession may, it seems,
sue in respect of a noiaance without Joining his trustee where Bukrap^
the damage to his property is merely nominal, the principal
and essential cause of action being in respect of the personal
annoyance and inconvenience to the bankrupt himself (c).
When the occupier of land grants a licence to another to do
certain acts on the land, and the licensee in doing them com-
{r) MaUme v. Latkey. (1907) /-iy*<»i',(/ Co.. (1894) 1 Ch. 314, 317 ;
2 K. B. 141 ; n L. 3. K. B. 64 L. J. C h. a 16 ; Colwell v. St.
1134. Pancnu Borough CoaHcil, (1904) 1
(y) (ktan Aeeideitt and Quarantte Ch. 707, 713 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 276;
Corpanaion v. Ilfani (hu Co., (1904) Jones v. IMnrwst Urban Council,
2 K. B. 493 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 799 (1911) I Ch. 393, 4ti4 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
(equitable mortgagees). p. 150.
(i) Wilwn V. Totrn-nd, I Dr. <t (a) /laher.'s v. IloUamU, (1893)
Sm. 3':9; 30 L. '>5 ; John- 1 Q. B. 665 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
ftone V. I'nll, 2 1., 414; 25 621.
L. J ■ '2: H'i 296; Bell (i) Semple v. London atid Bir-
v. L uand Bai' n. , \Q C. B. mingluim BaUwoj/ Co., 9 Sim. 209;
N. a W7 : SO . . C. p. 273; Me Thorpe v. Brun^/Ut, 8 Ch. 6S0;
Jtiek*enr. Dnk$^2ftwta$0«,tD«. Bhtlftr v. C% of London Electric
G. J. A S. 27S : S3 L. J. Ch. 6M ; Lighting Co., (1896) 1 Ch. p. 318 ;
Mott V. S'oolbred, 20 Eq. 23; 44 64 L. J. Ch. 210 ; and Att.-')en. v.
Ti. J. Ch.Sm ; <'ooperv.Crabtrer, 20 Lewea Corporation. (1911) 2 Ch.
C. D. 590 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 644 ; May- 495 ; 27 T. L. E. 581.
fair Properly Co, y. Johniton,{\%M) (c) Semple v. Londim and liir-
1 Ch. 508; 6.3 L. J. Ch. 389 ; mingham Railway Co., >i i>\m. ;
Shelftr T. Citfi </ Londm Elaetric Bagtr* v. Spenct, 13 M. ft W. 671 ;
154 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Ch.p. VI. mits a nuisance, the occupier may be made a defendant to an
action to restrain the nuisance (d). So also the occupier of a
house may be made a defendant to an action for allowing the
continuance on his premises of any artificial work which
causes a nuisance to his neighbour, even though it has been
put there before he took possession (e). Leave may be ob-
tained to add as parties occupiers who have acquired an
interest since the writ was issued (/).
LUWUt, a In • case in which the defendant wa. the on-ner ;^n'l/'^/'"Pi«r
..nerofTMut ^ y^caot piece of land in tho metroixjlis which he haa
surrounded with a hoarding, but people threw filth and refuse
over the hoarding on to the land, so that the condition of the
land became a public nuisance, it was held that there was a
common law duty upon the defendant, who was awarp of what
was being done, to prevent the land being so used as to be
a nuisance, and that the Attorney-General was entitled to an
injunction to enforce the performance of such duty (g).
N.iM>c arUing The acts of several persons may together constitute a
fn» MU of nuisance, which the Court will restrain, thou^ the damage
occasioned by the acts of any one, if taken alone, would not
be a nuisance (/i).
Wben th. Court The Court will not as a rule interfere by injunction if the
wiU iatMfen.
damage is slight or the nuisance is merely of a temporary
or occasional character (»): but a damage, though in itself
16 L. J. Ex. 49 ; 61 E. R. 736 ; flo.e L. J . Ch. 718. „ ^ „
V. BM V1901) i K. B. 449, 456 ; (tf) Att-Ge^. v. ^<f«f^'
70 L. J. K. B. 736 ; I.>r,l v. Grrai (1897) 1 Cli. 860 ; 66 I. J Ch
jft«ter»«a.7««y Co.. (191)8) 1K.B. 275. ""^^f;/- ^"l^'
^^202, 2 K. B. 633. Ml ; 80 L. J. K. B.
U{\ Whitt V. Jcemaon, 18 Eq. 1329, 1334.
303 • and M» Chibndl T. PWil, 29 (A) Th«r,^ v. Br„mfitt, 8 Ch. 680,
W 'r 536- Jtnkin, v. Jadc*im, 666; Lanhtoti v. Melh^h, (1S94) 3
4oC 1) 71 77; 58 L. J. Ch. Ch. 163 : 63 L. J. Ch. 929 ; and see
l'.,. \ViWam» V. aahrul. (1906) f^adler v. QrtoA WuUm flaWuwy
Tk B p. 158; 75 L. J. K. B. Co., (1896) A. C 4«0; 68 L. J.
146 ■ as 462.
(e) WhiU V. Jameson. 18 Eq. 303 ; (i) M.-Gen. v. Sh.ffiM Go, Co
BroL Y. 8aM. 2 C. D. 692 ; 48 3 De O. M. & Q. 304. 322 ; 22 L. J.
L. J. Ch. 4J4. I V'tr
tf \ HoHH Prmmtt, tie., 0». v. Bailu-ay Co., 4 De O. J. & t*.
^iC^STcClTa D. 190; H 211; 3» L. J. Ch. 399; CWe
DfJUNCnONB AGAINST NUISANCE.
m
slight, may from its continuance, or coiutuit repetition,
become sufficiently substeotial for tibe interference of the
Court (k). If a defendant cauiM a nuisance to his neighbour,
it is no defence to say that he » making a reasonable use of his
pnmiMa ( /). In eatimating tfie injury the Court has regard
to all the consequences which may flow from the nuisance,
not only to its present effect upon the comfort and con-
renienee of the occupier, but also to any prospectiTe increase
of the nuisance and the probable detriment of the estate. If
the Court is satisfied that some degree of nuisance has been
proved to exist, and to have been increasing, the Court, in
determining whether it should interfere, must have regard
to its further continuance or increase : the interference of the
Court in cases of prospective injury must depend upon the
nature and intent of the apprdiended mischief, and upon the
certainty or uncertainty of its increase or oontinuanee; and
the fact of the nuisance having commenced raises a presump-
tion of its continuance (m). In determining whether the
injury is serioas or mH, regard most be had to all flie mmse-
L. J.
(*)
Chap.
VI.
1.
fortM. 5 Eq. 166; 37 L
Ch. 178; Goldmnh t. Tunh
Well* Improvement Commi$no.
L. H. 1 Ch. p. 355 ; 33 L. ».
Ch. 382; AU.-Oen. v. Cmnimeri'
Oai Co.. 4 Ch. 71, 80; 38 L. J.
Ch. 94; Harrisoa v. Southwark
and VwtxhtUl Water Oo., (1891)
2 Ch. 409: 80 L. J. Oh. 880;
Ho$nell T. AmM Brtad Oo.,
(1894) 10 T. L. B. 861 ; Llandudito
Crhtii Council v. fToodi, (1899)
2 Ch. 70.' 68 L. J. Ch. 623;
Alt.-Oen. V. Mayor, etc., of Pretton,
13 T. L. R. 14 ; Colii-tU v. St.
I'ancrat Borough Council, (1904> 1
Ch. p. 71;, 73 L. J. Ch. 276;
Bekrem JKcAonb. (1905) 3
Ch.614: 74L. J. Ch.815:lmt8ee
Att.-G«H. Ktymtr Brick Co.,
(1903) 67 J. P. 434 (nuisance from
Miiolls iu the summer months) ;
Anilrewt t. AbertiUery Urban
Council, (1911) 3 Ch. 398 ; 80
Ch. 724.
Att..Om. V. Sheffield Gat Co.,
i De O. M. & O. 304 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
811 ; Att.-Gen. v. Coiiiumert' Oat
Co., 4 Ch. 81 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 94 ;
Oremd Junetion Canal Co. r. Shugar,
6 C!h. 488; Owm v. Btagarithift
PaUmm Cigi. 8 Ol 142 ; Tkorft t.
Bnmfitt, ib. 866; Lambbm v.
Mellifh, (1894) 8 Ch. 168 ; 88 L. J.
Ch. 929.
(/) Reinhardt v. Mentaiti, 42 C. D.
686 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 787 ; Att.-Gen.
y. Colt, (1901) 1 Ch. 205 ; 70 L. J.
Ch. 148 ; and aee Knight y. l$U qf
Wight Electric LigU On., (1904) 78
L. 3. C9i. 299 ; 90 L. T. 410. Cf.,
however, aamden-Ciarky. Orotrnmor
Mmaioit* Co., (1900) 3 Ch. 873 ; 69
L. J. Ch. 579.
(m) Goldtmid v. Tunbridge Well*
Ctmmimoner*, 1 Ch. 349, 354 ; 35
L. J. Oh. 883.
156
INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T NUISANCE.
Cb>p. VI.
.1.
Eviilenre i>f
•cientiKc
witi
iinitail
Ceaerof
naimee after
aetioa brMgkt.
quences which may flow from it (n). The mere fact that
• eertain Mt may mom • diminntkm in th* t»1im (rf pro-
perty does not make that act a nuisance (o), but diminution
in the value of property is often of great moment as evidence
of the extent of a Dainnce (p).
In estimating the character of a nuisance, more weight
is due to the facts which are proved than to the conclusions
drawn from scientific investigations. The conclusions to be
drawn from setentifle invectigAtions are of valne in aid or
explanation and qualification of the facts which are proved ;
but it is upon the facts which are proved, and not upon such
oonelasinu, that the Court ought mainly to rely (f ).
Where a man who is entitled to a limited right exereisee
it in excess so as to produce a nuisance, and the nuisanoe
cannot be abated without obstructing the enjoyment of the
right altogether, the exercise of the right may be entirely
stopped until means have been taken to reduce it altogether
within its proper limits (r).
If a plaintiS applies for an injunction to restrain the viola-
tion of a common law right and establishes his right at law,
he is entitled, except under special circumstances, to an in-
junction as of cou.se (»). The Court can grant an injuncticm
(n) Ooldtmid v. Tunbridge WdU
CbmnwutoMM, 1 Ch. 349; 36
L. J. Ch. 383; AU.-at». r. Uai/or,
ttc., of Bimngtlake, 4S L. J. Ch. 739.
Dee Jaut Llanrwil Vrbun Dit-
trirt Council, (1911) 1 Ch. 393 ; 80
L. J. Ch. H5.
(o) .S(/i(i>f V. Camphell, 1 M. 4 C.
459, 486 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 41 ;
43 B. R. 231 ; So/ta« v. I>e lleU, 2
Bim. N. S. 133, 158 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
183; 89 B. E. 244; UarrUm v.
Ooodt, 11 Eq. p. 383 ; 10 L. J. Ck.
194.
{p) Sollau Pt Held, 2 Sim.
N. S. p. 158 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 153; 89
E. B. 24.?: IVI'iU v. (U,htn, 1 Drew.
318. See Jarkxm v. Dnke of Xew-
cattk, 3 Do G. J. * S. 285 ; 33 L. J.
Ch. 698.
{q) OMimid y. Tiinliriilye M'elU
CvmmittioMrt, I Ch. 349, 383 ; 38
L. J. Cll. 382 ; AtL-Otm. r. Golntg
Hakh Jiglmm, 4 Ch. p. 186; 38
L. J. Ch. 283.
(r) Cawku-tU v. RutttU, 26 L. J.
Ex. 34 ; Hill v. 26 L. T.
p. 186; i'harla v. Finrhlet/ local
Board, 23 C. D. pp. 773, 775 ; 52
L. J. Ch. 554.
(») ImptruU Oat Light and Coke
Co. r. BncMtnt, 7 H. L. C. 600 ;
and Smmiy v. Lfrndim (Out.) Water
ComnvMiimtn, (1906) A. C. pp. 118,
116 ; 76 L. J. P. C. 25 ; Att.-Chn. t.
Birmingham, Tame, etc., Dittrkt
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 60; 79 L. J.
Ch. 137 ; and ante, p. 32.
INJXJMCnOMS AOAIMBT NUISANCE.
167
where the nuiwnce hua ceased after action brought, though
there ia no doaM tiiat the Court esn, in aadi a eaae, hi tiM ^
exercise of ita discretion, refuse the injunction (t).
The Court will not in general interfere until an actual Tfcmtwud
nuisance has been committed ; but it may, by virtue of ita '*^'
jnriadiotioa to reatrain acta iHiidi, when oompleted, will raaalt
in a ground of action, interfere before any actual nuisance
haa been committed, where it is satisfied that the act com-
plained of will ineritaUy reault in a nniaanoe («). The j^in-
tiff, however, must show a strong case of probability that the
apprehended mischief will in fact arise in order to induce the
Court to interfere (x). If there 's no reason for supposing
that there is any danger of mischief of a serious character
being done before the interference of the Court can be in-
voked, an injunction will not be granted. Ir a case, accord-
ingly, where no actual damage had been dont,. ^ad it itppmni
to the Court that it was quite possible, by the use of due care,
to iHrevwit a foul liquid from flowing into a river, as well is
that some method mi^t be discovered of rendering the liquid
innocuous, the Court would not grant an injunction (y).
If the defendant asserts positively that his acts will not inun an of
(lefeudant not
turn. (IWt) 1 Ch. 73 L. J. Ok. mH--""'
012.
(x) Att.-Qen. v. Corporation of
Manchtiter, (1893) 2 Ch. 87; 62
L. J. Ch. 4.09 ; and fco Ripen
{Karl of) V. HoImH, 3 M. & K.
169; 3 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch. 145; 41
B. B. 40; AU.-am. v. Mayor of
KvtfiUn, 34 L. J. Cb. 481 ; AU.-
Ot*. T. Rathmine$, tk., HoipiM
Board, (1904) 1 Ir. B.181; Att.-
Otn. T. Jfettmgham OerpcriMcm,
tupra.
{y) Fletcher v. limley, 28 C. T).
688 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 424 ; and see
Att.-den. V. Corporation o/ Man-
chnter, (1893) 2 Ch. 87 ; 62 L. J.
CTh. 459. A* to fam ot order in
J%!«A<r v. .6*0%, iM 33 W. B. 748 :
S4 L. J. p. 431.
(0 Chuttr {Dttm) t. BmtUiny
Cori>uration, 88 L. T. 67; (1901)
W. N. 179 ; Bat' htlUr t. Tunhridije
WtlU Oat <■:., 84 L. T. 765; 17
T.L.R. 677; Harhtry. I'enley, (1893)
2 Ch. pp. 460, 461 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
623 ; Ihinninij v. Gro*i epi/r Dairies,
Ltd., (1900) W. N. 266; CarvA Co.
T. Adi 0«f oiirf CafaCb.,ib. 363, n. ;
A«.-O0ik. v. S/ainM Rural DUtriH
Oounea and Squire, (1906) 70 J. P.
Notes of Cases, 545.
(«) Haines v. Taylor, 2 Ph. 209 ;
78 R. E. 71; Dawson v. Paver, 5
Ha. 415, 430; 16 L. J. Ch. 274; 71
R. E. 155; PotU V. Levy 2 Drew.
272 ; 100 R. It 131 ; ElieeU t.
Crou!ther,3l Boar. 169; Att.-aen.
V. Corporatiotk ^Mattcit^er, (1893)
a Oh. 87 ; es L. J. Ol 4A8 (C. A.) ;
Att.-QtH, V. NaUmigham Cmfora-
158
Cbup. VI.
Stet. 1.
AcUoabja
pofcfcaMT-
RiiMUM* by
inoor]>onMd
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
cause a nuittance, or that it is hia intentioD to guard against
• cc>mmitting nuisance, and there is no reason to discredit the
Msertion, the Court will not interfere (z), even though ho
refuses to give un undertiikinK (n) ; luit if ho cliiimM the right
to do the act complained of and refuses to give un undertaking,
the Court will infer that there will be a repetition of the
nuisance (&).
It seems that a purchaser who has not accepted the title
cannot sue anyone (other than the Tender) to protect the
property from Lijury (c).
Companies incorporated by Act of Parliament and having
compulsory powers to take lands and construct works, are
bound to act in good faith and in strict accordance with the
jHJwers which have been vested in them by the legislature.
If they act in excess of their statutory powers and cause
damage to the property of others, or if, though keeping within
their statutory powers, they construct their works in so un-
skilful or negligent or unreasonable a manner as to cause
unnecessary injury to private rights, the paj-ties aggrieved
thereby may maintain actions against them, and may, when
■uch is the apprqiriate remedy, obtain an injunction (d).
(j) WarburUm v. Londom and
Blackwall ItaiUvny Co., 1 Efc C«.
558 ; Haines v. Taylor, 2 I'h. 209 ;
78 B. U. "1 ; Waniltworth Hoard of
Work* V. Londonand South Western
Jlailway Co., 31 L. J. I'h. 884 ;
Fletr.ier v. llealei,. 28 C. D. 688 ; 64
L. J. Ch. 424. See xior v. Bayley,
43 C. D. 390; M L. J. Ch. 12.
(o) Cowley y. Bytu, 6 C. D. 944.
(fc) Phillips V. Thoma$, 63 L. T.
793.
(c) Heath v. Maydew, 13 W. B.
199. >S'e'/ nimre.
(<J) Frewiii v. Leu is, 4 M. & C.
249, 255 ; 48 E. B. 88; Vaiiyhan v.
Taf VaU liailway Co., 29 L. J. Ex.
247 ; 5H. ft N. p. 68."' ; Jmptriul Gas
Co. V. BroadbtHt, ' De 0. U. & 0.
436, 4S9; 7 H. L. C. 600; 29 L. J.
Ch- 377 ; Orond JunetUm (kmal Co.
v. Bhtit», 6 CIl 483, 4W; C'loww
T. 'Stagurdthin RaOwm €•., • Ch.
125. 139 ; 42 li. J.Ck. 107; Otddi*
V. Pro2>rietors of Bonn Retrrcir, 3
A. C. 4.30 ; Lambert v. Corj)ora-
lion ofloH tAoft, (1901) 1 Q. B. 690,
694 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 333, East
f'remantle Corporation v. Aiowis,
(1902) A. C. pp. 218, 219 ; 71 L. J.
i>. C. 39 ; Boberti v. Charing Crc**,
Eunkm, and Ham^fHted Ba&wa^ Co.,
(1903) 87 Ti. T. 733 ; Eatl Lmim
Bailway Co. v. TAamt* Cosuermney,
(1904) 68 J. P. 302; Mid-
uoo<l V. Manchester Corporation,
(1905) 2 K. B. p. GO<i ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 884; Westminster Cur poratimi
V. London and Xorth Western Jiailway
Co., (1905) A. C. pp. 430, 432 ; 74
L.J. CI1.6W; Tilling A Co. Y. Diek
Kerr A Co., (190ft) 1 K. B. 662 ; 74
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE. IM
That statutory {jUwurH uiuiit be exercised in a reuiionable C'k*p.TI.
manner and so as not to ca«iM more ibmage than neeeaaary, '• —
iH well illu.HtiatiMl hy the following cuse (e). Tlic pluin-
tiSs, u wut«r company, claimed an injunction to restrain
a loeal l)ody from lowering the surface of certain atreeta
under which the plaintiffH* pipes were laid in such a manner
us to leave the pijx^s without u sutliciont covering of soil to
protect them from injury l)y frost or otherwise. The real dis-
pute was whether the plaintiffa or the defendanta oa|^t to
Ix'tir (he cost of lowering the jxisitinn of the pipes. The
injunction was refused. Collins, L. J., in his judgment (/),
said : " The point urged is that the fdaintiffs hare suffered
'ismiige l)y tht^ exercise hy the defendants of their statutory
{lowers; that the dtfendunts were armed by the same
statute (g) with other powers which, if used, would have
mitigated the damage, and tiwt therefore they wett bound to
use them. ... It is not on the assertion of a statutory duty
that the argument for the defendants' liability is, or must
be, based, but on the broader propoeititm that being poe ao a n ed
of a iK)wer of mitigating damage arising from their proceed-
ings under the statute, they are bound to exercise it. So
stated it is nn ply nn assertion of the propositi^ so frequently
ai.'irmed that where statutory rights infringe what but for
the statute would be the rights of other persons, they must be
exercised reasonably so as to do as little mischief as possible.
l l)e public are not compelled to suffer inconvmience tdiieh
is not reasonal)ly incident to the exercise of statutory
powers. . . . Here the levelling of the road could be, and was
effectually carried out without in any way disturbing the
plaintifft ' pipes or infringii g any of their rights. . . . But it
must be admitted that the defendants are bound to exercise
their statutory powers with reasonable regard for the rights of
other persons. I think nbm it is cmce clear tiutt the main
L. J. K. U. ;f.)9 ; I'igyott v. Afuldlfsex Wnmhworth Hoard of Worh, (IflM)
' ouiil,) C.iinril, (190H) 1 Oh. p. 146 ; 2 Ch. 603 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 67.
77 li. J. Ch. 813. See McClelland (/) (1898) 3 CSu 610— eiS; «
V. 1,'.-.-.-;.-.';.-=.'.-r <\-rrjmr,ti-77>, (lOl'.'} 1 T,. J. Oh. 657.
K. li. p. 129 ; 81 L. J. K B. p. l(H. {g) Metnpdb Umttmnt Act,
(e) Southmtrk, tte., Water Co. r. 18M.
160
Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.
Nuiaancet
bj public
companies.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
purpose of the defendants could be completely carried out
without recourse to the power of moving the pipes, the
obligation of the statutory body must be tried by the same
standard of duly as is applicable to private perfons. Of
course, being merely a creature of statute they cannot exercise
powers if the statute has not conferred them ; but it does not
follow thut tlipy are bound to use them because they possess
them any more than a private person would be. They merely
fall under the general principle tie utere tuo ut alienum. non
ladas " (h).
In a case in which a railway company was proceedmg to
erect an arch over a mill race for the purpose of sustaining
an embankment on which the railway was to be constructed,
£.nd it appeared that injury would be done to the mill if the
arch were of the proposed dimensions, but that the injury
would be avoided if the arch were of certain larger dimen-
sions, an injunctijn was granted to restrain the company
from making an arch of less than certain specified dimen-
sions (i) . The 16th clause of the Bailways Clauses Consolida-
tion Act (k), which authorises various works to be executed,
contains a proviso that in the exercise of their powers the
company shall do as little damage as can be. This proviso
does not apply to what is to be done in the execution of the
powers, but to the manner of doing it (J)-
(A) See llol'fits V. Charing CroM,
Kiistuii, iiml Uiii>i)iKieu<l HaHutt;/,
(liM»;i) H7 I>. T. 732; llestmintUr
('orjiomtion v. Lomhn and Xortlt
Wtilm Raih'iin Co., (1905) A. C.
pp. 430, 433 ; 74 L. J. Ch. (i29 ;
TUlmJb Co. T. Didc Kerr A Co.,
(1905) 1 K. B. M2 : 74 L. J. K. B.
:{59; /'rf>«'« Patent CWto Co. T.
l.umhm CoHiitii Coiinril, (1908) 2 Ch.
S t "., 544 : "8 L. J. Ch. 1.
(t) CimU v. Clarence Hailwai/ Cn.,
1 Eu88. & M. 181 ; S li. J. Ch. 72 ;
32 B. B. 183 ; and see Manier v.
Nortktm ami Kattem llailwau Co.,
2 Ba. Ck. 3<M; Staiuton v. T!W-
ryh, 23 B. p. 234 ; 26 L. J. Oi.
300 ; 113 B. B. Ill ; RoberU v.
Charing CroM, Su$bm, and Homf-
stetid Railn^y, (1903) 87 L. T. 782.
(A) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20.
(/) Rey. V. East and llVnt India
Docks Railway Co., 2 E. & B. pp.
466, 474 ; 22 u. J. a B. 380 ; Fenwick
V. East Lomlon Railway Co., 20 Eq.
549 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 604. And see tlie
XaactricLighting(CUuiw4) Act,62 &
63 Viet e. 19,wbed. ckoMSl. wiaek
pro vidM that " noUiing in the ipMial
order shall exonermte the undor-
takem from any indictment, action,
or other proceeding for nuisance in
the evoiit lit any nuisance 'ueiag
oauMd or permitted by them."
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
161
As long as a company keep within their statutory powers,
no action can be maintained against them for any act done in
the exercise of their statutory authority, however injurir it
may be to the property of others, provided the inju / done is
the necessary and inevitable result of the exerc; ;e of the
statutory powers, and provided the works have beei ei>'cuted
with proper skill and care, and in such a way as to c^ i: '.^
unnecessary injury to private rights (m). It is clearly settled
that the power to take defined lands compulsorily and to make
a line of railway thereon, and to use locomotives upon that
line, entitles a railway company to run locomotives thereon,
notwithstanding that in so doing they are causing what in the
absence of siidi powers would be an actionable nuisance; and
persons whose properties are injured by vibration, sparks,
noise, or smol.o incident to the proper use and working of the
railway, cannot bring an action for nuisance (n). But by
a recent Act (o) railway companies are now liable to make
(m) llamiuirnntith n^nhi-ay <',.. y. K. B. p. 129 ; 81 L. J. K. B. p. 104.
Uranil, L. K. 4 H. L. p. 196; 38 (h) llammersmith Ilaihrai/ Co. v.
L. J. U. B. 265; Kast Fremnnlle llrainl : luist Frtmantle Corporation
Corporation v. Annois, (1902) A. C.
p. 218 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 39 ; Eatttrn
and South A/riean Tdtgraph Co. r.
Cape Town Tramujai/$ Co., (1902)
A. C. 381; 71 L. J. P. C. 122;
Canuilian I'aiific Ittiiln'ai/ Co. v.
ff.il/, (1902) A. C. 220; 71 L. J.
1'. C. 51; Uoherta v. ClKtrimj Cross,
Elision and Hamjisteail l,'it<licni/ Co.,
(1903) 87 L. T. 732; A.-<h v. Great
Xorthem, Picmdilly omi Brampton
Railway Co., (1903) 19 T. L. B.
639; Wegtmimttr CorforoHoti
London and North Wttum RaQway
Co., (1905) A. C. pp. 427, 430 ; 74
L. J. (.'h. 629 ; Price's Patent Candle
Co. V. London County Council, (1908)
2 Ch. 526 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 1 ; llortoo
V. Cotmyn Day Urban Council,
(1908) 1 K. B. p. 334 ; 77 L. J.
K. B. 216 ; Wat v. Brittol Tram-
waya Co., (1908) 2 K. B. pp. 21, 22 ;
77 L. J. K B. 684 ; MeClOand t.
Manchester CorjMnrfMn, (IW>) 1
K.I.
Ciuip. VI.
Sect 1.
V. Aiitiois, siijira ; Jones v. Stanstead
Railway Co., L. R. 4 P. C. 117 ; 41
L. J. P. C. 19 ; London, Brighton
and SoiUh Coaut Railway Co, v.
Truman, 11 A. C. 45 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
354 ; ,ttt.-C!cn. v. .Vetn^itan
Rnihrai/ Co., (1894) 1 Q. B. 384 ; 42
W. R. 381 ; Harrison V. Sonthn-ark,
etc., nater C,,., (1891) 2 Ch. 409 ; 60
L. J. Ch. 630; Canadian Pacific
RaUway Co. v. Roy, (1902) A. C.
320 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 61. Aa to
amoke bom engines, Me lect 114,
Bailway* Clanaes Act, 1846 ; sect.
19, Regulation of Railways Act,
1868, and London County Council y.
(treat Eastern Ilailimii Co.. (1906) 2
K. B. 31'.' ; 75 I,. J. K. B. 490. As
to liability of owner for fire caused
by his traction ecgine using high-
way, see Ounter v. Jamet, (1008)
24 T. R. 868.
(o) Buhray Fixes Aot, 1906 (6
Edw. 7. c. 11). iMt 1. "Bj
11
162 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Cha,.. VI. good damage to agricultural lands or crops caused by sparks
from their engines, notwithstanding that the engines are being
Ki,e« cau,ea y^ed Under their ststutory powws.
^^Z. Where a company causes a nuisance by the exercise o
bjei«oi«of powers in pursuance of a Provisional Order of the Board ot
Trade, it is protected in the like manner as in the case of
the exercise of other statutory powers (p).
Where a thing may be done undor statutory powers m one
of two ways, one of which is injurious to private rights, and
the other is not, it must as a rule be done in a manner which
will not be injurious (g). Where a company was authorised
to pave certain roads with wood paving, and used blocks coated
with creosote, the fumes from which injured the plamtiff s
plants, the company were held liable to the plaintiff for the
injury which he had sustained, although they did not know
that the use of creosoted wood might cause damage, and
although they had not been guilty of negligence, on the ground
that they were not authorised by their Act to use this par-
ticular kind of paving (r). But where a company is expressly
given by their Act power to carry out certain works by alterna-
tive methods, they are entitled to adopt whichever method
they consider the better and will not be liable for injury
resulting to a third party from having carried out their works
in such manner («).
Where a statute or Provisional Order expressly confers a
power but adds ii proviso that no nuisance must be created, it
1 (3) the claim for damage is limited A. C. p. 1 19 ; 66 L. J. P. C 1 ; see
to 1001 and by sect. 3 notice of U'eiimintter Corporatim v. Lo,„lmi
claim has to be *ent to the company and NoHh Wettern Bailway (-o
within a limited time. See Jfortin (1908) A. C. p. 433; .4 L. J. Ch.
.■ areatEaamiBaitwny Co., {1912) 629; Wert y. Srulol Tramway*
2 K. 15. 406 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 828. Co., (1908) 2 K. B. 14 ; 77 L. J. K. B.
( n ) NcJioMil Tflephotie Co. v. 684.
nnlr, (1893) 2 f'h. 186 ; 62 L. J. (r) Wf»tv. BruM Tramway* Co.,
(u) Ftnwick V. East I.cdou Rail- (») I»im,,hy v. Montreal Lujht Co.,
Co., 20 Eq. M4 ; 4-. L. J. Ch (1907) A. C. 454 ; 76 L. J. P^ C.
g^ . y„rton V. Lmdon and North 71: and see M' Vhlland v. Man-
H'«temAltlH'nye(».,9C.D.p.633; che»ter Corporatim, (1912) 1 K. B.
47 L. J. Ch. 889; Oytlon v. Ahtr- p. 130; 81 L. J. K. B. p. 104.
itm imrift Tramway* Co., (1897)
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
168
is no defence to say that the work cannot be done without ^•
creating a nuisance (t), and if statutory powers are conferred '—
under circumstances in which the powers may be exercised
without in themselves causing a nuisance, and new a ' un-
foreseen circumstances render the exercise of the powers im-
pos-'ible without a breach of the law, these jwwers cannot be
ez3rci8ed without making the parties liable («). If, howerer,
ii.3 Act necessarily requires something to be done which
cannot be done without creating a nuisance, or if, as to those
things which may or may not be done under it, there is evi-
dence on the face of the Act that the legislature supposed it
impossible to be done somewhere and under some circum-
stances without creating a nuisance, an action will not lie (x).
Where, however, the terms of a statute are not imperative,
but only permissive, and it is left to the discretion of the
persons empowered to determine whether the general powers
committed to them shall be put in execution or not, the fair
inference is that the legislature intended that discretion to
be exercised in strict conformity with private rights, and
did not intend to confer licence to commit nuisance in any
place which might he selected for the purpose (:;). In other
words, where the statutory power is permissive and not im-
perative, the legislature must be held to have intended that
its exercise is not to be in prejudice of the common law rights
of others (z). The presumption is that a public body, whether
(t) See Jorite»<m v. Sutton, etr., [x] Metrnpolitan District Asylum
das Co., (1898) 2 Ch. 614 ; 67 L. J. v. /Hll, 6 A. C. 193 ; fiOL. J. Q. B.
Ch. (i(>H; (1899) 2 Ch. 218; 68 253; and see Prire't Patent Candle
L. J. Ch. 467 ; Cohrell v. St. Pam raa Co. v. London County Council, titpra.
Borough Council, (1904) 1 Ch. 707 ; (y) lletropolUan Dittriet Atglum
73 L. J. Ch. 278 ; Uidtoood v. Man. v. ffitt, 6 A. 0. 198 ; flO L. J. Q. B.
cheOer CorfonObm, (190B) 2 K. B. 3M ; Cana'fian Pacific Sailumy Co.
897; 74 L. J. K. B. 884; AH-Oen. v. Parkt, (1899) A. C. 835, 546 ; 68
V. Dorchater Ct^ftoration, (1906) L. J. P. C. 89 ; Metrt'jtolita n n'ater
70 J. P. 281 ; Demeram EleHrir Board v. Solomon, (1908) 2 Ch. 214
l.iuhtin,/ Co. V. White, (1907) A. C. 220; 77 L. J. Ch. 617; McClelland
:i.'iO ; 76 L. J. P. C. 54 ; Price's v. Mnm hestrr Corporation, (1912) 1
l'atf.iit Candle Co. v. London County K. B. pp. 1;J0, 181; 81 L. J. K. B.
'•<»(,ift/. (1908) 2 Ch. p. 544; 78 pp. 104. 106.
^' J' Ch. 1. (t) Oamdkm Paeifk nail way Co.
(u) Qvemr.BraiH/vrdNmrigatiwi r. Park*, (t8M) A C. p. 040 •
Co.. 8 B. * 8.681 ; 84 L. J. a B. 191. 88 L. J. P. 0. 89; Mttrrmclitan
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
a trading boi! ot, is not authorised to create a nuisance
or otherwise afleci private rights unless compensation is pro-
Tided, but this presumption must yield where the langu vge of
the statute is sufficiently dear to authorise the ni. ance
without compensation (a). The burden lies on those who
seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away
the private right of individuals to show that hy express words,
or by necessary implication, such an intention appears (&).
In Gas Ught arid Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. Mary Abbots,
KenBington (c), the plaintiffs, a gas company, laid down pipes
under the surface of certain streets, as they wore bound by
statute to do, for the pi'rpose of supplying gas t" light the
street and houses in the street. The streets were vested in Ac
defendants, the vestiy of the parish, by certain statute;, which
gave them the authority of the surveyor of highways with
the duty to repair, but without prescribing any particular
mode of repair. The defendants used steam rollers for the
repair of the streets, as bein^ .i mode of repair most advan-
tageous to both the ratepayers and the public, but the rollers
used were so heavy as to freqaeintly injure the plaintiffs'
pipes, though the pi[)es were sufficiently below the surface as
not to have been injured by the ordinary mode of repair, if
such rollers had not been used. It was held that the plaintiffs
were entitled not only to recover damages for the injury
which had been done, but also to have an injunction to re-
strain the defendants from using steam rollers in such a
way as to injure the jripes of the plaintiffs.
" The authorities show," said the Court (d), " that an action
lies for an injury to property unless sudi injury is expressly
Water Board v. Solomon. (1908)
3 Oh. p. m
(a) Prie^i Patent Candle Co. x.
London County Council, (1908) 2 Gh.
pp. 643, 544 ; 78 L.J. Ch. 1.
(fc) Metropolitan Diatrtct Aiyliim
V. HiU, 6 A. C. 193 ; 50 1.. J. Q. U.
153; Aff -fl">, V. Di^rheMfr Cnr-
portUion, (1906) 94 L. T. p. 688 ;
Metropotiian Water Board v. Solo-
num. (19M) S Ch. p. 3S0; TTL. JT.
Ch. 017.
(e) IsaB. D. 1; ML. J. a B.
414; M«Att. atn. T. SeaU, (1904)
1 K, B. 404 ; 73 L. J. K. B.
196; (1906) 2 K. B. 160; 74 L. J.
K.B. 803; Corporation o/ Chienttler
V. Fuster, (1906) 1 K. B. 167; 78
L. J. K. B. .^S.
(>0 15 Q. B. D. p. 0; 64 L. J.
a B. p. 418.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
165
authorised by statate or is physically speaking the necessary . c>»p- vi.
consequence of what is so authorised. If in this case the ^'
defendants were expressly authorised by statute to use steam
rollers of such a weight as necessarily to injure the plaintiff's
pipesj the plaintiff would have no ground of c(>nii)Iaint. The
case would be one of damnum absque injuria. The same
consequences would follow if the f'vifendants were expressly
authorised by statute to repaii in some way which necessarily
required the use of heavy steam rollers or other machinery
which could not be worked without injuring the plaintiffs'
pipes, there again, although such rollers or machinery were
not expressly mentioned, their use would be authorised by
necessary implication and the plaintiffs would be without
redress. But unless some such statutory enactment can be
shown to autlii ise the defendants to injure the plaintiffs'
pipes, the plaintiffs are entitled to redress."
Accordingly, where a tramway company who were autho-
rised by their Act to pave a road with wood paving, used for
the purpose wood blocks coated with creosote, and the fumes
from tlie creosote injured the plaintiff's shruus, the company
were held liable to the plaintiff for the damage ^ich he had
sustained, although they did not know that (he use of creosoted
wood might cause damage, and although they had not been
guilty of negligence, on the ground that they were not
authorised by their Act to use this particular kind of wood
paving (c).
The burden of proving that the creation of a nuisance will Onu» of proof,
be the inevitable result of carrying out tiie direction of the
legislature lies on the persons seeking to justify the nuisance.
If the order of the legislature can be carried out without
nuisance, they cannot plead the protection of the statute ; and
on the other hand, it is insufficient for their protection that
what is contemplated by the statute cannot be done without
nuisance unless they are also able to show that the legislature
has directed it toi be done (/).
(() Wtst V. BrM Trnnways Co., v. Hilt, 6 A. C. 193, 213 ; 50 L. J.
(!«()N) 2 K. B, 14 : 77 I-- J. K, B. Q. H. a.Y.i, Sab .Sellort y, Mf'tl-rk
6H4. /.OTd/ HmnI of Jlmlth, 14 Q. B. D.
(/) MttropoMan Atylttm DUtriet 929 ; aud E<ut FremantU Cor-
166
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Chap. VI.
1.
CompMiution.
Bigbt to com-
pcnnticn
anigMl>le.
Where no
proTuiun for
compensstion
in the itatute.
Where injury to private rights results from the construction
of works which liave been authorised by statute and which
have been executed witli proper skill and care, the party
injured must look for his remedy to the proviso for compensa-
tion, if any, within the statute which authorises the works (g).
The claim to compensation under s. 68 of tlu> Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, is not a claim to damages for a
wrongful act, but is a claim to a right to compensation for
damage v.hicli might bo done in the lawful exercise of powers
conferred on a corporation by the legislature, and such a
claim is capable of assignment (fc).
If there be no provision for compensation in the statute,
the i)arty injured is without a remedy (i), hut an intention
to take away or injure property without making compensation
should not be imputed to the legislature unless it be expressed
in the statute in unequivocal terms (Ar).
The statutory tribunal, however, is only established to give
compensation for losses sustained in consequence of what the
incorporated company may do lawfully under the powers
which the legislature has conferred on them. For anything
done in excess of those powers, or contrary to what the lepsla-
ture in conferring those powers has commanded, the proper
remedy is by action (l).
poratim v. Annnis, (1902) A. C.
p. 218 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 39.
(j) Hammtrmith Railway Co. v.
Branrf, L. B. 4 H. L. 171 ; 3« L. J.
Q. B. 265 ; Kirh;/ v. School Board
f,fr llarnxjate. (1896) 1 Ch. 437 ; 65
L. J. Ch. 736; Mnm hett^r, Sheffield,
anti l.iniiilitshire Ilailtvay ('". v.
Aiiilersou, (1898) 2('h. 394 ; 07 L. J.
Ch. 568 ; Jordi-snn v. Siittim, etc.. Oat
Co., (1898) 2 Ch. p. 621 ; 67 L. J.
Oh. 666 ; (1899) 2 Ch. p. 257 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 467 ; Long Eaton Becrta-
tioii Oroiimla Co. y. Midland SaUway
Co., [vm) 2 K. B. 674; 71 L. J.
K. B. 837 ; Priee't Patent Candle
Cv. V. London Cuimiy '''■tirtdl, (IPO-S)
2 Ch. at pp 643, 54 1 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
1; I'ij/gott V. Middleux County
Council, (1009) 1 Ch. jip. 143, 145;
77 L. J. Ch. 813.
(A) Dawtoi V. (Ireat Sorthem and
City Jlailu-ay Co., (1905) 1 K. B.
260 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 174.
(i) Hammenmith BnHtvaj/ Co. T.
Ilrai.d, L. E. 4 H. L. p. 202 ; 88
I,. J. Q. B. 265; Att.-Oen. v.
Meirojiolitan Uaihvay Co., (1894) 1
Q. B. 384 ; 42 W R. 381 ; Rdtertt v.
Charimj Croit, Snston, and llamp-
$tead Railway, (1903) 87 L. T. p. 734.
(fc) The Cammitnonern ./ I'iddic
Work* (Cop* Colony) v. Logan, (1903)
A. C. 366 ; 72 L. J. P. C. 91.
{I) Caledonian RaiUmy Co. v.
Pnli, .S Mac/}. : Keg. v. Darling-
Urn Board Health, B. & S. 562 ;
36 L. J. 1*. B. 45 ; Jmptrial Oai Co.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
167
A public oompeny, when ucting in conformity with its ^Ah*. Vt.
statutory powers, need not, before commencing works which — — -
may injuriously afiect lands, make or tender compensation nMa'aoru "
for tile conjectural damage (m).
By the 68th section of the Lands ClauaoH Act, 8 t 9 Vict, of worta.
c, 18, it is provided Hiat if any party shall be entitled to com- J^^f^^ro"^
pensation in reepect of any lands or of any interest therein, ^in»g« b*'*™
^ " Mcktng conapcn-
which bhall have been taken for or injuriously affect«d by the sation under tb«
execution of the works, and for which the undertakers shall
not have made compensation, it shall be assessed in the
manner therein mentioned. The Courfc will not restrain by in-
junction proceedings for an assessment of compensation under
the Act, but will leave the question of the right to compensa-
ti(m to be decided in an action on th»award (n). If, howerer, „ j,
there is an original equity affecting the claim, the Court will «» originji
interfere. " Where there ia an ojrigmal equity anectmg the the claim, tho
claim," said Turner, L.J., in Duke of Norfolk r. Termaniio), ukeuilway""'
" the statute does not take it away. It is, I think, as much
the duty of this Court to interpose by injunction in such
cases as in the ordinary attempt to put in force the powers
of the Act fcMr compulsory purchase, wbu-e tbe {mrcfaase has
been the subject of contract." Where accordingly there had
been some treaty for compensation for damage with a land-
owner wlucfa had not been oompletod or carried out, but there
was evidence to show that he had received consideration for
an agreement which he refused to perfect, the Court re-
strained him from taking proceedings to obtain oompensaticHi
under the section (p).
y.Broadbtnt,TJ)eQ.U.AO.4B0; (n) Satt md Wttt India Dedm r.
T H. L. C. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ; Oattke, 3 Mao. AO. 166; 87 B. B.
and see J'iggott v. MiddUtac Cimnty 49 ; London and Blatkwatl Bailway
Cuundl, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 1«; 77 Co. y. Vrott, 31 C. D. p. 367; 55
L. J. Ch. 813. L. J. Ch. 313; llrierley Hill Local
(m) Hutton v. London and South Board v. Peartall, 11 Q. B. D. 734;
Wetttnt Railway Co., 7 Ha. 259 ; 18 9 A. C. 695 ; 64 L. J. a B. 26.
L. J. Ch. 346 ; 82 E. K. 99 ; Macey (o) 9 Ha. p. "48.
T. U^rofMan Board of Worki, 33 ( p ) Dv)ce of Norfolk t. Tennant,
L. J. Ch. S77 ; M* CMt t. SeAooi 9Hik74ft:S9B.B.6i8. See
Board of London, 1 Ch. 130; 43 Londori and Sotdk WttUm Railvay
L.J. Ch. 421. Co. Coward, S B*. C». 710;
168
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NXJISANCE.
Ch«p. VI.
8<ct 1.
N:iiHince by
public bodiM.
The principles upon which the Court proeeeds in reatrsin-
ing nuisance on the part of incorporated companies are also
applicahlo to nuisance on the part of public bodies incor-
poralfd l)y Act of Parliament for a public purpose and for
the promotion of the benefit of the connnunity (q) . Inasmuch
as these bodies are acting on behalf of the public interest,
the Court is disposed to assume that what they do, provided
it be within the statutory powers, is a fair exercise of the
discretion which has been reposed in them by the legisla-
ture (r), and will not interfere with them in the exercise of
the {xjwers given to them by statute so long as they do not
conduct themselves in an arbitrary or oppressive manner, and
do not appear to be actuated by corrupt or improped*
motives (s). But in the absence of an express power to create
a nuisance, a public body executing drainage or other works
for the benefit of their district are bound to exercise their
powers so as not to create a nuisance {t), and where a statute
Maumtll V. Midland Great Wtdem
of Irelaml Rniltmif Co., 1 H. AM.
130: 32 L. J. eh. 513.
( <j ) t'reirii, v. Leiri; 4 M. & C.
249; 48 E. H. K8; Att-den. v.
Bishoji (</ Mnnch-atrr, L. R. 3 Kq.
p. 465 ; see Price's I'ntiut Cauille Co.
V. London County Council, (1908)
2 Ch. pp. 543, 644 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 1.
(r) See Fatter r. Hortuby, 2 Ir.
Ch. 445 ; Cro»$man T. Brikol and
SoittI' ir.i/o Unilway Co., 1 H. AH.
p. 342 ; Att.-Oen. v. Great Kastem
llaihmij Co., (i Ch. p. 576. See
Wfitiiiiiislei- ('(iriioration v. I.omlim
(111(1 Xorlh ll'eatern Railirai/ Co.,
(1905) A. C. 432 ; 74 L. J. t'h. 629.
(») SUiintmiy. Woolrych, 23 Beav.
226 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 300; 113 B. B.
Ill J Att.-Qtn. \. Mdtropclitan
Board of Worht, 1 H. A M. p. 315 ;
Sto- lttcm and Darlington Railumij Co.
V. Brown, 9 H. L. C. p. 256;
:lu!.!!:'ph V. St. (m>,-yr's Ve-try, 3
I). J. * S. 493 ; 33 ju. J. Ch. 411 ;
Westminittr Corporatim v. London
and North Western liailway Co.,
tupm: and we Davit Bromley
Corporation, (1908) 1 KB. 170;
77 L. J. K. B. 61.
{t) Att.-llcn. V. LeeJt Corjioration,
5 ( h. 5H3 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 711 ; Att.-
(Ien. \. Colney Hatch Asylum, 4 Ch.
146 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 265 ; AH.-Gen. v.
(iatliyht and Coke Co., 7 C. D. 217 ;
47 L. J. Ch. 634 ; Shel/er v. City of
London EUOrie Lighting Co., (1896)
1 Ch. 287; 64 L. J. Ch. 216;
Jordeton r. Sutton, etc.. Oat Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 217 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 467;
Iloherte v. Charing Crou, Eutton,
ami ffampitead Hailway Co., (1903)
87 L. T. 732; Mid((-ood it- <'o. v.
Manchetter Cori>oration, (1905) ; 2
K. B. p. 606 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 884 ;
Tilling & Co. v. Die):, Kerr d Co.,
(1906) 1 E. B. 662 ; 74 L. J. E. B.
359 ; Att.-Gen. v. Dorthttltr Corpo-
ration, (1906) 70 J. P. 281 ; Priest
Paimt Crndl* Oo, T. London Oottnty
Council, (1908) 2 Ch. 64S, M4 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 1.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
169
or Provisional Order exprenly eonfsn a power to carry out
certain works with a proviso that no nuisance muat be created, —————
it is no defence t say that the work cannot be done without
causing a niii8ai.ce («}. The fact that a large populatimi
may suffer unless the rights of an individual are invaded
cannot be taken into consideration by the Court (x). Con-
sideration of public welfare may, however, justify the sus-
pension of an injunction upon terms, but do not justify the
denial of relief to the person whose rigLia havu been
affected {y).
If a pubh'c body is transgressing the powers which have
liecn conferred on it by the legislature, or is doing an illegal
act which in its nature tends to the injury of the public, it
is not necessary on information by the Attorney-General to
provo that injury to the public will result from the act com-
piuinedof (z).
In a recent case, a railway company was by its Act, which Whiretuiat*
incorporated the Railways Clauses Act, 1846, «npowered to aTideno* of
carry the railway across a turnpike road on the level. The J,"^gj'^„jj
company constantly drove trains over the level crossing at p^^^J
a speed exceeding four miles an hour in breach of the pro- ~
visions of sect. 48 of the Railways Clauses Act. On an
information filed by the Attorney-General the company set up
as a defence that there was no proof of any injury occasioned
to the public by tiie company's non-obeemince of the pro-
visions in question, and that the inconvenience cnnsed to the
public by the existence of the level crossing would be increased
if the company complied witii sect. 48 of the Bailways Clauses
Act. It was tiiere held, however, that tiie informatifm being
(ii) Mulivoal <f Co. V. MtmdtMttr (y) Prire'l Patent Candle Co. v.
('(irimraiion, Price'i Patent Candle London County Cmmtil, {190S) 2 Ch.
Co. V. London ('oiintt/ Council, tuj'ra. 314; 78 L. J. Ch. 1.
(r) Att.-Gen. v. Horough of liir- [z] Att.-den.y.Cockermouth Local
miHf///(im, 4 K. & J. 628; 116B. R. Hoard, 18 Eq. 172; 44 L. J. Ch.
445; .itt.-QtH. V. Colney Hatch US ; AU.-Oen. y. Shreimbury Bridge
Atylum, 4 Ch. pp. IM, 166 ; 3S Co., 21 0. D. 51 L. J. Oh. 746;
L. J. Ch. 260 ; OObinge v. Hmtger^ AU.-a«». t. Zom/on and North
ford, (1904) 1 Ir. K. 211. 226; of, ir«««r»i Ihilway Co.,{im) 1 Q. B.
Raphael t. Thamet Valley Railway 72 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; (1900) 1 Q. B.
Co., 2 Oil. 147 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 209. 78 ; 69 L. J. a B. 26.
170
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
ciMkp. VI. aiod by the Att«rney-(leneral to enforce the express proviiiont
of H statute, the Court could not entertain the question of
whotiier injury to the public wuh in fact occasioned by the
non-compliunce with the statute, und thut the injunction mutt
Attorwy therefore be granted (a). The Attorney-General however is
St'elaiikni t., not entitled to an injunction us a matter of rifjiit in every
injunction u k where a public body is committing u breach of a statute,
aMtwr of right. ^^^^^ ^ discretion in the case of actions by the
Attorney-General ns well as in other actions (h).
Where a plaintiff iiaa proved his right to an injunction
against a nuisance, it is no jwrt of the duty of the Court tot
inquire in what manner the defendant can best remove it.
The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction at once, unless the
removal of the injury is physically impossible; and it is the
duty of the defendant to find his own way out of the difiSculty,
whatever iiu-oiiveniciice or expense it may put him to (c).
But where the difliculty of removing the injury is great, the
Suspraiioa of Court wiU Buspend the operation of i n injunction for a time,
iojaMtioa. ^.^j^ liberty to the defendant to ap for an extension of
time (fl).
The Court will not make an order against a public body or
against an individual to do an act, unices it is satisfied that
it is within their or his power to do it (e).
The duty -^f a locil atithority under sf<[. 15 of the Public
(a) AH.-OeH.\. Lmulmaml Xorth 265; It jtm f'erfry v. Honuey
Wutem Raaimy ' i.,(1899) I a B. liMrwt Council, (1900) 1 Ch. 706,
72; 68 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; (1900) 1 Q. B. 707; hrice't Patent Candle Co. v.
78 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 26. Loudon County CouneU, (1908) 2 Ch.
(/j) .l<(.-'f>H. V. U'iliilleiloii Home p. 344; "8 L. J. Ch. 1; Oiren v.
Kslate Co., (1904) '1 Ch. p. 42; 7.3 Favertham Corporation, (1!H)«) 72
1,. J. Ch. 593; Att.dm. v. (Iruixi J. P. 404; Att.-Uen. v. Birminy-
Jtinction Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. ham. Tame, etr., Distrirt lloani,
pp. 617, 618 ; 78 L. J. Ch. S21 ; (1910) 1 Ch. 62 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ;
Att. Oen. V. Birmingham, Tame, (1912) A. C. 788; (1913) 82 L. J. Ch.
rtf., /Xrfrirt Boarrf. (1910) 1 Ch. 48, 46; and lee Att..am. v. Gibb,
1,1,. 53, 09 ; 79 h. J. Ch. 137 ; (1912) (1900) 2 Ch. »t pp. 278, 279 ; 78
A.C.788,812;(1913}82L.J.Ch.43. L. J. Ch. 621 ; Jonet v. Lhmnm*
(t) Att -lien. y.Cdnty Hatch Asy- Vrban I'oiincil. (1911) 1 Ch. 3B8,
lum, 4 Ch. 140, 104 ; at> L. J. Ch. iCo. ill; SO L. J . Ch. p. ! ;-4.
(</) Att.-Qen. v. Colneij Hatch {e) Att.-den. v. dvariliain of
Atylum, 4 Ch. 164; 38 L. J. Ch. Dorking, 20 C. D. 60«, ti()7 ; 31 L. J.
INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T NUISANCE.
171
HesHh Aet, 1875. to make tudi tewen as may be p ecewar y ^'i>'P' vi.
for effectuully (IniiniriB their district, cannot be enforced by „ ~ . — r
an aggrieved individual by action, the only remedy for the authoritjr to
neglect by the local authority of their duty, being by coi
plaint to the Local Ooremment Board under sect. 299 of the
Act (/). But the remedy given by sect. 299 in the case of
a locui authority neglecting to provide sufficient sewers, does
not preclude an individuol whose property has been injured,
from oWiiining un injunction and damages iigainst a local
authority in rcHpect of u nuisance caused by their neglect to Lwbiutyfor
perform the duty imposed upon them by sect. 19 of tiie Act, ""'■'^
to keep their sewers in such a c(Midition as not to be a
nuisance (g).
A local authority has not, in the absence of express enact- Diwb»rge of
ment or agreement, any higher right than an individual land- ^K^t^ltttT'
owner to discharge sewage into the sewers belonging to JJJ^jJ^jJjJ^'
sanitary authority of another district (h). But a local autho-
rity may discharge surface water into a natural stream or WaiMvewM.
watercourse, or canal on land belonging to another person
within their district (t). Any damage caused by the proper
exercise of such right is a matter for compensation and forms
no ground for an injunction (k).
The provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 26 k 26 Notic* of i>r».
Vict. c. 102, s. 106 (I), and the Public Health Act, 187^5, Stfrl'^iii'*'
8. 264 (l), requiring one mmth's notice to be served before m*"***"™' ,
Act, 1800, and
rh. 585, ;*r Jessul, M.E. ; ^«.. (h) Att.-(len. v. Acton ^-<*"a' Act' m?***
<len. V. CiAnen Hatch Aiylum, 4 Ch. Board, 22 C. 1). 221 ; 62 L. J. C'h. '
p. IM : 38 L. J. Ch. 26S; Etmur. 108; and aee IMngUrn Vtitrg t.
Ma»ehmltr, tk^ Sailwe^ Co., 36 JSToniwy Onmeil, {1900} 1 Ch. 686.
C. D. p. 630 ; 57 L. 3. Ch. 153 ; (i) Durrani t. Brankiome Urban
Harrington {Karl) v. Derby Corjiora- Coiinnl, (1897) 2 Ch. 291 ; 66 L. J.
tion, (1905) 1 C'h. p. 220 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 653, and see VroyulaU v. Sun-
Ch. 219. bury ■ on - Thamei L'rban Council,
{/) J'atmore v. OiwaUtwiitU (1898) 2 Ch. 615, 520 ; 67 L. J. Ch.
/ rZ-n « ( 'ounril, ( 1 K98) A. C. 387 ; 67 686.
L. J. Q. B. 635. (A) Durrant v. BraHkMime Urban
is) Baron t. Porldade-hrl^ CMtMe»(,(1887)3Oh.p.306: 66L.J.
Urban Vonnea, (1900) 3 Q. B. 688; Ch. 686; OrogtdaU v. iSwiftitfy-M.
69 L. 3. Q. B. 890 ; AU.-Qtn. Tkmm Urbtm CmmfU.
Aewe* ror/ora(»on, (1911) 20k. 601; (0 Bopealed by the Publio
(1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 40. Authoritiei Protection Act, 1893.
172
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
ch»p. VI. institutuig procewliiigs, w«re held not to apply where the
*^ ^- principal object of the action was to obtain an injunction to
iTstniiii nil immediate injury (//(). Where mi iietion was hond
fide brougiit to obtain an injunction uyainst u sanitary autho-
rity, and at the trial the Court considered that an ii\j unction
was not tlien needed, it was held that tlier<' WiiH jurisdiction
to award damages in lieu of an injiini tion, in »pito of the fact
that the notice of action required by Meet. 264 of the Public
Health Act, 1876, had not been given (n). It is now, however,
l'uhii, A...i,„ri. provid(!d by the Public Authorities Ait, 1893 (.-), that where
VsM " action or otluT proceeding is comnionced against any
person for an act done in execution of any Act of Parliament,
or of any public duty nr aullidrity, or in respect of any default
in the execution of any such Act, duty, or authority, the action
or procuo<ling shall not lie imless it is commenced within
six months next after the act, neglect, or default compl.iined
of, or in case of u coiitiniiaMCO of injury or damage (//), within
six months next after the ceasing thereof (q), and the pro-
visions of any public general Acts requiring proceedings to
be commenced within any jiarticular time or notice of action
to be given are repealed (r). The word " action " as used
in this Act includes all actions in the Chancery Divi-
sion, whether actions for an injunction or declaration,
or actions partly for an injunction, or declaration, and
[ill) Fli'inr V. /.«"• f.fytiin /.ixal sect 1 (b), (il).
y<Min/, 5 C. H. 317; 46 L. J. fh. (/>) ISeo ll<trrii,;/t<m {Karl) v.
(i'21 ; Atl.-(!ni. \. llu'khtij IliKtrd of Ilerh;/ Cinpomlii u, (1!H).)) 1 Ctl.
Hmlth, 20 Vai (>2(i; 14 J. Ch. 'itMi ; 74 J. Ch. 21!» ; HmjiK- v.
545; S,llor<\. Math.ik l.m-id Itimnl, hoiimoter ttiinil Couth il, (190H) 1(K)
14U.B.r). »29; llatemans. I'oplar I.. T. 121 ; 25 T. L. li. 130; Alt.-
DiHrict BiKird, 33 C. D. 361; 56 6'cii. v. r„r/«)ra(io«, (1!»11) 2
I,. J ( h. 14!». Ch. 495 ; (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 40.
{„) < ■luijimitn V. Auckland Vnim, (q) See Bartutt v. IIVw/" iVA
23aB.l>.284; 68L.J. Q.B. Sorovgh Cou«cit, (1910) 74 J. P.
504. 441, and HttiMt t. Ltmtbm CotMbi
(o) .Mi & 57 Vi.t. 0. (il, sect. 1 CounHl, (1908^ 24 T. L. B. 331,
(h). As to costs where juil^jmeut is where the wan nof isBuad
obtained hy the defendant, and within the i.v month-' owing to
where a pUsiisti'.T h;:K ^ven negotiations for ft iwttlement.
the defendant an opportunity of (r) 8«ot 2 (b), (o).
n>alt!iig amendii before action, lee
INJrNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
partly for damagM, but not interlocutory ap^icatioos or
iippeuls («). — — — -
A penon who oomea to the Court tar relief by faiterloootory i>et >> »»
.... ., . , .... . iiiv|uie«eu««.
mjunption nRiuriist niiisancn must snow due diligcnco in
making the application. Whatever may Iiave been the original
equity of his ease, if he has by his conduct encouraged anotiter
to expend monies or alt«r his condition in oontniveiition of
the rights for which he contends, he haa deprived himself of
his equity to the intwference of the Court ((}. It is not
sufficient in order to negative acquiescence to show that the
pliiititiff gave notico that he ol)ject('d, and threatened (>ro-
coedinga (u). All the circumstances must be considered
Accordingly a man who had acquiesced for eighteen mon^
ill the deviation of part of a riavif;al)|o livrr, and in
the obstruction of a r«ul by a railway ooi. '> .ny, w-s held
precluded from relief (y). So also a man who did not Ale
his bill until two years and a half after the works complained
of as throwing flood- water over his lands were completed,
was held precluded from relief {z). So also a man who had
permitted the owner of the adjoining premises to rebuild
them to a greater height than they were before, and t« alter
his ancient lights and to open new ones (the work being done
under the inspection of the def«idant's sonreyor) was held
not entitled to interrupt the lights after the work warn com-
pleted (a).
If the question as to nuisuice is one which admits of a
determination prospectively, a man should not delay in eoaaag
(«) llarroj} v. Orittt I'ori'oration,
(1898) 1 Ch. 525 ; fi" L. J. Oh. 347 ;
Fiehlen v. Mnrley Corporation,
(1900) A. C. 133 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314 ;
Ambler 4 Co. v. Bra /or^ Vorpora-
tim, (IMS) S C9l AM ; TJ . J. Ch.
744.
(«) Aiitf, p. 21 ; and see ParroU
V. /Wm€r, 3M. &K.640; 41 R. E.
149; irtV/« V. ff nut, John. 380;
.rvhuion V. )V;iati, 2 De C. J. & S.
18, 25; Duke of Lttdt V. Earl
Amhmt, 2 Ph. 123 ; Cokhing v.
Ba'tHt, 1. I. Ch. 286.
{,,) Wirks V. Hmnt, Mm. 872;
123 E. E. 127.
(r) Biiiiknrt v. Uniniliton, 27
Beav. 42.5; 2H L. ' Ch. 473 ; 122
B. H. 471.
(jr) Illingworth v. Maneietttr and
Leed* BaUveay Co., 2 Ba. Os. 188.
(z) Widu Y. JSTimt, 380;
123 E. R. 127.
(n) CotclitHg y. Baisett, J2 Ueav.
101; 32 L. J. Ch. 286. See
MeMtmm t. CWh«. SB C. D. OM;
174 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
Chap. VI. to the Court. If he abstains from coming until the mischief
is actually done, he may be told he is too late (6). If the
act complained of is caosed by a public company in the execu-
tion and construction of their works, it is more incumbent on
the party injured to apply without delay, than in ordinary
cases (c). Much, however, depends <m the nature aad
character of the nuisance.
Though a stronger case of delay is required to affect those
who assert a public right, than when a private right alone is
in dispute (d), delay, even in such cases, is not without
effect (e). But the peculiar circumstances of the case may
often account for and excuse the delay (/). In the case of a
gradually increasing nuisance the Court will have regard to
flie nature of the nuisance, and conclude that the relators have
been waiting to see whether the nuisance will continue to
grow, or whether circumstances may not of themselves arise
which will check or diminish it (g). If the public hare been
slow in complaining, their delay is a proper subject for the
consideration of the Court in fixing the amount of time to
be allowed for carrying the injunction into effect (h).
The principles of the Court with respect to delay and
acquiescence applicable to the case of interlocutory injunc-
tions apply also in the case of applications for " perpetual
injunotions " ; but to justify the Court in refushig to interfere
at the trial of the action, there must be a much stronger case
of delay and acquiescence than is sufficient to be a bar on
66 L. J. Ch. 662 ; and see Daiiei Itliui/Um Vtftry \ . ffcrmfi/ I'rhan
V. Marthall, 10 C. B. N. 8. 70S ; 1 Council, tiijira.
Dr. 4 Sm. 367. {/) Att.-Oen. v. Colneij Hatch
(M Dawttiu V. Paver, 6 Ha. 415, A$ybtm, 4 Ch. 146, 160 ; 38 L. J.
430; 16 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 71 B. B. Ch. 266; AU.-Gm. v. Lad* Oor-
(f) Ante, p. 21. See Piggott v. 711.
Miihlltttx County Council, (1909) 1 (j) Att.-OtH. y. PropriHort of
Ch. p. HH ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 820. Bra.l/onI Canal, 3 Eq. 71 ; 31 L. J.
Vertryy. Horntey Ch. 619; Att.dm. v. Leedr Cor-
Vrliaii I'oiiiiril, (HHH)) 1 Ch. 695. iMiratinti, mpra.
(f) Att.-Oen. V. JohiiKon, 2 Wile. (A) Att.-deti. v. PropriHort of
C. C. .s7, lOi ; iH E. E. 15t3 ; AU.- Bnuijord Camil, Atl. Gc:i. v. Cdlntf
Utn. V. ah^fitld Oai Co., H De O. Hatch Attflum, tupra.
IL * O. p. 311 ; » L. J. Ot. 811 ;
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.
175
the interlocutory application — there must be fraud , juch VI.
acquiescence as in the view of the Court would make it a — ^'*^''
fraud on tiie part of the plaintiff to insist on his legal right;
and it seems that " mere delay " will not disentitle a plaintiff
to an injunction in aid of the legal right, unless the claim
to enforce the ri^t is barred by the Statutes of Limita-
tions (i). In the case of a continuing nuisance the Statutes
of Limitations would appear not to hare any application except
as to the amount of damages which couM be recorered (k).
An injunction being an order directed to a person does not injuDeiiM
run with the land (I). Where, therefore, after a perpetual witkUabad.
injunction had been obtained against a sanitary authority re-
straining it from polluting a river, a Provisional Order was
made constituting a new and larger drainage board, it was
held that the persons who had obtained the injunction against
the old sanitary authority could not enforce it against tiie new
board. If the new drainage board continued the nuisance, or
failed to take effectual steps to remedy it, a new action would
have to be brought (m).
In cases of nuisance, unless it plainly appears that tiie con- Court <rf Apptal
elusion of the Court below upon the evidence was wrong, the willing to refer
Court of Appeal is unwilling to re-open the investigation by Ji^rtforreport
directing an issue or employing experts to report (n).
In a recent case (o), where an injunction had been granted pi»ch«iK« of
restraining a district drainage board from discharging sewage i^art'of'Appeai
into a river in contraventioa of sect. 17 of the Public Health ^IT^**
Act, 1875, and the board had obtained successive adjourn-
ments of their appeal to complete certain works so as to
comply with the section, and there was a conflict of evidence
as to the sufficiency of the works which the board had ewrisd
out, the Court of Appeal referred the matter to an expert to
(i) Ante, pp. 36, 37. (n) Sainn v. yarth £raney)tth
Ik) J(mt$ V. UanrwH Urban Cad CS»., 9 711, 71S; M L. J.
Cornea, (Mil) 1 ai. p. 411; M Ch. 149.
L. J. Ok p. IM. (o) Att.-Otn. V. Birminghatu,
(/) Amtt, p. 13. Tame, etc., Dittriet Drainage Board,
Im) AU.-Chn. v. Birmingham (1910) 1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ;
Drainnift P-^r:!, 17 C, T> fiSi'j; r.n r.r.'..-.rof C. A. as v.iridd hy V. T,.,
L. J. Ch. 786 ; cf. Taj/lor v. Friern (1912) A. C. 788 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 46.
Bamtt LtMl ^ard, (ISM) W. K. 7.
176
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Ch.p VI report, and, as his report was in favour of the board, d.s-
J^ Zged the injunction, the board undertaking to mamtom
the existing results of their worto so M to prevenfny futare
breadi of the Bectioa. the plaintiffs havmg hberty to apply
for an injunctioa in oaae of aay breach of the undertaking.
SBCnON 2.-NUI8ANCB TO DWBLUS0-H0U8BB AND BUBIKBSS
PBBMISB8.
wheo ih. Court The foundation of the jurisdi. tion of the Court by injunc-
i„ the case of nuisance to dwelling-houses or busmess
.premises, is such a degree of injury to property as interferes
materially with its comfort and enjoyment either for domestic
purposes or business. If the house is a dwelling-house, h
^aleVr standard of the amount of damage that ca^ls xor the
exercise of the jurisdiction to grant preventive relief is the
comfort and enjoyment in their abode to which the occupiers
are reasonably entitled, and this must be estimated accordmg
to the plain and simple notions «ntertamed by persons m
ordinarj life, and not according to thee held by perso^
accustomed to elegant and dainty habits of hvmg {p . U
house is a manufactory or place of busmees, the rule or
standard is damage of such an. amount a, to render it to a
material extent less suitable for the purposes of busmeas
In deciding whether a defendant's acta hare material y
interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff s dwell-
ine-hottse or place of business according to the ordmary
r4uirement8 of reasonable men, the Court will consider not
163 i '•/^''''•.il'^'iiLed (•«.»m...K.«.r. v. A'.«o. 14 0. D. p.
p. 48B: 74 L. J. Ch. » r 228 ■ 49 h. 3. Ch. 829 ; CWb ».
AND BUSINESS PREMISES.
177
merely the sets of the defendant, but also the nature of the ciup. vi.
trades usually earned on in the locality, and the noises and — .
disturbances existing there prior to the acts of the defendant
which are complained of; and if, after taking all these circum-
stances into consideration, the Court finds that there is a
substantial interference with the comfortable use and enjoy-
ment of the plaintiff's premises according to the ordinary
requirements of mankind, the Court will grant relief (r).
A nuisance which frequently calls for tiie interference of i';<te»t of
the Court is the setting up by a man of buildings on his land "'^^^
which obstruct the passage of light to his neighbour's
windows. Apart from express ccmtract or grant, the owner
of a house has no right to any access of light to his windows
over his neighbour's land imtil he has acquired the right by
prescriptitm at connnon law or under the Prescription Act,
2 8 Will. 4, e. 71. When he has acquired the ri^t, he has
a house with an easement of light attached to it (•), which
easement belongs to the class known as negative easements,
and is nothing more or less thui the right to |»«vent ^e owner
or occupier of an adjoining tenement from building or placing
on his lana anything which has the effect of illegally obstruct-
ing or obscaring the light of the dominant tenement (t).
An action for an injunction to restrain the infringement of WkeMjrtM.
ancient lights may be brought by the occupier of the premises,
whether he be tenant for a term of years (w), or from year to Tenant.
(r) St. Helen't Smelting Co. y. 327 ; Adanu v. Ur$eU, (1913) 1 Ck.
Tipping, 11 U. L. C. 660 ; 36 L. J. 271 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 269.
(i-KW; Slmrge$ t. BrUgmm, 11 («} Jli^fAM t. JM(t. (1905) 3 Ch.
C. D. p. 865 ; 43 L. J. Oi. 786; p. 814; HL-J.Ol 691.
Colh T. Home and Colonial Stortt, (t) CoCi t. Himt and Colmvif
(1904) A. C. p. 185; 73 L. J. Ch. Store; {190*) A. C. pp. 185, 186;
484 : Iligniiii V. Betti, (1906) ? Ch. 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; Kiiie v. Jolly,
1>. -Mii ; 74 li. J. Ch. 621 ; Kine v. (1905) 1 Ch. p. 487; 74 L. J. Ch.
./'.//</, (I90o) 1 Ch. p. 493; affinnwl, 184; afllrmed, tub nom. J„U,j y.
fill :ium. Mil/ V. Kitie, (1907) A. C. A'»««, (1907) A. C. 1 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1.
1 ; Rushmer v. Poltw, Alfieri <t Co., (i») Sm l>ent v. Aueiion Mart Co.,
(I90<i) 1 Ch. pp. 236, 337 ; 75 L. J. L. B. 2 Eq. 338 ; 35 L. X Ch. ««• ;
Ch. 79 ; (1907) A. 0. 131 ; 76 L. i. CMt t. Uem* m»d OchmM Btorm,
Cli.365; ■adMeAoMv. A^AfoN (1904) A. 0. 179; 73 L. J. Ch.
(hrpoNaim, (1908) 98 L. T. 718 ; 4fH ; Andrtm r. Waitc, (1987) 2
34 T. L. B. 414 ; Nns Impirial Ch. 600 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 676.
J7<M (V. T. J«kn»mH (1913) 1 L B.
K.I. li
178 NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Chap. VI. year (x;, or a tenant whose lease has expired, but who has
jwrt. 2. entered into an agreemwit for a new lease (y). An mjunc-
tion granted to a tenant from year to year will, however, be
limited to the period of the continuance of his tenancy («).
Eevcioner. The reversioner may also sue, either alone or conjointly with
hia tenant (a), <m the ground that the injury to the rever-
sion is of a "permanent" nature (b). Where a house is
occupied by a tenant, and the owner alone sues to restrain a
naisance, the Court will, as a rule, look for evidence from
the tenant in support of his lessor's applic»ti<m for an in-
junction (c).
Difference The difference between the ri^t to light and the right to
between^ni^t^to f ,^(^ from noise, is that the former right has to be
tofJeSdoJhom acquired as an easement, in addition to the right to property.
before it can be enforced, the latter right is ab iniHo incident
to the ri^t of pr<^rty, but whichever right is interfered
with, the wrorg done is the same, namely, the disturbance of
the owner in the enjoyment of his house (d).
When action To constitute an illegal obstruction of li^t, it is not suffi-
B«f«rf)^- cient for a plaintiff to show that he has less light than he
tt«^ ^^.^^^^ previously, or that his premises cannot be used for all
the purposes to which they might otherwise be applied, to
maintain an acti<m there must be a substantial interference
with the plaintiff's comfortable or profitable occupation of
his dwelling-house or business premises according to the
ohMnotioB ordinwy notions of pwsfflM in tiie locaUty («). Theobsteue-
44^/ CouncU, (19U) 1 Ch. p. 4<M ; 80
(m) Goto V. Abbott, 10 W. B. 74«. L. J. Ch. 146.
(,) 8mper v. Rrf«f . utpra. (c) CItvt v. Mal.any, 9 W. B.
(a) See Mercer v. Awiion Mart 88S. Btt Badctiger. Duke of Port-
Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 238; Vi.n Jod v. land, 3 Qifl. 703; (htrriert' Co. r.
nJrutey, (1898) 2 Ch. 774 ; 66 L. J. Corbett, 4 De O. J. * 8. p. 771 ; 13
Ch. 102 ; Cvu-jjer v. Laidley, (1903) W. R. 538.
2 Ch. 337:72 L. J. Ch. 678; {,!} Iliyyim v. Beth, (1905) 2 Ch.
Hviytns V. IMU, (190ft) « C9l. SIO ; p. 215 ; 74 L. J. Ch. ti21.
74 L. J. Ch. 621. (') '-'"^^ "'"^ Colimtal
(b) Bme»y. BiU, 1 Bing. N. C. tttore; (1904) A. C. 179 ; 73 L. J.
p. 6M; JW* T. Bkoufbrtd, 20 Eq. Ch. 481 ; A'tfte v. JrJ}y, (1905) 1
p.24! 44L.J.Ch. SM. Ctap»T, Ob. pp. 480, 493; 74 L. J. Ch. 174;
Chrt<m MO.D.M8s«lL.J.<3h. albiMi, / '^ v. JCmm,
4
AND BUSINESS PBEMISES.
179
tion of ancient lights is still, as it always has been, a question
of noisance or no nuiesnee (/) , and the test of nuisanoe now is,
not how much light has been taken, and is that enough mate-
rially to lessen tiie enjoyment and use of the house that its
owner previoasly had, but how moch light is left, and is
that sulBcient for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the
house according to the ordinary requirements of persons in
the locality (g). In determining whether or not the quantity
of light which the owner of the dominsnt tenement will con-
tinue to enjoy after the obstruction is sufficient, regard will be
had to the light coming from other sources which the domi-
nant owner is by gnmt or prescription entitied to receive (ft).
Whether the obstruction of light is sabstantial enough for
the interference of the Court is a question which must depend
on the special circamstances of each case (»). The purpose
for which the owner of the dominant tenement my desire
to use his building in future does not either enlarge or
diminish the easement which he has acquired. Thus an owner
who uses a well-lifted romn for a purpose which requires
very little light, does not lose his right to use the mn» nam
for some other purpose for which more lift is necessary,
and the fact tiiat an owner has obscured in a partial degree
bis own windows, does not deprive hiir of his right to restrain
another person from diminishing the supply of light to
which he is legally entitled (fc). But where an owner of a
Ch«p. VI.
, 3.
(1907) A. C. p. 2; 6 L. J. Ch. 1 ;
Ambler v. Uordon, (1905) 1 K. B.
p. 426 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 185 ; Higgint
T. BtlU, (1905) 2 Ch. pp. 214. 214;
74 L. J. Ch. 621; Aitkmrmm t.
ContuUy, (1906) 2 Ch. p. 647;
affirmed, (1907) 1 Ch. 678 ; 76 L. J.
Ch. 402.
(/) ColU V. Home and Colonial
Sloret, (1904) A. C. p. 185 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 484 ; Kine v. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch.
p. 490 : 74 L. J. Ch. 174 ; Hiygint
V. Bettt, (1905) 2 Ch. p. 216; 74
L. J. Ch. 621 ; and see AndtrtMtr.
Francii, (1606) W. N. I6a
is) Higgitu r. am, (1M») 9 Ch.
p.>U;74L. J.0k.6ai;«dMe
Colt* V. Home and CoIohM Stor«$,
(1904) A. 0. p. 186; 73 L. J. ClL
484; Aim!* t. Mamtk, (IMS)
W.N. m
(k) OotU T. JIbiM and Colonial
atom, (1904) A. a p. 211 ; 73L. J.
Ch. 484 ; JoUg r. Kine, (1907) A. C.
p. 7 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1.
(») Kelk V. Pearton, 6 Ch. p. 814 ;
24 L. T. 890; Eccletiattical t'om-
miitionert v. Kino, 14 G. D. p. 226 ;
49 L. J. Ch. 529; ColU t. Sam
and CoUmial Storw, (IS04) A. 0.
p. IM; 73 L. J. 484 ; AmbUr
T. Chnhm. (1905) 1 K B. p. 4»:
74 L. J. X. & 186.
(k) Btakrr. Bower, 44 L. J. Gk
lA-2
180
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Ch»p. VI. building containing ascieot lights, in rebuilding his premises
_^^J- _ blocks out iHraotically the whole of Hm It^t whidi his old
building has been receiving, retaining only a small portion of
the ancient apertures, the Court will not grant an injunc-
tion to restrain the owner of the servient tenement from
obstructing the remaining small quantity of light which the
new building receives, as the obstruction would not have been
an actionable wrong in respect of the light coming to the old
premises (Z).
Effect of change Although a dominant owner does not lose his easement of
in internal^ ijgjj^ jjy any change in the internal structure of his building,
how. or by the use to which his building is put, and regard may be
had, not only to ttie present use, but also to any ordinary use
to which the tenement is adapted, it would seem that no rif^t
Light for bpmUI Can be acquired to the enjoyment of light for some special or
V"f^ extraordinary purpose, erm after twenty years' enjoyment
to the knowledge of tiie owner of the servient tenement (m) .
n* In determining whether there has been a substantial inter-
tt 4slc«NM. fgjgjjgg ^ith light, the Court has sometimes relied too much
on the provisions as to 45 degrees contained in the Metro-
polis Management Act, 1862 (»). The provision aa to 45
degrees in this Act was intended to deal with the width of
streets, and was not intooded to lay down any rule applicable
to the light which a man is entitled to enjoy in the city of
London. There is no conclusion of law that a building will
not obstraet tiie li^t coming to a window, if it permits tiie
li^t to fall on the window at an angle of not less than 45
degrees from the vertical. The question of the amount of
obstruction is always a questira of fact which depends (m
evidaiiceinrachcaae(o). Iliere is no role of law that a man
626 ; ColU V. Home arid Colonial L. J. Ch. 484 ; Ambler v. Oordon,
Slor'tt, (1904) A. C. p. 211 ; 73 L. J. (1905) 1 K. B. p. 417; 74 L. J.
Ch. 484; Ankerawi v. Connelly, K.B. 185; Browney. Flower, {\9ll)
(1907) 1 Ch. p. 683 J 76 L. J. Ch. 1 Ch. p. 226 ; 80 L. J. Ch, 181.
40a. (n) 25 & 26 Vict. o. 103, s. U.
(0 Ankerion y. CmnMy, (1806) 2 npwbd, bnt ia nlMtMiM
Ch. 644 ; (1907) 1 Ch. 678 ; 76 L. J. Mwotad by th« Londoa ftiOiUng
Ch. 402. Act, ISM, i».
(m) ColU V. Horn* and QtUmial (o) Mtdm i utk a t Ou m mtmio nm v.
Aer«t,(18M)A.C.n^9M.»8:7S IMmh 14 & D. p. SM ; 4t L. J. Ol.
AND BU8INEB8 PRBMIBEB.
181
may build ap to an anf^ of 46 degrees, but it is, generally
; pi^iking, a fair working rule to consider that no substuitial -
injury is done to the owner of the dominant tenement, where
an angle of 45 degrees is left to him, especially if there is good
light eoming from other direetkms as welt, to whitk h« has
acquired a right by grant or prescription. Accordingly, in
judging of the probable effect of a proposed building, the
Court may not unresamiably regard the faet tiiat an angle of
45 degrees will be left as primd facie eridmee that there
will be no substantial interference and may require this
presumption to be clearly rebutted by satisfactory evi-
dence (p).
The Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1855, 18 k 19 Vict. c. 122,
ss. 83, 85, which gave " a right to the building owner to raise
any party struetore permitted by this Act to be raised upon
condition of making good all damage occasioned thereby to
the adjoining premiaes," was held not to authorise the raising
of a structure so as to obstruct ancient lights in the adjoining
premises (q). This Act has been repealed, and in substance
re-enacted by the London Building Act, 1894 (r), sect. 101 of Limdoa
which provides that " nothing in this Act shall authorise any
interference with an easement of light, ae othor easements in
or relating to a party wall."
The shutting out of a pleasant jHtMpeot («), the erection of No injanctioB
disagreeable objects in view (t), or the invasion of a man's ^'^■>^''«"">«>
I praspwt
529; Parker v. Avtnue flotd Co., 2i Atl.-Qm. y. 3 Vm. Sm.
C. T>. 282; Calls v. Home and 453; see Daltoit v. Angui, 6 A.
(WoniVi/ StorM, (1904)A.C.pp. 204, C. 824; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689;
210; 73 L. J. Ch. 484; ud we and CampMl v. iWtfMf[(M Ctr-
Amblfr T. CMtem, (19M) 1 K. B. jmmMm, (1911) 1 K. B. 889, 878 ;
422 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 18fi. 80 L. J. K. B. 730.
(/> ) VolU y. Bamt tmd OoUmM (I) Ait.-Oen. Doughty, 2 Ves.
Stont, (1904) A. 0. 210, Sll; 73 Sen. 463; l'(4ls v. Smith. 6 E<i.
L. J. Ch. 484. p. 318 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 58. See
('/) ('rii/tt V. HalJane, L. R. 2 Roderick v. Alton Local Board of
a a 194; 36 \.. J. Q. B. 86; Health, iC. D. 336; 46 L. J. Ch.
Iloin-kf V. Alexa'iil'T Hotel Co., 26 802, where it wu8 held that a Local
W. li. 393 ; (1877} W. N. 157. Board of Health mi^t under the
(r) 67 ft »8 Tiet. e. eesffi. OmUIi Aal. 1878, enet a
(*) Akbrtft COM, 9 Go. B. M a.; Nmr above gmad.
189
NUISANCE TO DWELUNQ-HOUSES
Otap.Tl.
UbI<m canNd
b; onUwdil act
Protection of
l«gal right
ptnding liti-
BiImm of
•MVWiWM.
privacy by the opening of a window looking Ofwr hit
groonda («), or by the erection of a staircase overlooking hit
bedrooms (x), give no right of action. Nor will the erection
of buildings which prevent goods displayed in a shop from
being seen from places where they would {HreTionsly have
been seen (y). Hut where a view or prospect from a house is
interfered with by an act in itself unlawful, as by an erection
on the highway, an action will lie by the owner or oeeapier of
the house to recover any special damage sustained by reastm
of the wrongful act (z).
If the right at law, and the invasion of that right be clear
and free from doubt, and the case is not me for relief by
damages, the Court may interfere at <mce and grant an in-
junction " aimpliciter " (a), and in a serious case may make
a mandatory order (6), but if either the right at law, or the
fact of its violation is not free from doubt, the Court will have
regard to the comparative convenience or inconvenience of
granting or withholding the injunction (c). In such a case,
if, on the balance of wmvenience and inconvenience, it appear
that granting an injunction would be inflicting a great and
disproportionate injury on the defendant, the motion will be
ordered to stand over upon the defendant undertaking to
alter the building or otherwise deal with it, as the Court shall
direct, if the right at law should prove to be in favour of the
plaintifi (d). If, on the other hand, the Court shall be of
opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of grant-
ing an injunction rather than of allowing the defendant to
complete his building, with an undertaking to pull it down if
(u) Chandler t. Thov^mi, 9
Camp. 80; 13 B. B. 758; Tvmer
V. SfHimer, 30 L. J. Ch. p. 803, and
cf. Re Penny and Ihe South-Eoiltrn
UnihiHiy Co.. 7 El. ft 660; 26
L. J. Q. B. 22J5.
{i) Brmrne v. Fl«n-er, (1911) 1 Ch.
219; 80 L. J. Ch. 181.
(y) Smith y. Owen, 35 L. J. Ch.
3n;I(1866) W. N. 49; Itutt v.
Imperici Ga$ light Ch, 3 158 ;
15 W. B. 93.
{zyCampbell y. faddington Cor-
ponUion, (1911) 1 K. B. 869 ; 80
L. J. K. B. 739.
(a) PoUi y. Levy, 2 Drew, 271.
(ft) Dauirl V. Ftrgnmn, (1891) 3
Ch. 27 ; 39 W. E. 699; Vim Jod
V. ri„rmey, (1895) 3 Ch. 774; 85
L. J. Oh. 102.
(c) See ante, pp. 26-29.
(fi) Smith y. Elger, 3 Jur. 790,
OHte, 38-39.
AND BUBIMB88 FBSliI8B&
188
required, an injonetioD will imoe («), tii« plaintiff firing c^*r- VI.
usual undartaking aa to damages (/). —
It is not the practice of the Court on motion for an injunc- Aptwintm ent of
tion to appoint a surreyor to report to the Court at the trial
of the action as to whether the windows of the plaintiff have
hopn in fact obscured by the buildings of the defendant (g).
But if at the trial (or on motion for an injunction by consent
treated aa Uie trial) the Court flncb diiBeultjr in ascertaining
from the evidence the amount of the injury, it will appoint a
surveyor to make a report {h). In a case where the C^urt
was not satisfied from the evidence whether the act proposed
to 1)0 done by the defendant would or would not be a material
obstruction to the plaintiff's light, the Court directed a
temporary screen to be erected to the hei^t of the pro-
posed buildingB and appointed a sonrejor to rttpoxt on tlio
effect (»■).
Whether damages should be given in addition to, or in Injonctionor
Bubstitutitm for, an injnnetion in eases of obstruetion oi
light, is a matter for the judicial discretion of the Court (A:).
When a pla'''tiff has established his legal rigbt, and the fact
of its infringement, he is prima facie entitled to a perpetual
injunction to prevent the recurrence of the wrong, unless
there be something special in the circumstances of the case,
(e) Neirson v. Pender, 27 C. D. IMloivay, [1904)W. H. 124; Colli
43 ; 33 W. R. 243. v. Home and Colonial Storei, (1904)
(/) Oraham v. OmpieW, 7 C. D. A. C. p. 192 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 492.
p. 404; 47L. J. Oh. SM; FmntrY. Am to the power of Ute Court on
Wilton, (1899) 3 Ch. p. «W; ^ the S^plkation of • pwty to («d»
L. J. Ch. 984 ; Att.-Oen. v. Alhang inspeotiai of the property, we
Hotfl Co., (1896) 2 Ch. p. 699 ; 65 Order 60, r. 3. A» to inspection
L. J. Ch. 885 ; and see Practice by Judge, see Ordir 40, r. 4, and
Note, (1904) W. N. 203, 208, Ober- Kine v. JMy, (1905) t Cll. 499 i
rhcinitche iletallwerke Co. v. Cxkn, 74 L. J. Ch. 174.
(1906) W. N. 127, as to cross- (») Lftch v. Sc/iiMier,9 Oh. 488 ;
undertaking in damages by a plain- 43 L. J. Ch. 487.
tiff when an undertaking is given (k) (^olh v. Hi mf and Colonial
to the Court by a defendant in lieu /S<ore(, (1904) A. C. pp. 19:2, 193 ;
of an injunotion. 73 L. J. Ch. 484; Kin* v. /oMy,
0;) nattte Co. v. Simf*tm, 34 (1906) \Ox.pp. 49fi. 49ft, S04 ; 74
\v . R. .-IBO. L. J. Ch. 174 : afltmed, #«* n«m.
(//) Kelk V. I'.urmn, (i Ch. p. ./o//// v. Kine, (1907) A. C. I ; 76
810; 19 W. R. 666; AUxitt v. L. j. Ch. 1.
184
NtJIBANCE TO DWELUNO-HOUSBS
Ch»p. VI.
MeMar* of
What pauca bj
grant.
Implied grant
of light!.
such as lache$, or where the Interference with the pl»intiff's
right is small, or can be fairly compensated by money (O-
Hut if the injury cannot fairly be compensated by money,
or if the defendiuit bus ucted in a high-handed nuuiner, if he
has endeavoured to steal a march upm the {daintiff, or to
evade the jurisdiction of the Court, in such cases an injunc-
tion will be granted (m). But where there ia really a ques-
tion as to whether the obstruction is legal or not, and the
defendant has acted fairly, the Court ought to incline to
damages rather than to an injunction (n). The Court will,
however, be careful not to allow an action for the protect i<Mi
of ancient lights to be used as a means of extorting money (n).
Whore a plaintiff owned old and dilapidated houses which
were likely to be demolished within a short time, and also
owned the land at the back of his houses, which was suitable
for bdlding upon, and the defendant obstructed the plain-
tiff's ancient lights, the plaintiff was awarded by way of
damages, not merely the depreciation in Talue of his houses,
but the diminution in value of the whde of his property con-
sidered as a building site (o).
It being a settled rule of construction that the grant of a
principal thing shall be held by implication of law and without
any express words to carry with jt all that is reasonably neces-
sary for the enjoyment of the thing granted for the purpose
for which, according to the obvious intent of the parties, the
grant was made (p), the right to light passes (independently
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 6) upon the sale of a house
{I) Martin v. /''•<<>, (1894) 1 Ch.
p. 284 ; 63 ii. J. Ch. 209 ; Shel/er
V. City of LondoH EUetrie Lightiny
Co., (1895) 1 Ch. p. 316 ; M L. J.
Ch. 21B; Vmi'iitr T. Laidler, (1903)
•1 eh. p. 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 678;
Colh V. Home and I'nionial Stom,
{\\m) A. C. p. IM; 73 L. J. Ch.
p. Wl ; Kiiie v. Jdhj, s»/>r'r.
(m) Shel/er v. Vitii of London
KUctrK Lighting Co., C'ulU v. Heme
and CoUmUd Storm, Kin* v. JoUp,
$Hfira.
(n) <'nllt V. Homf ami I'olmioi
Store*. (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73
L. J. Ch. 484 ; Kine v. J-'lh/, (1908)
lCh.p.496; 74 L. J. Ch. 174.
(o) OHJUh V. JttrAani Cfoy * Co^
(1912) 2 Ch. 291 ; 81 L. J. Ok. 800.
(p) Pom/ret r. Birroft, 1 Sktrnd.
322 (^); Halls. Lund, 1 H. & C.
fi76; HW V. SaiinderK, 10 Ch. p.
884, nffirniinR 44 L. J. Ch. 514 ;
(IViecA/dH V. IliiiriiiiH, i'i C". D. p.
49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 853 ; lirowne v.
Flowtr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 226; 80
AMD BUBIMB88 PBEMUfOSS. IW
hj the grwit itself, even withoot any speoial word of eon- cb«p. vi.
reyance (9).
Where, accordingly, the same person poeBessing » hoiiHo oi^nt of homm,
having the actual nee and enjoyment of certain lights, und Jil^i^'i'^^'f
nlHO |K).sH<>HHir)R the ndjoininp land, either oonreya the house
in ff'o Hiinpio or dcniiscs it for 11 term of ypiirs, npithcr he,
nor uny {)eruon claiming under him, eun derogate from his
grant by building on the adjoining land bo as to obetraet or
inforrupt the cnjoympnt of II10 lights, iilthout;h the lights be
new (r). This rule of law (1), applies where the grants of the »iinuit*n*»iu
several parte of an estate take place not ahbolutely at the same m,T'ia,[,iI"^
momont, hut ho far at the same iiiomont that they are to be Derogation fiwa
considered as one transaction and done at tho same tiino (0,
and where two lessees derive interest under tho same land-
lord (u). So also the rule applies where a hoase and the
adjoining land are res|)ectiTeIy devised to different persons
by the same testator (x).
The rule will not, however, apply where the buildings are WbM ml* im
in an unfinished and skeleton state, and it ia uncertain"'**'*'''
whether the openings which have been left in the walls are
li. J. Ch. 184. "" I :.ii»elton Timet
(\: V. Warner .t (1907) A. (".
p. 481 ; 76 L. J. V. ( '. KM).
(y) See Broomfield y. iVilliami,
(1897) 1 Cb. a03; 68 L. J. Oh. SOS ;
Oodwin v. 8eMwrppe» 4b CO., (1903)
1 Ch. 926, 932 ; 71 L. J. Ol 438 ;
Qiiirkr V. Chapmnu, (1903) 1 Ch. p.
666; "2 L. J. Ch. 373.
(r) Kelk v. I'eariton, 6 Ch. p. 813 ;
l.enh V. Srhwfiler, 9 Ch. p. 472; 43
L. J. Cb. 4S7 ; n herldi'ti v. llnrnur,,
Vi C. 1). p. 49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 863;
M>/er» V. CatttnOH, 43 C. D. 470 ;
69 L. J. Ch. 310 ; AUin v. Latimer
Oark A Co., (1894) 2 Ch. p. 437;
63 L. J. Ch. 601 ; BroomJUld t.
WHliams, (1897) 1 Ch. p. 603 ; 66
T,. .J. Ch. 306; Horn v. Turner,
• liHK); 2 Ch. p. 211; 69 L. J. Ch.
593. Frederick BeiU * Co., (1906)
2 Ch. 87 ; 76 L J. Ch. 483 ; CahU
V. Ilryiint, (1908) 1 Ch. 269 ; 77
Ij. J. Ch. 78 ; Rifharilmm v. Orahnm,
(1908) 1 K. n. p. 42 ; Browne v.
Flower, (1911) 1 Ch. pp. 226, 226;
80 L. J. Ca>. 181.
(*) CahU r. Bryant, lujtra.
(t) Swaniboroitgh v. Coventry, 9
Bing. 305 ; 2 L. J. (N. S.) C. P.
11 ; 35 R. B. 660 ; Allen v. Tni/hr,
16 C. D. p. 358; 50 L. J. Ch. 178 ;
RuMtll V. Wattt. 10 .\. C. p. 612 ;
66 L. J. Ch. 168; and see VhilHpt
T. Low, (1892) 1 Ch. 47 ; 61 L. J.
Ol. 44.
(«) CoMt V. Oorham, Moo. ft
Uttlkm, 39«; Ahhm v. JrortAo//,
1 Dr. ft Sid. 667 ; I» VvT. B. 3«8 ;
M'amer r. MrBriide, 36 L. T. 360 ;
Cable V. Bryan'.' (1908) 1 Ch. pp.
263, 26-1; 77 L J. Ch. p. 81.
(x) PhUlip* V. Low, (18i,2) 1 Ch.
47 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 44 ; Miluer't Sa/e
IM NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOCBES
ch•^ VI. intended for doors or windowH ( ?/' The rule of law that »
mnn may not deroguto from liis grmt ^ " - not to
apply in fiivour of tlu< plaintiff in .i iMse wlieiv the owner of
two pieces of land, on one of wluch hou«ef. Imd l)c«n bulH con-
taining windows orOTlooking the other piece of land (which
was vuciint), contract. •(! to sell tlio vacati' ; -c I land to the
defendant, and Hi-bsequenlly sold the hou.' 'o ilie pluin!
ulthougli the conveyance to the plaintiff a., oi»cated before
the conveyance to the defendant; inasnn, '. ,s n : ho date of
the conveyance to the plaintiff the (!• .<l..i.: and not the
vendor was the boiieflcial owner in o«iu ' .^ of tlx vacant pi«H»
of Imd (a).
So also the rule that a man mav ir deropnfo frcHU hm
grant wan held not to apply where the vendor hail not. at the
time of the ^ant, sach an interest in the adjoinrng iaad aa
would have enabled him to grant an easement of light n« er
it (h), as where ho had merely a right of entry under a > ntd-
Deropuoofn,™ ing agreement (c). Nor will the rule that a man may not
•»»■»• derogate f«»n his grant, apply if the grantee knew that the
grantor intended to w the adjoining land for a particular
puriK)sf, and that that purpose wa, inconsistent with an
implied grant of the easements required for the enjoymwit
of the proi)erty conveyiil (,/), nor does the rule affec* lli<
equally binding obligation that may in certain caaoa be im
posed uiK)n a grantee not to use his land so as to frustrate
the purpose for which, in the contemplation of hoth parnes,
the land retained by the grantor was intended to be use ! (e).
Co. T. Onat IfortlurH and Ciiij
Railuxin Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 219;
75 L. J. Ch. W7.
(i/) atart T. Huriutg, 27 L. /.
Ex. 286,
(z) I ahlr V. I!ri/aiit,
(a) RedMrniUn, v. .1"", ■'■^ <"• "
317 ; 66 li. J. t'h. OS.i. x o I)<rni>
T. Thcnan, (lSiti>) W. N. 214.
(i) (Jiiuke V. '7,.i/,)min, (KMKJ) 1
Ch. 649 ; 72 I.^ J. ilA ; Mi v.
Finantial Timn*, (!»3) 19 T. L. B.
438.
(f) Quiches. I'lin/ ■:• >!, Ki'i>ra.
{d) Birmiitflhaiii, Dndlru, rlc,
Bankiny Co. v. /f'*i, 38 C. D. 296 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 106: Hodvin v.
Sehwtppt* * Co., (1903) 1 Ch. 926;
71 L. J. Ch. 438. See Frtdtrirk
HefU V. Pirk/ord A Co., (1906) 2
Ch. S7, 91 : '■-> L. J- t'h. -183.
(f) l.i/tMt. Tim-» ''(' V. ir<ir««T
* Co., (llKtT) A. C. |.. 4hl ■ 761. .f.
I'. C. IWi, ./..Mti V. iVireiira,
(190S) 1 Ch. p. 636 ; 77 L. J. til.
40S.
USD BusiifEss pfoaaaEg.
187
Harin? regard to Met. A of tbe 'onToynm-iiig Aet, 1881, th* ck<«. ^i.
fiict thitt in the convi vunce toth !ir( Iriiser t. " Und r^afasad — — — —
by Ihe vfii.l'>r iv <1( -uTilcd ag • . idinj,' land is not of ttself
Bttificient to rthow an inti ntion 1^ it tim rif^h to li i" nof
to past! (/>. The esprtHiflion " lights enjoyed" > ihf^
see' oil s c<)nfin»'<l to the light i iijoycd uUt i-ir •um-
sttti.n .IK would rt-uHonably md ]>< >\)er\y t-ad to .m xp^cta-
ti<m that the »njoTnieiit of tl»t light wotikf be cota'n nad q).
If land ui . |>on is »ii ( anvpyed, th more i itfut n
on tite part oi tho purchabi to buil uptm ■ not i<<iffiei«it
•0 give him a want of ligh'- o\ laD<l ned ^} ^
grantor (h). But if h nan intendiiu' to build on t! d
of aiif: her contrai't^ i • purcl' ^ ■ i; 'id for witl
houses upon it, and ail' wurua faki i ( >iivej.
land with the buildinga erwAtd upt n it, the rig'it ' in<
of he houses r/e /nf<o exih ig ' of tl ' p,. -
by the conveyance, and th .'rau. m iiu> jo righ ■ ite
from his grant by blockin^^' snob (»).
Clcneral words in a grai c n ;. ti which the Gen* ' »l wonU
t-ninto- hud t at time t< it, fx^'nd to |"
•nytliiiij^ which he i. .f<lit subh menuy a. in. Where,
accordingly, a leo a ar granted !ft»B*- for tw-rn v-one years of
a house with its »v'- ' ■ » anion ■ lights vore
specified; arH- ai th< ju. of ti., gr»! * I an Ijoiuing
house ff-r a -enn of wirs; and sub ac ^ th«
n \ rsion ex; unt the tflrm in tb iri ^ hiui^' ; and
aiii 'h' "X| ition of the tf"'' 'i"^ build on the
8t!'' !i< -utj^- h- use is. lantip! vhici; might inter-
fere th <i rh«) di .->ed in -.e, those lights not
t-fi' h'- atthc lesaorwaanotbyhis
gn. >^ uiu.
i-jj? 1 Uk 602;
.T^; Itnrd v. On- r. i) 1
KH ; .J rh. -KM
Uj) ' ' T. N -'7*« <f' ' ..
(tine , ;,. HiO;'?I J. Cii. i
(/ \iU,„'h„r,1 V. i ./yfd. 4 A. *
E. n«; 5 L. (N, .)Ka 78;
T. Orat!*, 21 W. E.
■l-l L. T. (M8; 29 L.T. 7.
(A; A V. .-l/rof*-, 8 Ch. 663 ;
42 li. J . ( 'h. 567 ; and seo Bedding-
lull V. -iiiVr, ;;C' C. iJ. ;ji7, 32" ; 56
L. J. Ch. 6S6; 'Imln in v. Schwejqiri,
(1902) 1 Ch. pp. 932, 833 ; 71 L. J.
188
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Okap. VI.
Grutof ImkI
ntained.
Orant of houM
ami land to
(liflerent pur-
chaseri Kimul-
tantouslj.
The mere fact of there being windowB in an adjoining
house which OT«rk)okB a purchased property is not conatruc-
tivo notice of any agreement giving a right of access of light
to them (1), and on the sale of a house with windows over-
looking the land of a third person, no representatiim or war-
ranty is implied that the windows are entitled to the acerss of
light over the land (m).
If an owner of land, who grants part to a purchaser, intmds
to reserve «iy ri^t in favour of the part retained, such reser-
vation must be expressly made, and will not be implied,
except in the case of an easement of necessity (n) . In a recent
case (o), where an owner of two adjoining houses granted
we, and retained the other without reserving any rights
over the premises granted, and the grantee blocked out the
light coming to one of the grantor's windowti ^ieh li^ied a
pantry, it was held that there was no implied reservation to
the grantor of the right to the access of light to his window,
inasmuch as it was not an easement of necessity within the
exception to the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows.
Where the owner of a house with lights looking over his
adjoining land sells the house to one person and the land to
another at the same time by eontempmraneous eoDTeyanees,
either purchaser being aware of the conveyance to the other,
the purchaser of the land cannot build on it so as to obstruct
the lights of the house (p). And where houses have been
built by the same person, as part of the same plan or scheme,
and have been sold in an unfinished state to different persons,
the openings of the windows being sufficiently visible (q), a
Ch. 438; Qniekf v. Chapman, (1903)
1 Ch. p. 666 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 873 ;
Davit T. Town Propertitt Corpora'
Men. (1908) 1 Ch. pp. 808, 804 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 389.
(i) Allen V. Secltham, 11 C. D.
791 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 742.
(m) OrrenhaUih v. BrindUy,
(1901) 3 Ch. 884; 70 L. J. Ch.
740.
(h) V, heeUun >. llitrrowa, 1?
C. D. p. 49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. S63 :
Ray V. HatMine, (1904) 2 Ch. 17 ;
73 L. J. Ch. 637.
(o) Bay T. HazMint, lupra.
(f) ComptoHv. Richanli, 1 Price,
37 ; U B. B. 6(>2 ; Swanborougk r.
OomOrs, 9 Btng. 808 ; 3 L. J.
(N. S.) C. P. n ; 88 B. B. 680 ;
AUm V. TayU^. 16 C. D. 868 ; 80
L. J. Ch. 178.
(j) Ohvt Uardiuy, 27 L. J.
Ex. 388.
AND BUSINESS PREJ.''3E8.
189
mutual reservation of the right to light will be implied in Cli«p. vi.
favour of all the pardiaaws (r). ****•*•
So also, where different buildings have been erected, form-
ing part of one common scheme or general structure, accord-
ing to a plan, in aeeordanee with which the buildings were to
be erected, of which plan the predecessors in title of the de-
fendant had notice and had approved, and which plan has
also been approved by the party whose approval was necessary
and his surveyor, and a recital to that effect appears in the
deed under which the defendant claims title, he cannot block
up the plaintiff's light, although the conveyance to the defen-
dant was prior in date to the conveyance to the plaintiff, and
did not contain any reservation of the right to light in favour
of the part retained by the grantor and afterwards cwTieyed
by him to the plaintiff («).
The statutory rule as to the acquisiti(m of a legal ri^t to PreKription Act,
the enjoyment of light from long user hpends upon the c. n!
third and fourth sections of the Prescription Act, 2 k 8
Will. IV. 0. 71 (#). The actual mijoynMQt («) of light as an
easement (x), by a dwelling-house, workshop, or other build-
ing iy), for twenty years next before the commencement of
some Boit or action in which the claim ig brought in ques-
tion («), witiMMit admse hitemtptioo, aeqnieaeed in for •
(r) Cimipton v. Richard*, tupra ; need not be of right, ib.
Kii-^ell V. WatU, 25 C. D. p. 673 ; {x) I.e., distinct from the enjoy-
cf. /{ichartU v. Barn, 9 Bnk. tU ; ment of the land itself ; see Har-
23 L. J. Ex. 3. bidge v. iVarwielt, S Exch. Mi; 18
(«) RusKll V. WatU, 10 A. 0. MO. L. J. Ex. 245 ; 77 B. B. m.
602 ; M L. J. Ch. ISS. (y) CclU t. Mem* €md CcUmiml
(() See TnmtM t. Umrckant marm, ntprm ; and see Harrit v.
roylon a>., n Bx«tu 866! » D»Piimm,ZiC. D. 238; 56 L.J.
L. J. Ex. 178 ; Chi* v. A}»k)H, 8 Oh. 344 (structnTe for storin
Jut. N. S. 987 ; Ifyman v. Van dm timber) ; Att.-Oen. t. Queen Anne
Bergh, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 524 ; 76 Oarden Co., (1899) 60 L. T. 769
L. J . Ch. 854 ; (190^ 1 Ck. p. 178 ; (chapel) ; Cliford y. Holt, (1899) 1
77 L. J. Ch. 164. Ch. 698 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 333 (gWK.-
(«) O-oper v. Stniker, 40 C. D. house); Andmwmt. JVwmA, (1906)
21 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 26 ; SmUh v. W. N. 160i
naxlrr, (1900) 3 di. p. 148 ; 08 («) Chop»t r. BmkMk, M a B.
L. J. Ch. 437 ; Collt ». ffomt an-' N. & 4M ; 81 L. J. a P. 818 ;
CWMitW8forM,(1904)A.C.p. 206; <M$ t. Bim. ami OlmM Bhrm,
73 L. J. Ok. 481 Tk» — Jnyirt (ItM) A. 0.|tb IM^ IM{ ML. J.
190
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Chap. VI.
Section 8 of
2 A 3 WiU. IV.
c. 71 doM not
bind tb* CnwD.
Nktai* o( right
to light not
altered the
Act.
year (a), is made by those sections to confer an absolute and
indefeasible title (b), unless the enjoyment can be shown to
have been by some consent or agreement (c) expressly made
or given for that purpose by deed or writing (d), whether
the c(»uent or agreement be given or made before or after
the commencement of the statutory period (e).
As regards light claimed under sect. 3, enjoyment as
of right need not be alleged or proved, the right whatever it
may be is acquired by twenty years' use and enjoyment before
an action without interruption and without consent (/).
The general words in sect. 2 of the Prescription Act do not
apply to li^t; and accordingly, the Crown not being named
in sect. 3, no easement of li^t can be acquired against the
Crown under the Act (g).
The Act has not altered the pre-existing law aa to the nature
and extent of the right to light, though it has alt«red the con-
ditions or length of user by which the right may be
acquired (h). Under the Act the owner of the dominant
tenement has to prove actual enjoyment for twenty years
only, before some action in which the claim is brought in
Ch. 484 ; Hytnan v. Van Ken Htrgh, Ch. 442 ; Rtucot y. ffro«»M«W,(1904)
(1907) 2 t'h. 516 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 554 ;
(190S) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(a) Sm Onky t. OafdMwr, 4 M. ft'
W.497; 8L. J. (N. 8.) Ex. 102;
61 B. B. 704 ; Preslatul t. ningham,
41 C. D. 268 ; Harbiilyev. W'aruick,
tupra; Sinitit v. Haxler, (1900) 2
Ch. 138 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 437.
(6) The right ia inchoate until it
is eHtablished in legal proceeding* :
Hj/man v. Kan den Btrgh, tupra.
(e) TheoaiiMBtoragtMBiento«n
be by taiiMtt in ocoup«tion <rf the
domioant tenement : Hymmt t.
Van den Btrgh, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 179 ;
77 L. J. Ch. 184.
(</) See 'J'riiecutt v. Merchant
Taylort <'o., ttipra ; Tajiliiiy v.
Jonei, 11 U. L. C. 290 ; 34 L. J.
C. P. 342; Bewley v. Mkinson. 13
C. D. 283; 49 L. J. Ch. 6 ; Atuton
T. JtM, (1908) 1 Cb. 406 ; 71 L. J.
89 L. T. 436; JTymoii T. Vmnhn
Btrgh, Mpra.
(e) Hyman r. Vam dtH AiyA,
(1907) 2 Ch. p. 630; affinnad.
(1908) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(/) Tniteoit V. Merchant Taylort
Co., 11 Ex. 855; 25 L. J. Kx. 173;
Frrwen v. I'hiltipt, 11 G. B. N. S.
449; 30 L. J. C. P. ^61); ColUy.
Home and Colonial Store*, '1904)
A. C. p. 206; 73 L. J. Oh. 484;
Fmr T. Mersm, (1806) 3 C& p.
417 ; 79 L. J. Cb. 787 ; afflrmed,
tub nam. Morgan t. #W, (1907)
A. C. 426 ; 76 L. J. 660.
(j) Perry v. Eama, (1891) 1 Ch.
658 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 345 ; U'heaton v.
MapU, (1893) 3 Ch. 48 ; 6;i L. J.
Ch. 963.
(A) Cvlli ». i/t-me and Cdoaial
Storu, (1904) A. 0. pp. 198, 19* ;
AND BUSINESS FBEIOSES.
m
question, and is not ccmcerned with questions of right and Owp. vi.
of the title to the servient tenement, but the Act has given to '*^''
the owner of the servient tenement two defences: (i.) the
agreement mentioned in sect. 3; and (ii.) the interruption
mentioned in sect. 4. In cases in which eithw oi tiieM
offences is applicable, the plaintiff cannot evade the Act by
setting up any mode of claim other than that conferred on
him by the Act. A plaintiff eouid not titerefore, by pleading
lost grant instead of the Act, evade the defences given by
sects. 3 and 4. But where there is no express defence pro-
vided by the Act for the servient tenement, the right may still
be claimed on any ground available before the Act (»}.
Under the Act the actual enjoyment of light for the period Till aetinaoM-
of twenty years without interruption confers only an inchoate S^^Jiu!**^
title, no absolute or indefeasible ri^t can be aeqaired till
the claim to the right is brought in question in some action
or suit. It is not, therefore, every consecutive period of Thapwiodaf
twenty years that satisfies the Act, it must be a period inune- '**^
diately previous to and terminating in some action or anit
in which the right shall be brought into question (A;).
The evidence to sustain a prescription at common law need ETidno*.
not come down to uty defined pwiod (I) ; bat in eaaea o(»ning
within the Act the enjoyment must be up to the commence-
ment of some action in which the particular claim has been
brought into question (m).
Interruption of the enjoyment will not prevent the right An "iniarrop.
fnmi being acquired under the statute, unless the interruption *^
has been submitted to for (me year after the party interrupted
shall have had notice thereof (n). The term " interraptioD "
(») CvlU T. Hmm and CcbmkU (m) CdU* v. H<me and Colonial
Storm, (1904) A. 0. pp. 190, 191 ; Stom, (190*) A. C. pp. 189, 190 ;
73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; Hyman v. Van 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; fhjmin v. Van
(fcn BfrjA, (1908) ICh. pp. 176-178; rfen Ar^A, (1907) 2 Ch. p. S25 ; 76
77 L. J. Ch. 184. L. J. Ch. fi64 ; (1908) 1 Ch. pp.
{k) Hyman v. Van lUn Benjl 171,173; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(1908) I Oil, p. 178 ; 77 L. J. C (n) 2 & 3 WiU. IV. c. 71. s. 4 ;
lo*- '"''y V. Qardiner, 4 M. ft W. p,
(0 I'Mper V. Huhbuck, 12 t. 497 ; 8 L J. (N. 8.) Bx, 102 ; ft
K. S. lae ; 31 L. J. C. P. 323. See B. S. 704 ; SorM^* WmwiA,
Eftmn V. Km dm Btrfk, (1901) «&nk PbM7i Ui:i./.lx.»M;
I cat p. 178 ; 77 Ii. J. Ok IH. 77 B. B. 7iS ; BMm t. Ami iff
193
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
cb*p- VI. in the statute refers to an actual obstnietioa, and not to a
mere discontitiuai..ca of u<»er (o). The twenty years' enjoy-
ment which gi\es an nhsolute right to the access of light need
not be an enjojiuent, in fact " without interruption " for the
period mentimed, but an rajoyment witiioat such interrup-
tion as is contemplated by the Rtatute (p). An interruption
accordingly after an enjoyment of nineteen years, and the
fraction of a year, is not such an interruption as will prevent
the right from becoming absolute at the end of the twentieth
year (q). But an action for an injunction to restrain an inter-
ference with the light cannot be brought until after the twenty
years have expired (r).
" Enjoyment " To acquire a right to the access of light by actual enjoyment
of light within . . , . , • , . ^ ■ . ■ ■
the Act. under the Act, it is not necessary that the house should be
occupied (•), or that it should be fit foi- immediate occupa-
tion during the statutory period (t). The 'enjoyment" of
the light, within the meaning of the Act, commences as soon
as the exterior walls of the building with the spaces for the
windows are completed, and the building roofed in, although
the window sashes and glass may not be put in and the interior
may not be finished until some time afterwards (u).
It is necessary, however, that the light should have readied
the house by the same definite channel for the aiatotm^
&I(M, 19 C. D. M2 ; 61 L. J. Ol 18 L. J. Ex. M< ; n R. B. 72A ;
M2 ; Predand t. Bingham, 41 C. D. BridtwtU EatpikU t. IVard, 63 L. J.
268 ; 60 L. T. 433. Q. B. 270 ; (1892) W. N. 194-6 ;
(o) Hmitli V. floa-ter, (1900) 2 Ch. Lord Battertea v. < 'rnnmittiimtrt of
138, 143 ; 69 li. J. Ch. 437 ; Hynuin Bew^s, (1895) 2 ( h. 708 ; 62 L. J.
V. Van den Iteryh, (1907) 2 Ch. p. Ch. 81 : Hyman v. Van den llergh,
627 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 664. (1907) 2 Ch. 516 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 664 ;
(p) «io«T T. Coltman, L. B. 10 (1908) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
0. P. 108 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 66 ; (•) CM, v. Uvm mmd CbUmM
Hym» v. Fm dm Btrgh, (1907) atam, (1904) A. C. p. 906 ; 73 L. J.
9 Oh. p. 894 ; 76Ii. J. SM. Ch. 484; Aymm v. Vanden Bergh,
(?) Flight V. Thoniai, 8 CI. ft Fin. (1908) 1 Ch. p. 178 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 154.
231 ; 52 E. R. 468, 478. See Eaton (<) Cmirlsuld v. Ley!,, L. li. 4 Ex.
y.Swanieii Watervrorkt Co., 11(1. Ti, 126; 38 L. J. Ex. 45; ('olli$ y.
274; 20 L. J. Q. B. p. 484; 86 La«»Aer, (1894) 3 Ch. 659 ; 63 L.J.
E. E. 455, Lord Campbell. Ch. 861 ; Smith v. Baxter, (1900) 2
(r) Carr v. f'cttfr, 3 Q. B. 581 ; Ch. p. 143; 69 L. J. Ch.437 ; Ctii*
11 L. J. a B. 284 ; 61 B. B. 321 ; v. Hume and CuUmial Slam, t
EmUigtw. ronMck, SExdi. M7 ; (») CWm v. Xm«*«r, «yM.~
198
CUp. VI.
8c«I.S.
AND BUSINESS PREMISES.
period (x), so that the ligbt claimed is the same light that has
been mjoyed tot the twmty years, although the apertures
for the access of light may have been altered (y).
The right to light, if acquired against a lessee, binds the Right to u^t
inheritance («). Where two adjoining tenements are occu- JJ^iiT^jJJJdU
pied by different lessees under a coramOD ludlord, tiie ri^t iLiMritMo*.
to light may be acquired by the lessee of one tenement as
against the other tenement, and the -ight so acquired enures
in favour of the lessee of the dcnninant tenement and of his
successors not only as against the adjoining lessee, but hIso
as against the common landlord and succeeding owners of ae
servient tenement (a). A reversioner has, it seems, no meaojs
of preventing the right being acquired against him, unless he
can prevail on his lessee to interrupt the enjoyment, or get
an acknowledgment in rrriting that the enjoyment is by con-
sent (6).
There is nothing in the Act that prevents a bargain being Agnemtnt m
made with respect to windows. An agreement with regard *°
to the windows of a house for valuable consideration is en-
forceable in equity in the same way, and under flie saow
conditions, as any other agreement with respect to real jbo-
perty (c).
By the custom of London, a building might have been Owto. of
raised upon the old foundations to any height, although '
ancient windows or lights in the next house were obstructed,
if there was no agreaneat resfaietive of the right (d). But
{x) Harritr. De Pinna, MO.D. K.B.^4S.44;rrL.jr. K.B.
238 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 344.
[y] Andrew v. Waite, (1907) 2
Ch. p. 610 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 676.
(t) Simptr V. Foley, 3 J. & H.
6M ; FrtwtH r. Philip U 0. B.
N. a 449; J. a F. 3fl6:
Lai^/num v. Onv, 6 Ch. 767 ; 19
W. B. 863 ; ife6*on t. Edward*,
{im) 2 Ch. 146 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
378 ; Fear v. Morgan, (1906) 2 Ch.
406 ; 7a L. J. Ch. 787 ; afflmed,
sub mm, Moryan v. Frar, (19n7^
A. C. 424; 76 L. J. Ch. 660;
SiehardKM r. Graham, (1006) 1
U.
27.
(a) Fear v. Morgan, (1908) 3 Cfc.
406 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 7P7 ; affirmed.
*ttb nam. Morgan v. Fear, (1907)
A. C. 425: 76L.J.Ch. 660.
(i) FrewtH T. Phittipt, 1 1 C. B.
N. S. 449 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 356 ;
MUchM V. Cautria, 37 C. D. 56 :
67 L. J. Ch. 72.
(f) BewUy V. Atkinson, 13 C. D.
p. 300 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 6; and w*
MeManua v. Crate, 36 C. D. 681;
66 L. J. Ch. 662.
(4) Gam. D%.. Londoa, No.
18
194
NUISANCE TO DWELLmO-HOUSES
<*•*.▼!• if a title to light is shown under tiie Act, an obstroetkn
— oumot be joBtifled by the custom of Lendon, sect. 8 of tiw
Preawiption Act containing the words " any local OMga «
eutton to the contrary notwithstanding " (e).
The right to tiie eDjoyment of l^t by flne tMnoat mm
another tenement becomes, like other easements, extinguished
upon unity of seisin for an estate in fee simple and posses-
sion of both tenements in the same person (/), b«t liw tif^
is not eztingoished by more wtity of Bmsio for m sstato in
fee simple without unity of possession. Thus, whwe a tene-
ment with the right to light over an adjoining tenement,
was demised to the i^intit for a term of years, and (teriag
the continuance of the term the defendant obstructed the
access of light and acquired the fee simple of the dominant
tenement, it was held that the easement of light was not
extingaished by the unity of seisin (g). Where there is unity
of ownership of the dominant and servient tenements for
different estates (h), and where there is merely unity of
pomemion without unity of seisin (>)> the easement is sus-
pended ae long as the unity of poesessirai ewtinues, and
revires again upon the severance of the pcMssession.
The privilege of receiving light through ancient windows
may be lost through abandonment. The question whether
the right has been abandoned is one of intention, to be
gathered from all the circumstances of the case. Mere non-
user of the right is not an abandonment (;*).
Winttaiilei/ v. Lee, 2 Sw. 333, 339 ; 656.
Perrvv-JJamfJ, (1891) 1 Ch. p. 66"; (i) Ladyman v. Orare, 6 Ch.
60 L. J. Ch. 348. 763 ; 19 W. R. 863.
(e) See Tnueolt t. Merchant (;') Moore t. Bawion, 3 B. ft C.
Taglort Co., 11 Exdt. 8U; ML. J. 832 ; 3 L. J. E. B. 32 ; 37 B. S.
Ex. 173 ; Salten v. Joj/, 3 a B. 376 ; BtM r. flap*. 31 C. D. SM,
109 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 173 : 61 B. E. 876 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 914. See Jftrf-
147 ; Cooper v. Httbhttk, 12 C. B. laud Railway Co. v. Qrihhk, (1896)
N. S. 466 ; 31 L. J. C. P. .123 ; 2 Ch. pp. 827, 831 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
Perry y. Eames, (1891) 1 Cb. 668 ; 826; Smith v. Baxter, (1900) 2 Ch.
60 L. J. Ch. 348. p. 142 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 437 ; Coi';<o-
(/) Rirhar^lumy. nraham,{imfi) v. Milburn, (1908) 82 S. J. 316
I K. li. 39 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 27. (H. L.) ; Hanhury v. LUmfrteUa
(9) See note (/). mpra. Urban Council, (1911) 9 L. O. B.
(A) Sin^ V. Ftl^ 2 J. * H. pp. S64,a«S(W«ter).
Cfc4p. VI.
AND BUSINESS PREMISES.
The mere alteration of a building containing ancient lights
without eridence of intention to abandon does not imply an
abandonment of the statutory right to the access and use of ^^J^^
light to or for any building which may be substituted for the "bSkS.^
original building; the intention to abandon the right must be
clearly established by evidence (k). Where a building idhile
it existed had the right to have its ancient lights un-
obstructed and the building is taken down, the right is not
abandoned but is only in abeysnee. Until the right is aban-
doned, it is as much in existence after the building is pulled
down as it was before, and is as much in the possession of the
owner of the legkl right as ever, even although his actual en-
joyment of it may be suspended. There is nothing to prevent
him from applying to the Court for an injunction to restrain
an erection which would interfere with the easement of ancient
lights where the Court is satisfied that he is about to restore
the building with its ancient lights (I).
An owner of ancient lights who alters or rebuilds his pre- Altantioxrf
mises does not by altering the plane and siie of his windows "^"^
lose his right to the amount of light which was wont to pass
through the old windows and to which he was entitled (m). If
he enlarges the windows, he still has the same right to that
amount of light which, for the period of twenty years before
the action, has passed through so much of the old windows as
is left undisturbed; nor is the right lost by reason of the fact
that only part of the old window is ineloded in the new, or that
the old window has been added to, either vertically or laterally,
by a new window. No alteration in the plane of the windows'
of the d(»ninant tenement will destroy the right, so long as the
owner of the dominant tenement em show that he is using
through the new apertures the same, or a substantial part of
the same, li^t which passed through tl.c old apertures into
(le) Grttnirood v. Horntey, 33
C. IX 471 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 917 ; Sad
see Ihnttk v. BaxUr, tupra.
{I) Eccle»ui$tieal Commiuiimeri v.
Kino, H C. D. pp. 218, 218 ; 40
L. J. Ch. 529.
(m) y«tioMaPr»inekdakm(^
V. Prudential Inturantt Co., 6 C. D.
747 : 46 L. J. Ch. 871 ; Smmm
Ptndtr, 27 C. D. p. 46 ; SmUk
fiaj*r.(I800)8ClLmt « L. J.
Ch- 437 ; Andrtvi Waite, (1907)
S pp. 609, 610 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
l»-3
196
NUISANCE TO DWBLLING-HOUSBB
Chap. Tl. the old buildings (n). The question in the case of an altera-
■ tkm of a building is tuA whether the new windows are in the
same verticnl plane, and to what extent has their position in
the line of incidence of the light been altered, but whether the
light claimed is sobetantially the same li^^t that has been
enjoyed throughout the period of twenty yeai s ; the real test
in these cases is identity of light, and not identity of aperture
or entrance for the light (o) . An owner who, on the sitaratioa
of buildings or the rebuilding of his premises, comes to the
Court for the protection of ancient lights, must have evidence
to show that some part of the old windows coincided with
Aluratioa P*'* ®' **** windows (p). The dominant owner
of baUdtaf. may lose his right to relief, even where there is no substantial
alteroticm of his building, if he has by his alterations so
confused the evidence that he cannot prove the identitj of the
light (g).
The fact that the owner of the dominant tenement has to
some extent contributed to the diminution of his ancient
lights by the altaaticms in his building will not in itself pre-
clude him from obtaining an injunction against a person
who illegally obstructs what remains of his ancient lights (r).
Bat whwe, before the rebuilding of the dominant tmemient
by the plaintiff, a partial obatruction by the owner of the
servient tenement of the plaintiff's ancient lights would not
have amounted to an actionable nuisance, such an obstruction,
even though it may completely block out the remnant of light
left aft«r the rebuilding, will not be an actionable wrong (s).
Fomotoni«r. '^^^ order, when expressed in general terms, restrains the
defendant from mrecUng any boilding " ao as to eeoae »
(n) 8eM Pape, 31 C. D. 654 ; 38 L. J. Cb. 289. See Ankwtri v.
M L. J. Cb. 914; Andreum v. OemuiUg, (1906) 2 Ch. M4 ; 7»
Waitt. tupra. L. J. CL 804 ; (1907) 1 Oh. p.
(o) AndrewtY. Waite, lupru. 683 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 402; Andrew$
(p) Foirleri v. Il'o/ter, 61 L. J. v. Waite, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 610 ; 7«
Ch. 443; (1881) W. N. 77; Pen- L. J. Ch. 676.
darresY. Afuiiro, (1892) 1 Ch. 611 ; '>) Ankerion v. Connelly, (1906)
61 L. J. Ch. 494. 2 Ch. 644 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 804 ;
(g) Scott V. Pape, 31 C. D. d.i4 ; (1907) 1 Ch. 678; 76 L. J. Ch.
ML. J. Ch. 914. 403.
(r) ata^M V. Burn. 5 Ch. 163 ;
AND BUSINESS PREMISES. 197
nuisance or illegal obstruction" to the plaintiff's ancient cii«p.vi.
lights. The order also, after providing for the plaintiff's
costs of the action up to and tnolading the hearing, may give
liberty to the plaintiff to apply within a fixed time, after receiv-
ing notice of the completion of the defendant's building, for
further relief by way of mandatory injanetion or damages (t).
If the evidence does not enable the Court to come to a satis- BaferaMte
factory conclusion on a particular point, the Court will, with ^J^^H
the view of fredng both parties from inecmvenienee so tiiat m*wMMk
the one may kuow jweviously what he may safely do and the
other what he may safely object to, give liberty to the parties
on granting the injunction to apply in chambers with respect
to the erection of buildings (u). So, alao, the Court may
make a declaration of the plaintiff's right in lieu of granting
an injunction, the defwidant undertaking to give the plaintiff
reasonable notioo of his int«iti<m to build aaxd to produce to
the plaintiff upon request his building plans («).
Windows which have the privilege of receiving light have Vmrntt^wk.
also the |mrilflg« of receiving air, so that a person may not
obstruct the passage of air to the windows of his neighbour to
such an extent as to cause a nuisance (y). But it is only in
very rare and special cases, involving danger to health, or at
least something very nearly approaching (0 it, that the Court
would be justified in interfering on the ground of diminution
of uir (a). There may, however, be circumataaces in the
case such as to justify the Court in holding that a grant of a
(0 See Colli \. H< n.eand Vidimi„l H. & M. 050; Tote y /oei 1 Oi,
.S/«r«, (1904) A. C. p. 194; 73 388; 3d L. J. Ch. 639; aLd see
L. J. Ch. 484 ; Andertcn v. Ffnei*, 8mUk v. Baxttr, (1900) 2 Ch. 138 •
(1906) W. N. 180: Uiggin, v. 69 L. J. Ch. 437 ; Att-Gen y
BetU, (1908) 9 Ch. p. 218; 74 SUtfor>Uhirt Oouuty Council, tuj^a.
L. J. Ch. 621 ; Andrews v. Wait', , (x) SmUli y. BarUr, lupra
(1907) 2 Ch. p. 510 ; 76 L. J. Ch. (y) Aldred-, c;,e, 9 Co. Hep. o8. «.
6<6. And OH to mandatory orders See Cable v. Bryant, (1908) ! Ch.
be;u.' .xrtiiin and definite in their pp. 263, 264 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 78.
teru, «e Jackum v. Normandy {x) City of Londm BmMrm Co.
Uruk < a., (1899) 1 Ch. 438; 68 T. r«niMin<. 9 Ch. p. iSl; 4SL. J
L. J. Ch. 407 ; Att-Oen. v. Staford- Ch. 4W,^ Lari SdboiM ; AHfar
'hire Countjf Vouneit, (190ft) 1 Ch. T. Bowm; 44 L. J. Ch. «M ;Mi»»
p.342 ; 74L. J.Ck.p. IM. V. SWw, M L. T. »fl8.
(«) atdm V. Oi^ OJkm CU, 8
196 NUISANCE TO DWELLIN0-H0U8EB
Clup. VI. right to the free passage of air to the house of a neighbour
may be implied (a). So slao where the anintemipted flow
of uir throu^ a definite apprture or channel over a neigh-
Ijour's land has been enjoyed for a sufficient period, a
right by way of easement may be acquired (6). But in the
absence of actual contract a claim by way of easement to have
the general current of air coming from a neighbour's land
kept uninterrupted cannot be supported either at comm<m law
or under the statute (c). The access of air accordingly to the
chimney of a building cannot as ugainst the occupier of neigh-
bouring land be claimed either as a natural right of property
or as an easemmt by iMresoriptioa frmn the time of legal
memory or by a lost grant or under the Prescription Act ((/).
So also the right of passage of undefined air for the purpose of
serving a windmill (e) or drying timber (/) cannot be claimed
by prescription. Where, however, a lease was granted in
order that the land demised might be used for the purpose of
carrying on the business of a timber merchant, and the lessee
eorenuited to carry on such business accordingly, it was held
that the lessor was not entitled to build upon the adjoininig
property so as to interrupt the access of air to sheds upon the
demised property used for drying timber, so as to interfere
with the carrying cm of the business in tiie ocdinairj
course (g).
(a) Bau T. Ortgory, 25 Q. B. D. (li) Bryant v. Leftcer, 4 C. P. D.
481 ; 59 L. J. (1. B. 571 ; .IW»« v. 172 ; 48 L. J. Q. U. 3«0; />ut;»« v.
Latimer rlark, (1894) 2 t'h. 437 ; Tviru Frnptrtirt Corporatioii , {IVXTA)
63 Ij. J. Ch. m\ ; ruble v. Bri/ant, 1 Ch. p. 804 ; 72 L. J. C'h. 389 ; but
(lims) 1 Ch. pp. 263,264 ; 77 L. J. see Cable v. Bryant, (1908) 1 C'h.
Ch. 78. p. 263 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 78.
(i) CabU V. Bryant, tupra; and (e) WM v. Bird, 13 C. B. N. S.
tee Browne t. Fhtwtr, (1911) 1 Ck. 841 ; 31 L. J. 0. P. 33» ; Dawii t.
p. 22S : 80 L. J. Clk. 181. Town Froptrtit CbrpofoMew, •Hpra.
(f) HarHi v. Dt Pinna, 33 C. D. (/) Harriiy. Dt Pinna, 33 C. D.
23H ; 56 L. J. Ch. 344 ; Chaitey v. 238 ; 4« L. J. Ch. 344.
AcklaiKl, { 1 K95) 2 Ch. 389 ; 64 L. J. (y) Aldin r. Latimer Clark; (1894)
Q. B. 523; ;iM97) A. C. 155; 66 2 Ch. 437 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 601; see
L. J. Q. B. jltt (U. L.); Darii v. Cable v. Bryant, (1908) 1 Ch. pp.
Tnwn PrnMHit* ' '(,rw.r./fum. (1903) 263. 264 : 77 L. J. Ch. 78 ; Brotme
1 Ch. pp. 804, tMi'. ; 72 L. J. Ch. v. Ftoutr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 226; 80
389; Browner. Floiitr, {1911) I Ch. L. J. Ch. 181 ; andsee reftftv. Caee,
p. 226; 80 L. J. Ch. 181. (1900) I Ch. 642 ; 69 L. J. Ch. Stt.
AND BU8INB88 PRElOSEa
The mjoyment of pure and wholesome air is s right to Omf.n.
which the owners of land unci the inmutos of a dwelling-houM *******
are of common right entitled. Any act which pollutes or cor-
rupts the air is, strictly speaking, a nuisance (h); but, inas-
much as the business of life in cities and populous nei^-
hourhoods renders it impossible that the air should retain its
natural state of purity, the law does not regard trifling incon-
reniencee. In order to constitute an actionable nuisance, the
pollution of the air must be of so sonsihle a nature as to
diminish materially the value or interfere materia 'ly with the
comfort and enjoyment of property which a reasonable man is
entitled to expect, regard, however, being always had to the
situation and mode of occupation of the properly injuriously
affected (i). That which is a sensible and real inconvenience
to im>perty in one phue, and occupied in one way, will be none
to property situate in another place or occupied in another
way. If a man lives in a town, he must of necessity submit
himself to the consequences of the obligations of trade which
may be carried on in his immediate locality, and are necessary
for the purposes of commerce and for the benefit of the inhabi-
tants of the town and the public at large [k). iiut the law re-
quires that business be carried tm in a reasonable and i«oper
manner, and so as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience.
A man, who by an act on his own land causes so much annoy-
ance to another in tiie eajoynmit of a nm|^b(Hiring tenement
and the oominaats on tUs daotsioii AInm amd Aljtart, (1906) 1 Ch.
in Davis v. Tovm PrtpmHm Cor- pp. 2.37, 245, Hfflrmed, mb Mm.
fMinttion, tupra. Poltne and Aljieri v. Rim/ ,ier,
[h] Aldrtd't case, 9 Co. R. 58 b. (1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. i 5 ;
(«) Tipping v. St. HeUn'i Smelt- Adiinu v. UrteU, (1913) 1 Ch. :ti9 ;
ing Co.. 4 H. & S. 608 ; St. Helen'* 82 L. J. Ch. 157.
SmtHing Vo. v. Tipping, 1 1 11. L. C. (i) See Colli v. Honu md CUomoI
642 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 66; Suhin v. Store; (1904) A. O.pulM; 73 L. J.
North BfttHCtptlh Coal Co., 9 Ch. Ch. 484 ; JTm* t. JaUg, (1S0»)
7<»:44L.J.Gh.l49:aBdw«a)l/« 1 (%. pp. 489, 490 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
v. iSoiM md CWomM MofWb (1904) 174; Btuhmer v. Affteri it Co.,
A. C. p. 188 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 484 ; (1906) 1 Ch. 234 ; 75 L. J. Ch.
Kine V. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch. pp. 489, 79 ; affirmed, tub nam. I'vlme v.
VM , 74 Li. J. Ch. 174; affirmed, Rmkmer, (1907) A. U. p. 123; 76
tuh u.m. Jolly v. Kine, (1907) A. C. L. JT. Ck. 8W.
1 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1 ; Ruthmer t.
200
NUISANCE TO DWELUNO-HOUSBS
Otep. TI.
SMi.S.
as to unoimt to a naiaane«, cannot b« hawrd to say that the
. place wbare the act was dO;i<- was u proper and convenient one
for the purpose (/), and that crerj aQ(t«»rour haa been made
tu abalt' the nuisuuce (m).
Whether or not the poUution of air ia aubataatial •noagh
to iuduco the ' li t to exercise its protective jurisdiction is a
qutHtion whicli must depend on the particular circumstances
of the case. It ia imponibie to find any precise standard by
which to determine the question; in eadi case it is a queutioo
of degree (n). The Court m&y appoint a special referee to
inspect and report as to the extent of the nuisance (o). lu
jonctiona will be granted, on a pro{>er case being made out, to
rcstniiii persons from burning bricks (p), or discharging
smoke (q), or other noxious or offensive vapours, odours, or
gases (r). Mora smoke or offensive odcMur akme, onaeemn-
(/) Tippiiis *• Si. Hdm't SmtU-
ing Co., 4 B. ft 8. 608, ttlA ; Am-
ford T. TttTMftg, S B. ft 8. «2; 31
L. J. a. B. 286; NtinhartU v.
Mentn»H, Ai V D. CSS ; 88 L. J.
( h. 787; All. ■(,>•'. V. (1901 )
1 (.'h. 205 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 148.
(»i) AU.-den. V. I'lymoiith t'inli
Giuim, ('. ., (1912) 7« J. P. 19;
Ailanu V. I'mtll, (1913) 1 Ch. •
p. 272 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 1A7.
(n) C'dk T. Uom and Cobmitl
mont, (19M) A. C. p. 1«S; 73
L. J. Ch. 484 ; /Wmm and Af/hri
V. Ri,th:n.r, (1907) A. C. p. 133; 76
L. J. Ch. 365.
(u) litodrr V. S„ilhtril. 2 C. D.
p. (194 ; 45 h. 3. ( h. 414.
{p) llVier V. StI/e, 4 Do G. &
8. 325, on appeal, 20 L. J. Ch.
433 ; Hantfurd v. Turnir, 31 L. J.
Q. B. 286 ; Btardmort v. TrtuduitU,
3 Qifl. 683; oompromised on ap-
peal, ib. 701; 31 L. J. Ch. 892;
Cleevt V. Mahany, 26 J. P. 819;
Btrrtham v. /fall, (1870) W. N. S7 ;
Vrairj'ord v. Haratea, etc., Sttam
Co., (187B) W. N. 1«: 4S L. J.
Ch. 432.
[q) atmften r. BiiMk, • Sim. 273 ;
7 L. J. Ok MO; Onmp^. UmUrt,
8 £^ 409; Ma^ntrd t. Sithardt,
1 Set. 59»; SmUh-v. Midland Rail.
»ca.V Co.. 26 W. B. 10 ; (lb77) W. N.
200.
(r) ISrti- ii nt v. ' njn-riitl (iiit-
li-jM Co.. : iJe (i. \f. & a. 436; 7
li. L. C. 600 ; 20 I.. >I. Ch. 27«;
Tip/ling v. St. Helett - ..ineltiiiy Co.,
1 Ch. 66 (oojq^ wcffks} ; BarUtw
T. Aitfay. (1S71) W. N. M (chnd-
osl «o^} ; Caab v. Forhm, i Bq.
166; 37 L. 3. Ch. 178 (obemioal
worku) ; Sai-ile v. Kilntr, 26 1,. T.
277 (glass works) ; Salrin v. Kvrth
Jiranrei>tth Coal Co., 9 Ch. 705 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 149 (coke ovens) ; Cm-
frtrilU V. Johiinun, 10 Ch. 680 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 752 (cement works); Att.-
Utn. V. Fraitcit, 1 Set 696 (ewneat
work*); Kniykt v. Oardnt, 10
L. T. 673 (manure WMks) ; (hdUtk
y. TrtmkU, 20 W. B. 368 ; Bigikf
T. Dickin*on, 26 W. B. 89 (chemicsl
works) ; ShUtt Iron Co. v. Inglii,
7 A. C. 515 ; Ficmiu^- t. tiiiii,p, l i
A. C. 691 (caleiuing) ; Ikrt v.
Pteorini, 31 S. J. 726 (kitehai
AND BUUNE88 FBBMISES.
in
OUp- VI.
■Mt.&
panied by noxioas rapoars, ia s •ufficient ground for ttie
intorft'i ciRO of the Court («). Th« fftot that • BUU) vuf bsT*
sold lund with u full knowledge tiiat cortuin workH were ulx)ut
to he erected thereon, does not disentitle him or thoue claiming
UDdmr him to emnplain <rf may noisuiM which Um works may
cause (/).
A limekiln (u),ttdye houiie (j;;, u tun-pit, u glass house (j^), TMlMaMi-
a smeHrag-hooBe, a tallow-furnace (z), a soap-boilery (o), a
huildiiig for boiling whulo hiuhhcr (b), or for I -.iing h<»w-
fleHh for dogs (<•), a tallow chandler's 8hop(rf), fat melting
works (e), a varnish maker's shop (/), a slaughtei house (g),
a brew-hotiM (*), and a hog-sty« (0, hare all bean held to
be nuisances at common law (k). But a hrow house (l) or a
ixlours) : lla/iier v. l.im-loii Tinm.
ir<i,/a (',.., (18»3) 2Ch. 588; (i.'l 1.. J.
Ch. iO (stablM) ; AUMitn. 7W-
Hntllfg, (IM?) 1 Ck. aaO; «8 L. J.
Ch. 37A (raioM); Aoft>n«(m v
LoHdoH OtHtnU Omuibiu Co., [Itim)
26 T. L. B. 2:i3 (motor bus fumes^ ;
■ Itt.-Otn. V. I'h/mouth Fiih (luano
^1912) 70 J. r. lU.
[>) I -II n/' V. Lamlitrt, 3 !
409 (f ., t.,i_v cliimney); ^/iiWi,,,
r ,,„/'lt. 20 \V. R. 3d«; Ihnha,
V. //'.//. .0) W. N. »7 ; 22 L. T.
116. SiSteaimr.armtNaikmm
SaUaag Cto., 4 De O. J. * a 311 ;
33 L. J. Ch. 3M ; 8andtrt-Cuirk v.
ffroKi-fHor MoHtiuiu fo., (1900) 2
Cli. A'l) (heut anil ,ull) (cookiiij^
raiiKe): AH. (I,,!, v. Ktymtr Brick
(17 J. P. 434 (odours
from h(ni)*e refuse); AH.-dtn. y.
I'liiDMiith [■'till (iuanii Co., (1912)
70 J. l>. 19; AikuHty, TrM^i, (1913)
1 Ch. 260 ; 82 L. J. Cli. 1*7 (MmI
fish shop).
(<) Txpping V. St. Htltn'* amdt-
iny ('v., 1 Ch. 06.
(«) Sec AldrrcTtrcue, 9 Co. B. 58 b.
(r) lb.
u''/ >*^."ifo V. I'oiitii, Paiui. Ooy.
(j) Miirley v. Pragnrll, Cro. Car.
»U>; 1 fiuU. Ab. 88. Sm, aa to
candle- uakiug being a niiitaiine,
.'rmot V. ArMM, 1 IIm^ 299, mai
PnblioHtrith Aet, 1876. a. 112 :
aaaandad by T Mw. 7, c. 43, ». 61.
(a) A V, Pierce, Show. 327. See
Fublio Health Act, 1875, ». 112.
(t) HiTuiitland Whc.lr r„. v.
rr../<.r, 8 Wilson i Shaw (Sc.), 649.
("•) (frindley \. Bex , 3 H. * C.
669; ;14 J, J. Ex. 1:16.
(rf) yWiM V. IJuU, 4 Bing. K ■
183; 7 L. J. (N. &) C. P. lase; ♦»
B. B. 807. SaePiddie HMllh « < .
1876, a. U2.
(«) T. tWe, (1901 J
Ch. 206 : 70 T,. J. Ch. 148. .V >
Public Health Act, 1873, s. 112.
(/) li. V. Nift, 9 Omt. * P. 4M:
31 H E. 685.
(</) H. V. CroM, 2 Car. & P.
31 R. B. 684. See liapUy r. Bmmt,
(1893) 10 T. L. B. 174.
(A) Jtmm T. iW^ HiMmi, tM.
(i) Alfhtfe cat, 9 Co. B. 68 k
A»i to nuiaacce caused by amell
fp>m pig stye, see Att.-Oen. v.
S'v.i.rf, (1907) 5 L. O. Beport^ 99.
(k) Soe ifcr v. White, 1 Burr. 333.
(0 Att..ihi,. V. Cleaver, 18 V«fc
iio; i» B. B. lAtf, B.; UwtMi
.S.imw, 1 Sim. * St. i8: 1 Ii. jr.
(0. S.) Ck 96.
i
NUISANCE TO DWELLINO-BOUSES
Chap. VI.
i^t. 2.
No tiiue will
Ivgalise % public
naiwae*.
fried fish shop (m) are not necessarily nuisances^ nor is a hos-
pital for infectious diseases (n) (having regard *o the present
state of science (o)). A hospital, however, for getting to-
gether people suffering friMn infectious diseMes will be a
nuisance, if it endanger the public health by communicating
disease, or if injury is caused thereby to the rights of owners
of Uie adjoining property (p) . But the Court wili not restrain
by injunctim the erection of a hospital for persons suffering
from small-pox merely on the ground of apprehension of
danger. The Court must be satisfied that there is a well-
grounded apprehension of danger, or at least that tiie danger
is appreciable (g). A small-pox hospital is not a noxious or
offensive business within sect. 112 of the Public Health Act,
1875 (r).
The right to carry on an offensive trade so as to corrupt
and pollute the air may be acquired against an individual by
prescription or presumption of lost grant, but no length of
(m) See --l.Ziitn* v. Crull, (1913)
1 Ch. 269 : 82 L. J. Ch. 157 (in-
junctiun gni' id.) ; Braintree Local
BaarH t. Bogtim, (1886) A3 L. T.
99, not noxious boriiMM within
sect. 112, Public Heidth Act, 1875;
Duke of Deifnuhire v. Brookshaw,
(1899) 81 L. T. 83 (breach jf
covenant against offensive trade) ;
KrrinyUm v. lUrt, (1911) 105 L. T.
373 (breach of covenant against
" annoyance or inconvenience ").
{«) Bavtm V. Baker, Amb. 188 ;
AU.-aen. T. Ouiliford Hiupital
Board, 13 T. L. B. 64 ; Bvrrop v.
0$iett CorponOion, 14T. L. B. 908;
Att.-(irn. v. CorjioratioH of Man-
ekattr, (1893) 2 Ch. 87 : ti2 L. J.
Ch. 459: AU.-Oen. v. Corjnralion
of .\, tiiii<i/,<im, (19m) 1 Ch. 673;
73 L. J. Ch. 612: An.-Ur,i. V.
Bathminet and Pemhnike Jh>3)iiUtl
Board, (1904) 1 Ir. B. 161.
(o) Att.-Otit. V. CoTfcratioit </
Manchmttr, Att.-0*n. V. Corporation
of Nattinyham, Att.-Oat. r. Baih-
miiien, etr., UotjiiUil UiHinl. •"j'Ta.
(p) MrtropoliUiii An/Ill ih IHstrkt
V. Hill, 6 A. C. pp. 193, 207 ; 50
L. J. a B. 363.
(9) MaJUhewt v. Mayor, etc., of
ShtfiM, 31 SoL J. 773; Btmldow
v. UmudimM of Wertkg Union, 36
W. B. 168; 67 L. J. Ch. 762;
Fleet V. Metnifiolitan Atyl mt
Jtmril, 2 T. L. H. 361 ; Att.-dtii. v.
(WjHtration of Manchester, (1893) 2
Ch. 87; 62 L. J. Ch. 469; Atr.-
(leti. v. Bathminet and Pembrvke
Uotyital Board, (1901) 1 Ir. B. 161 ;
Att.-Qtn. Ncttingham Corpora-
tion, (1904) I Ch. p. 677 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 612. Aa to whether evidenoa
is admissible of what occurred in
the neighbourhood of other similar
hospitals, see Hill v. MelropotHan
A»ylum» IHttriet, 42 L. T. 212 ; 47
L. T. 29 I and Att.-<hn. t. Nottrng'
ha-m Corporation, supra.
(r) WttkinsUm Local Board v.
Corporaiion </ Maneketttr, (1883) 3
Ch. I»i OSL. J.Oi. 383.
AND BUSINESS PBEMI8E6.
906
time will legalise s pablie noissnee or enable a party to pre- cup. vi.
scribe for its continuance. The public health, the welfare and
safety of the community, are matters of permanent import-
ance to which all the pursuits, occupaticos, and employments
of individuals inconsistoit with thdr presmation matt
yield («).
The comfort and enjoyment in their home, to which the NoUy tmic*.
inmates of a dwelling-house are of ri^t entitled, may be
materially interfered with by the carrying on of noisy trades
in the immediate neighbourhood. The law does not, however,
regard trilling inctmrenioiee, but (mly regards ineoovoiienees
which sensibly and materially diminish the comfort and enjoy-
ment of property. In order that a noisy trade may be an
actionable nuisance, there must be not merely a nominal but
such a sensible and real damage as a reasonable man would, if
subjected to, find injurious, regard being had, not only to the
thing done, but to the surrounding circumstances, such as the
situatim of the property, the habits of persons in the neigh-
bourhood, and the noises existing prior to the commencement
of the defendant's operations, and if, after taking ail these
circumstances into ctmsideratton, the Court finds a serious,
and not merely a slight additional interference with the com-
fort of the plaintifi and his family in th% occupation of his
house according to the ordinary notions of re^nable persons
in the locality, the Court will grant relief (t).
Mere noise alone will, on a proper case of nuisance being InjoaeUou to
made out, be a sufficient ground for an injunction (»). In-
(*) H'*W V. JSfomijr, 7 Km*. IW ; Jl-aiwr, (1807) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J.
8R.6.fl08; li. t. CVom, 3 Ounp. Cli.S6fi; aad Me Cathy. Home and
227 ; 13 E. B. "94 ; Att flen. v. CV- Colonial Stores, (19(M) A. C. p. 185 ;
/■onition of BarMlet/, (ls"4) \V. N. 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; GiUing v. dray,
;J7: lltitterworthy. l'.«-AW<.rr( 11'. «.) (1910) 27 T. L. B. 39; McEuitn v.
Jliuert Bimril, (liM»9) A. C. p. 57. Stredman, (1912) ij. C. 146; Nne
(0 .S(. Helen's Sineltiinj Co. v. Imifrial Uolel a>,r.MMmt,{int)
T%i,p,„y, 11 H. L. 0. G42 ; 36 L. J. I Ir. B. 321.
U. B. 66 ; Stiiri/e$ v. lirulyman, 11 («} Onmf tr. UmAtri, 3 Bq.
C. D. 862 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 7M; 4» ; 13 L. T. 600 ; Ftn,riclt
Bnthmur V. iWMM aarf A\/kH, ICatt London KaUway Co., 20 Eq.
(1906) 1 Ok. p. 337, S49: •IBrmed, 844 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 602 ; Lady OoH
•Mi nom. Mmm V. Alfitri and v. Clark, 16 W. B. 6«»; DaU v.
NUISANCE TO DWELLiNO-HOUSES
junctions accordingly will be granted to restrain persons from
ringing bells (x), or playing musical instruments (y), or sing-
ing (z), or iiolding noisy entertainments and bringing togetlier
disorderly erowds (a), or danoing in romns abore the ;risintiff 's
flat (b), or whistling for cabs after midnight (c), or excessive
noise (d), or excessive noise and vibration (e) in carrying on a
Hay, 8 Ch. 467; 21 VT. B. 282;
Bturgt* Bridyman, 11 C. D. 852;
48 L. J. Ch. 758, und see Bmhmtr
V. Pdlttte ami Al fieri, (1906) 1 Ch.
pp. 2.'i7, 243 ; affirmed, nuh iiotn.
J'oltiie ami Alfieri v. Hutltiittr,
(19C7) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 365 ;
J{i>bihton V. LoiuU n (Imtiat Omni-
hiit Co.. (1909) 26 T. L. H. 233;
Oilling v. Oniy, (1910) 27 T. L. E.
39. 9«e timt Clarkr. Lloyd* Bank,
(1910) 79 L. 3. Ch. 64A; W. N.
187 ; Heath v. Sriyhlvn Corpiiration,
(190S) 98 I. T. 718 (injunctujii
refiisoil). As to order for iippoint-
uieiit of siiecial refirce to report,
wee Itrolir v. SaillarJ, 2 (.'. 1). 094 :
45 L. J. Ch. 214.
(x) SoUau V. De IleU, 2 Sim.
N. S. 133 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 163 ; 89
B. B. 245. See Uardmau j. Uel-
berton, (1866) W. N. 379.
{ij) Christie v. iHive;/, (1893) 1
Ch. 316; 82 h. J. Ch. 439; (ler-
ntaiue v. l.oiidun Sxkibitiim$,
75 L. T. 101.
(z) Mi4ioii V. Mills, (1897) 12
T. L. B. 246 ; New Imptriid Hotel
Co. r. Johnmm, note (<), ttipra
(limited injuDcdon).
(a) Walktr v. Bmmltr, 5 Kq. 25 ;
37 L. J. Ch. 33 ; Inckhahl v. KoUn-
eun. 4 Ch. 388; 17 W. K. 459;
Winter V. 11' hr, 3 T. L. K. 569;
IhatiK-ky. .,„rl/i Sl.il)'„i'ls/,ire Hail-
KiiH ('v., 5 I)e (1. & Sui. .'l^l; 25
L. J. Ch. 325; 90 U. U. 169;
Harlery. /Vn/fj;, (1893) 2 Ch. 447 ;
63 L. J. Ch. 623; Laimbtom y.
MMUk, (1894) 3 Ch. 163 ; 83 L. J.
Ch. 929; Oermaine r. London JSc-
hiUHoM Co., (1896) 75 L. T. 101 ;
Seu-ardy. /Vi««-«o»i, (1897) 1 Ch. 546;
/iellami/ v. U'elU, 60 L. J. Ch. 156;
63 L. T. 635; Denar v. City and
Siiliiirliaii Racecourse Co., (1899) 1
Ir. K. 345 ; Beckrr v. KarVt Court,
LimiUil, (1911) 56 S. J. 73 (side
shows).
(i) Jeiikin$ Jatkton, 40 C. D.
71 ; fi8 L. J. Ch. 124.
(r) Btiiamy y. WtlU, 60 L. J. Oi.
156; 63 L. T. 636.
{il] l'riiiit/> V. I.uinbfi t, 3 Ell. 409 ;
15 T. 6»)0; <lmm v. Ilf<l/< rtl, 21
W. H. 449; Jla.rler v. lloner, 44
I.. J. Ch. 627 ; Si. lltttn'a Smelting
Co. V. Tii'putf/, 11 II. L.C. 642 ; 36
L. J. a B. 66; daunt v. Fynn^, 8
Ch.12; 42L. J.Ch.l22; 8t»rgi»y.
Bridgman, 1 1 C. D. 8S2 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
766 ; PottHt V. Alfieri and Rutkmer,
(1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 365 ;
(Hlliiiy V. dray, ( 1910) 27 T. L. K. 39.
[e) Tinckler v. Ayleebiiry Ihiry
Co., i> T. L. R. 52 (milk cans);
Stiiryrs v. Jfriili/inun, sii/ira ; Hhel-
fcr V. City of Londot KUetrk
LigUins Co.. (im) 1 C9l i»7; 64
h. J. Ch. 216; Humy v. Bailey,
(1896) 11 T. L. B. 178; Knight r.
Isle of Wight Elrctric Light Co.,
(1904), 73 L. J. Ch. 299 ; Colirell v.
.St. I'anrnu Borough ( 'u<ifi< iV, (19U4)
1 ( h. 707 ; 7.; L. J. Ch. 276 ;
Li/imai, v. I'lilmni,, (UHM) W. N.
130; 91 li. T. 132; Bobinmm t.
LemdoH Omtermi OiMiAtM Co., (1909}
W T. L. B. 233; MtBvmk t.
Bkedmaa, (1012) a C. IM.
AMD BUSniBSS PBEIiraEB.
905
trade; so m to affect injnrioosly the comfortable occupation CNp. vi.
of a person's property and his health and that of his family.
In a recent case (/) the Court refused to restrain building Ut^
operations, niiich were being conducted in a reasonable
manner, from commencing before atmn m tite m<miti^, erm
tliough the noise from the works was a very swioits SQXMyMice
to the plaintiff, and injury to his hotel business.
Other cases of naisMiee to dwelling-howMs when eqnit- y^o«.«.j^
able relief has boen sought are: a gunjiowder factory (g);
the storing of damp jute, or other highly combustible
material (A) ; blasting operations (i) ; ezcessire heat frwn
stoves (A:) ; the obstruction of a chimney (I) ; the ob8tructi<m
of the passage of air through a defined channel to a cellar (m) ;
allowing damp from an artificial mound to soak into the wall
of a dwelling-house (n); nwing ^ sarfoee of land by an
artificial erection so as to cause more rainwater than wt»
wont to flow into a house (o) ; damage from a cesspool flowing
into a ditch ased for surface drainage (p) ; damage from tiie
insanitary condition of land caused by a gipsy encamp-
ment (g); the deposit of house refuse (r); the erection of a
public urinal in a street so as to be a nuisance («) ; the estab-
(/) Chrk- V. Uoyds Hank, (1910) 4 C. P. D. 172.
79 L. J. Ch. 644 (interkMoiDty (m) ^om t. fi^n^my, 2A Q. B. D.
injunction) ; W. N. 187. 481 ; 59 L. J. a B. 674. See Oahit
(g) Cromter y. TimUtr, 19 Ve». T. Bryma, (1908) 1 Oh. 259 ; 77
617 ; 13 R B. aw ! McMurmy v. L. .1. Ch. 78.
Vadw^, (1889) W. K. ai6; (1900) (n) Brodtr v. Saillard, 2 C. D.
W- X. 63. 692 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 214 ; see 7
(h) Hephurn v. Loriian, 2 H. & Edw. 7, c. 53, secta. 2 (5!^ and
M. ,tl5; ;il L. J. Ch. 293. ;)5 (3).
(i) Arnohl v. Fiinieu Railimy (o) Hurdmnn v. North Eatttm
<'"., 22 W. R. 613. Raibiay C,,., .{ C. P. D. 188; 47
[k) Iteinharrlt v. Mtntatti, 42 C. D- L. J. C. P. 36&
6«5; 68 L. J. Ch. 787; Samdan- (j>) PhUipi y. Ormth, (1868)
Cfari V. Qrotvmor Mmmen* W. N. 399.
(1800) 2 Cb. 373. See M to tili* (j) AH.-Otn. v. Sto,,e, (1S96) 12
latter caw, AU-Om. ▼. CWe, (1901) T. L. B. 76 ; 60 J. P. 16H.
1 Ch. pp. 206.207 ; 70L. J. Ch. 148. [r) Ait..(}tn. v. Tal-lleatley,
(I) /hn r,/ V. fimM. 1 K & J. (1897) 1 Ch. 860 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 276 ;
389; 22 lieav. 299; see table v. Att.-(hn. v. Ktiimer Brkk Co.,
nri/ant, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 263; 77 (1903) 67 J. P. 434.
L. J. Ch. 78; cf. Brj^ni r. L^evn, (») Biddtdph t. St. Otorgf*
906
NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES
Chap. VI.
Saol. a.
Damngea for
pHt injury.
lishment of a rifle range, or a nmge tor trying flreMrnw in tiie
' immediate neighbourhood of a dwelling-house (t) ; keeping
cattle in a pen (u), or pigs (x), or horses in a stable (jy), in the
immediate nei^boorhood of a dwelling-house; using a garden
as a skittle and bowling alley (z) ; children in hospital crying
through neglect (a) ; holding a regatta with aquatic sports on
a reservoir, disturbing the fishing rights of the plaintiff vendor
to the defmduit compuiy (b) ; bridii^ hmveraeee on Sm-
days and collecting noisy crowds (c) ; the obstruction of a
footpath in front of a house (d) ; the obstruction of tiie
aoeess to a house by causing eroifda to aasemble (mtride a
theatre (e) ; the breaking up a pavement (/) ; noise, vibra-
tion and fumes from shunting, turning, and repairing (mmi-
buses in a'street (g).
Where a plaintiff had sustained serioas injury to her hei^
Vettr;/, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33
L. J. Ch. 411 ; Vrrnon v. St. James'
Vtttrij, 16 C. D. 449 ; 50 L. J. Ch.
81 ; Chibital v. Paul, 29 W. E. 536 ;
8Man T. Matlock Local Board, 14
a B. D. 9»: 53 L. T. N. a 7SS:
Ptikitk T. i>fymoi>(A CarpenMon,
(18W) 42 W. B. 246; Hoare v.
Leiriiham Borough CoNnrt/, lA
T. L. B. 64; Lcyman v. Heiutif
Urban CouneH, (1902) 19 T. L. B.
73 ; Mayo v. .S«i<o» Urban Conticil,
(1903) 68 J. P. 7. iSee sect. 39,
Public Health Act, 1875, and aect.
47, PubUe Heidth Acta (Ainwid-
iii«it)Ac*,ie07.
(I) Btmnider v. Bigge, 34 Bmt.
S87 ; Danatt t. Dongall, 1 Set 5S8 ;
dHwrgv. Walker, ih. 599; HawUy
V. suae, 6 C. D. 5 21 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
782.
(t() London, Brighton, etc.. Bail-
way Co. V. Trumm, 11A.C.4«;S5
L. J. Ch. 3M.
(z) Att..am,. V. SfiMM. (IMC) 5
li. O. B. W.
(y) BaU V. Bttg, 8 C&. 4fl7 : 21
W. B. 283 : OvOitk v. Trtmlett, 20
W. B. 36; Brwder t. SaiUanl, 2
C. D. 692; 45 L. J. Ch. 214.
(z) liarham v. fMyn, (1876)
W. N. 234.
(a) Moy V. fitoop, (1909) 25
T. L. B. 635.
(») Athtk T. Kertk Stafordthire
Bailwag Cv., 5 De O. * Sm. 584 ; 3
Sm. & O. 283 ; 25 L. J. Clu825;
90 B. B. 159.
(r) Deirnr V. Ct/i/ anil Snhiirhan
Rareroiirtt Co., (1899) 1 Ir. R.345;
seo a« to rabbit coursing, Oytrt v.
Hantnn, (1912) 56 S. J. 735 ; W. N.
193.
(«() Wtimare y. Maifor o/BrittU,
11 W. B. l9H;Dewar y. Citg and
Suhnrhan Bacecourte Co., *upra.
(r) Barber v. Penley, (1893) 2 Ch.
447 , 02 I,. J. Ch. 623; WagitaffY.
Eiiinon Hell Co., (1893) 10 T. L. B.
SO; i.yont * Cii. v. (luUivtr and
the Capital Syndicate, (1913) 29
T. L. B. 428.
(/) Ahw Chriigkt Co. v. Ua^
<^i)Mm-.5B»O.M.*0.«4«. iM
Qmmm v. Limgton Oat Co., 2 El. A
KL 6B1 ; 3SL. J.M.C. 118.
(g) Kohihmn v. London (leneral
(JmHibm Co., (1910) 26 T. L. B. 233.
AND BU8IMB88 PBElffflEB.
907
and boain«M from noiM so great as to be almost intolerable,
tho Court granted an injunction against the 0(mtinaanoe of ******
the noise, and awarded the plaintiff damages in respect of tiie
past injurv (h).
The rigi ' : o make a noise so as to annoy a neighbour may be Pr««criptiT«
acquired by user or long enjoyment, but the right cannot " f^-^** "*
be supported by user unless during the period of user tiie
nfflse has amaonted to an aetioaable nuisance (i). User
which is neither physically capable of prevention by the owner
of the servient tenement nor actionable, cannot support an
easemmt (k). In a case iriiere a emfeeticmer had for more
than twenty years used a pestle and mortar in his back pre-
mises, which abutted on the garden of a physician, and the
poise and vibration were not felt as a nuisance and not com-
plained of; and a few years before bringing the action the
physician erected a consulting-room at the end of his garden,
and then the noise and vibration became a nuisance to him;
it was held that tiie defendant had not acquired a right to an
easement of making a noise and vibration, and an injnneii<m
was granted to restrain him (I).
The fact that noise and vibration from machinery has not
been complained of for more then twiHity years does not
deprive a neighbour of his right to prevent an increase of noise
and vibration, even though such increase be slight (m), if the
addition to the pre-existing noise amounts to a serious inter-
ference with the comfortable enjoyment of his property (n).
The doctrine of coming to a nuisance (o) is exploded (p). Co«uiig»o»
A man is not precluded from maintaining an action or a suit '
(/;) (hlling v. Gray, (1910) 27 4:«).
T. L. B. 39. (m) ffeathrr v. Pardon, 37 L. T.
(0 Crump V. LambeH, 3 Eq. p. 303 ; Sturgta y. Bridgman, 11 C. D.
413 ; 16 W. E. 417 ; Ball T. iby. p. 8M ; 48 L. J. Cfc. 7M.
8 CL p. 471 ; 21 W. B. 389 ; Sturgm (n) Btuhmer t. Pehuemid Al/eri,
T. Bridgmam, 11 0. D. 889 ; 48 (1906) 1 Ch. p. 237; aiBmed. mb
L. J. Oh. 788 : Colwtll V. St. Pancrat nam. PoUtu and Alfirri v. Rushmer,
Borough Oottneil, (1904) 1 Ch. p. (1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. ;J65.
712 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 275. (o) See 2 Bl. Comm. 402.
(A) Stiirgtt V. Bridgman, nifyra. ( p) Att.-Oen. v. Manehater t'or-
(l) lb. Beo n<iUin$Y. Ver,tey,\3 jxyrntioti, (1893) 9 Oh. p. 98; 89
Q. B. D. p. 309 ; 03 L. J. d. B. L. J. Ch. 489.
906
NUISANCE TO DWELLINO-HOUSES.
^8^t V ^^'^^ ^ bumnem which crmtes the noisanee had
been carried on hpfore he took possession (q).
Right of dnuD An interference with the right of drain is a nuisance to a
hoase. If the tmner of a house, being also owner of land
surrounding it, makes a drain or conduit through part of the
land to his house, and then sells the house with its appur-
tenances, the right to the conduit passes under the conveyance
as a thing appertaining to the house. The ri^t, however, ie
restricted to n reasonable use for the purpose of the house in
the condition in which it was when the grant was made (r).
As between the occupiers of adjoining houses, tiie occupier
who is bound to receive sewage passing in a drain under his
house and from thence to other premises, is bound to keep the
sewage from passing from his own premises to such other
premises otherwise than along the accustomed channel; and
this duty is independent of negligence on his part, and
independent of his knowledge or ignorance of the existence
of the drain (s). But if the drain is a public sewer so that
the occupier of the house which is bound to receive the sewage
is not liable for its condition, he is not liable for an escape
of sewage to the premises of his neighbour (t).
The same principles which apply to the right of drain are
also applicable to the right of drip, or the right to the flow of
water from the roof of one man's house on to the house or land
of another. The owner of the dominant tenement may lessoi
the burden of the servient tenement, but he cannot increase it
without the consent of its proprietor. Without such consent he
cannot increase the surface of his roof or permit the water
from neighbouring roofs to increase that which naturally falls
from his own (u).
(q) Ellicttnn v. Feefhnm, 2 Bing. Mitner's Safe Co. v. Oreat Northern
N. C. 134 ; 42 E. R. 5.57 ; Blim v. Raihray Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 833 ;
Hull, 4 Binp. N. 0. IS.J ; 7 L. J 7t) L. J. Ch. 99.
(N. S.) V. V. 122; 44 R. R. 697; {,) Humih riet V. Cvtuint, 3
Tipping v. .S<. Helen » Smelting Co., 9 C. P. D. 23 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 443,
1 Ch. 66, and see Crump y. Lambert, and see HoUand r. Ltmrnt, (1807)
3Eq. p. 4l;> ; 15W.B.417; 5Ao<(o 66L. J. aB. ^
Inm Co. r. Znyto, 7 A. C. 028. (<) ffumphrim v. CotmM, mpra.
(r) Woedr. Sanndtn, 10 Ch. 682 ; (u) 8ee Thonuu v. Thomas, 2 Cr.
•fBniuiig44L.J. Ck. M4;aiidtee M. ft E.34; 4 L. J. (N. 8.) Ex.
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
■ICTIOH 8.— HOIUMOU TO SUrPOBT. Cbkp. VI.
Sect 3
The right to the Boj^rt of land in ita natural state,
vertically by the subjacent strata, and laterally by the adjacent i"' """^
soil, is a right to which the owner of the surface is of common
right pritnd faeie entitled (x). The right ia not in the nature
of an easement, but is an incident to the right of the ordinary
enjoyment of property (y). The right ia not a right to have
the whole or any part of the subjacent or adjacent soil left
in Ha natural state, Irat is simply a ri^t to have the surfaea
supported in its natural state, so far as the subjacent or
adjacent soil is naturally capable of affording support. The
owner of the subjaemt or adjacent soil may work or dig on
bis own land in any \ray or to any extent he pleases, so long
as he does not cause the surface of his neighbour's soil to
subside or give way. He may, if an artificial support be
substituted, excarate his land to such an extent as, but for
thi! artificial support, would cause a subsidence of the neigh-
bouring land. Until tlio ordinary enjoyment of the surface is
interfered with no cause of action arises, for the right of the
uwner is, not that the substance supporting his soil shall not
be removed, but that the enjoyment of his land be not dis-
turbed by the removal of its support (z), and when actual
179 ; 41 H. R. 678 ; Fayy. Prentice, 309, 317 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 541 ; But-
I C. B. 828 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 298 ; 68 tertey Co. v. ^«Mr HucknaU Collim-y
H. R. 823 ; flan-ey v. WaUen, 8 Co., (1800) 1 C%. S7, H ; 7S L. J.
U. P. p. 162; 42 L. J.C.P.l«Vk; Oh. 63; (i»IO) A. 0. SM; 78 L. J.
and M* r««cW V. Xmmmh, 11 A. * Ch. 4U ; Londtnt and yorth JTeifem
K 40; 9 L. J. (N. 8.) a B. 1 ; SS AMieay Co. v. Howlry Park Coal
8- R. 276. Co., (1911) 2 Ch. p. no ; 8ti L. J.
[x) Humphne* v. Brogilen, 12 Ch. 5H7 ; (191.)} A. C. p. 25; 82
B. p. 744 ; 20 L. J. a B. 10 ; L. J. Ch. 76. !See. as to the prima
76 U. R. 402; Hunt v. Peake, 1 /acie right to support being uffeoted
John. 705 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 785 ; Jima- hf contract, atatute, or custom,
Mham V. IVilmn, 8 H. L. C. 348, poit, K>. 212 H Hf,
355; SOL. J. a B.4»; AiWliv. (y) AkUom* v. Itowmj. 8 H. L.
Hautei, 6 K ft B. MS; 7 E. * B. C. p. AM; ML. J. Q. E 181 ;
625 ; 37 L. Jf. Bs. 48; Neiv Short- DoUom r. Angus, A. C. p. 808 ;
tton (MUitriM a*. T. Earl of Wet- M \\. J. a B. 689 ; We$t Leigh
merdmd, (1904) 2 Ch. p. 446 (n.) ; Collirry Co. v. Timnulifie * Co.,
73L. J. Ch. 338(n.); BuUtrknowle (1908) A. C. p. 30; 77 L. J. Ch.
rullieri/ Co. ▼. liithop Autklanl 102.
huU'ttrial Co., (1906) A. U. pp. {*) Badkoutty. Bonomi, 9 B..luC.
ti. 14
210 MUISAMCBB TO SUPPORT.
cbkp. VI. damage oeenn by th« ramoral of the aupport MHliar th* eara
— *' — and skill with which the works may have been carriad on, nor
tlie unstable nature of the aoil, nor the difficulty of pcoppiog
it up, will form any defraoe to an actioQ (a). The Mfttato <tf
Limitatiooa runs from the date of the subsidence (6), and if
there are successive subsidences caused by the same excava-
tion, each subsidence gives rise to a fresh right of action (c).
The right to aoj^rt ezista aa well in the ease of lands iriiidi
are not conterminous as of lands which are conterminous.
Any land which depends mediately or immediately on the
anpport of other hmd, and ia oapable of being injured by its
removal, is lor this purpose neigbboortng land (</).
An overlying seam in a mine has the same right of support
from below that the surface has (e).
The right of support is however limited to a right of support
from land in its natural state to land in its natural state. If
the support required is increased, either by increasing Qie
weight of the sufqwrted land, or by diminiahing its self -sup-
porting power, no right exists in the absence of prescription
or grant, to have this additional sui^Knrt supplied by the neigh-
bouring land, and no subsidenee resulting from this cause
gives a ri^t of aetimi (/). If I7 th« aeticm of a landowner
503 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. tSl ; Att.-Qm. Co., lupra.
T. Conduct Colliery Co., (1896) 1 (f) Darlty Main CMiery Co. ?.
Q.B. 3U1,312; U4 L. J. Q. B. 207. Mitchdl, 11 A. C. 127; M L. J.
{a) 8m Httm^hrie* v. Brcgim; Q. B. &28; Crmmhi* t. WalUutd
HmU V. Ptah, ngftm; Alt.-amt.T. Loeal Board, (ISBl) 1 a B. «03:
CfTt.tui' CoUitrg Co., (IWft) 1 a B. 60 L. J. a B. SU; WtH Uigk
p. 311 ; 64 L. J. a B. a07 ; Cotticty Co. v. TmrnkUfi * Co.,
The Trinidwl Atj.l,wte Co. y. (1908) A. C. p. M; 77 L. J. Ck.
Ambard, (1899) A. C. 494, 602 ; 68 KKi
li. J. P. C. 114 ; Wat Leigh CU- (d) Broume t. Robin; 4 U. & N.
liery Co. v. Tunnicliffe <fc Co., (1908) ISti; 2H lu J. Ex. 259; Birmingham
A. C. p. 29 ; 77 L. J. Cli. 102. Vurporal%on v. AUen, 6 C. D. 384 ;
See, aa to form ot order netniniog 46 L. J. Ch. 676 ; see UowUg Park
woarking, lemoTing, or iajiiriBf tbe Coal Co. r. London and Iforth
pUUn toft for Um ot Wmttm MaOwap Oo.,{ina) A. 0.
rooh ia ooal miaet^ Mtt^ r. p. U ; 89 L. J. Ob. f. 80.
Lancailer, 23 C. D. p. 6U ; *9 (e) BtOttrUg Co. r. Ntw HuchM
L. J. Ch. 848. CiHiery Co., (1910) A. C. p. SM;
(/>) Uarkhoutt V. BoHomi; Wt$t 79 L. J. Ch. 411.
Leigh ColUtry Co. v. Tunnid^r. (/) Partridge t. Scott, 3M. ft W.
HmaANCBS TO BUPFOBT.
sn
. VI.
whose land intervenes between the buub of two other pro-
prietors Uie right of support to which one of these landowners
i« entitled is affected, he cannot as against the other land-
owner claini a greater right of support th«i he wo«ld have
been entitled to had the land of the introing owner bc«,
left in Its natural state (g).
fromVnf * "'.""T* f"" '"'^ '^'"^ "^ht to support Support of U«l
from land in its natural state to land In its natural riate ''^i^-'^-^
the right includes only the right to such support as i^'^*'
furnished by the permanent conditions of land, not by its
accidental circumstances (*). The existMiM of water in a
drowned mine being obviously a circumstance of an accidental
and temporary character, a mine owner may drain it away
provided he works hi. mines in the ordinary and usual
manner, although it may contribute to the support of the soil
above^ No right to resist the withdrawal of the water can be
gamed by prescription (i). So also, it seems that ns a general
rule, an adjoining owner may drain his soil of water, if for any
reason it becomes necessary or convenient for him to do so
even though the result of doing so may be to cause a sub-
sidence of the soil of his neighbour (*). 80 also, in a recent
case (/), the 'lefendnnts were held not liable for the sub.
8.dence of the plaintiffs' surface caused by the defendants
pumping up brine f«,m th«r mine, in domg which they also
drew off some brine from the plaintifls' mines. Where how-
ever a plaintiff's land was supported, not by water but in one
case by a bed of wet sand or running silt (m). and in another
220; 7 L. J.(N.8.)Ex. 101; 49
K. R. 878, andsee AiMoNT. Angiu,
« A. C. p. 740; M L. J. Q. B. M0.
(y) Mayor, Ht., ^Bhmi^gkmm v.
^We»,6 C. O. »«: M L. J.
673.
{/') FJIiaU V. North EaOtrn Rail.
^V. I J. 4 H. 145; 2 De O.
F * J. 423; 30 L. J. Ch. 160; 10
H. L. C. 333 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 402
(') II..
(*) i'oppUwM V. Scd^tiMM, L.
«• * B*.a4»; 88 L. J. Bjfc ije;
ISn^iih V. Metropolitan Heater
Board, (1907) 1 K. B. p. 602 ; 76
L- J. K B. 361.
(0 Salt Union v. Brunner Mond
* Co., (1906) 3 K. B. 822 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. (53 ; and see the Brine Pump-
ing (Compensation for Subridence)
Act. 1891 (M 4 M VMt 0. 40).
(w) Jm4mm r. BrttoH, He., Oat
«».,(W99)JCh.217; 68 L. J. Ch.
487 : sad Me #T«M«r v. BirhtnM
77 L. J, Oh. aig.
14-a
mnsAMOXB to Avnasa.
cb.p. VI. eaM by pitch («), and thn defemUnto had caused the pluintiff "s
land to Huhside by withd'-awing he support afforded by th«
w«t Band and pitch, it waa held that an actionable naiMnea
had been eommitted.
Support for The right to mipport of land and the right to Bupp- Tt ot
J2J2^ buildings on land stand upon a different footing as to tfie
mode of acquiring them, the fornwrbting a rii^t of psropeny
Mwlogoos to the flow of a natural stream or of air, wliil ' t!iP
latter is an eaBement and is founded upon jweBcription or
grant, expresB or implied ; but the dharaeter of the rif^s when
•eqoired, is in «adi OMe the name (u).
B^MviM A right to lateral support from the adjoining woil may be
*' •«q«>r«l for a building irtiich has enjoyed that support peace-
ably and without interrup*iim for the prescriptive period of
twenty years. The rule is the same where a building has
been enlarged or pulled down and a building of an entirely
different character has bem built up«i ttie land. The ri^t
to suniort of the new or enlarged building is established after
a peaceable and uninterrupted enjoyment of support for
twenty years, and an action will lie against the ownar of the
adjoining land if he disturbs his land so as to take away the
right of lateral support,, previously afforded to the land (p).
So also a house which has stood for twenty years acquires a
right to vertical support (g). But to establish a right to
support by long enjoyment, it must be shown thr.t the owner
of the servient tenement knew or had the means of knowing
that his house was affording support to the oHwr (r).
Right ot «in>ort A right to support of soil in excess of the ordinary commoo
to land ari«Dg , • , jgp^ j,y implication of law, where the owner of
uVon •••»rauc«. j^nd has granted the surface, reserving to himseli tne bud-
jacent minerals, or has granted any part of hia land, retaining
the adjoining part. As a grant of property carries with it
(n) Trinidad Atphalt Co., (1899) 749 ; 20 h. J. W. B. 10 ; 76 B. B
A. C. 5M ; 68 L. J. P. 0. 114. 402.
; / ,uUouM V. BoHomi. B. B. ft (9) BtU v. Lotf. 10 Q. B. D. S4?
E. 0«, per Wille*. J. ; DaUrn v. 571 ; 68 L. J. a B. «0- Loi. v
A.gu>:r\. C. pp. 792. W; M iWi. 9 A. 0. SM; fiS L. J. a B
L J (i* B 689 2fi7.
\u) Mt.m V. >ui>ra; (r) Ton* v. Prtrfon, 24 C. D. 739
Uimvhritt V. Brogdtn, 12 a B. 63 L. J. Ch. 80; I/.Am Lighitng^
NUIBAlfOBB TO SfTPFORT. tlS
all legal incident* which are necessary for the reasonable cUp- VI.
enjogmiMit of ike propnij in tb* itete in iriiidi it wm at — ^Htl. —
time of the ^rant or which aro npcessnry for the purposes for
whaii, according to the obrious intent of the parties, the
grant was made, soeh a measure of support, adjaeeot and
Bobjaeent, an ia necessary for the land in the condition it was
at the time of the grant or in the state for the purpose of
putting it into which the grant was made, passes as an inci-
dent to the grant («). Wlien aooordingly a man grants •
house, retrtininR the adjoining soil, the right n{ support from
tho adjoining soil passes by implication of Jaw as beiof(
necessary and es aent ial toe tfie enjoyraMit of ttie Imkim (<).
So also where a iimn conveys land for the express purpose that
huildings may be erected thereon, there is privid facie the
fjrant of a right to hare not only the surface of the land in
its natural state, but the buildings to be erected tiieraon sup-
ported by the adjacent and subjacent minerals reswrad to t^
gniiitor hy the deed (it).
The implied grant, arising upon the sale of a plot of land faifiM richi ^
for building purposes, of the right to lateral sufqwrt from ^g,V ****
adjoining lan'^ retained by the vendor, will be qualified when
the purchaser is aware tiiat the vmdor intends to build on the
land reserved; e.g., where the land sold forms part of «
building estate. In such a case, it seems that the vendor may
excavate upon the adjoining land in a reasonable and proper
manner to carry oat his building works {*) . But if, hy build-
' V. r.omioH Graving Dock Co., v. Ct/n Crihhwr ISrick To., (1894)
(Ittoi) 2 Ch. 300 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 668 ; 2 Ch. p. 164 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 600;
(liiOJ) 2 Ck 447; 71 L. J. Cfc, Jary T. BamtUy CorpenUmt.
(t»07) 2 Ch. p. eiS ; 76 L. J. Ch.
(«) OaUAmitm JUihrnj/ Co. y. 6*8; t. PHichard, (ISM) 1
St>ret,2mu>q.m iElUmr.lhHk Ch. p. (BC ; 77 L. J. Ch. 406.
Kattmt Hailieaif Co., 10 H. L. C. (/) DalUm r. .tnyu,, 6 A. C. p.
■m ; ;I2 L. J. Ch. 402 ; Proud v. 826 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 689.
Ilattt, 34 L. J. Ch. 112; Hext t. («) Aipden v. Htiidon. 10 Ch..
mn, 7 Ch. TOO; 41 L. J. Ch. p. 401 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 369; Siddunt
Ttil ; liiqhy v. Btnuett, 21 C. D. v. .SAort, 2 C. P. D. 572 ; 46 L. J.
•■'•■'!•, -iH- , 31 W. R. 222 ; London Ch. 795 ; and see Jary v. /fari.»/ey
nud Sorth H Vofwt Raihi-ay Co. v. CorporoAm, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 613 ; 70
/CroM, (1893) 1 Ch. p. 27 ; 62 L. J. L. J. Ok <«8.
Ch. 1 ; Ortat Wml*r» Bmlvomg Co. (■) Ayiy t. Bm»m, tl C D.
214
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
ing operations, the vendor (or a purchaser of any part of the
Scott 8
' land reserved) lets down the house of the first purchaser, he
will be liable, provided that he could have bnilt in a reason-
able way without inflicting the injury (,(/).
Kight of support As between two adjoining housos belonging to different
^intogtoiiMt. owners, a right to lateral support can be acquired by long
enjoyment (z), or under the provisions of the Prescription
Act (n), but the enjoyment must be of right and not
"clam" (6). So, also, if a building is divided into floors
separately owned, the owner of each upper floor or flat ia
entitled to vertical supixirt from the lower pin f of the building,
and to the benefit of such lateral support as may be of right
enjoyed by the building itself (c). Where also houses have
been so constructed as io be mutually subservieut to and
depending on each other, neither of them being capable of
standing or being enjoyed without the support it derives from
its neighbour, the alienation of one house by tbe owner of both
does not estop him from claiming in respect of the house he
retains that support from the house sold which is at the same
time afforded in return by the former to the latter tene-
ment (d).
Although no right to support may exist as between adjoin-
ing houses or buildings, a man. who takes down his house must
use due care and skill, and take reasonable and proper precaa-
559 ; 31 W. E. 222 ; and see Birm- Gravinii Doch Co., (1901) 2 Ch.
xrxjhum, Dwllei/, etc., llarihirnj ('<i. v. p. 305 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 558.
Jims, 38 C. D. 295 ; 57 I.. J. Ch. (o) Ltmaitre v. /Mi-M, 19 C. D.
106: r.roomjiehl v. llWiiim*, (1897) 281 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 173.
1 Ch. pp. 613, 616; 66 L. J. Ch. {h) Tome v. I'rerton, 24 C. D.
305; Fretlerick- lletts it: Co. V. Pick- pp. 742. 743; 53 L. J. Ch. 50;
ford <fc Co., (1906) 2 Ch. pp. y3, Union i.iyhleragr Co. v. London
94; 7S L. J. Ch. 483; Browne v. Oraving Dutk Co., (1901)2 Ch.300;
Floietr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 228 ; 80 70 L. J. Ch. 8tt8; (1902)2 Ch. M7 ;
L. J. Ch. p. 184. 71 L. J. Ch. 791.
(y) Riijh;/ v. Bennett, tu/ira ; and (<•) Dalton v. Amjut, 6 A. C. p.
MP Oroirenor Hotel Co. v. Unmiltm, 793; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689.
(IN94) 2 Q. B. pp. 841, 842; 63 [il) Itirhanlt v. llnne, 9 Exch.
L. J. Q. li. 661. 218, 221 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 3 ; JimetM.
(2) Dalton V. Anijiia, (i A. ('., p. I'rililairtl, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 636 ; 77
802 ; .')0 I,. J. Q. B. 689; l.ove v. I.. J. Ch. 405 ; cf. Ilowartky. Arm-
Bell, 9 A. C. 286; 53 L. J. Q. B. strony, 77 L. T. 62.
257; Union Lighttrage Co. y.LumUm
>
NUISANCES TO SUPPOBT.
216
tions in pulling down his wall, and he is not boond to find a chap. vi.
substitutfi or equivalent for the support which he has a right
to remove. An action, however, will lie if the wall be pulled
down 80 carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully as to cause
damage to the adjacent house or buildings (e). The owner of
the premises adjoining those pulled down must shore up his
own on the inside, and do ererything proper to be done upon
them for their protection. If, however, the pulling down be
irregularly and improperly done, and injury is caused thereby,
the person so acting may be liable for it, although the owner
of the premises injured may not hare done all he ought for
his own protection (/).
The mere circumstance of juxta-position does not render it
necessary for a person who pulls down a wall to give notice of
his intention to the owner of an adjoining wall (g) ; nor if he
is ignorant of the existence of the adjoining wall— as where it
is underground— is he bound to use extraordinary care in
pulling down his own (A). If he gives notice of hia intention
to pull down his wall to the owner of the adjoining premises,
he is not bound to use any extraordinary care in preventing
an injury to the adjoining {mmises, althouj^, fVom the pecu-
liar nature of the soil, he may be compelled to lay the founda-
tion of his new buildings several feet deeper than that of the
old ones (t).
A party wall is a wall standing on the line between twopMymlL
estates owned by different owners for the use of both estates.
The common use of a wall separating adjoining lots of le,nd
belonging to different owners is primd facU evidence that tho
wall and the land on which it stands belong to both owners in
equal undivided moieties as tenants in common (A). A wall
(f) Walters v. P/ei/, Moo. & M. 363.
3«.i ; Brown v. U indur, 1 Cr. & J. (,) Tr.m>tr T. Chadwidc. 6 mnm.
26; Truwrr v. Chadwkk, 3 Biiig. N.C. 1; 8L. J.Bz.288; 43B.B 6A9
N. C. 334 ; 6 L. J. (N. 8.) C. P. 47 ! (*) lb. 8m Sc^hwark and V,.„x.
43 B. B. 659 ; 6 Btng. N. 0. 1 ; 8 hatl Water Co. v. Waudtwarth Bmrd
L. J. (N. 8.) Ek. 386; Smthwarh <•/ Work,, (189») 2 C h. pp. 818.
and Vauxholl Wattr Co. y. Wandt- 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 6o7.
irorlh ISoardof W,^k,>, (1S98) 2 Ch. (/) Mnue,/ v (h„jd,r, 4 C. * P.
W). til2, 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 637. 161 ; 34 B. B. 782.
ij) Wadtrt v. Pftil, Moo. ft M. (A) Mattt v. BamlMt*, ft Iwuit
216
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
miiy l>e a ptirty wall to such a height as it belongs in common
to two buildings, and may be an external wall for the rest of
its height (/). One of the tenants in common may take down
the wall, if it be dime with the intention of rebuilding it (m),
but it must be with that intention (/;)• Where an owner of
a house grants a divided moiety of an outside wall, with the
intention of making such wall a party wall between his house
and an adjoining house to be built by the grantee, the law
implies the grant and reservation in favour of the grantor and
grantee respectively of such easements as may be necessary to
carry out the common intention of the parties with regard to
the user of the wall. Accoi-dirigly, if it is within the contem-
plation of the parties that the grantee shall supiwrt the roof
of the house he intends to build upon the moiety of the wall
comprised in his grant, the other moiety of the wall will be
subject to an easemnnt of lateral support for the benefit of the
roof when erected, and similarly the grantee's moiety of the
wall will pass to him subject to the easement of lateral support
for the benefit of the grantor's roof if supported by his half
of the wall (o).
The law on the subject of party walls in the Metropolis is
now governed by the London Building Act, 1894 (p), which
2<» ; 14 R. E. 696 ; CubiU v. M<r;
8 B. & C. 2i7 ; 32 B. B. 374 ;
Wataoii V. Gray, 14 C. D. p. 19d ;
49 L. J. Ch. 243 ; Mnmn x. Fid-
ham Corpnrntiim, (1910) 1 K. B. p.
637 ; 79 L. J. K. U. 385.
(/) Wetton V. AriiM, 8 Ch. 1084 ;
43 L. J. Ch. 123; Druri/ y. Armij
and Naiiij Co-o/ieratife Sujiiih/ Co.,
(1896) 2 Q. B. 271 ; 6d L. J. M. C.
169. See Fredn-irk Bttt* * Co. r.
Pidtjord A Co., (1906) 2 Ch. pp. 93,
96 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 483 ; nnd Lundon,
(llowf.iteraliire, etc, fhiiri/ Co. v.
MorUi/, (191 1) 2 K. H. 2.57 ; 80 L. J.
K. IJ. 908.
(»i) "iihltl V. I'oilfi; 8 ]{. & C.
267 ; :VJ U. U. 371 ; St,i,i<liir,l llnid;
ttr. V. Htuka, 9 C. D. 68 ; 47 L. J.
Ch. 664. Bee ■■ to the dutjr of
penon taking down a party wall to
aee that reasonable skiU is exer-
cised, Uughit V. I'errival, 8 A. C.
443 ; 62 L. J. Q. li. 719; Sonth-
vark and Vaiir/iall ]l'iiter Co. \.
n'n.idtwortli Board of tt'orka, (1898)
2 Ch. pp. 612, 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch.
H67.
(n) .Stedman v. Smith, S E. & B.
1 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 314. See Colbeck
V. QinUtrt Co., 1 Q. B. D. p. 242;
46 L. J. Q. B. 226.
(o) ,Tonr» V. Pritchnrd, (1908) 1
Ch. pp. (i3.), (Lie ; 77 L. J. Ch. 405.
(/<) 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. Part
viii. See Lrii'in it- Salome v. C/iarimi
<'nmntid Kiiaton lluilwny Co., (1906)
1 Ch. J). 51(!; 75 L. J. Ch. 282.
As to definition of party wall, we
sects. 6 (16), 68.
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
817
regulates the relations between building owners and adjoining ckap- vi.
owners whose property is separated by a party wall, whether
the wall is one of which they are tenants in common or
not (q).
An owner's right to support will bo protected by an injunc- Protection of
tion (/•), when the interference with the right is of a sub- b^injll'i.S'*
stantial nature even though the pecuniary loss actually result-
ing from the defendant's wrongful acts is small (.s). The
Court will also interfere by injunction before subsidence has
actually taken place if satisfied that injury is imminent and
certain to result from the defendant's acts (t), also when the
defendant claims the right to do acts which must inevitably
cause a subsidence (it) ; when the subsidence is serious, a
plaintiff will not be deprived of bis legal right to an injunction
bpciiuse the result of the order may be to close the defen-
dant's works (ir).
An injunction to restrain the working of mines in such a
way as to let down the surface, will not be granted upon an
(</) Letei$ A Solome v. Charing Qtn. v. Comliiit Collirry Co., (1895)
Crou and Etuimt BaU: . y Co., 1 Q. B. p. 313; 64 L. J. Q. l\.
'"fre- 207; Trinula,! At),lialt Co. v.
(/■) Sep Duqilale v. Ruhertnon, 3
K. & J. ]). 701 ; 112 R. R. 349;
limit V. I'mke, Joh. p. 705 ; 29 L. J.
t h. 'Hh ; /Vi,„,i V. liatea, 34 L. J.
Ch. p. 312; lfe.rt\-. dill, 7 C'h. p.
718; 41 L. J. C>>. p. 767 ; Sfw
Sliarlttmi Cullitriet Co. v. Karl of
nVa<iRore/a»<i,(1904)2Ch.p. 445(n];
82 L. T. 72« (H. L.); BUkop
Aiiiktand Indiutrial Co. v. Biitter-
hmwh Collitry Co., (1904) 2 Ch.
r|>. 4;«), 440 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 335,
•Wo: iiffirined (1906) A. C. .iOo: 75
li. J. Ch. 541 ; Manclieshr Corjicra-
tii'ii V. AVii' Moss Collier/) ('<:, (1906)
•-' ( h. 564 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 772 ; (1908J
.\.('. 117 ; 77L. J.Ch. 392; Lmdoh
nnd North Watem Bailimy Co. v.
//oM% Park Coal Co., (1911) 2 Ch.
pp. 110, 111 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 537 ;
(1913) A. C. 11 ; S2 L. J. Ch. 76.
(«) S!d,!i,i:x V. S.':!irl, 2 C, 1>. J).,
p. 577 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 795 ; AH.-
Jmlmrd, (1899) A. C. p. 600 ; 68
L. J. P. C. 114 ; Xem SharhUm Col-
lieries Co. V. Karl of WeKtmnrtland,
(19(H) 2 Ch. p. 445 (n) ; 79 L. T.
716; 82L. T. 726 (H. L.).
(«) ammu T. Bhort, 3 C. P. D.
p. 577 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 796 ; Birm-
ingham CurportUion v. AIUh, 6 C. D.
p. 287 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 673 ; Darley
Main Colli fry Co. v. MiUhrll, 11
A. C. p. 145 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 629.
(») Proml V. BiteK, 34 L. J. Ch.,
p. 412 ; Ilext v. Gill, 7 Ch. pp. 711,
712; 41 L. J. Ch. 761; and see
Att.-atH. V. Cmtduii Colliery Co.,
(1896) 1 a B., p. 314 ; 64 L. J.
a B. 207.
(«) Earl of Wettmoreliind v. AW
SharMm Collirriea Co., 79 L. T.,
p. 722; se«> Triuidwl .Isjihttll Co. v.
Ambaril, (1899) A. C. p. 602 ; 68
L. J. P. C. 114.
218
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
VI. interlocutory application, except in the clearest case, on
^*°*' — account of the serious injury which might result from stop-
ping the working of a mine even for a short time (y).
Prima facie The prima facie right of the owner of the surfmc to supjiort,
qiSaisid b'T''' qualified or waived by the instrument, or Act of Parlia-
iutrument mcnt regulating the respective rights of the owners of the
«rvering title to , j * fu • ^ • xu *U
surface and Surface and of the mmes, so as to give the mine owner tne
"""«"• right to work his mines in such a way as to let down the sur-
face, but to exclude the right to support the language of the
instrument, whether it be a deed of grant or reserration, or
tease, or Act of Parliament, or award, must unequivocally
convey that intention, either by express words, or by neces-
sary implication {z). The same presumption in favour of a
right to support which regulates the rights of the parties in
the absence of an instrument defining them will apply also in
construing the instrument (a). To exclude the presumption
in favour of the right to support, it is not enough that mining
rights have been reserved or granted in very wide terms, or
that powers and privileges usually found in mining grants
are conferred without stint, nor is it enough in the case of a
lease, that the lessee is bound to work out the minerals, or to
work the minerals in a prescribed manner, or in the case
of an inclosure Act or award, that the lord, in whose favour
the mines are reserved or regranted, is authorised to work the
minerals and enjoy the property as fully and freely as if the
inclosure Act had not been passed, nor is it enough to
(i/^ Hilton V. Earl QrwtviU*, Cr. Ch. 641 ; Butterley Co, v. ITew Huek-
& i p. 297 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 398 ; M nail Collien, t 'o., (1909) 1 Ch. pp. 48,
B. B. 297. 4» ; 79 L. J. Ch. 6a ; (1910) A. C. pp.
{i) Itowhntham v. Wilmn, 8 II. ;i85, 386; 79 L. J. Ch. 411. See
L. C. p. .'i6li; 30 L. J. Q. B. 49: Brewery. Rhymney Iron Co., (1910)
Dmis V. Trelnirne, 6 A. C. 467; 50 1 Ch. 766; 79 L. J. Ch. 334. As
L. J. Q. B. 666 ; Bell v. Lore, 10 to power of a tenant for life of
Q. B. D. pp. 668 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. t<ettled land to grant a lease with
290 ; 9 A. C. 286 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. right to let down the •iu.'<«e by
267 ; NtiB Sh-irlttoH (yiltrit$ Co. mining, see Sitw^l filnW o/ Ltm-
V. Earl »/ H'eitmortland, (1904) 2 dethorough, (1906) 1 Cb. 4fiO; 74
Ch. 443 (n.) ; 73 L. J. Ch. 338 (n.) L. J. Oh. 264.
{II. Ji.} : IliitttrhiotvleCdIlierii Cn. \. < n) Itutlerhnnwie Collirri/ Cn. v.
HUhitp .hiitluHil luduttrial Co., llUliO)) Auckland Iiiduatria' Co.,
(1906) A C, pp.309, 313 ; 76 L. J. mtpra.
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT. S19
exclude the presumption, that compensation is provided in a VI.
measure adequate or more than adequate to cover any damage ^
likely to be ocoaaioned by the exercise of the powers and cw"""*
privileges conferred on the mine owner (h). But although
a provision for compensation is not of itself sufficient to show AbMnso c.f com-
that the mine owner working in the usual and proper way is ^^^..^u"""
at liberty to let down the surface, the absence of any provision P'
for compensation is some indication that the ordinary rights
of the surface owner were intended to be left untouched, and
the presence of a provision for compensation, which is
obviously inadequate or plainly inappropriate if applied to
damage by subsidence, is cogent evidence to prove that subsi-
dence was not contemplated (c). Accordingly, where there
was a proviso in a mining lease that the lessee of the mines
should have liberty to enter upon the land and carry away the
minerals and do all such acts in or under the demised premises
as should be necessary or convenient for working and carry-
inp away the minerals, making compensation for all damage
occasioned by the exercise of the rights thereby reserved, it
was held that the mine owner might not work the mines so
as to let down the surface (d). So also where it was pro-
vided by an inclosure Act that the mine owner should work the
mines, making satisfaction for the damage occasioned thereby
to the owner of a freehold allotment on the surface at the rate
of 51. yearly during the working of the mines, it was held that
he had no right to let down the surface (c). So, also, where
before the year 1767 the lords of a manor had the right to
work the mines under the waste lands of the manor and to let
down the surface, provided enough pasturage was left for the
commoners, and by an Inclosure Act of 1767 the waste lands
were inclosed and allotted, and the lord of the manor was em-
powered to work the mines as fully aa before the Act without
making or paying any satisfaction for so doing, the damage
caused to an allottee by such working to be borne and distri-
(6) BuUerlmowlt CoUiery Co. v. (1906) A. C. p. 314 ; 76L. J. Ch. «41.
Bithop Autkland Mnttrial Co., (-/) Dai-u v. Treharne, 6 A. C.
(liKMi) A.C.p.3l:};-5L. J.Ch.541. 4(iO ; 50 L. J. Q. B. «65.
(') lii'fterhwwie Colliery Co, v. («) r.nie y. Brll, 9 A. C. 286 ; 53
i<HAop Autkland Induttriul Co., L. J. Q. B. 357.
220
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
■■MdcBoe
iaplwd.
Ck«p. VI. buted aroong the occupiers of the othor allotments, according
?: — to their yearly rslnes, it was held th u the common law right
of the owners of the surface to support jf the surface was not
taken away, the provision for uon -payment of compensation in
working being consistent with the working of the mines in
the ordinary way and subject to the ordinary right of the
surface owners, while the fact that compensation was to be
paid by the occupiers of other allotments and not by the
owners, su' rted the construction that the clause did not
refer to ' .ence of the surface (/). If a compensation
clause is .,»iible of being satisfied by reference to n<;t8 done
" on " the surface, then, though it may be wide enough to
cover also damage done " to " the surface by tnking away the
support, still it must be confined to damage ddie " on " the
surface, and the inference th"t supjwrt may be taken away
oa payment of compensatioi not be made (g).
Bifht tockoM On the other hand, when it appears from the terms of a
lease that the parties intended that a lower seam should be
worked, and there is evidence that the system of working con-
templated by the parties must of necessity injure the upper
seam, but will not destroy it, and that it is impossible to get
the minerals at all without letting down the upper seam, in
such a case the general common law right of support will be
displaced (h).
So also the terms of a grant may l)o such as not
deprive the surface owner of his right to support, ba. •
of compensation for loss of support (t).
CnitomMto A custom or prescription to work mines so as to let down
w'tt'to irt da«n Or destroy the surface without making compensation for the
tbenibn. injury and damage that may be done, is unreasonable and
(/} Biittfrkuowh I'oUiery ('o.\. Slavtlty Coal and Iron Co., (l90S)3i
Hithop Aurkliiml Induttrial Co., T. L. E. 136.
(1906) A. C. p. 813; 76 L. J. Ch. 541. (>) IViUiamt v. Ilatjnall, lb \V. R.
(j) Butl»rknowU ColUery Co. v. 273; Buchanan v. Andrtw, L. E.
Bithoji Awlthind Mtutrial Co., 2 H. L. (8o.) p. 293 ; <W/ T. /MdKii-
(190f))A.C.,p.309; 75L.J.Ch.841. »<m, 6 a B. D. 169; 49L.J. Q.B.
(/,) lliitterlt;/ <'n. v. .Vfjo ffitehutV 262. See BuUrrknmvh CUIirri/ Co.
^'iillieri/ I'd., (1909) I < 'h. 37; 78 v. DUIiap .\tirklawl IndmtrUil Co.,
L. J. Ch. 63 : (1910) A. C. .381 ; 79 (1906) A. ( '. pp. 321, 322 ; 75 L. J.
L. J. Ch. 411 ; Locktr-Lamptan y. Ch. 641.
NUISANCES TO SUPFOBT.
bad (Jlr). But » custom thst the tord of a manor may g«t »H
the mineralH inder copyhold lands, paying compensation to a
copyhold tenant for any damage he may do to the surface in
getting them iw good (/).
When a proposed undertaking passes through a mineral
district, provisions are often inserted in the Act which autho-
rises the undertaking, excepting all minerals under the land
taken by the company, but giving the company power, as soon
as the workings of the minrials approach within a certain dis-
tance of the surface, to stop the workings on purchasing out
the rights of the coal owners and paying them compenmtion
for their loss in not being permitted to work them. In
Dwlley Canal Co. v. Gmzehrook (m), the clause which em-
powered the mine owner to proceed with the workings of the
mines in the event of the option to purchase being declined,
declared that he might carry thi n on " provided no injury be
done to the navigation." The ( <urt said that the meaning
of the proviso eould not be that the owners were to be
reepmsible at all events for any injury done to the carnal, for
then the company would never purchase the minerals ; that
the reascmable mode of reconciling the different parts of the
Act was to say " either that the party working the mines was
to do no unnecessary damage or injury to the navigation, or
no extraordinary damage or injury by working them out of the
ordinary mode " (n).
It has been decided that the owner, or lessee, of minerals, is
not liable for damage to neighbouring land or buildings by.
Co. V. Lancathire and i'orkthirt
Railwau Co., 14 A. C. 248; W L. J.
a B 39.
(n) See Stourhridge Canal Co. v.
Earl of Dudley, 3 EL A £1. 409 ; 30
L. J. a B. 108; 132 B. B. 763;
Ckamhtf Oolliern Co, r. BoehdtJe
Canal Co., (IBM) A. C. 084; 84
L. J. a B. 646; New Mou Colliery
Co. V. iianthetltr, Sheffield, and
Lincolnshire Railmv '1897) 1
Ch. 728; 66 L. J. i n. 381. But
see Knowles v. Lanca$hire and Tork-
ehire Railway Co., lugra.
CUp. VI.
SMt S.
Option rawrTcd
to > conii«n; to
pu rcliue oat
iiiineraU witkia
a cartua
(A) Hilton v. Lord Oranvillt, 5
Q. B. 701 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 193 ;
64 E. B. 604 ; Blackett v. Bradley,
1 B. & S. 940; 31 L. J. a B. 6fi ;
124 B. R. 815; Bell v. Loit, 10
Q. B. D., p. 661 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
290. See ButterknowU Colliery Co.
y. Biihop AtukUntd InduOrial Co.,
(1906) A. C. p. 331 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
841.
(/) As,»ten V. Seddnn, 1 Ex. D.,
p. 510 ; 46 Ij, .T. Ex, -'Wa,
(>») 1 B. &A(1.69; 8L. J. K. B.
361 ; 36 B. B. 212. Cf. Knotvltt <£
Subaidence
oaiucd by
ezcantioatof
predioiw b
titlt.
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
Ornf. VI. subsidence caused by the working of the mineruls by the pre-
^***- decesHOr in title of sue'' owner or lessee, although the damage
occurs after such owner or lessee came into possession (o).
UaiiwariCUiuM OenerftI provinions defining the reitpectire righti of mine
Aet''8'i'9°ViLi owners and railway compimips hiive been inserted in the Rail-
«. 20, •». 77— ways C lauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which Act creates a
special law by which the rights of the mine owner and railway
company arc regulated in respect of iiiines lying within the
forty yards or other prescribed limit of the railway (p). In
the case of purchases <>f land by railway cumiMinies, the minra
being reserved to the vendor, there is no grant by implication
of the ri^lit to have the surface supixii ted by the subjacent
minerals as is implied in the case of u grunt to an ordinary
purchaser, the mutual rights and obligations of the railway
eampnny and vendor with respect to the mines lying within
forty yards of the railway, or the other prescribed limit under
section 78 of this Act, being regulated by the mining sections
77 to 85 of this Act (q). The common law right of 8upi>ort by
soil other than minerals is not, however, takei away by the
Act even within the forty yards, and the common law right of
lateral support outside the forty yards remains, and will be
protected by injunction, whether the soil is or is not mineral.
Thus in a recent case an injunction was granted restraining
a colliery company from working their mines outside the limit
of forty yards from the plaintiff's railway line, in such a
manner as to withdraw lateral support from the railway (r).
Wtterworki In the caso of the purchase of the surface of land hy a water
L. J. Q. B. laS ; f.onduit and North
H'e»t Railway Cn. v. Aekroyd, 3t
L. J. Ch. 688 : North Britith Bail-
way Vo. V. Budkill Coal and Sand-
•tone Co., (1910) A. C. p. 136; 79
L. J. P. C. 31 ; London and North
Weatern Railway I'o. v. Howley
Park ChiI Co., (1911) 2 L'h. 97 ; 80
L. J. (_h. 537 ; (1913) A. f. 11 ; 82
L. J. Ch. 76 ; Re Earl ./ Carlialr and
Niirthampton County Council, supra.
(r) London and North Weitern
Bailieay Vo. v. Mowltj/ i'ark Coal
Co.,{m\) 2 Ch. pp. 7B. 110; 80
10*11 Vict. (") OretnntU v. Low Beediburu
e. 17, M. 18— Coal Co., (1897) 2 U. B. 166 ; 66 L. J.
^- Q. B. 643 ; Hatt v. Dukt of Norfolk,
(1900) 2 Ch. 493 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 571.
( p) 8 ft 9 Vict. c. 20, R8. 77—79 ;
London and North Weitern Railway
Co. V. ffowlfy Park Coal Co., (1911)
2 Ch. pp. 108, 1 10 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 537 ;
(1913) .\. C. U ; 82 L. J. Ch. 76.
See Re Karl of Carlitle and North-
temptan Cnunty Council, (1912) 105
L. T. 799 ; 10 L. G. E.. p. 66.
({) Great WeOern Railway Vo. v.
Bmnett, L. B. 2 H. L. 27, 40 . 36
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
cwnpsny under itH compulsory |K)wer«, the grantor reserving CW^ ?i.
the mines, there is no grant by implitution of ttie right to hare
the Burfuce supported by the BubjtCMit minerals, but the
mutual lights and obligations of the coinpjmy anii grantor.
wiUi respect to mines within the prescribed limit are regulated
by the mining seotiras of the Watflrworks Clauses Act.
1847 (v). Where a corporaiion, not having compulsory u«d p,„k,.«|
powers, purchased by agreement land mul tlic minerals there- '■y Mw wi at .
under from A, and the adjacent land from li, who reserved the
riglit to work the mines luidemeath urithout making any eom-
pensation, it was held that the corporation were entitled to
an injunction restraining li s lessees from working the mines
either within or without the limit of forty yards from the cor-
poration's waterworks in such a way as to damage the land
purchased from A, on the ground that such land having been
bought by agreement, the corporation were entitled to the
same common law right of lateral support to the land from
th.3 minerals under B's land that A had enjoyed, and that this
common law right had not been taken away by the Water-
works Clauses Act, 1847 (t).
An ordinary conveyance of land includes the right s«tion 77,
to all minerals under the land, but by section 77 of the "^'*»JiCUBiM
Railways Cbusea Consolidation Act, 1845, mines of coal.'*'*'*'***
ironstone, slate or other minerals under lands purchased by
a railway company are excepted out of the conveyance to the
company, unless the same shall hare been expressly named
therein and conveyed thereby. The section is in substance
nothing more nor less than a clause enacting that a special
rale of construction shall apply to conveyances of land to a
ruilway company inverting the ordinary rules of c<mstruction
of such conveyances, mines being deemed to be excepted
unless expressly named a i conveyed (u).
J.. J. C'h. 637 ; (1913) A. C. 11 ; 82 chaUrCorportUi<m,{lO(»)A.C. 117-
" l^-- '' -f- 392; and see Zomfon
(») 106: U Viot 0. 17, M. 18-37. ond North Wmtim Bailway Co. v
Sec yaa Mom CMwry Co. y. ITm- IToisfay P^k Coal Co., (191 1) 2 Ch "
chetter Corporatim,. (19W) A. C, pp.m,l30; 80L.J.Ch.637
(0 Niw Mom CUhtrif 0». t. if on- Ok t. CkfpMt VniM CAma Ck^
NUISANCE8 TO SUPPORT.
Cli»i>. VI
Srrt 3.
What ia iii-
The word "mineH" in tho swction includon minemlt,
wht'thcr ffot by luulorgroiind, or by open working («).
In dtieiding wlietlier or not jjurticular ttubstancefl nre or are
not minemte within the mesning of sect. 77, the tPHt
applied l)y the Court is, arc tho milistiinpes in fnifKtii>n
" raineruls " as understo<xl in tho Vfrnueulur of the mining
and commercial worlds, and of landowners, at the time when
the land wus pin rliaHt'v' ? (y).
Thus, brii k clay forming the surface or subsoil of land (z).
a bed of flay or common brick earth pxtendinf; under the sur-
face of the land for a coiisidt-rable d.'i)th (</), sandstone as a
general rule (/»), "nd frt't^wtotu' («•), have been held not to be
minerals within the mt-uning of t.ie section. On the other
hand limestone (d), china clay not part of the ordinary com
position of tho soil, and occupying only a small fraction of the
subsoil (e). and seams of fireclay of exceptional character and
value for the manufacture of bricks capable of reeisting high
temperatures (/), hare been held to ibe minerals within the
r.,., (litlO) A. (.". sa; 7it L. J.
eh. 117; l.imilvnaud Xnrtli Wenteni
Jioiliiai/ V. Iluiihy I'urh Cual
(•„., (i»ii) 2 eh. pp. ioa, 112; 80
L. J. Ch. 537 ; (1913) A. C. p. 21 ;
82 L. J. Ch. p. 78.
(j) Midland Railway Co.
Hanmhu nal Tilt Co.. !» C. D. U2 ;
51 L. J. Ch. 778 ; .Midland Railway
Cu. V. /fcifci;.j<o/-,:{7C. D.;i87; 57 L.J.
I'h. 440 ; 15 A. V. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch.
442; Ntrrth Ilritish Railimy Co. v.
Hiulhill Ciial and SaiitMime ('".,
(1910) A. C. p. 129; 79 h. J. 1'. ('. ai.
(y) Lord iV<n>«< of (IIih;iow v.
Farie, 13 A. C. p. 669; 58 L. J.
p. C. 33; North BrUi$h Bailway
Co. V. Budhill Cual and Smtdriatt
Co., (1910) A. C. 127; 79 L. J. P.C.
;il ; Caloiouiun llailu-ay Co. v. Olen-
1(1X1) L'liioii Fireclay rii.,(1911) A. ( '.,
p. 299 ; 80 li. J. P. C. 128 ; and seo
Symington y .Calrduniau Railti ay Co.,
(iai2) A. C. p. 92; 81 L. J. 1' C. l.-W.
(«) Lord PrwMut of aUugow r.
Farie, tiipra ; Orrat IlMtern Rait-
nay Co. V. /(W«, (1901)2 Ch. 824;
70 L. J. Ch. 847. !See .^key v.
I'arKOM, (1909) 101 L. T. loa; 25
T. L. R. 7'/H.
(n) Toild Ilirletiime ' 'o. v. North
Ka»ter„ Railway Co., (1903) 1 K. B.
603 : 73 L. J. K. B. 337.
(&) North Rritith Bailwag Co. t.
Budhill Coal and BandtloHt Co.,
(1910) A. C. 116 ; 79 L. J. P. C. 31,
((■) Symliiyton v. Caledonian Kail-
way Co., (1912) A. C. 87, 92; 81
L. J. P. C. 155 ; Freestone may Vk
a mineral, though seldom likely ti
be 80 regarded, ib.
(</) Miilland Railway Co. v. Robin
mm, la A. C. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 442
(e) Ortat TI'Mtern Railway Co. »
Cari>alla United China Clay Co.
(1909) 1 Ch. 218; 78 L. J. Ch. 106
(1910) A. C. 83 : 79 L. J. Ch. 117.
(/) CoUdiiiiinn Railway Co. ^
Ulenbiiig Vnimt Fireclay Co., (1911
A. 0. 390 ; 80 L. J. P. C. 128.
NUI8AM0B8 TO 8UPP0RT.
n.caning of the ser ion. In every case it is »qu rtko of f»ct Ch^T!.
whether the ptrtieukr tubflUnce is, or is not, a mineral {g) . **** '•
Sect. 78 providM that the mines under the line, or within
forty yards tlMMfraa, ihiUl not bs worlud If tb* oompuiy Sm. 71.
are willing to pay eom|)en8Btion for the rainerala to the owner.
Before proceeding to work them, the owner is required to give
thirty dajre* notice of hit intentifm to do so to the company,
so ns to j-ive the cot pany the power of exercising the option.
The company may then give a counter-notice of their » '
nees to pay eompoiMtion for the minerBla, and if
minoral owner is not to work them (*). The righta . • /
this section to the railway company are in Hubstitiition for the
common tow right to support, whether vertical or lateral,
« thin the forty yarda limit. It is only within that limit that
the railway company can claim the right to pay compensation
without actually purchasing the CMnerals. Beyond the forty
yards the owner can work without giving the thirty days'
nnticp, and no count€r-notice can be given by the company.
Compensation payable under the section is only for minerals
within the forty yards {»). A railway company by paying
l ompensation under the secticm to a mineral lessee for leaving
tlie minerals under the line, acquires the right to support from
such minerals, and the right to ree »in the reversioner on the
surrender or determination of t aaae from working the
minerals, without prejudi' o to an; .;iestion as to compwwa-
tion, having regard to the paj-.uent already made (k).
By sect. 79 it is ensfM that if the company do not a-t. 79.
(y) See .VortA /t. iish Railway
V. Builhill f'.Kil and Sand«toi:e
'•o., (1910) A. C. 116; 79 L. J.
I', r. 31 ; Symington Oalmhmiam
Railway Co., (1912) A. C. p. 93.
(A) 8m Midkmd BaUway Co. y.
Robitutm, 37 0. D. 387 ; 57 L. J.
Ch. 440 ; 16 A. C. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch.
H2 ; Xorth liriti^h Railii '11 y I'o, V.
Ilmlhill Coal and Sariditoite Co.,
(1910) A. C. p. 126; 79 L. J. P. C.
ai ; Orfit H'eaiera Railway Cv. Y.
CarjMUa Uniltd CMm Cfay Cin,
K.I.
(1910) A. C. p. 85; 79 L. J. Ch.
117; London and IToHk WMhm
Railway Co. t. BowUg Park Coal
Co., (IMl) 2 Ob. pp. lOe, 110, 116 ;
00 L. J. Oh. 537; (1913) A. 0. U ;
82 L. J. Ch. 76.
(«') London and North ITeifcrtt
Railimy Co. v. Howhy I'ark Coal
Co., siiyra.
[k) Smith V. Ortat Wtitem Jtail-
'fay Co., 3 A. 0. p. m; 47 L. J.
Ch. 97.
IS
226
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
Ch»p. VI.
i M
Right of pur-
ehuorof miiwr-
Aooui Undi to
rapport.
Saet*. 77—79.
within thirty days state their willingness to purchase the
minerals, the owner may work the mines so that the working
be done in a manner proper and necessary for the beneficial
working thereof and according to the usual working of such
mines in the district where the same shall be situate, any
damage done to the railway by improper working being
repaired at the expense of the owner. Under this section the
owner of the mine has a statutable right as against the railway
company to work the mines, and the Court will not restrain
him from working them except upon condition that compensa-
tion be made to him for his loss in not working them (l). A
purchaser of superfluous land from a railway company
acquires no greater right to support than the company hod in
respect of such land (m).
In construing sects. 77—79, the Exchequer Chamber in
Fletcher v. Great Western Railway Co. (n), held that a
mine owner was entitled to claim compensation for such
minerals lying within forty yards as he might leave ungotten
for the purpose of furnishing support to the railway. " All
that the railway company requires," said Cockburn, C. in
delivering the judgment of the Court (o), " is the surface
soil : it may be that the minerals will never be worked by the
landowner, in which case the company ought not to be subject
to any expense ; and, therefore, the legislature interposes and
says that the company shall be under no obligation to pay the
landowner for that which may never be required: but if flie
(/) Stourhridye Canal Co. v. Karl
of Didley, 3 El. & El. 409 ; 30 L. J.
Q. B. 108; Flttclierv. Grmt WnOrn
Railii ay Co., 5 H. & N. «H9 ; 29
li. J. Ex. 253 ; Bagnall v. Londm
and North Weitem Bailway Co., 1
H. ft C. 6M ; 31 L. J. Ex. 480;
Ortat Werfem Sailwat/ Co. v. Ben-
Hta, L. B. 2 H. L. 27 ; 36 L. J.
Q. B. 33 ; Rmhon ttride Co. v. (irtat
WuUrn liailway Co., (189.'!) 1 Ch.
427 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 483 ; and scp
K'hn ¥. Sr-ri't EasUrn Ihihi-ny '',>.,
(1907) A. C. u. 407 ; 76 L. J. K. B.
940; f.ondnn and Vortk Wettem
Raitirai/ Co. v. Unirlrjf Purit CmI
Co., note (A), iupra,
(m) I'oiintney v. Clayton, HQ.
B. D. 820 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 666.
See London and North W Wwi i
BaUimy Co. v. Hoinky Park Coal
Co., (1811) 2 Ch. p. 121 ; 80 L. J.
Ch. 537.
(n) 5 H. 4 N. 689 ; 29 L. J. Ex.
253.
(o) a H. & N. pp. 698, 699 ; 29
L. J. Ex. p. 2S4.
i
i 1
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
227
mines come to be worked and the company requires them as Clop. VI.
necessary for the support of the surface, they must make com- »•
pensation to the landowner. The very fact that provision is
made by the 78th section for possible injury to the railway,
shows that the legislature intended to reserve the question of
support and compensation. The legislation would be incom-
plete, if it were not applicable to the case of a landowner, who.
having parted with the surface soil to be used by a company
for the purpose of putting an additional weight upon it, as a
railway company must necessarily do, shall afterwards enter-
tain an idea of working the mines under or in the neigh-
bourhood of a railway. The minerals are reserved to the
landowner, and the railway company is under no obligation
of making any compensation in respect of them, until the
necessity for it arises from his desire to work them. In such
a case the company are to consider whether the working is
liable to damage the railway, and then if they are willing to
make such compensation for the mines, the owner is not to
work them. The mines may never be worked, and it would
I'e a great hardship on a railway company if, upon a specu-
lative poesibility, they were bound to make compensation for
not working them. Such is the plain, intelligent, and equit-
able construction of these clauses, and one which is consistent
with the scope of the Act" (;;). Jn London ami North
Western Railway Co. v. Ackroyd (q). accordingly, Wood,
V.-C, refused to restrain a mine owner from working coal
within forty yards of a tunnel of the plaintiffs, who en-
deavoured to establish a right to support without making
compensation. But if a mine owner proceeds to work his
(p) See Ortnt HVifm. Bailway A. C. p. 407 ; 70 L. J K B 940 •
.m L. J. Q. B. 33; Smith t>i/t r,„/ ro.,{mo) A.C. m 130-
.V(.,.l65;4,L.J.Ch.97:/.m/ Xarth HWn gaUwo^ Co. y
t V. farie. i;j Howle„ Park C\»l O,. (1911) 2
« - /M; etc.. Co. V. Ormt «37: (1913) A. C. p 21 • 82 I T
llf-rfer,, BaUwag Co., (1893) 1 tSi. Ph. 7« ' '
V (9) 31 L. J. Ch. 588.
.VwM Aotfem iCsttuay Co., (We")
16-2
228
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
CInik VI.
Sect 8.
Power of i»U-
way company to
purchase
mineraU before
expinUioo of
compalaory
powen.
Purchase \<y
railway coiU'
— J —
pany after
completioii of
railway.
Pablic Health
Act, 1875.
Support for
HWer.
mines within the specified distance, without giving notice to
the company of hia intention to do so, as required either by
thr special Act, or by sect. 78 of the Railways Clauses Con-
solidation Act, he will be restrained by injunction (r).
A railway company, having the usual power to purchase
land under its special Act, has power also to purchase the
minerals under those lands at any time before the expiration
of the time limited for the exercise of its compulsory powers,
and the power is not taken away by sect. 77 and the follow-
ing sections of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, which
are for the benefit not of the mine owner but of the company ,
and only exempt the company from the obligation of buying
the minerals at once together with the surface land (,s-). A
railway company may also at any time after the due com-
pletion of its railway, jHirchase under its general statutory
powers the minerals under its line, if thought advisable in
the interests of its undertaking (t).
The Public Health Act, 1875, imposes on landowners
through whose land a sewer is laid under that Act, an liga-
tion to preserve to such sewer subjacent support, and gives
them a right to immediate compensation for being deprived
of free power to work subjacent mines, but not for the risk
of percolation of sewage into the subjacent mines (m). But
by the Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers), Amend-
ment Act, 1883, which incorporates sects. 18—27 (both
inclusive) of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, with respect
to mines, the rights and liabilities of a local authority and of a
landowner with respect to support from mines now depend
upon the mineral code contained in sects. 18—27 and ntt on
the principles of the common law. By this code the landowner
is bound before working the mines subjacent and adjacent to
sanitary works, to give notice to the local authority, and the
(r) Elliot v. North Eattem Bail-
tmg Co., 10 H L. C. 333 ; 32 L. J.
Ch.402.
(•) Erriiiyton v. Metr(^>litan Di»-
trirt Railwiuj Co., 19 C. D. 559; 61
L. J. Ch. .JO J.
{<) Thiimjiion V. Hirkman, (1907)
1 Ch fp. m, 661 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
254.
(m) Corporation of Dudlofr. Dud-
leg't TrnUtu, 8 Q. B. D. 86 ; 61
L. J. Q. B. 121. See Jary v.
Ihitii^tiij Curjwiitf'ii, (lyoT) 'i Ch.
p. 615 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 593.
NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.
local authority thereupon has an option to acquire or take and
use the minerals within a certain distance of their sanitary
works, making compensation for them, and so obtain support
for their works. If the option of the local authority is not
exercised, the landowner may work his mines, though he must
not wilfully damage the works or work his mines in an
unusual way.
229
Ch«p. VL
SaeLS.
SECTION 4.— NUISANCES RELATING TO WATEB.
Anothbb class of nuisances against which the protection of
the Court by way of injunction is often sought, are nuisances
relating to water. All acts done by a man on his own land,
wherei)y the rights of his neighbour in water are injuriously
affected, or whereby water becomes a cause of damage to the
land of his neighbour, piay be considered together as nuisances
relating to water.
Primd facie, every proprietor of land along the margin of a Bed of rim.
non -tidal (x) river or stream of running water is the pro-
prietor of the land covered by the water up to the medium
fihim of the stream (y). If the same person be the owner
of the land on both sides of the river, the presumption is that
he owns the bed of the whole river to the extent of the length
of his land ui)on it (z), and has the usual rights of a land-
(.'■) As to wheu a river in " nou-
tiilul " in the proper sense of the
tci ni. see Reece v. Miller, 8 Q. R D.
•iiO; 51 h. J. M. C. 64; TurMir*
Wat Riding Bivrri Board v. Tad-
eatter Rural CounnI, (1897) 97 L. T.
iM; Jme»y. T.lanrwst I'rlnn Coun-
nI. (1911) 1 Ch. p. 401; 80 h. J.
C'h. 145.
('/) Orr-Kiriiuj v. Ct^quhonn, 2
A. V. y. 8o4; Ureut Tvrrin;,toti
I uiisen;,turs v. Mi.orr Stevens, (1904)
1 < 'h. p. .153; 73 L. J. Ch. 124;
if'lntmortt{Edtnlfridgf) Oo. r. Stan-
ford, (1909) 1 Oh. p. 484; 78 L. J.
Ch. 144; /OHMT. LUumMt Urham
Vouueil, tupru; and see Central
London Battway Co. v. City of Lon-
dm Land Tax CommittioHert, (1911)
a Ch. pp. 473. 474 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
348; (1913) A. C. p. r.1; 88
T. L. fi. p. 396.
{z) Wriijht v. Iluirard, 1 Sim. &
St. 190; 1 L. J. Ch. 94; 24 B. E.
169; Bickett y. Morrit, li. B. 1
II, L. 47 (Sc.); Jona v. ni/Uamt,
2 M. & W. 326 ; 6 L. J. (N. a) Bx,
107; 46 B. B. 611; Caldwell v.
Madartn, 8 A. C. p. 404; 53 L. J.
P. C. 33. See, as to soil of lukes,
Ailtow f. Oormiean, 3 A. C. 666;
•/«k«N*M T. ffNtiU, (18U) A. 0.
230
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Chap. VI.
Beet. 4.
ArtificimI
watenoune.
owner in respect of the same. But this is subject to all the
rights of the owners above him to have the water flow away
from their land, and to all the rights of the owners below him
to have the water come to their land as it was wont, and it is
also subject to any rights the public may have over it (a).
Where a river was divided into two streams by an island, and
the defendant, a riparian owner, claimed to remove soil from
the bed of the river at a spot nearer to the island than to the
plaintiffs' bank of the river, the medium filum was drawn
not through the island, but through the stream between the
island and the plaintiffs' land, and their action for an injunc-
tion to restrain the defendant's acts failed (b). A grant of
land bounded u\Mn a stream or river above tide-water carries
the soil up to the centre of the stream, unless there is enou^
in the surrounding circumstances in relation to the property
in question or enou^ in the expressions of the instrument to
show that such was not the intention of the parties (c).
Where an old artificial watercourse, the origin of which is
unknown, passes throu^ tiie lands of several proprietors, the
552 ; (I'Jl'i) 81 L. J. P. C. 1717 ;
and att to the ordinary meauinj; of
"bed of river," see Thames Voii-
lervaton v. Samd <b Co., (1897) 2
a B. 334 ; 66 L. J. K. B. 716 ;
Joiies V. Llanrwtt Urban CouneU,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 401; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 149.
(a) Cat'lwell v. Macin m, 9 A. C.
404 ; 53 J. P. C. as. See Vear
V. I'iftero, (1911) 27 T. L. R. 558 ;
65 8. J. 688.
(6) Qrtat Turrington Couiervaion
V. Moore St*>mi. (1904) 1 Ch. 347 ;
T.J L. J. Ch. 124.
(r) Lord v. Communoner* of
Si/Jney, 12 M o. P. C. 473 ; Mickle-
thiraite v. Seivlay lirUlye Co., 3U
V. D. p. 145 ; 5.1 L. T. 366 ; /hike of
Iknmaliire v. I'attinsoii, 20 Q. U. I).
263 ; 57 I.. J. Q. B. 189 ; Pryor v.
Pctrr, (1894) 2 Ch. p. 25; 63 L. J.
Ch. S31 (C. A.); Tilbury v. Silia,
46 C. D. 98; 62 L. T. 364; In ri
n'hite'i Charities, (1898) 1 Ch.
p. 664 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 430; Mellor v.
W'almesky, (1905) 2 Ch. pp. 179, 180;
74 L. J. Ch. 476; CktUtrfiM
'{LorSs T. Harris, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 406; 77 L. J. Ch. 688; Portstnouth
WaUrutorks Co. v. Loinlon, Briylilmi,
etc.. Railway Co., (1910)26 T. L. R.
173. Cf. Ki-roydv. i'onllhanl, (1897)
2 Ch. 555 ; 66 L. J. Ch. "51 ; (1898)
2 Ch. 358; 67 L. J. Ch. 458 ; fol-
lowed in Hough V. Clark, (1907) 23
T. L. B. p. 68:), where it waa
decided that the praaumption that
the bed of a rivw flowing tbrouj^
the waate of a manor was part of
the manor waa rebutted, where
there waa a Roveral fishery in the
river, and nee Tracey.Elliutt v. Karl
Mtirley, (1907) 51 S. J. 625. Ah to
pleading the title to the bed of a
stream, see Pltdgt v. Pon^ref, (1906)
74 L. J. Ch. Vn-, M L. T. 680;
W. N. 66.
NUIBANCE8 RELATING TO WATER.
2&1
presumption ia, that thb watercourse was originally con- ci«p.vi.
atructed for the use of all the riparian proprietors, and that
each proprietor owns the bed of the channel adjoining his
land (d).
If from any cause the cours«> of a stream should be per- Direnion of
mujiently diverted, the propri^toi an either side of the old
channel have a right to use the soil of the alveus, each of them
up to what was the medium filum aqua, in the same way as
they are entitled to use the adjoining land; but no riiKirian
proprietor ia entitled to use his property in the alveut ii such
a manner as to interfere with the it\tural flow oi the stream
or to cause an injury to the proprietary rif^ts of »r>v other
riparian proprietor (e).
There ia no distinction in principle between riparian righta Eight* of
on the banks of navigable, and on those of non-narigable »wo«*
rivers. In the former case, however, there must be no inter-
ference with the right of navigation, and in order to give rise
to riparian rights the land must he in actual daily contact with
the stream, laterally or vertically (/).
A proprietor of land upon the banks of a ri -er or stream of
running water has no prope'-ty in the water, but has merely a
usufructuary interest in the water, as appurtenant to his land.
He ia entitled to the comfort, enjoyment, and benefit of the
water in its natural state, as it flowa past his land, as he is to
all the other advantages belonging to the land of which he is
owner The right is not a right of property, but is a
nati ral right (h), and does pot depend on the ownership of
{il) ]\'hitmores{Kdenbrid I'] Co. \. S'.il ; Chiserrnre v. liichnrth, 7
Sianjord, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 435; 78 TI. L. C. 349; 9.9 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 115
L. J. Vh. 144. R. B. 187 ; Sharp v. Wilson, (1904)
(f) Biikett V. Morris, L. R. 1 21 T. L. B. 679 ; 93 L. T.
H. L. (Sc.) 47, S8 ; Orr-Eutins v. 165 ; Edintmrgh Water Truttees
Colquhoun, 2 A. 0. p. Ml. BmmmiUe (1906), M L. T. S
(/) iyon V. Fiihmangtn' Co., I (H. L. Sc.); WkUt t. Whitt, (IW ,
A. C. p. 674 ; 4(J L. J. Ch. 68 ; A. C. 72 ; 78 L. J. P. C. 14 ; Pirie
Xoiil, Sliin't Railway Co. V. Pion,U * Co. v Kintore {Earl), (1906)
A. V. 612; 39 L. J. P. 0. 25. A. C. 484 ; 75 L. J. P. C. 96 ; Joi.ea
((/) .\tatoii V. Hill, 5 B. & Ad. 1 ; v. Llanrwst Urban Council, (1911)
2L. J. ;N. S.)K. n. 118: 39B. B. 1 Ch. 393. 402: 80 L. J. Ch.
354 ; Emhrty v. Oiwen, 6 Ex. 145
369 ; 20 L. J. Kx. 212 ; 86 R. B. (A) MantU v. VaUey Printing
282
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
*ftrt ^ ' **** water, but is appurtenant to the owner-
— — ship of the bank (i). The rights which a riparian proprietor
has with respect to the water i-i a stn mi are derived from Lis
possession of the land abutting on lue water. If a riparian
proprietor grants away tmy portion of his land abutting aa the
river, tlie grantee becomes a riparian proprietor and has the
right b of a riparian proprietor. These riparian rights need
not be granted in express terms, as they are part of the fee
simple and inheritance of the land conveyed (A If a riparian
owner grants away a portion of his estate not abutting on the
river, the grantee acquires no water rights. A riparian pro-
prietor ctuinot grant away his water rights apart from his
estate so as to place the grantee in the same position with
respect to the other riparian proprietors as he occupied him-
self. If a riparian proprietor grar^a to one not a riparian
proprietor a right to take water from the stream, the grantee
cannot maintain an action in his own name against other
riparian proprietors. He can only sue the grantor for an
interference with his enjoyment (7).
Risiiu of A riparian owner is not entitled to abstract water from a
rii«mn owmh. natural stream for purposes foreign to or unconnected with
his riparian tenement. Such a user can only be justified by
a grant from lower riparian owners or by prescription (to).
Railway companies accordingly have been restrained from
taking water from rivers to supply their locomotiTes along
their lines ( n) , and a waterworks compuiy has been restrained
Co., (1908) 2 Ch. p. 448 ; 77 L. J. Rraceirell, L. R. 2 Ex. 1 ; 36 L. J.
Ch. 742. Ex. 1 ; HMer v. I'orrilt, L. E. 10
(i) HW V. Il ofc/, 3 Ex. 748; 18 Ex. 61, 63; 44 L. J. Ex. 52;
L. J. Ex. 306; 77 B. E. 809; Lord Ormerol \. Totlmordeu J,iiU Co.. 11
V. Coinmimumera of Sydney. 12 Q. B. D. 135 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 445 ;
MdO. V. V. 473 ; Lyon v. t'M- and see Mi Cartney v. Lmdondtrry,
nioxyfcs' r,)., 1 A. C. pp. 673, 683 ; etc.. Railway Co., (1904) A. 0.
46 li. J. t'h. (iK, Jone» v. Ltanrwtt p. 316; 73 L. J. p. C. 73.
Vrhnn Council, (1911)1 Ch. p. i(»; (m) UeCkMim/ y. LaidoHderry,
80L. J. Ch. 146. ttr., Saitwa^ Co., (19M) A. C.
(ft) PorhtiumtK Wattrvmrkt Co. v. pp. 306, SIS ; 73 L. J. P. 0. 73.
London, BrighUm, etc.. Railway Co., (n) AH.-Oen. v. Great Eastern
(1910) 26 T. L. E. 173. Railway Co.. 6 Ch. 572 ; 19 W. R.
(!) Stockport Waterworks Co. v. 'SS; see McCartney v. Londondtrry,
Potter, 3 H ft 0. 300; Niittalt v. etc.. Railway Co., (1904) A. C. 301 ;
NUISANCES RELATING TO V//iTER.
233
from diverting water from a stream for the supply of the Oh«p. Vi.
inhabitants of a neighbouring town (o). 8«et.4.
Whei-o, however, a riparian proprietor granted a licence to
an owner of land not abutting on the river to abstract water
from the sfa-eam by a pijje inserted in the stream on the
licensor's land, and after using it the licensee roturned it to
the stream undiminished in quantity and undeteriorated in
quality before the stream left the land of the licensor, the
Court refused to grant a lower riparian proprietor an injunc-
tion against the licensee or his licensor (p). But a riparian
proi)rietor has a right of action against a non-riparian pro-
prietor who takes water from a streain under a grant or licence
from a riparian proprietor, if his user of the water sensibly
affects the flow or the quality of the water of the stream j).
A riparian proprietor has a right to the fall and flow of the Bighti of
water and to the impelling force of the current for mill or '■'•^•■^
other manufacturing purposes; and as incident thereto he
has a right to erect dams, sluices, canals and watei-ways so
as to fit the stream for the actual working of mills; but he
may not, in doing so, accelerate the velocity of the current,
BO a.s to cause material injury or annoyance to his neighbour
below him, who has an equa rig^t to the subsequent use of
the same water in its natural state, or retard or diminish the
flow, or throw back the water so ,m injuriously to affect the
grounds, mills or springs of his neighbour above him {;•;.
"a L. J. P. C. 73; Betllery. (heat (r) JVright v. Howard, 1 Sim. &
H. L. 697; ib L. J. Ch. 638; L. J. C. P. 363; Embny v. Owtn,
soe McCartney v. LondonJtrry, 6 Ex. 369; 20 L. J. Ex. 212- 86
Jtailway Co., (1904) A. 0. p. 314 ; B. B. 331 ; Orr-Ewing v. Colquh'oun,
73 L. J. p. c. 73. 2 A. C. 839, Lord Bkckbu. n ;
(/>) Kentit V. Great Kastern Bail- John Yomg cfe ('o.\ Baiikier Dia-
V'lH Co., 27 C. D. 122 ; 54 L. J. Ch. tillern Co., (1893) A. C. 691 ; Sharp
19; soe MeCorfiiey v. Lmdonderrij, v. Wilson, (1904) 21 T. L. E 679-
<:l<; Itailway Co., (1904) A. C. 93 L. T. 155; White v. Whiti,
V- ai3; 73 L. J. P. C. 73. (1906) A. C. 72, 80; 75 L. J. P. C.
('/) Ormer,d v. Todmorden Mill 14; /"tne it Co. v. KirUore (Enrl),
<■".. UQ.B.D.IM; ML.J.aB. (1906) A. C. p. 484 ; 74 L. J. A 0.
Wtslrrn Railway Co., (1907) 96
T. ]). 100.
St. 203 ; 1 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 94 ; 24
R. E. 169 ; Mason v. Hill, 5 B. ft
A. 19; 2 L. J. (N. a) KB. 118; M
R. R. 354; Qaved v. MaHyn, 34
NUISANCES BELATINO TO WATER.
Chap. VI.
Baei. 4.
This is the elear and settled principle on the sabjeet, but
-there is often difficulty in the application of it. A certain
diminution in the quantity of the water, or an acceleration
or retudation of the flow, is generally an implied element in
the right of using the stream at all, but de minimis non
curat lex, and unless the use be such aw to iffcct miitorially
the adjoining proprietor, a right of action will not arise.
The test in all cases is whether the extent or mode of enjoy-
ment has been such as to inflict a jwsitivo or sensible injury
upon other riparian proprietors, or to interfere in a sub-
stantial and perceptible degree with their common rigLi; to
a like user of the same water (m). So long as a reasonable
user is made by a man of the water, and no actual or per-
ceptible damage arises to the right of another to a similar use
of the same water, no action will lie (/)• If, however, the
user be unreasonable, and the defendant claims to do the act
complained of as a matter of right, an action will lie although
there be no actual present damage (u).
f.iinilon, Brighton and South Coast injunction, the plaintiff having
Haihimj Co., (1910) 26 T. L. H.
IT.i; see Fair \. I'ickem, (MUl) 'J7
T. L. R. 6.)8 ; 56 S. J. 6NK (C. A.).
See, as to throwing back water.
Cooper V. Barber, 3 Taunt. 99 ; 12
B. B. 604 ; Sautider* r. Nniman, 1
B. & Aid. 2M ; 19 B. B. 312.
(() Embrty v. Owen, 6 Ex. 353 ;
20 L. J. Ex. 312 ; 86 B. B. 331 ;
Eldedon v. Crouley, 18 L. T.
16 ; Sami aoH v. UoddmaU, 1 C. B.
N. S. 590 ; 2« L. J. C. P. 148 ; 1(»7
R. R. 809 ; Sharp v. ll't7»on, (1904)
21 T. L. R. 679; 93 L. T. 155;
McCartney v. Limihnidernj, etr.,
Railway Co., (1904) A. C. p. 313;
73 L. J. P. C. 73; RobtrU r.
FeUowu, (19C3) 94 I.. T. 279;
Whitmaru {Edeniridgt) Co. v. Stan-
ford, (1909) I Ch. p. 439 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 14-J ; and see Hanhury v. Llan-
frechfa Urban Council, (1911) 9
L. 0. R. p. 365 ; 75 J. P. p. 303,
where a declaration of right was
made with liberty to apply for an
KufTered no actual damage.
(<) Kmbrey V. Owen, lujira ; Baity
V. Clark, (1902) 1 Ch. 649 ; 71 L. J.
Ch. 396 ; Robertty. Feltoires, tufira;
McCartneij v. Londonderry, etc.,
Railu ay Co., (1904) A. C. p. 307 ;
73 L. 3. P. C. 73; Whitmort$
{Edenbridife) Co. v. Stanford, (1909)
1 Ch. p. 439 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 144.
(k) Embrey y. Oiven,tupra ; Att.-
(Jen. V. (Irtai Eastern Railtiay Co.,
6 Ch. p. 677; 19 W. R. 788;
Sicinilcn Waterworks Co. v. Wilit
and Berks Canal, etc., Co., L. B.
7 H. L. p. 705 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 638 ;
Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co., 11
Q. B. D. p. 159; S3 L. J. Q. B.
443 ; Baily \. Clark, lupra ; Sharp
V. Wilion, (19(M) 21 T. L. B. 679 ;
93L.T. 185; McCartney \. Lomlim-
derry, etc.. Railway Co. ,{1904) A.V.
p. 310 ; 73 L. J. P. C. 73 ; Roberle
V. Fdic.res, (19tic) 04 L. T. p. 281 ;
and see Hanbiiry v. Uat^recl^fa
Urban Counril, tupra.
NUISANCES RKLATINO TO WATEB.
Whether the user of the water by an upper proprietor he ci*P- VI.
reoMmBble i« generally a qaestion of fact depending on the *"
pnrticular cirfuiiistuneeH of the case. Enjoyment of water hrdom«tto'
foi' cattle or domestic purposes may be called the ordinary
«»er. However small the stream, and however large the
MU])jily taken may l)e, user for these purposes is always
reasonable, provided the enjoyment is bond fide and is had in
the ordinary mode according to the common usage of the
country. A proprietor lower down the stream haa no ground
of complaint against a proprietor higher up in case of o
deficiency of the water (x). A riparian owner may also use Userof w«ur
the water for manufacturing or agricultural purposes, which {^jSJlSJ'**"
may be called the " extraordinary user." Such user must Hri««tt"«l
be reasonable, and the purposes for which the water is taken
must be connected with the owner's riparian tenement, and
the water must be restored substantially undiminished in
volume and unaltered in character (.y). The right to a reason-
able use of the water of a stream being common to all riparian
proprietors, it is often difficult to determine whether a par-
ticular lise is consistent with this common right. In deter-
mining the question a just regard must be had to the force
and magnitude of the current, the volume of water, iis height
and velocity, the fall, the nature of the soil, the mode and
duration of the user, the general usage of the country, and
all other circumstances which may, in a particular case, bear
upon the question. To take a large quantity of water from a
large river for manufacturing or agricultural purposes would
ctfusv no sensible or perceptible diminution of the benefit to
the prejudice of a lower proprietor, whereas taking the same
quantity from a small stream passing a farm would be a great
und manifest injury to those below who use it for domestic
supply and to water cattle; and therefore it would be an
(j) Minrr v. QUmimir, 12 Moo. (1904) A. C pp. 306, .307 ; 73 L. J.
r. t'. l.il, as modified by Lwd Ch. "3; Jivberti v. Fetlowa {1906),
Xi rhiiri/ V. Kiti hen, 9 Jur. N. 8. 132 ; 94 L. T. 279.
ll'wW V. Waiid, 3 Ex. p. 781 ; 18 (y) MeCaHnty v. Londonihny,
L. J. Ex. 305; 77 R. R. 809; etc., Jiaitway Co.,i,ijra; Sltmp y.
yuttall V. Braetwdi, L. B. 2 Ex. 1 ; Wiltm, (1904) 31 T. L. B. p. 680;
36 L. J. Ex. 1; MeCartntg v. 93L.T. IM.
Londimderrfi, ek., BailvM^ Co.,
886
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
CU^ VI.
Otrmtioa el
water.
Interferenc*
with |iung« of
salmoa.
unreu»tonul>le use of tlie wtit«r in tlio liitter case, and not in
the former. The queetion in each esse is entirely one of
dogree. It is iin|)OHsil)lo to doflno prttist'Iy the iiiiiits wli i h
Boparute the |)erinitted use of u stream from itf- wrongful
application (z).
A riparian proi)ri4'tor has no ri(»l»t to divert any part of the
water of a stream into a course different from tJiat in which
it has been accustomed to flow, for ivny purj^se to the pre-
judice of any other riparian proprietor. The upper of two
riparian proprietors on the sunie .stream may divert the water
on hia own land by an artificial ciiannel, provided he restore
it to the natural channel before it leaves his land, with reason-
able care and prudence and without injury to the lower
riparian proprietors. Hut the diversion by a riparian pro-
prietor of any portion of the stream without returning the
water to its natural channel before it leaves his land is an
unlawful user, if any other riparian proprietor is prejudiced
thereby («). Thus, the diversion of the water of a stream
to such an extent as to leave the natural channel at times bare
of water, thereby interferinf,' with the jjassago of salmon up
a river will be restrained as an improper uaer of the stream
and a wrong against the owners of the upper fisheries (b).
So also, the diversion of water from a stream for the purpose
(z) Kmbrey v. Oictn, 6 Ex. 3«9 ; 910 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 191 ; 26 B. B.
S79 ; Samp»im t. HcddinaU, I C. B.
N. S. 390 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 148; 107
B. H. 809.
(a) I.uttreti <'ase, 4 Co. Rep.
8(j b ; Ikah)! v. Shan; (i l-:a»t, 208 ;
S R. R. !««; Wright v. lloiiard, 1
Sim. & St. 190; 1 h. J. Ch. 94 ; 24
R. R. Kii); Ftrruiiii v. /IrwI/irrd
Corpiiraiiun, 21 Beav. 412 ; 111 B. B.
144.
(6) I'irie Jc Co. v. KilUon {Earl),
(1906) A. C. p. 484 ; 73 L. J. P. C.
90 ; and 8ee Hanhury v. IJan/rnh/a
L'pjitr I'Tban Viuncil, (1911) 9
L. O. R. aOO ; 75 J. V. 307 ; see
liaiker v. Faulkner, (ISOs) 79 L. T.
24; W. N. 69 (eraetton of w«in}.
. ) L. J. Ex. 212 ; 86 B. B. 331 ;
Htrindon Wattrworku To. v. Xfiltt
and Btrlft Canal Co., L. B. 7 H L.
1>. 704 ; 45 I,. J. Ch. »i38 ; «ee
Oriiieioil \. Toilmiinlen Mill Co., II
Q. B. I). 155 ; 5J L. J. Q. It. 445 ;
IMfiiat Co. V. Boyil, 11 L. R. Ir.
5(iO; .Mostyii v. Atlierttm, (1899) 2
Ch. 360; US I... J. Ch. 629; JiaUy
T. Clark, (1902) I Ch. 649 ; 71 L. J.
Ch. 396; Sharp r. WUmM, (1904)
21 T. L. B. 679 ; 93 L. T. 153;
McCariney v. Londonderry, etc.,
Hailu-ny Co., (1904) A. C. 306 ; 73
C. J. Ch. 73. See ati to the dett'ii-
tion of water, Shears v. if'ft/rf, 7
Moo. 345 ; 1 h. J. ((). S.) C. P. 3 ;
ll'iMiunu T. Marland, 2 B. & C.
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
287
of 8u, .plying a neighbouring town (c) or a county gaol (d), ciup. vi.
or the locomotires of a milwsy oomiMny along their line (e), ***•*'
is an uniuwful user of the water vbiob baa bem reetrained
hy injunction.
A local authority haa no power under sect. 51 of the Public Ait.r.ii«, of
Health Act, 1875, for the purpose of supplying water to its bjhlij**^
district, to alter the flow of water in u streum, without the •■»fc«»»)r.
consent in writing of the riijurian proprietors lower down the
M ic.iin, as required l)y .sedion 382 of the Act. By so altering
the flow of water the local authority is " injuriously affecting "
within the meaning of section 332, the common law rights
of such riparian proprietors and will be restrained from so
iloing, without proof of sensible damage caused thereby (/),
nor has a local authority power under the Public Health Act,'
1876, to grant a licence to a stranger to take water from a
|»iil)lic well for commercial purposes (ff).
Riparian owners are entitled, except so far as their rights Right..!
are varied by statute, or other »,,ecial .. ircumstances. to iiS'STS;
r. quire that nothing shall be done to affect to their prejudice
tho quantity or the quality of a stream as it flows in its natural
state, and when an Act of Parliament authorises an inter-
ference with the natural How of a stream, the original rights
of tile rijmrian owners are impaired only so far as the reascm-
al)le exercise of the statutory rights impairs them (h), and
the owner's remedy is under the compensation claus^ of
the Act (i).
etc., Raila ay Co., (1904) A. C. 301 :
73 L. J. P. C. 73.
iri//> and Berks Canal (.'<>., L. B. 7
If. <i!l7; 45 L. J. Ch. 638:
l!,>hH» V. Richard*, 60 Ij. J. Ch.
297; SI Ij. J. Ch. 944; IMmit
V. Gwyr/mi Dittriet Oouncil, (1899)
1 Ch. 583 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 233 ; (1899)
2 Ch. 608 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 7o7 ;
MrCartwy v. Londonderry, etc.,
I!n:i,nn, ''....(I<)(M) A.C.p.309 ; 73
I- J. P. C. ;;t.
(A) EdinbHrgh Water Tnultm v.
SomnurvilU, (1906) 90 L. T jn
(H. L. Sc.).
(/) Ihhtrt$ V. Qu-yrfrai District
Council, (1899) 2 Ch. 608 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 787; cf. O'CaHwjhan y. Bal-
roihery, (1907) 1 Ir. 499; and gee
(jf) Mcstyn V. AtherUm, nipra.
(•/) Mrdwaii Xaiiiijntiim Co. y,
"'•ximy (Eari),UV. B. N. 8.673;
L. J. c. P. m
(«■) Hedler V. (I rent U'eiterri Rail-
way Co., (1907) 96 L. T. 98 (H. L.).
(f) McCartney y. Limdonderri,
Nri8ANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Chip. VI
8wt 4.
Strtikin >t Ih*
Streani tliioing
from undtr-
Where u defondunt claims the right to use the water of a
itream in an unrwwonaWe manner. It ia not neceaaary for thb
pliiiiitiff to show thiit ht- Iiuh aoatainad actual Injury in order
to obtain m injunction (*).
Where a spring; of water arisen on a man's land, he may, It
seemd, use it im he does any other propoity which is the
pro<hici' of luH <«Htato, without regard to the convenience or
ailvanlage of iiis neighbour, provided that the water is not at
its source a watercourse. But if a stream begins to flow at
tho npring hoiid in a doflned channel, " rights incidental to
streams of running water attach to it at the Hource (/)■ The
rights of a riparian proprietor In respect of a natural stream
extend to itfl triliutaries or feo<lorH flowing in d(>f^np<l channels
or watercourHPs, but do not extend to water flowing over or
soaking through land previous to its arrival at a stream (m).
The same principles wiiieh apply to natural streama flowing
in a defined cliannel ov.er the surface are also applicable to
streams flowing from under the ground in a distinct and well-
deftned channel. The right in tho latter case is equally a
right ex jure miurae, and is incident to the adjacent land as
a beneficial adjunct (n). liut the right does not exist in the
{le) SampiM ▼. HoddinM, 1 C. B..
N. a. 690 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 148;
Jlarmr v. IlirKt, Ij. R. 4 Ex. 43 ; 38
L. J. Ex. 1 ; Snrhuryv. Kitchen, 16
I.. T. sol ; Oriiifrnl v. Tiilmimltn
Joint Stirk Mill Co., 11 Q. H. 1).
p. 169 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 446 ; Jkhftiy.
(ivyr/rai Dintriit ('oiinril, (ltt99) 2
Ch. p. 614; 68 J. » 'h. 737 ;
Sharp V. Wilton, (1904) 21 T. L. B.
p. 680 ; McCartney v. Londonderry,
tte., Railixafi Co., (1904) A. C. p.
310; 73 L. J. P. C. 73.
(/) Ihidilfn V. (iitardiant of
CInltiin Ciiiin', 1 U. & N. 627 ; 26
L. J. Ex. 146; 108 R. K. 7.VJ;
liaved V. Martyn, 19 0. II. (N. S.)
732 ; 34 I.. J. C 1'. 353 ; liuntimj v.
Hi'ks, 70 I'. T. 455; Mu^lyn v.
Athtrton, (1899) 2 Ch. 3H0 ; 6S
I^. J. C'Si. 629; tortmuMth WaUr-
vorkt V. London, Briyhton, and
South Coa l Railway Co., (1910) 36
T. L. B. p. 173
(m) Brnadhmt RamMhttm, 11
Ex. p. 617 ; 25 L. J. Ex. llfl; 105
R. R. 673; McNab v. Robtrtmm,
(lb»7) A. C. 129; 66 li. J. P. C.
27.
(») WonI V. H'aurf, 3 Hx. 748;
18 L. J. l"x »(I6 : 77 R. R. 8(19 ;
Diikiiifiii' V. Uriiiiil ■liniitioii Ciiiial
Co., 7 Kt. li. 3(>(»; 21 L. J. Ex.
241; VhoMmnrt v. Richarth, 7
H. L. V. p. 384 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 81 ;
116 R. H. 187; Uodykmmm t.
Einior, \ B. & a 229 ; 32 L. .1.
U. 15. 231 ; Ornnil •hmrlii n Canal
Ci. V. Sh„<,(ir, (i Ch. 486 ; 19 \V. R.
ilV.) ; lihiti, V. liaiUimcna d-mmis-
Ki'^irrA, 17 Ti. B. Ir. 459; .Mc.\ah v.
lUAtrtton, (1897) A. C . p. 134; 66
NUIRAMCKS RRLATIMO TO WATER.
289
CAM of underground water flowing in a defined but unknown ciup. vi.
channel (o). ***»• <•
A riparian owner is entitled to the flow of wiitor puat his Polhrtka •!
land, in its natural state of purity undeterioratied by noxious **'**"'
matter diwharged into it by others (p), and any on* who
fouls tho water infringes a right of property of the riparian
owner, who can maintain an action against the wrongdoer
without proving that the pollution has caused him actual
damage (q), and the action can be maintained e?en although
other persons may have so fouled the water that the acts of
the wrongdoer may not have rendered the water less applicable
to useful parpoaes than it waa before, for the damat^ ia an
injury to a right, and therefore actionable (r).
The grantee of an exclusive right of fishing is entitled to hjary (« tMag
an injunction to restrain the pollution of the stream («), and
can maintain an action for damages and an injunction not-
withstanding that the acts complained of are offences under
I,. J. P. ('. 2"; and mse Mottyn v.
Athtrton, (1899) 2 Ch. 360 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 699; Ensiith t. itf«tn>.
l«>Utttn Wtt$r Board, (1907) 1 K. B.
p. 001 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 361.
(ii) l{mil/or<i ('orpomtitm v. Fer-
rnnil, (HM>2) 2 Ch. 655 ; 71 L. J.
I h. H5it ; Maiisell v. Vallei/ I'rintinii
' Vi., (l«ON) 2 Ch. p. 448; 77 L. J.
< h. p. 746.
Kmbrty v. Ov'tn, 6 Ex. p.
:i69 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 212 ; 86 B. B.
331 ; Lyon t. FUhimimgmf Co., 1
A. C. 673, 674 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 68;
.'iiAh Young ifc Cc. v. Bankier
tillfri/ Co., (1893) A. C. 691 ; 69
T. 8;)8 (Sc.); Jonea\. Llrnnrst
Crhan i'nmtnl, ^1911) 1 Ch. ;)!»;},
m ; 80 L. J. Ch. 145.
(</) l.inriivocil V. Stoti'markel Co.,
I.. It. 1 Fxi. 77 ; OoUmid v. Tim-
iiridijt WeUi CamnMtbmmn, 1 Ch.
349 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 382; OomJ^
V. Lightowkr, 2 Ch. 478 , 36 L. J.
Ch. 684; /oAn Ymmg A Co. t.
AinMtr Di$Htttrg Co., (1893) A. C.
p. 698 ; 69 L. T. 838; Sharp r.
Wilttm, (19M) 21 T. L. B. 678;
Jmt* V. Llnnrirtt I'rban Coiinril,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 402; 80 L. J. Ch.
145
' ) Wood V. IVaml, 3 Ex. 748 ;
18 L. I Ex. 30j; 77 R. R. 809;
]\'o"i ,. Hiitrliffe, 2 Sim. N. 8.
lf.;j, 16«; 21 L. J. Ch. 253; 89
R. R. 2(>2; Crosslff/ v. I.ightmnltr,
2 Ch. p. 481 ; 36 L. J. Cb. 684 ;
PtnningUm v. Brimop Coal Co., i
C. D. p. 772; 46 L. J. Ch, 773;
AU.-0«n. r. lid* Oorpomlion, S
Ch. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 711 ; Bhir
V. ntakin, 67 L. T. MS; (1887)
W. N. 148.
{») Fih;if,aM V. Firhank, (1897)
2 Ch. 96 ; 66 J. Cli. 529. .See
Fotttry. n'arh!iiii/lon Crbnn Cmin-
(il, (1906) 1 K. B. 648 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. 614 ( pollution ot oyabet bed*
on forwhore).
240
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
ch»p. VI. the Salmon Fishery Acta punishable on conviction in sum-
****** -mary proceedings (0-
Ditcbwgcof Local authorities have power under the Public Health Act,
litnMi toeal 1875, to discharge sewage into a natural stream or water-
■■tboritiM. course, if the sewage has been freed from all excrementitioos
or other foul or tioxioua matter such as would affect or
deteriorate the actual standard of purity and quality of the
water in such stream or watercourse (u) ; and an injunc-
tion will be granted io restrain a >local authority comuittiog
a breach of the Act (x).
Right to afreet The right to affect the quantity, quality, or the flow of
ma* "iLlcquired water may be acquired by prescription (y). But the mere
hj pmcription. omission by a riparian proprietor to use the water of the
stream does not impair his title, or confer any right thereto
upon another. The right exists whether he exercises it or
not. He may begin to exercise it whenever he will. It is not
the non-user by a man of his right, but the adverse enjoy-
ment by another during twenty years, witich destroys the
ri^t (2). The time from which a prescriptive right begins
(<) Fraser v. Fear, (1912) 107
L. T. 423, r2C ; \V. N. 227.
(u) See sects. 15, 16, 17, and
Dnrrant v. Itrankxomr I'^hnn Cniiii-'
cil, (1897) 2 Ch. 291 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
6A3. See also JoHe$ y. Llmrmt
Urhan ComncU, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 411 ;
80 L. J. Ch. 148.
(r) Att.-Oen. V. liirmingham.
Tame and Distriet Drainage Board,
(1910) 1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch.
137; (1912) A. C. 788; 82 L. J.
Ch. 45.
(j) BeaUy v. Shaw, 6 East, 208 ;
8 B. B. 466; Maton v. HiU, 5 B.
ft Ad. 1 ; 2 L. J. (N. S.) K. B. 118;
39 B. B. 3S4 ; Murgatrofd v. Bobin-
i<m, 7 E. & B. 391 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.
233 ; Sam/Mm v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B.
N. .S. J). Gil ; 2(i J. C. P. 1 18 ;
107 R. E. 809; (liMami.l \. T,in-
hriilije tVillt < 'ninmtseinners, 1 Ch.
349; 35 L. J. Ch. 382; rrtttlei/
V. LightowJer, 2 Ch. 478; 36
L. J. Ch. 584; Mr/niijre Hrothen
V. McUarhi, (1893) A. C. 268;
McCartney v. Londonderry, etc.,
BaUway Co., (1604) A. C. p. 313 ;
73 L. J. P. C. 73 ; HarrinyUm (Earl)
T. Derby Curportaiim, (1906) 1 Ch.
p. 219 ; 74 L. T. Ch. 219 ; White v
mite, (1906) A. C. p. 80; 75 L. J.
P. C. 14; Att.-Oen. v. (Irand Junc-
tion Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. 516;
78 L. J. Ch. 681 ; /Wtswouth
JVatrrwork-$ Co. v. Londun, Uriyhtm,
eic.. Railway Co., (1910) 26 T. L. B.
p. 174; JoHt* V. LlanrwH Urhan
CouneU, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 410; 80
L. J. Ch. 14S. See also Aa.-am.
V. Oiiit Nirthern Uaihrny Co.,
(1909) 1 Ch. 775 ; 7S I,. J. Ch. 577.
[z) Samjifun v. lloddinoH, 1 C. B.
N. S. p. Oil ; 20 L. J. C. P. p. 150;
l!ea(nj v. Shaw, 6 East, 208 ; 8 B. B.
466; Jfufonv. j^a/,5B.ftAd. 1; 2
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATEB.
241
to accrue is tlie time when the rights of anothor riparian ohap. vi.
l.roprietor is disturbed (a). As between tw( opposite riparian *■
proprietors, the user by the one of the whole or the greater
imrt of the water by means of structures erected upcm and
within the limits of his own estate is not an adverse i^sses-
sion, which will raise the presumption of grant, for riparian
liroprietors on the opposite banks of a stream stand to each
other in the relation and with aubstantially the rights of
tenants in common (b). To constitute adverse possession,
the possession by the one must be so wholly inconsistent
witii tko claim of the other as to amount to an actual
ouster (c). The abstraction of water from a stream openly
and under claim of right for a period of twenty years to a
tcnument not abutting on the stream will create no easement
to have pure water flow down the stream to the point of
abstraction (d).
T.ie acquisition of new rights to water by long user comes Pn»criptionAot.
within the provisions of the Prescription Act 2 & 3 Will. IV. f *'
c. 71. Bj the 2nd an,d 4th clauses of that Act the continuous
enjoyment as of ri^t («) of a watercourse (/) or tiie use of
water as an easement over or from any liand or water for
twenty years next before the commencement of some suit or
action in which the claim has been brought in question (g)
without interrupticm. sequiewsed in fw a year (A), is evidence
I'- J. (N. S.) K. B. 118; 39
B. B. 354; Onml^ y. Lighiowkr,
tu/ira; and see Hanhury v. Llan-
fmhfa Urban Council, (1911) 9
L. O. B. pp. 364, 3W; 74 J. P.
307.
(") Kfnnt V. Great Eattern Hail-
"".'/ 27 C. D. 122, 129 ; 84
I'- J. Vh. 19.
('.; Iknumait v. Kiiutlla, 8 Ir.
< ■. I,. 291.
{<■} lb. See SMnmn t. Smtih, 8
E. *B. 1;86L. J.Q.R8U; 112
R R. 446.
('/) Stockport WaUrworkt Co. v.
I'Mer, a H. * 0. 300.
K.I.
(«) See Gmdner v. Hoilgtmia
Kingtton Brtwtrin, (1901) 2 Ch.
198; 70 L. J. Ch. 504; (1908) A. C.
229 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 588.
(f) .'<eo Wnght v. Williamt, 1
M. & W. 77; 5 L. J. Ex. 107;
Tanlor V. Ctrrjmration of ,S<. /felen'i,
6 C. D. 2(54; 46 L. J. Ch.
p. 860; Chambtr Cettirrf Co. t.
Hopivoud, 32 C. D. p. MO; M L. J.
Ch. 859.
(jf) Cooper T. BtMmi, 13 C. B.
N. 8. 446.
(/.) Aiitt, p. lyi ; Sitnor t. Ah»-
u ell, 2 Gifi. 420.
16
242
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
ch«p. VI. from which a jury is justified in presuming a right, if the
— — claim be otherwise good at common law (i).
menu m ^ right may be acquired under the statute to interfere with
the course of water either by damming it up and forcing it
back upon the land above, or by transmitting it altered in
quality or quantity or velocity io the inferior proprietor (k).
A claim to discharge a stream of water either in its natural
state or changed in quality over land (l), or to foul a stream
by throwing rubbish into it(m), or by discharging into it
sewage water (n). or water fouled in the process of manu-
facture (o), or generally to interfere with its purity to such
an extent as to cause damage to another (p), is within the
statute. So also a claim to go on the soil of uiotiier to C'!«r
a mill-stream and repair its banks (q), or to open the gates
of sluices in time of flood or likelihood of flood so as to pro-
tect the land of the dominant owner (r), or to turn the vater
(i) Oaieil V. Martyn, 19 (_'. B.
N. S. Til ; ;!4 L. J. C. P. 353.
{k) Wright y. Uoimrd, I Sim. &
St. 190: 1 L. J. Ck. 94; Sampim
V. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. N. S. fi90 ; 26
L. J. C. P. 148 ; 107 E. B. 809 ;
liat'in V. Siirewfbury Hailuay <'o.,
L. R. 6 Q. B. 878, 587 ; 40 L. J.
Q. B. 293 ; \riiUe v. While, (1906)
A. C. p. 80 ; 75 L. J. V. C. 14 ;
I'urtumouth Waterwurkt Co. v.
LvikIvii, Brighton, etc., Sailivay Co.,
[mo) 26 T. L. B. p. 174.
(/) Wright William; 1 M. *
W. 77 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Bx. 107 ;
46 R. R. 266 ; Britcot v. Drought,
11 Ir. V. L. •250: Baxendale v.
M'-.Vu' i'i;/, :! C'h. 790 ; 15 W. B. 3'i.
(in) <'arli, f v. Loi-ering, 1 U. &
N. p. 7^8; 26 L. J. Ex. 251 ; 108
R. R. i.2-i.
(w) Atf.-Oen. v. Luton Bi'ord of
Health, 2 Jur. N. 8. 181 ; 106 B. B.
929. See Att.-Oen. v. Dorkimg
Union, 20 C. D. 6<Vt ; 51 L. J. Ch.
585; HarriiKjion [Earl) v. Dtrbg
Corporation, (1905) 1 Ch. 905 ; 74
L. J. Ch. 219; Jonte y. LloMnvet
Urban Uounct/, (1911) 1 Ch.p. 410;
80 L. J. Ch. p. 153.
(o) Moore r. Webh, 1 C. B. K. S.
673; 107 B. B. 854 ; Murgatroyd v.
Schinton, 7 E. & B. 391 ; 26 L. J.
Q. B. 233 ; Baxendale v. M< Murray,
2 Ch. 790; 15 W. B. 32. See
BuUerworth v. West Ridiug of York-
thirt Rivers B,Hxrd, (1909) A. C. 46 ;
78 L. J. K. B. 203 ; and the Biven
Pollution Pteveniion Acts, jiod,
p. 265.
(f>) Wmhty. Htward, 10 W. B.
557 ; 135 B. B. 964 ; Wood v. Wand,
3 Ex. 748; 18 L. J. Ex. 305;
77 R. E. 809; see Jonetv. Llanrwit
Urban CmtncU, (1911) 1 CL p. 408;
80 L. J. Ch. 148.
(</) Bee^tvn v. Weate, 5 E. & B.
99ti; 25 L. J. Q. B. 115; fioiertt
V. FeUnwet (1906), 94 L. T. 279;
and see Joite* y. Pritehard, (1908)
1 Ch. p. 638 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 400.
(f) iS»m;* ;r V. Mayor of God-
manchtUer, (1897) A. C. 696 ; 68
L. J. Oh. 77a
Ch»f. VI.
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
into aa artificial watercourse (a), is within the statute. If a
right to discharge water over the land of another in a specific
channel be acquired by prescripticm, the obstmctiim of the
channel by the owner of the servient tenement is an invasion
of a legal right for which an action is maintainable without
proof of actual perceptible damage (<).
Persons within the district where the custom of tin bound-
ing prevails are not in a less favourable condition in reference
to acquiring rights of water by prescription than in other parts
of the country (u). The easement passes to the owner of the
soil when the bounding comes to an end (i).
The right to afiect the quality, the quantity, or the flow of
water in a mwner not justiitod by natural right is an oase-
ment, and is therefore subject to the general law of easements.
The right becomes extinguished upon unity of seisin and pos-
session of both tenements in the same person (y). The right Umiuottb,
when acquired by grant must be measured by the terms of the
grunt (2), when derived from prescription or under the
statute, it must be measured by the actual enjoyment, and
can cniy be commensurate with it. A man who has aequired
a right by actual enjoyment is entitled to all which he has
enjoyed during the prescribed period both to the same extent
and in the same specific manner, but to nothing more (a).
The user which originated the right must also be ite
measure (6). If a man has acq.:,, 1 the right to divert water
(<) Aeetfon v. Umtf, 6 E. ft B. p. 672; 34 L. J. Ch. 113 ; Milner's
Safe Co. V. Grtat Northern and City
Stiiliray Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 220
75 L. J. Ch. p. 810.
(a) Bealey j. Shaw, 6 Bast, aM,
8 E. B. 466 ; Davie$ r. WiUimmt. 19
a K p. M8 ; SOL. jr. Q. B. p. 3M
83 B. B. MS: OMmM t. Tbn-
brulge WtO* Commimimmn, I Ok.
p. 362; 34 L. J. Ch. 382; Pint A
Co. V. Earl Kintm-e, (1906) A. a
pp. 484, 485 ; 75 L. J. P. C. 96.
(6) CroMley r. Liyhtow/er, 2 Oh.
481 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 584 ; and Me
Att.-(}en. V. Great Korthtm JlaU-
way Oe..(lM9) 1 Ch. 77«; 78 L 9.
248
B.
B.
»96; 26 L. J. Q. B. 115.
(t) Clarton v. C'laxtcn, Ir.
V. L, 23.
(«) (iat^l V. Martyn, 19 C.
N. «. 732 ; 34 L. J. I '. P. 353 ;
Jtimey v. Stucker, I Ch. 396 ; 36
L. J. Ch. 467.
(2^) Mmtji r. iStociwr, ib.
(v) EmtH T. Ooekfttme, 4 IfMq.
117; Ivimey y. Stacker, 1 cL
]>■ ^<I7 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 467.
(j) ]Villiam» v. Jamtt, L. B. 2
C. P. J). 581 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 256 ;
Tdylur V. rtf. Helen's Corporation,
e C. D. pp. 270, 271 ; Mayor
Windmr v. aievdl, S7 D. Ch.ft77.
16—2
244
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Ch»p. VI. in certain proportions, he cannot increase the proportions (c).
*' So also if the enjoyment has been only upon certain days in
the week, the water cannot be used on other days (d). So
also if a riparian owner has a prescriptive right to take in a
particular place and way water from a river and to return
such water to the rire - in an impure state he cannot take the
water in any other place or way (e). So also a man who
has gained a right to foul the waters of a stream cannot, if he
enlarge his works, claim a right to discharge into the stream
a greater quantity of fouled matter than he gained the right
to discharge by user during the prescribed period (/). So
also if a man has an artificial drain or sewer by which he
drains either water or sewage into his neighbour's land, he
cannot use that drain so as to drain another close or another
house ig). So also if a prescriptive li^vi has been acquired
to aend some sewage into the sewers of another district, the
burden cannot be increased without the consent of the sanitary
authority of the latter district (h). The fact that the inhabi-
tants of a town may have acquired a prescriptive right to
drain their houses into a stream does not give a public board
acting on behalf of the community a right to discharge the
sewage of the town into the stream, eo as to cause riparian
proprietors a greater amount of inc<mTenience than they wore
exposed to before (f).
AltenUon in tht But although the extent of a prescriptive right is limited by
(e) Btwim v. But, 1 WiU. 174. (y) Maropolitan Board of Works
Se« Pirie 4 Co, t. SaH Kintan, London and North Weitem Bail-
(1906) A. C. 478 ; 78 L. J. P. C. 9«. way 0»., 17 C. D. 246; flO L. J. Ch.
{.<) StruU V. Bovinydon, 5 E»p. 409 ; and see OOHngt r. Hw^tr-
M ; 8 K. E. 834. ford, (1904) 1 L B. p. 229.
(e) McJntyre v. McOavin, (1893) (h) Att.-Oen. V. Acton Local
A. C. 268 ; I'irie * Co. v. Karl Board, 22 C. D. 221 ; 52 L. J. Ch.
Kiiitore, (1906) A. C. p. 486 ; 76 108. See also Brcnvn v. Dunstahlt
L. J. P. C. 96. Corpuratwn, (1899) 2 Ch. 378 ; 68
(/) Uoort T. W«bh, I C. B. N. S. L. J. Ch. 498 ; IMngton Ke«<ry v.
673; 107 B. B. M4; CrouUy v. Ilomtey Urtan CotmeO, (WOO) I
Lightowler, 2 Ch. 481 ; 86 L. J. Ch. Ch. 68a.
684 ; Mclutyrt v. MeOavin, (1893) (») Att.-Om. v. Luton Board ^
A. C. p. 277 ; and see Harrington Health, 2 Jur. N. 8. 180 ; 106 E. K.
(Earl) V. Dtrby Corporation, (1906) 929 ; see AU-'Om. t. Borough of
1 Cb.p. 290 ; 7iL. J. Ch. 219. Str«ifofi*aM,4K.* J.p. US; 116
NUISANCER RELATING TO WATER.
245
the actual enjoyment, the mode and manner in which the ch»p.vi.
right is exercised need not be the same. A changn in the ^ *'
inodo and object of the use of the wutpr is justifiable, pro-
vided the quantity taken be not sensibly increased or the
quality sensibly affected, or the alteration be not such as to
cast a greater burden upon the other ripwrian propri«tor8.
All that the law requires is that the rights of others be not
sensibly or materially affected (k). Persons who have a right
to navigate a canal are not limited U> any mode of traction or
propulsion. They may use steam {)0wer, provided it occa-
sions no more than ordinary injury to the canal (I). So also
the owner of a paper mill who has acquired a prescriptive right
to foul a stream by discharging into it refuse and washings
])i-o(luced by the workings of rags, used for the purposes of
tlie business, may introduce a new vegetable fibre for the
purposes of the manufacture, instead of using rags, provided
hp does not thereby increase the {)()llution of the stream (m).
Hut persons who had acquired a prescriptive right to dis-
charge the refuge of a fellmongery business into a streun,
were held not to be entitled to discharge the refuse from
the manufacture of leather boards which they had substi-
tuted for the fellmongery business (n).
The onus of {Hroving the increase of pollutim lies on the Om of proof
plaintiff (o).
li. 1!. U5 ; OuhUmul v. Titnbridt/e C. P. p. 166 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 107. See
HV//.( Commiasiimers, 1 Ch. .349; Rnyai Mail Steam Packet Co. v.
.i.i I.. J. Ch. 382; Urown y. Dun- deorije & Branday, {\900) A. C. WO.
-tahh driioratioii, (1899) 2 Ch. 378 ; (/) Cate v. Midland Bailuiay Co.,
ti8 I,. J. Ch. 468; Oibbingt 27 Bear. 247; S8 L. J. Ch. 727;
Hungtr/ord, (1904) 1 Ch. p. 228; 122B.B.38e.
HarriagUm (fiari) t. Drrbif Corpo- («) Baxeiidale v. MrMurray, 2
rofioB, (1906) 1 pp. 220. 221 ; Ch. 790 ; 16 W. B. .32.
74 L. J. Ch. 219. (n) Clarle v. SomerteUhire Drain-
(k) liittrel'i aiie, 4 Co. R. 86 b. ; ai/e <'ommitaioner>, 57 L. J, It 0.
Sauioltra v. X,u i,tan, 1 B. & AU\. 96; .36 W. B. 890.
2of4; 19 B. E. 312; Thtmmn v. (o) Raxemlah v. McMiirray,
T/,n„ins, 2 Cr. M. & E. 34 ; 4 L. J. lujira. As to the onus where the
(X. S.) Ex. 179; 41 B. E. 678; defendant, an upper riparian owner,
Ihlt V. Stt'i/t, i Bing. N. C. 381 ; alleged he hod iuoT6««t)d by arti-
7L. J.(N.8.)C. P. 200; 44 B.B. fioU bmmm th« low fnmi a spring,
728; //amy t. H'attM. L. B. 8 jRurAmeaM Wiakrwari^ Ve. r.
«( iaerMue of
346
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER
Ch^kVI. In determining whether a greater burden is cast on the
-^"^li: — serrisnt tenement by an alteration of the dominant tmement,
the question must be considered from a reasonable point of
view. A mere small alteration or addition to the burden
would not be an illegal act (p).
If a man having a limited right in water exerciser the right
in excess (as where a man having a right to send clean water
down a drain sends down foul water (q)), the person against
whom it is exercised may obstruct the whole flow, if he cannot
obstruct the part in excess without obstructing the whole.
An action will not lie for the obstruction until the right has
been reduced within its proper limits (r). If the part jn
excess can he separated, the party against whom it is exercised
may not stop the whole flow («).
The right to an easement in water may be lost by abandon-
ment, where the circumstances of the case are such that an
intention to abandon the right permanently can bo reasonably
presumed (t). The right, however, is not lost by a temporary
interrupticm from natural causes (u), nor by the mere ntm-
exercise of the ri|^t daring a period when it was not
wanted (x).
ArtiSeiai m»tm- The rights and liabilities of jmrties in respect of artificial
streams and watercourses do not rest on the same principles
as the rights and liabilities of riparian proprietors in respect
AbMidoBBmit.
Loudfti, Brighton, etc., Sailimp Co.,
(1910)26T. L. R. 173.
(;,) trail V. S-z iA, 4 Bing. N. C.
; 7 I.. J. (X. S.) C. P. 209 ; 44
R. R. 728; Haney v. Waltert,
L. R. 8 C. P. p. 166 ; 42 L. J. C. T
106 ; ifood T. Saundtn, 10 Oh. Ik
44 L. J. Ch. 614.
(9) OawkwOl r. SufOl, 26 L. J.
Ex.34.
(r) Catchitll v. RumM, ib. ;
Blarlhiitne V. Si:m"->, •> L. J. Ir 5 ;
fVatnnt, v. Troiu/h ;, 48 L. T. 608.
See Frerhfttt v. Hyaeinihe, 9
A. (". P. p. 184 ; 63 K. j. P. U. 20.
{») Hill V. (Wk, 26 L. T. 186.
(I) Wr- • V. Hani, 7 Kx.
838 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 3.34 ; 86 R. B.
852 ; CrottUy v. fA(/htoinler, 3 Eq.
292 : 2 Ch. 482 ; .36 L. J. Ch. 884 ;
Jamet v ■' •I'fnimi, (1893) A. C.
p. 167; ; . P. C. 61.
{u) If... wi/l, 4 Bing. N. C.
.Wl ; 7 ■>.. S.)C. P. 209 ; 44
R. R. . V oec C'arrv. Fo$ltr,S
Q. B. 5ui ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 2M ; 61
R. R. 321 ; Bomer v. Hill, 1 Bing.
N. C. 649; 4 L. J. (N. 8.) C. P.
, )3: 41 It. Ti. H;in.
(.. ) V. /■>//o"-f« (1906), 94
L. T. p. 2H1 ; fhnlmry v. Llan-
/rrc/i/a Urban Couticit, (1911) 76
J. p!307 ; 9L.G. R.3fl0.
NUISANCES RELATIN6 TO WATER
847
SMi 4.
of nataral streams and watercoursra (y). In dealing with <%«p.vi.
a claim to the enjoymoit of water flowing through an artificial .
-watercourse, the character of the watercourse, whether it is
temporary or permanent, the circumstances under which it
was presumably created, and (be mode in iriiich it has been
in fact used and enjoyed, must be considered (tj). The water
in an artificial stream is the property of the party by whom
it is created or caused to flow. If the stream so created is
made to flow upon the land of a neighbour without his con-
sent, it is a wrong for which the party causing the flow is
liable; but he may by long enjoyment gain u right to con-
tinue the discharge. His neighbour, howerer, cannot gain
by long enjoyment a right to insist on the continuance of the
discharge if the watercourse is of a temporary character.
Thus the discharge of water for twenty years from a mine
by a mine owner in the course of his mining operations, or
by a landowner from his drainage works, will give no right
to a neighbour below who has «njoyod the benefit of the water,
so as to preclude the mine owner from ceasing to pump out
his mine after the ore shall have ^1een exhausted, or fn^n
sending the water off in a different direction, or the land-
owner from altering tiie course or level of his drains (2).
But if the artificial stream is permanent in its character, a
right to the uninterrupted flow of water may be acquired both
against the creator of the stream, and also against any person
over whose land the water flows (a). In the case of an arti-
ficial watercourse, any right of a riparian owner to the flow
of the water, must rest on some grant or arrangement, either
iy) Bamtthur Penhad Singh v. 748 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 30S ; 77 B. B.
Kamj PatUk, 4 A. 0. 121 ; Itur- 809 ; Otwfrw r. Haymtrd, 8 Ex.
rou * T. Lang, (1901) 2 Ch. M7 ; 70 291 ; 22 L. ). Ex. 137 ; ^iM<ron
L. J. Ch. 607 ; Baily v. Cla'k, v. Taylor, 11 Ex. 389 ; 26 L. J.
(1!)0'.>) 1 Ch. pp. 652,668 ; 71 L. J. Kx. 3.3; 105 R. R. 567; and see
< h. ;t9b ; and see Whitmortt {E<len- Bxrroira v. inny, (1901) 2 t'li. 502 ;
hrvlne). ltd. V. S(.i»,/rm/, (1909) 1 70 L. J. Ch. fi07 ; Whitim<rrs {K<hn-
Ch. 427, 436; 78 L. J. Ch. 144; hridge). Ltd. v. Stanfoni. (1909) 1
I,noU V. Mfredith, (1913) 1 Cll. f 'h. p. 436; 78 L. J. Ch. 144.
b'll; K-i L. J. Ch. 256 \J) Arhiriyht v. Udl ; Wood v.
(i) Arhtrriylit v. Hell, 6 M. & W. H anrf, tHpra ; Brita* T. Drought,
203 ; 8 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 201; 52 11 It. 0. L. 2M.
B. B. 671 : WMd y, Wamd, 8 Ex.
248
NUISANCES HELATINO TO WATER
^t^J?' P""'*^ ** presumed, from or with the owners of the lands
— from wliich the water is artificially brought, or on some other
legal origin (b). In a recent case (c), where the channel of
a stream was an artificial one of great age, and the plaintiffs
and their predecessors owners in fee of an ancient tannery
situated on the bunks of the stream, had used the water con-
stantly and openly for 260 years, the Court held that it must
infer that the stream was originally constructed for the mutual
benefit of the owners of the tannery and of the mill lower
down the stream, and that the plaintiffs were entitled under
a reservation made or agreement entered into when the
channel was constructed, to use the water for all reasonable
purposes not causing any sensible or material injury to the
owners of the mill and the defendants who were the occupiers
of the ancient mill, with control OTer sluice gates regulating
the flow of wat«r into the mill stream, were restrained from
interfering with the plaintiffs' right to abstract water from
the stream.
Aitifieiia The circumstances under which an artificial watercourse
has been made, and the manner in which it has ' i used
accordingly, may be such as to give the proprie land
adjacent all the rights which they would have K o.ititled
to claim as riparian proprietors, had it been a natural
stream (d). If it appear that the stream was originally in-
tended to have a permanent flow, or to be of a pennanent
character, or if the party by whom, or in whose behalf it was
caused to flow can be shown to have abandoned permanently
the works by which the flow was caused without intention to
resume them, and to have given up all right to and conh-ol
(/.) llnih, V. Clark; (1902) I Ch. /'a«»/,-, 4 A. C. 121; Jloberta v.
p. 653 ; 71 r>. J. ( h. ;j9fi. RichanU, SO L. J. Ch. 301; 61
(c) Whitmorei [EitenbrUhj,), Ltd. L. J. Ch. 944 ; McErog Orfot
v. Stanford, (1909) 1 Ch. 427; 78 i.or<*«m Ai««wy Cb., (1900) 2 I.E.
L. J. Ch. 144. 325. 333; Hawta y. Pollock, (1898)
(»/) Magor v. Cha,l,rirk; U A. & 2 1. B. S32 ; (1900) 2 1. B. 664 : liaily
E. 671; 9L. J. Q. H 159; Woalv. v. Clark, (1902) 1 t'h. 649; 71
Hon./, ;{ Ex. 74H ; IS 1,. J. Kx. ;t05; L. J. Ch. ;«»«; n7n<mor<» {Kden-
7TE. K. SO!); Srddijfcy. i>Gi,:;,,32 hritujc), Lii:. \. Stiin/or:i, (limy) 1
J,. J. (i. J{. i:i(!; N>iUaU\. limn- < h. 427; 78 L. J. Ch. 144 ; and
<w//, I/. E. 2 Jix. 1 ; 36 L. J. see Lewit v. Meredith, (1913) 1 Ch.
£x. I ; R<iiiM»hHr,Hc., Smyhr.Koot^' 671 ; S3 L. J. Ch. 366.
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATEB.
849
over the stream, such stream may become subject to the law vi.
of prescription, and the other laws relating to nataral
strpiims (p). A nntural Htroiim does not c«-.tHp to he so by
reason of its flowing for a part of its course over an artificial
bed(/).
It is impossible, however, to erf ite a new burden that is
something short of an easement, that is to say, an easement
which shall be ejijoyed /«•<■ per lim, nec clam, kfd precario (g).
Whert a right to an artificial watercourse is claimed by pre-
scription, it is necessary to consider the circumstances
under which it was created, whether it was made for u
permanent, or only a temporary purpose. If it was made
for a temporary purpose, the enjoyment would be pre-
carious, and prescription would not apply. The expres-
sion " a temporary purpose," within the meaning of the rule,
is not confined to a purpose which hapjiens to bust in fact for
only a few years, bat includes a purpose which is temporary
in the sense that it may within the reasonable contemplation
of the parties come to an end (h).
The rule that the purjwso for which the waters of an arti-
ficial watercourse have been collected or caused to flow, is
to be regarded in determining whether rights or interests can
be acquired in them by other [)er8ons than those who collected
them or caused them to flow, applies with still greater force
to the waters of canals than to artificial watercourses of an
(•) li iine/i V. Storktr, I Ch. charge cif sewiifre into it, see ylrt.-
I). 4()il ; ,io L. J. Ch. 4(i7; Jlind- (leu. v. Leirei ('vr/iuraliim, (1911)
V. Simifrs, L. li. Ir. 7 ; 2 Ch. 495 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 40.
Itaineshiir, etc., Simjh v. Kvtmj (n) JSiirrows v. Lang, {\[)0\)2Ch.
I'alinrk, 4 A. C. 121; Buily v. p. fill ; 70 L. J. Ch. 607; Whit-
Clark, (1902) 1 Ch. 649 ; 71 L. J. mora {Edenhridge), Ltd. y. Stan-
Cb. 396; ir*»<«iore» [Edmbridge), ford, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 436; 78 L. J.
r.M. V. Stanford, tuprm. Ch. 977.
(/) Aeaton v. ITeofe, S £. ft B. (A) Burrows v. I.any, (1901) 2
986 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 116 ; Brucoe v. Ch. pp. 502, 508 ; 70 L. J. Ch. (i07 ;
Drought, n Ir. C. L. 250; (lainl llaili/\. Clark, (1902) 1 Ch. p. (i(j8 ;
V. Miirt,/ii, 19 C. H. N. S. 7;i2 ; 34 71 L. J. Ch. 39(5, and see Whit-
\.. J. C. 1'. .'153; see Moetyn v. mort» [Edtnlriilyr), Ltd. v. Stan-
.if/ifj/uic, (lSi)i));i eh. 300 ; OS L. J. ftiril, tupra; gee Lewi$ v. Meredith,
< li. 029. As to a natural Rtreiim (1913) 1 Ch. 671, 680 ; 82 L. J. Ch.
becomiug a "aewet" by the dis- 255.
300
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Chap. VI. ordimry character (i). A canal company having ti duty im-
— — posed on U by the lepiHliiture to keep open the canai, the
legislature must be taken ut least prima facie to have intended
that the powers and control over tlie waters of the canal
nhould be vested in the company (k). A canal company
which has enjoyed for a nuinlwr of years tlie flow of the
surplus waters of another canal lying on a higher level, has
no right to insist on the continuance of the flow (0. Nor can
a canal company make a grant of its water to adjacent pro-
prietors in derogation of its statutory duties, nor can the
right to such water be acquired against the company by pre-
scription (w).
Fouling of The fouling of the water of an artificial watercourse is a
mrtincUl • • • ■ - ■ ■
waureoarx. bpecies of mjury which does not stand upon tiie same footing
as the abstraction of such water. Neither the party who
created the watercourse, nor the upper riparian owners, nor
the intermediate iiparian owners may pollute the stream, so
as to cast a greater burden on the owners below («). The
right, however, may be acquired by prescription (o).
8urfKe.w.ter. The principles which apply to water flowing in a known
and defined channel do not apply to water of a temjxjrary and
casual character, which does not fl'^w in a regular channel,
or has no certain course, but which merely squanders itself
(«) Bbiffortithirt and WertHter-
thire Cunai Co. r. Birmingham
Canal Co., L. B. 1 H. L. 3M ; M
L. J. Ch. 7S7.
(*) lb.
(<) lb. See AH.-den. v. /'/,/-
nufnth Corimmlion, 9 Bear. 67; 1.5
h. J. Ch, 109 ; 7:i E. E. 28 j.
(m) Itm hlale ('annl Co. v. Kini/,
14 U. H. 122; IH L. J. Q. B. 293;
80 R. E. 222, 233 ; RochiUtk Cnnal
Co. V. Rmleliffe, 18 Q. B. 287; 21
L. J. Q. B. 297 ; 88 E. B. 687 ;
8tafford$hirt and tt'orettUrihire
Canal Co. v. Birmim/ham Canal
Co., aupia ; Biriutlo" ll'affr:n.rli
Cii. V. irHU uii'l lltrku Canal ('„.,
L. E. 7 II. L. (.97 ; 45 L. J. (_ h.
638; MtmrhMttr 8Mf Canal Co. T.
RochMt Caual Co., (1899) 81 L. T.
472 ; Boehiliile Canal Co. v. Man-
chester .Vd/) Canal (1902) 85
L. T. 5H5; and nee .ill. -den. v.
Grrat NiTthern Rnihraij, (1909) 1
Ch. 775 ; 78 L. J. Ch. .^77.
(n) II. ./ V. ]V„ml, 3 Kx. 748;
18 li. J. Ex. ;«)d; 77 E. B. 809;
Bltickbumt y. 8omer», A L. B. b. 7 ;
Uagar v. Chadwiek, 1 1 A. ft E. S71 ;
9 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; Xnaleij r. T^ing,
2 H. ft N. 478 ; 2fi L. J. Ex. 327 ;
115 B. B. H45, ti75 ; Baiti) v. Clark,
(19<)2) 1 cat. 049 ; 71 L. J. (*.
•im!.
.Mayar v. cluvhrkk. Woody.
Waud, Baily T. Clark, $u^,
MUIBANCE8 BELATINO TO WATER.
Ml
over the Burface of land (p). Water of this character may Cta^TI.
be drained »way nr appropriated before it reaefaee any defined — —
channel of wat«r (q).
As distinguished from water of a casual and temporary DiatiBction
character, a watercourse is a Ikwr of water usually llowitig in i!lBJl!l"nVw«ur
u cerhiin direction, and by a regular chiintici, having p bed, J^^JJJIr'
liunks, and sideH, and possessing that unity of churact«r by
which the flow on one man's land can be identified with that
on the land of his neighbour (r).
Water, though it may squander itself in flood time over
tliu Hurfaoe of land may nevertheless flow in a defined
channel (•).
Tlie same principles which apply to water of a casual and 8ubt«n»»««B
teini)orary character which squanders itself over the surface, S^!*****
are equally, if not more strongly, applicable to subterraneous
water of the same casual and undefined description, which
does not flow in a well-defined and known (t) channel, but
nierelv percolat^es or oojses through the soil more or less
accor ing to the quantity of rain that may chwce to fall.
A man may by operations on hn own soil, or in the execu-
tion of work, which he is authorised to make, intercept, drain
away, and appropriate as much at such water as he pleases,
notwithstanding the effect tnay be not only to prevent it reach-
ing his neighbour's land, but even to cause the water already
collected there in wells and pmds to percolate away, so as to
Ifitve liis neighbour's land dry (u).
(/<) Uroadbent t. Sanubothum, U (r) Britcoey. Drought, lllr. C. L.
V.X. 602 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 115; 106 p. 271 : Taylor v. St. HOen't Cor-
B.B.67ii; Dttddmf.ClHUimUniim,
1 H. ft K. p. 630 ; 26 L. J. Ex.
146; 108 R. R. 742; Chatemortj.
nirhanU. 1 11. L. 3-19 ; 'J9 L. J. Ex.
81 ; 115 H. R. 187 ; lirwiford
fnriiorntinu v. Puklen, (1895) A. V.
S87 ; (i4 L. J. Ch. 739 ; HrtfflUh v.
Mrtr i>i,IUun Wattr Board, (1907) 1
K. B. pp. »88, 602 ; 76 L. J. K. B.
afii.
(v) lb. Bairttrott v. Taylor, 11
Kx. 379 ; 2fi L. J. Ex. 33 ; lOS
B. B. S67; MeXab v. Sobtrtmm,
(1897) A. C. 138 ; 6« L. J. P. 0. 87.
ftmtioh, 6 0. D. 264 ; see MtSah
w. BoherUim, (1897) A. C. p. 134 ;
6« L. J. P. C. 27.
(«) Britney. Drought, 11 Ir. C. L.
250.
(() See Bratl/ord forjn ration v.
Ferranii, (1902) 2 Ch. 655 ; 71 L. J.
Cb 85!t ; Miintell v. Valley Print-
imj Co., (I!t08) 2 Ch. p. 448 ; 77
L. J. Ch. pp. 74d, 746.
(«) Artnn r, mundett. 13 IL *
W. 324 ; IS Ti. J. Ex. 280 ; 67 R. B.
381 ; Chtuemtif* r. Siekard*, 7
H. L. 0. 349; 39 L. J. Bx. 81 ;
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Ct.p. VI.
HMt. 4.
Pollutioo o(
P"reol«ti>g
water.
Th« right which a niBn ha8 to divert or iippropriutti perco-
latiiis w.it. r within his own land m»s to deprive his neighbour
of Huch water in ih.< Htniw whctlicr hix motive is /„>„a fuh- to
improve hia own land, or inulii-iously to injure liis neighbour,
or to induce his neighbour to buy him out (*), But he may
not draw off ,lio wiitrr flowing,' underground in ii corttiin and
well defined channel through hiH neighbour's land. If he
cannot get at the underground water without touching the
water in a known (y) and defined channel, he cannot get it
at all (2).
Where the water in a natural stream was caused to sink
into the ground by the defendant's pumping operations from
a well in his own lan-i near the stream, Imt none of the wat<3r
of th« stream was appropriated bjr the defendant, it was held
that the plaintiff a riparian owner, had no cause of action for
the injury to the stream caused by the defendant so with-
drawing the support of the lower subterranean water (a).
The case is different where polluted water iHjnetrates into
the earth on one man's land, and i>er( olutes through to the
wells and springs of his neiglil)our. Though water perco-
lating in the soil is a common reservoir or source which any
landowner may intercept end appropriate, but in which no
landowner h.-s any pr>.; orty, no landowner Jii.s a right by any
operations on his land lo contaminate tliis common reservoir
or source. Every owner of land under which such water per- ■
colates has a right to .'<ave it in its natural condition, and no
one is entitled to interiere with thai right by ix>lluting that
lis R. R. 187; Nfir liiitr Co. v. V'/Vm, (]>(<» j) A. T. 587; 64 L.J.
Johiimu. 2 Kl. & KI. 4.!.', ; •«) L. J. Ch. 7,59; Salt r„i„„ (',.. v. hnnmer
M. C. 93 ; 119 R. Ii. 78fi ; /,'«/. v. .!/,.«./ ,t- Co., (UtOti) 2 K. B. p. 833 ;
MfirnjiollUin Hoanl of W'urk', .i li. &
S. TIO; :J2 L. J. (I. li, 105; Kimrt
V. Bfl/ant I'm r l.an- ilnardiait; 9
L. R. Ir. 180 ; IMIards. TonUinmm,
29 e. D. pp. 120, 123; M L. J. Cb.
404 ; JUngluh v. Metrup«litan WiUer
Hoard, (1907) 1 K. B. p. 602 ; 76
L. J. K. B. 361 ; .Mansrll v. Viillry
Vriniittt} Cr. , (UMW) 2 cfe .j^v; .
77 L. J. Ch. 718.
(a) Itrcul/artl Cm-jiuratum v.
76 li. .7. K. li. p. 66.
{y) See Brmi/ord Corporation r.
Frrrmd, (1903) 2 Ch. 6M ; 71 L. J.
Ch. 859.
(«) Omml Junrtum Camil Co. T.
Shuyar, 6 Ch. 486 ; see Jordtxm v.
HuUon, etf., Oan Co., (1899) •_• Ch.
217, 239; 68 L. J. Ch. 457.
(ti) EngHthY. MtXrut>uUlun Witltr
li'otr.l, (iiM>7) 1 K. B. 688; 76L. J.
K. B. 361.
5UIPANCE8 RELATING TO WATER.
868
common source (b). A landowner has a right to draw up the chsy. VI.
water lying under hla land in ite natural eonditkm, and nay — —
in the exercine of that niiturul right i:ho punijts or other
appIianceH for tiie purpose (c). In a case accai-dingiy, where
the plaintiff and the defendant bad each a well on his land,
uiul the duft'iiiltint turned Howage into hit) well, wliich iicrco-
liitit:^ thruuf^h the Hoil |>oliute(l the water whieh the |>htintirf
imaipeit up from hia well, an inj unction wuh grunted reHtruin-
ing the defradut from tfius polluting the water which formed
tlio supply of the pluintifl'H well ('/).
When land is so located that water nuturuily or in the course Dr»inim«.
of ordinary agricultural operations, such as by daep plough-
ing, descends from the etttute of the superior proprietor to the
inferior estate, the owner of the latter cannot do anything to
prevent the course of such water. If he build a wall at the
upper part of hiH eutute so as to prevent the water from
(loHcending on it, wherel>y the land above is damaged, there
is an actionable injury. The owner of land lying on a lower
level is subject to the burden of reeeiring water which drains
naturally or in the course of ordinary agricultural operations,
such as hy deep ploughing, from land on a higher level. The
upper proprietor may drain his land, and tiie {woprietor below
must receive the water so drained; but the upper proprietor
may not, by adopting a particular system of drainage, or by
introducing alterai ma in the mode of drainage, cause the
drainage water to flow on his neighbour's land in an injurious
manner, or obstruct the drainage of other lands by overload-
ing the ancient drains with water (e).
A mioeowner haa a ri^t to work hia mines in the manner w*i«r ia mbm.
most convenient and beneficial to himself for the purpose of
getting out the whole of the minerals from his mine^ and is
not responsible for any damage occasioned by water which
(/.) IMykiiim,, v. Kniwr, 32 L. J. Smith v. Kenrick, 7 C. B. 516; IM
U. B. m \ •! B. & S. 229 ; Ballard L. J. C P. 172 ; 78 B. H. 746. See
V. Toinliutm, 29 C. D. IW; M HilHtn {Hurt} v. IMnirt, 3 M. & K.
L. J. Cb. 404. 169; 3 L. J. Oh. 145; 41 B. B. 40;
(r) Ballard V. Tomlituem, tupra. WkaUep r. Lantathirt and York-
id) lb. thirt aaOuiag Cb., 13 Q. B. D. 131 ;
(e) i)aiMra v./^vcr. A Ha. 419; ML.J.Q.B.3M.
16 L. J. 374; 71 S. B. IM;
264
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Chap. VI. flows by gravitation or nataiai caused into an adjoining mine,
— — provided the mines have been worked with due skill in the
usual and ordinary manner (/). It is immatflriiil that his
own acts have conduced to produce the injury, if hia acts
have been only those of tiie proper and ordinary working of
his own mine without default or negligence ((/). But he may
not pump water out of his mines into the adjoining mines, so
as to increase the flow into them, or use any artificial means
or do anything whereby water sJiould be caused to go into the
adjoining mines, which would not otherwise have arrived
there by natural causes (h). Where for his own convenience
he makes a new artificial watercourse, he must take care that
he construL-ts it in such a manner that it shall be capable of
conveying off the water that might flow into it from all such
floods or rainfalls as might reasonably be expected to happen
in the locality (?). The owner of the lower mine must, if
he wishes to guard against the natural flow of water from the
mines of his nei^bour, have a barrier in the upper part of
his mine to pen back the water (k).
Bmpt of water. If a man for his own purposes makes a reservoir on his
land and collects water there, he must use all reasonable care
to keep it safely there. If he does not do so, and the water
escapes, he is answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequences of its escape (/), unless he can show
that the escape was caused by jan agent beyond his control,
(/) Smith V. Kenrick. 7 C. B. (N. S.) ; 33 L. J. C. P. lOl ;
p. a64; 18 L. J. C. P. 172; 78 n-estmin.l,r lirymlm C,»l Co. v!
R. H. 743 ; liairtl v. irittiavtnm, 15 Clapton, 36 L. j. Ch. 477 ; Lomar
C. B. (N. S.) 376 ; 33 L. J. C. P. v. atott, 39 L.J. Ch. 835 ; Cr,mptoH
101 ; WUmn v. WtuUaU, 2 A. f. v. Lea, V) Eq. 115, 127 j 44 L. J.
p. 99 ; and see John y<m„y ,t- C„. v. Ch. 69 , Wat Cmaberland Ir«n
/lankier Jiuiilleri/ Co., (1893) A. C. Co. v. A'enjw", 11 C. D. 782 ; 48
p. 697 ; 69 L. T. 838; and the Stttt L. J. Oh. 793; John T<mng A Co.
Utaon Co. v. Brunntr Mond A Co. t. Jlankirr DiitiUeri/ Co., (1893)
(1906). 2 K. B. p. 832 ; 76 L. J. A. C. pp. 691, 697 ; 69 L. T. 838.
K. B. p. 65 ; Ortymuteyn v. (i) Fhtrher v. SmM, rupra.
Hattingh, (1911) A. C. p. 339 ; 80 [k] liair.l v. WilliaiiMtn, 15 C. B.
L. J. P. C. p. 160. (N. S.) 392 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 101.
[y) Fletcher v. Smith, 2 A. C. (/) Rylau.h v. Fletcher, L. B. 3
781 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 4. H. L. 339 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 1 31 ; Snm
(h) Baird^.WiUianuon,\6C.Yi. v. WMUhead, 27 0. D. 6M; M
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
such as a storm, which amounts to via major, or the act of
God, in the sense that it is practically, though not pby-
/ :»'ly, impossible to resist it; or the wrongful act of
a dtWa person which could not have b«ien jurovided
iip-ainst (m) ; or unless what he has done, though it
;>.iiy in point of law be wrongful, has not caused any
. (' liticnal aamage (n) ; or unless what has happened is
only the inevitable result of what the legislature has autho-
rised him to do (o) ; or unless the plaintiff has consented to
the water being stored on the defendant's premises, and its
escape has not been due to any negligence of the defen-
dant (p). But the rule in Rylanda r. Fletcher, that a person
who for his own purpose, brings on his land and keejw there
anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes, must keep it
at his peril, does not extend to make the owner of land liable
for consequences brought about by the collecting and im-
pounding on his land, by another, of water, or any other
dangerous element, not for the purposes of the owner of the
land, but for tiie purposes of such other person (q).
li. J. Ch. 885. Vt. Anderson v. Uanrwat. {VJU) 1 Ch. p. 403; 80
(),,pe,ihnmer, 5 Q. B. D. 607 ; 49 L. J. Ch. p. 149 (escape of sewage).
I.. J. Ci. ii. 708; It. ir. Buckley v. (w) Nitliolla v. Maialaiid, 2 Ex.
«»./,/e,/, (1898) 2 Q. B. 608; 67 IX 1 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 174; Bylandt
L. J. Q. H. »oa; hlake V. II W/, V. Fletcher, lupra ; Boxy. /tlU, 4
(1898) 2 Q. B. 426, 428 ; 87 L. J. Ex. D. 76 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 417. See
Q. B. 613; and see the follow- RoOm {Counint)v. KirhtOdy WaUr-
ing cawt when the principle of iimrkt, 7 A. C. 694 ; Whitm<,rf
Ruland* v. Fkteher was applied; {Kde»bri,l<je). ltd. v. Stanford,
Xational TeUphonr Co. v. Uaker, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 438; 78 L. J. Ch.
(1893) 2 Ch. 186; 62 L. J. Ch. p. I. :; Rick-ard, v. loi/iian, (\913)
(i<J9; t:aat and ttouth African Tele- A. C. 263; 82 L. J. P. C. 43
yrajdi Cii. ^. Ca/ie Toirn Tramwaya (wrongful uct of third person).
Co., (1902) A. C. 381 ; 71 L. J. P. C. («) Thomaav. Birmi„gkaM Cbuii
122; MtdawKl Co. v. Maiicheattr Co., 49 L. J. Q. B. p. 8M.
CorporatMn, (1905) 2 K. B. 597 ; 74 (o) Dmkm t. JMnyoMm Board
L. J. K. B. 884 (electric coneBt) ; of Work; 7 Q. B. D. 418, ante,
ffoiorf V. Souihtnd Corporation, p. 161; and «ee Prtee'$ Patent
(1906) 7.) L. J. K. B. 305 ; FoUtr Candles Co. v. l.oHdm County
T. WarMington Urban Council. Council, (190?) 2 Ch. p. 636- 78
(1906) 1 K. B. p. 670 ; 75 L. J. K. B. L. J. Ch. 1.
514 (cHcapo of sewage); ffeat v. (/>) Blake v. WoUf, (1898) 2
j;ii,l„i Tramways Co., (1908) 2 Q. B. 436, 428; 87 L. J. Q. B.
B. 14, 20; 77 L. J. K. B. 684 813.
(fumat from oMMtta) ; Jorm v. (j) Wkitmaru {SimAriifi), LM.
256
NniSANCES RELATmO TO WATEK.
*8«rt V ^^'^^""o. however, a man who has collected water for his ov i
— — purposes, fails to exercise due care to keep it safely, and
damage arises, it is no answer to say that the immediate cauae
of the damage was the negligent act o: !^ third person (( ).
As between occupiers of different floors of the same house,
llip occupier of the upper floor is not liable for an escape of
waler from his cistern tj the premise.s of the other, unless
negligence can be sl.Civn, the water having been brought
on to the upper floor in the ordinary user of the jM-emises (»).
A plaintiff who had no proprietary title to use the water
coming from the defendant's land, and who used the water
without the leave or licence of the defendant, was held to
have no cause of action against the defendant for damage
sustained owing to the water having been polluted by the
defendant on his land (t).
Flood ««tor. Proprietors on the t)anks of a river or canal are entitled
to protect their property from an invasion of water by build-
ing a bulwark, provided they conduct their operations in a
reasonable manner («). But a riparian proprietor may not dam
or pen up water so as to flood or otherwise injuriously affect
the lands of others (ar), or by making embankments, or otber-
V. Stanford, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 438; Ex. 4 ; 44 L. J. Ex, 16; Maxey
78 L. J. Ch. p. 152. Drainage Board v. Oreat Northern
(r) EmnM v. A/aneAefttr, Sheffield, BaUway Co., (1912) lOfi L. T. 429 ;
and Litteolnthire Bail. Co., 36 C. D. 56 S. J. 276. As to right of
626 ; 07 L. J. Ch. l.iS; see JIarker landowner to protect his lands fnnn
V. Herbert. (1911) 2 K. B. p. G43; sea, although by so doing he may
m L. J. K. B. l.'529; Ritkardt v. injure his neighbour, see /te.r v.
I.Mian, note (m), «H/<rfi. Pagham Commigtioneri, 8 B. & C.
(«) Caretairs v. Tayhr, L. B. 6 355; 6 L. J. K. B. 338. See alM
Ex. 217; -10 L. J. Ex. 129; fir.»» Oreyventteyn v. BtOtingk, (1911)
V. FMeu, L. B. 7 a B. 661, 665; A. C. 3flO; 80 L. J. P. U. 158
41 L. J. Q. U. 270; Anderton v. (loeiuta), where the right of an
OppephHmer, S a B. D. 602 ; 49 owner to protect his land from
L. J. Q. B. 708 (C. A.); Blake v. danger is laid down.
ITo.)?/, tiipra ; see Bickards v. ( r) R,Mman v. ISijr.n, ( Lord), 1
Lothiun, m,,ra Bro. 0. V. 58H ; William, v. Mo --
[t) FeryiiMon v. Maliern rrhm laud, 2 B. & V. 910; 2 L. J. K B.
THitriH <\»,„ril (1908), 72 J. 1>, 191; 26 B. E. 578; see Wart v.'
273; (1909), 73 J, P, ;i(jl (H. L.). iJ«f«..*» Canai Co., 3 De G. A J. 212;
(«) Xield V, Loudon and North 28 L. J. Ch. 212 ; 121 a B. 80.
tt'ettern BaUway Co., L. B. 10
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
257
Chap. VI.
Sect. 4.
wise alter the ancient course of flood water, so aa to throw
it in greater quantity upon the land of his neighbour {y).
In Whalhij v. Lanccuhire and Yorkshire Railway Company (a)
there had been an unprecedented rainfall, causing water to
u eumulale against the side of the railway company's em-
bankment, and the company, in order to protect their embank-
ment, cut trenches in it, by which the water flowed
through and found its way on to the land of the plaintiH,
which was on a lower lerel. The jury found that the cutting
of the trenches was reasonably necessary for the protection
of the defendants' property, and that it was not done negli-
gently. The Court held, however, that, although the defen-
dants had not brought the water on their land, they had no
n'glit to protect their property by actively transferring tho
mischief from their own land to that of the plaintiff, and
that the defendants were h'able accordingly. But if an extra-
ordinary flood is seen to be coining, a landowner may protect
his land from it, by all reasonable means, and so turn it away
without being resiwnsible for the consequences (o).
Where a riparian owner sells part of his estate including On grant of land
land on the bank of a natural strer.:n it is not neces.sary to °"
make any express provision as to the grant or reservation of ■''s''''' ;» ""o-""
tho ordinary rights of a riparian owner in tho stream, as such STn^tintion
l ights are not easements to be granted or reserved as appur- '''*''««™'»-
tenant to the land sold or retained, but are parts of the fee
simple of such Itmd (ft). But the rights of parties in the Deed of grant
water may \m created or niodifled by deed, and where there
is a deed of grant, the nature and extent of the interest and
the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto are regulated
y) Trnffonl v. Ilej; 8 Bing. 20-4 : Hatfiwjh, supra.
1 I.. J. (X. S.) Ex. 90 ; Menzies v
lUr.i.hilhnne (/.-n/), ,3 Bligh N. .S.
Ill; :t2 H, E. 103; Wick$y. Haul,
John. 372; 12,^ R. H. 157; Latvrmet
V. Grtal Northtrn Bailway Co., 16
Q n. 643 ; 20 L. J. a B. 293 ; 83
1!. II. 645 ; Ortyveniteyn v. ffattin;/li,
(1 I'll) A. C. p. 339; W) L. J. V. V.
;■■ 1^:).
(=) 13 Q. B. I). 131 ; 53 L. J.
U. H. 283 ; Mid M* Onynmttej/n t*
K.I.
[a) Whalhy v. f.aiicathire and
Yorkshire liaibrai/ Ci<., 13 Q. B. D.
p. 131 ; 53 L. J. a B. 285; Ortg.
vtndtsn T. HatHngh, (1911) A. C.
p. 380 ; 80 L. J. P. C. 168; Uartg
Drainage Board r. Ortat Nvrthem
Raihmy Co.. (1912) 106 L. T. 429;
36 S. J. 273.
[ii] rori^iiioiiiii Willi rirurlx S ( 'o. V.
London, Briyhtun, ttc, Rnii.iaii Co.,
(1910) 36 T. L. B. 173.
17
258
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Chap VI. wholly thereby, whether the water be a natural stream (c),
or an artificial watercourse (d), or water of a caeual and
temporary character (p). The owner of land cannot, liowever,
create rights in water unconnected witli the ordinary use and
enjoyment of land (/), so as to constitute property in the
hauids of the grantee. As lietween hiniHelf and his grai.tee
the grant is good, but as against third parties it will i^ot be
enforced (ff). A mere licensee of water, for instance, cannot
maintain an action against a third party by whom the water
has been pollu'cd (li).
InipliMtioB easement in water l>eine an easement of a continuous
of grant. °
nature, the right passes by implication of law without any
gereral words of conveyance (and independent ly of sect. 6
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881) upon the grant of the land,
house, or mill to which the easement is annexed (»). Where,
accordingly, the owner of two mills upon the same stream
demised the upper mill, he was held to have granted all such
conveniences and rights over the lower mill as were necessary
for the reasonal>le enjoyment of the u|)per mill in the state in
which it was at the vime of the demise (k). So, also, where
(r) Xortham v. nitrle;/, 1 K. & H.
(j65 ; 22 L. J. Q. U. 183 ; Shnr/, v.
iraterhonse, 7 E. & B. 816 ; 27 L. J.
Q. B. 70; 110 B. B. 844; M'alkfr
V. Steuiart, 2 Macq. 424 ; Taylor v.
St. fTeltn'i Corporation, eC.D. 2m;
Rem/rei/ v. Surveyor-Oenerat of
Xatdl. (1896) A. C. 658 ; 85 L. J.
P. I'. 72.
(</) I.fe V. Stfi enson, El. HI. iS: Kl.
512 ; 27 L. J. Q. K 2(1;} ; ll;5 E. 1!
752 ; Cliadirirk v. Mursdrii, L. R.
2 Ex. 284 ; 36 L. 1. Ex. 177;
Wood T. Sannden, 10 Ch. 562 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 514; Taylor y. 8t. HOen't
Corporation, 6 C. D. 264 ; 46 L. J.
Ch. 857.
(f) nairitron v. Taylor, 11 Ex.
36e;25L.J. £x.33:105 B.B.
567.
(./') Swindon Waterworks Co. v.
WilU and Berkt Canal Co., L. E. 7
H. L. 704 ; McCartney v. London-
derry and Lough Swilly Railumy
Co., (1904) A. C. 301, 314 ; 73 L.J.
P. C. 73.
((/) Stockport Waferwvrkt Co. r.'
Potter, 3 H. & C. 300 ; fhmeral v.
Todmorden Co., 11 Q. li. D. 156 ; 52
L. J. (i. li. M5 ; SCO MrCiirtney v.
f.oinliiiiderry and Lomjh hirilly Rail.
>ra,, Co., (i904) A. C. p. 315; 73
L. J. r. V. 73.
(/,) /.ainfi V. Whaley, 3 II. & X.
675, 901 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 422 ; 117
B. B. 918, 926.
(•) Watt* T. Kelton,» Ch. 174;
Key V. Neath, (1905) 93 L. T. 609 ;
(1906) 95 L. T. 771.
(*■) llfill V. /.»)»/, 1 n. & C. 676;
32 L. J. Ex. 113; Jones v.
Pi iU hard, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 03» ; 77
L. J. Ch. 406.
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
a man being the owner of a house or building and of land
sunounding it, through which a conduit or drain from the
Iioiisr passed, sold the house or building, retaining the land,
llio right to use the drain or conduit was held to pass as a
privilege annexed to the house or building and necessary to
its hciicricial use (/). Ho, also, where the owner of properties
A and B made a drain from a tank on B to a lower tunk on
the same property, and laid pipes from the lower tank to cattle
sheds on property A, for the purpose of supplying them with
water, and afterwards sold A to the plaintiff, the right to
have the accustomed flow of the watercourse through the pipes
was held to pass by implication of law without regard to the
purjwse for which the plaintiff iiiif,'Iit wish to use it (w).
And whero a private Canal Act provided that each owner of
land through which the canal was made should be entitled
to a right of exclusive fishery in so much of the canal as
passed through his land, such right to he exercised so that
the towing paths should not be prejudiced or obstructed, it
was held that the Act conferred upon the grantees of the
fishery a riglit to use the towing paths for fishing purposes (n),
l)ut a grant merely of the exclusive right of fishery in the
canal would not in itself have carried with it the right to use
the towing paths, unless possibly such right of fishery was
wlioUy incapable of being exercised without entering upon
the company's land (o).
A temporary and precarious easement, being a right un-
known to the law, cannot pass by implied grant, or under the
general words of sect. 6 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881.
Whi re, accordingly, the ownw of an Mcientmill and a f^^
the cuttle of which were to some extent watered at an ancient
watercourse diverted from a natural stream and running on
liie mill property alongside the farm, but constructed and
mamtained solely for the purposes of the mill, conveyed the
269
(<) yirhoUta\. I'/iamheilnin, Cro,
Jac. 121; Kirart v. ('mhraiie, \
Mac(i. 117: Waitts. Kiiim.9Ch.
1' IT!.
(»0 "'('(/ifv. AV«oH,6 t'h. p. 175;
iind see Key v. Xeath, 93 L. T. ;
(lO(Mi), 93 L. T. 771.
(/() Stafforil shire ami Wontiter-
fhire Canal Cu. v. Dradk^, (1812)
1 t h. «1 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 147.
(o) Ib..(1912)l Ch. p. 100; 81
L. J. Ck. 147.
17— a
Cluip. VI.
Hset* 4*
260
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
Ch»p. VI. farm to a purchaser without mentioninff any water right, it
*' was 1h>1(1 that, liaving regard to the special toriii)oiary purpose
for wlii<'h tlio watoreotiise was constnu'tcd, tlio oxjionso of
mainlaiiiing it, and tl)o fact that it lay oiitii-oly on the mill
property, the purchaner had acquired no ri^t either by
iini>Ii( il grant or under tlic Convpyaiu-ing Act, 1881, s. 6, to
have it continued for liis Ixjneflt, and no right to the use of
the water (if any) therein (p).
An injunction will Ix; granted to restrain the fouling of a
stream so as to render the water unfit for domestic pur-
poses (q), or for cattle to drink (r) or for fish to live in it (s),
or for the purposes of manufacture (<), so also an injunction
will he granted io restrain the discharge of heated water into
a stream (n), or the pollution of a water supply hy the escape
Action maintain- of gas (x). A riparian owner may maintain an action to
proof of actual restrain the pollution of a sti eam witliout proving that he has
pSff.''^ sustained actual damage hy the wrongful act (y), and the
Poiiotion bj fact that the stream has been fouled by other persons is no
to^'Sn ^''^ l!"n-o.rs v. r.n,,.,, (IIIOI) •_> E.iersU,,, -2 K. & ^. 204; Crossley
(h. 502; 7(1 L. J. Ch. t>(i7 ; Inhr. v. I.i<iliti>irhr, 2 Ch. ITS; 36 L. J.
Injunctions to
restrain foaling
s atream.
i,nllni,l Ten Sl,ins v. //ii/.'.s, (190;i)2
t'h. pp. 171, 1 72 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 543 ;
see Lmi» v. Merclith, (I'Jia) 1 Ch.
671,fi80 : 82 L. J. Ch. 246.
(q) Qvldtmid v. Tuuhrult/e WelU
Commiuioneri, 1 Ch. 3v9 ; 3A L. J.
Ch. 382 ; Jone$ v. Llanrust Urban
CoiimU, (1911) 1 Ch. 393 ; 80 L. J.
ch. 145.
(r) (Ihlahrw Hunt, f. De O. M. &
O. ;i7r) ; 100 E. li. 124 ; .Ul.-dfn. v
llorniii/h of Jlirmini/liiiin, 4 K. iV: J.
528 ; Ait.-Oen. v. Lerds Vorjioratim,
5 Ch. 383, 586; 39 L. J. Ch. 711 ;
Jmti V. Llunrwit Urban CouhHI,
tupra.
(») AMred"* Ca$e, 9 Co. K. 39 a ;
OUaktr V. Hunt, Att.-Gen. v.
liiirniuih of liirmiii'ihiiin, Atl.-<Trti.
V. f.efils f'urporatiftit, yiifrra^ t^itz-
il>r<il(l V. h'irhiiik, (18!»7) 2 Ch. 96,
102 ; fio L. J. Ch. :> >\t.
(t) Wuud V. Sutclijfe, 2 SiDi. N. 8.
163 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 253; Tippling y.
Ch. 5S4 ; C/nirrn v. Sinft'orih/iire
Potteries Co., 8 Ch. 142 ; 42 L. J.
Ch. 107 ; Pennington t. Brintop
Hall Coal Co., 5 C. D. 769; 46
L. J. Ch. 773 ; John Young A Co. v.
Banlier IHttiHery Co., (1893) A. C.
691 ; see Price's Patent Candle Co. v.
Lonth u ( 'iiiinti/ Ciinrll, (1906) 2 Ch.
52(i; 78 L. J. Ch. 1.
[ii] Tijijiiiiii V. Eckcrsleti, 2 K. ft
J. 2()4; 110 R. 1{. 216.
{.<■) Hat, hi Her v. Tunbridge IFeW»
Oat Co., Hi L. T. 765.
(y) Crotihy y. Lightowler, 2 Ch.
478 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 584; Chives v.
Staffordshire Potteries Co., 8 Ch. pp.
142, 143 ; 42 L. .J. Ch. 107 : Pen-
hinifton V. Ilrimup Hall Coal Co., 5
C. I), pp. 769, 774 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
773 ; .\tt.-tleu. V. Actnn Local
l!onr,l, 22 C. I), p. 231 ; 52 L. J. Ch.
]o8; Jones v. Llanrwst Urban
rotincil, (1911) 1 Ch. pp. 402, 411 ;
80 L. J. Ch. 145.
Nl'tSANCES UELATIN'd TO WATER.
261
defence to the action (s), but where a Htreiim is already
polluted, no offence is committed against sect. 17 of the
rublie Health Act, 1875, by discharging into it polluted
water, unless the stream is thereby made fouler than it was
liL'fore (a).
In granting injunctions against local authorities for the
pollution of rivers hy scwa-rc matter, the jjractice is to grant
an immediate injunction restraining any new communications
with the river, but as to existing d? ains, to suspend the opera-
tion of the order for a longer or shorter period to enable the
defendants to comply with the order by altering their works.
Liberty to apply for a further suspension of tiie injunction is
somitimes resoi ved, and if it be not reserved, further time
is usually granted on the terms of paying the costs of the
application (6).
In the case of injury to riparian rights from the pollution
of water, the Court does not, except in special cases, award
damages in lieu of an injunction (c).
Under the Public Health Act, 1875, a local authority has
power to discharge sewage into a natural stream provided all
foul or noxious matter has been removed in accordance with
(z) Crouley v. Liyhtowltr, tupra ; Voiinnl, 12 T. L. B. 528 ; .Itt.-dei,.
Chap. VI.
Sect. 4.
PulilicUeiHh
Aet, 1875,
MOk 17.
Kom of Order.
An injnnction
generally granttd
in c.iscfl of
pollutiou.
Fublic Hsalth
Ant, 1875,
•eot. 17.
Jtt.-(ltn. \. Leed* Curporatiou, 6
<"h.6K3; 39 L. J. Ch. 711.
(a) AU.-(len. v. IHrminijImm,
'idine, ftr., Distrii t Driiiniii/f liuartl,
(1!M0) 1 Ch. -1ft; 7!» L. J. ( 'h. l:)7;
(ll'l--') A. I', p. 8(Hi; 82 li. J.Ch. p. 53.
J) .S'/'«/,r< V. lianhiiifi I'nunl of
H'l'llh, 1 Eq. 42 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 105;
ilMtmid V. Tunhridge WtUt Com-
mitaionert, 1 Eq. 161 ; 1 Ch. 349 ;
35 Ij. J. Cb. 182 ; Att.-Oen. \.
Vulney Hatch A$i/liim, 4 Ch. 146;
38 L. J. Ch. 2(i5; Atl.-dcn. v.
'''ir/tiiiutimi of Lndi, !t t'h. 5S3 ; 39
I. J. Ch.711 ; I'euiiiui/toii v. Ilriiimp
I Ml foul Co., 5 CD. 7t)9, 774;
I'l J. Ch. 773; Att.-Oen. v.
A'-iui, /.,K(il Board. 22 C. D. 321 ;
li. J. Ch. 108- AU.-G^ v.
Finchhj/ Local Board, 3 T. L. B.
357; Att-Oim. v. WiOtidtn Urban
V. Birmini/liam, Tame, ilc, fJistrirt
Ihrainai/e /lunrd, noto(fi), *«/.)•((,■
Stitiiiomh V. Triiirhriil(/e I'rhan
V.uni.il, (1910, 2 Ch. p. 191; 79
1.. J. Ch. 519; .h;i,s V. LluHrvnt
Vrhait Council, (1911) 1 Ch.p. 411 ;
«() L. J. Ch. 146 ; (1912) 78 J. P.
Jo. 243 (where an undertaking in
damages was required on further
suspension); Att.-(len. v. Len-ea
Ci/r/ioralion, (1911) 2 Ch. p. jOO,
(19)2) 81 L. J. Ch. 40.
('■) I'eitiiirii/tou V. JIn'iisi.p H„U
( „al r,,.. 5 C. I), p. 773 ; 44 L. J.
( 'h. 773 ; Johti v. Llanrwtt Urban
Council, {mi) 1 Ch. p. 411; 80
L. J. Ch. 144. See Chapman v.
Aarkland Union, 23 Q, B. D. 294;
58 L. J. Q. B. 504; Harrington
{Earl) V. Dtrby Corjtoration, (1906)
1 Ch. p. 221 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 219.
262
NrlSANCKS KELATlNd TO WATER.
^SkL 4* provisions of sect. 17 of tho Act (rf). The prohibition
^ — in sect. 17 is against the discharge into u naturul stream of
sewage which will prejudiiiiilly affect or (l;tt'riorate the
qiiniity of tho water ; where therefore filthy water is discharged
into a stream which is already polluttKl, no offence is com-
mitted against the section unless the stream is thereby made
fouler than it was before (e).
granteiHo '^'^^ Court will not grant a mandatory injunction against a
ronip«i iiK-ai public body to compel them to perform their statutory duty of
*.ruv'idc'pn!iwr piovidiiig a proper system of drainage (/). Thus where a
<ir«m»(je»}»t«iii. local l)oavd did no act themselves to cause a nuisance, but
merely neglected to iwrform their duty of providing a proper
system of drainage and permitted the state of things to con-
tinue which existed before the commencement of their powers,
it was held that an action would not lie by a riparian owner
for damages or an injunction to restrain the board allowing
sewage to pollute the river, the action being in substance not
based on a private wrong, but being one for a mandatory
injunction to compel the board to carry out their statutory
duties as to the drainage of their district, relief which should
be obtainetl by the i)rerogative writ of mandamus (g), or by
((/) >See Ihtrrant v. Branktome
I'rbait Cottiitil, (1897) 2 Ch. 291 ;
66 J. Ch. 6A3; Att.-Otn. r.
Birminiiham, Tame, He., Dhtrict
Drainnije lioanl ; Jones y. Llanrirtt
I'rbaii Ciiinicil, notes (<i), (/)), «ii//r(( ;
I'liillimnre v. Wai/ord District
Couiuil, (191.t) -2 Ch. 434; and see
sect. 332 Public Health Act, 1876.
See also Att.-(fen. v. Lewes Cir-
}>oration, (1911) 2 Ch. 495 ; (1912)
81 L. J. Ch. 40, as to dincharge of
«ewage into a atream ii to which
part of the year only aewc 'o flowcl.
(«) Att.-flen. V. Bi nimjhom,
Taiiie, etr., Didriit Dmiuaije lUmnl,
(1910) 1 Ch. 4& ; 79 I.. J. Ch. 137 ;
(1912) A. C. 800 ; Si L. J. Ch. 53.
{J) liivoDvji V. tttsiun and /sle-
wurth Loral liourd, 12 C. I). 102;
49 L. J. Ch. 89; Att.-Qe».
V. Dorkiuy L'uion, 20 C. D. 396;
51 L. J. Ch. 585; Att.-Otii. v.
Clerkenwell Vestry, (1891) 3 Ch.
p. 537 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 788 ; I/arring- •
Ion {Karl) v. Drrh;/ <'ori"iratioii^
(1905) 1 I'll. pp. 223, 224 ; 74 L. J.
Ch. 219; Fmter v. Warhlington
Crlan Conncil, (1900) 1 K. B.
p. 609; 76 L. J. K. ]{. 514, 524;
Jones V. Llaiirwst Urban Council,
(1911) 1 Ch. pp. 406, 406 ; 80 L. J.
Ch. 143 ; and aee Dawson v. Bingkg
Urban Couuril, (1911) 2 K. B.
pp. 155, lUl ; 80 L. J. K. I!,
pp. >S50, 852 ; M'Vleltnml v. Man-
rlie't'-r Curjioration, (1912) 1 K. B.
p. 133 ; 81 L. J. K. B. p. 106.
((/) (tlossop V. Ilestun and Isle-
uwth Lwal Hoard; Att.-Uen. y.
Dorking Union, supra; see these
lexpkioed. Fotttry. Warblind-
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
L'omi)luint to the Local Government Board under sect. '299
of the Public Health Act, 1875, or by proceedings under the
Rivcis Pollution i'revention Acts, 18TG and 1893 (h).
But although sect. 299 of the i'ublic Health Act, 1876, pro-
Tides a remedy in the case of a local authority miaking default
in providing their district with proper sewers, or "in the
inaiiitcimnce of existing sewers," a private individual is en-
titled tu damages, and an injunction to restrain a local autho-
rity committing a nuisance by allowing sewage to escape from
their sewers to his injury {/), notwithstanding the statutory
ur I reseriptive right of the inhabitants in the district to turn
their sewage into the sewers of the local autiiority (k).
Othei- eases of nuisance to water which have been brou^t
before the Court are obstructions and nuisances to canals (' .
A canal company authorised but not ordered by Act of Parlia-
ment to supply their canal with water from a stream which
was pure at the date of their Act, cannot, after the stream has
heeii |)olluted, though by the act of others, continue to supply
Chap. VI.
r!«ct. 4.
Public Hnltb
Ast, 1876, 1.899.
t,u, frlfiUi Cimy,.!/, (llHUi) 1 K. B.
]ip. (it;!t, 676 ; 75 L. J. K. 15. p. 524 ;
Jviiia V. I.lanriiat L'thdii Council,
(li'Il) 1 Ch. pp. 40.), 409 ; HO L. J.
I'h. 145 ; DatrioH v. liinglty Urban
CouHcil, (1911) 2 K. B. 165—161 ;
SO L. J. K. B. 850, 852.
(//) Seo Ifarriiiiitfii{Karl)y. Ikrbij
''..)•/...) <i(io/,, (1905) 1 Ch. pp. 205,
-224 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 219.
(i) Junis V. IJanrirsi Vrlidn
'W/,a7, (1911) 1 Ch. pp. 393,409;
SO L. J. Ch. 145; Att.-deii. v.
I.eirea Corporation, (1911) 2 Ch.
495, (1912) 81 li. J. Ch. 40; and
see GMnnyt v. Hungtrjord, (1904)
1 I. R. p. 211.
(A) Jones v. f.lanrn st I'rbaii
Coniiril, (1911) 1 Ch. pp. 409, 410 ;
SO L. J. Ch. 115 ; Ilurrm;it;h [F.arl)
V. Ihrl.ii C„)-/..,™(mH, (1905) 1 Ch.
p. 220 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 219 (explained
lu Iiui>utt V. SinitiienU-vit-i^ca Cfr-
I'oratitm, (1906) 75 L. J. K. B. p.
309), and of. AU.-den. v. Ikrkiny
I'liinii, in which case an injunction
was not grantod against the local
authority where the inhabitants
had acquired preacriptive rights
to carry their sewage into "the
river" through tbe defradante*
sewen. SeeaatothisdecHion</MiM
V. LliinrwU Vrhan Council, tupra.
{/) See I.imJdtt anil liirtnimjham
Itaihfiiii Co. v.OranilJnndujti Canal
( '()., 1 Ka. Ca. 224 ; Mam /iesier,
aheffielJ, etr., fliiihntii y. Work-
sop Board (i/ Health. 23 Beav. 198;
26 L. J. Ch. 345; ( Vise v. Miiilaml
Railway Cn., 27 Beav. 247; 28
L. J. Cb. 727 ; Swimion Wattrwork*
Vo. T. WilU and Btrk* Canal Co.,
L. R. 7 H. L. TOT : 44 L. J. Ch.
63N ; Att-Oen. v. Baiingtioke Cur-
juration, 45 Ti. J. Ch. 727 ; Xorth
Ntafforitsliire Railway Co. v. Hanlnj
CorfHiration, (1910) 26 T. L. R. 20 ;
tHaJfuriiehire anil Wurtuterthire
Canal Co. v. Brwlley, (1913) 1 Ck
91 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 147.
264
NII8ANCE8 BELATINO TO WATEB.
^^ZJl '^'^"y thereby a public
. nuisiiiicc (,/,). It is IK) HiiNWPr to Hiiy th it the etanpany did
not ])ollute the water, they hiiviiig tlie power to drnw or not
to draw the water into thoir canal as they please, or that by
restriiiniiig the cunal c(«ipany. a worse naisanee would be
created, or that the eompiiny may he obliged to dose their
canal and exjMise them,selve« to an indictment on that
ground (n).
!;'r:;r';::,!:r ^" ;i>jut,etion win l>e granted to restrain u WHter com-
co,ui,.v,.v .li.- pany preventing u householder connecting liid service nine
«nd ciitting uif company 8 mam, in accordance with hia ntatutory
"PPlj. rights („). And notwilhsfan.ling the statutory remedy pro-
vided by sect. 68 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 18 H, for
the settlement of disputes by justices, and the 8i)ecial remedy
by penalties given by sect. 48 against a company with-
holding wafer, tiie Court will grant an injunction to restrain a
water company from cutting off the supply of water to a house,
but the injunction will only be granted on the plaintiff giving
an tiiKiei taking to take imniediafe proceedings before the jus-
tices to have the quastion determined as to the proper sum to
be paid by him for the water (p).
J^.'r"h'','njl;;y ^'""'"^ nn injunction to restrain a defendant
t««.i.ery. damagmg a plaintiff's fishery, notwithstanding that the acts
complained of are offences under the Salmon Fishery Acts,
for which penalties are prescribed on conviction in summary •
pi-oc. edin-s b<.fore justices, but some definite damage clearly
attributable to the illegal act must be shown (q)
It::;.,;;:;;;;: ^y the Birers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (r), every
187« k ma. ("•) AH.-Om. V. Vr„i,ru'lur» ,./ rifflitn he had rP8. rvo.l, see lloyh v
hrn.t/ard Canal V„., -i Kq. 71 ; 3a //„/, ,■,;//, (100.5) 1 Ir. 245; CaUwtU
li. J. C h. y. l\\lhUii, ib. p. 447
\"l ]]\ „^ {') & 40 Vict. c. 73. A. to
(o) (.ah V. Uhnmuy dm ,„„i tl,„ fchcme Of the Act, and of the
\i„ier Co., (1903) 89 U T. 399. Explanatory Act, 18S3. i^fra, we
(/,) ll,„i,r„r,( V. FmH London BMerworth v. TorMire [W H)
WuUnri^kt Co., 28 C. D. 130; M Rivtr, Board, (19<)9) A. C 45- 78
L. J OLm L. J. K. B. 203. See also 'the
T ^'^'^^ Pollati.m Prevention (Hor-
L. T. 425. 428 : W. N. 22.S. A= to der CuunciU) Act, 1S9S, 61 & 62
injunction against lessee obstruct- Vict. o. 34.
ing his lessor exercinng the fishing
NDI8ANCE8 RELATING TO WATEP
20S
perMM) who puts, or knowingly porinits to be put, into a Ch»p. VI.
Btream (»), any solid refuse of a manufactory, or any putrid '*°*' *■
solid niuUcr, nouh to ititcrfcro with thr due flow of tht> Htrciun,
or pollui. iU waters (t), or who causes or knowingly {)eriuita
to flow («) into any stream, any Hewago matter (x), or who
causes ny ktuiwinpiy |>erniit.s to flow (y) into any stream any
polluting liquid from u factory or manufactui ing process (:),
or who causes or knowingly jwrmits to be curried into any
siKani any solid iiialti r from a mine so as to prejudicially
iiilerl( re with the due tlow of the Htreani, or who causes or
knowingly peruiitsi to flow into u stream any polluting solid or
liquid matter from a mine (a), commite an offence against the
Act. Provided that, where any sewage nuitter or polluting
liquid from a factory or manufacturing process passes into
a stream by a channel in use at the date of the Act, an offence
is not cou>initled if tlu' person charged shows to the satisfac-
fuction of the Court ihut he is using the best practicable and
reasonably available means to render the matter complained
(if liaruiless (h).
.\o pi oceedings can be taken under the Act for any offence Notice of
agaiiisl the Act until the expiration of two months aftei p™**""**-
written notice of the ir.:.ention to take such proceedings has
Iweii tjiven, and proceedings are not to bo taken for an offence
against the Act wiiile other proceedings in relation to such
offence are pending (c), and in the case of offences under
(.I) .\s to inoaiiiiig uf »tri.iiin, mjo 812; i'urliiiliirf Cuunli/ Cminril v.
!•«■' t.'io, Riverx Pollution Act, IsTll ; lli'lmjirlli Crhan Sanitary Aiitliiirily,
Yorhihire (11. R.) Jiiven Board v. (1894) a U. B. 842 ; 63 L. J. Q. B.
Prraon, {\9iib) 92 L. T. 25; and 484; BuUerwortk r. rork$hirt{W.
Airdrie MagUtratrs T. Lanark R.) Sivert Board, {lOW) A. C. pp.
ComUy Council, (1910) A. C. 286 ; 63, 66 ; 78 L. J. K. B. p. 203.
79 L. J. P. C. 82. fv>e also as to (j) Section 3.
streams into which seirafie alone (//) irfoo ilulfcrimrih v. yorktliire
passes during part of the year, (I.". A'.) Jlivers /i<«rf /, ( 1 90l>) A. C.
Aft.-dfii. V. I.eirea Corp<4-aUim, 4 ') ; 78 L. J. K. B. 203.
(l!)n) 2 fh. 496; (1912) 81 L. J. (s) Section 4.
•-'li- 4'>. (o) Section 5.
(/) Section 2. th) SectiouB 3 and 4, and aee the
{ii) See oti He 67 Vict. c. 31, and giinilar pioviao in sect. 5 •• to
Kirklieatim Load Board t. Ainhg, drainage tram minaa.
(1892) 2 Q. B. 274 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. (e) SMtion IS.
266
NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.
CiMp. VI.
Powtnaf Aat
cnanlatiTt.
OHcBCW agkiaat
Act rwtniMd
hy stiniin.'iry
(•riler 1.1 < 'uunljr
Court.
Onirr in eflact
an injunction.
Pollution liy
othcn no anawer
to pr^ccnlinga.
Beet*. 4 and 5, proeeedingH can only be Uikoii hy ii twtnitury
Hutliority with the consent of the Local Oovernnient
Hdird {(I), wliiuh cons- , if must l)i> ohtainod hcfon- the two
months' noticu of ptocmlingH prescribed b^ Beet. 13 can
be given («).
The i)()W('rs givfii l)y the Act do not, however, prejudice the
exercise by uu aggrieved person of uny other rights or |K)werB
which he may have, provided that in tiny proceedings by such
person for enforcing suoh rights or powers, the Court before
which such proceedings are pending slmll tiike into considera-
tion uny ccrtiflcute granted to the defendant under sect. 12
of the .\ct that the best available means have been adopted by
the defendant to render harmless the jwlluting matter (/).
Nor does the Act apply to or affect the lawful exercise of any
rights of impounding or diverting water (//).
The jurisdicfioti of restraining offences against the Act is
given to the County C'ourt in the place where the offence is
committed, which Court muj by suniniary order require the
offendei' to iihstiiin from such offence, or, if the otfence wm-
sists in default to perform a duty under the Act, may require
him to perform such duty (h).
This summary order of the County Court is in effect an in-
junction and in the discretion of the Court (i).
The fact that a river has been polluted by other persons is
no excuse in proceedings under the Act to restrain a defen- ■
duit committing an offence against the Act, and if the jwllu-
tion by the defendant is appreciable, the plaintiff is primd
{./) Soction (!.
(f ) YiH-' tr, ( ir. A'.) llirera Itwnl
V. IMnnsx,,. {im) I K. B. 431 ; 76
I.. J. K. «. 420.
(/) Section Ifi.
(y) Section 17. See Ilil.hk Ilittr
(\mmittee v. Halliwtll, (1899) 2
Q. B. 385 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 984.
(A) iiactioii 10. As to appeal
and removal of case to High Court,
see Jiert. 11 and )r.rj!-s /.!><: (
Jlirera Hounl v. Raieusthnrpe Urhtm
Voimcil, (1907) 71 J. P. 21(9.
(i) Kirlhmti til Loral IliHtril \,
Ainlfi/, (1S1)2) 2 U. n. ).p. 282,
28o: «1 L. J. Q. 1!. sio; /if
Ihrbj)thirt County Couneil v. Jttrby
t'orporatim, (1896^ 2 Q. B. pp. 298,
299 ; 06 h. J. Q. J. p. 539;
afBrmed, (1897) A. ^. 580 ; 66
L. J. Q. R 701, Mib. u<jni. /)eihi/
Corpontim y. Thrhyhire Coiinti/
Couneil; Stafforilrliiir Coiintit
Cvuncil V. Sciidoii Iluiu'i Intliui
Counts, (1907) 96 L. T. p. 331.
Nl'IKANCKS IlKLATINd TO WATKI!.
afl?
CUp. vt
SMt. 4.
facie entitled to tin onlor under Meet. 10 {k). Tho county
eourt in oxerciHing its juri«di(.tion under sect. 10 therefort' im -
not juNti(ii-<l in refuving to make an ord«r rMtraining acts
which would oaUN* im ij)[>r('c 'lili |)()ll '-on if the streura
were ollierwiwi pure, merely bt»cuu»e ^ho ])unutiun hy otlier
|)enu)nH prevent** th« tw B i rtww liy tfe* <i«f»n4ant from being
in the circuni-t^iu. i - ipi ■ ceiuble (/}.
Where u Huiumatry nder had beet> made iu proceedings irijiimtion
in»<tituted by t» county eouneil against a loeal authority, re
r('f»i'*€il whi'n
>uiuni«i')r onlei
(luil in^' flu d(«&»nd«nti9 to abstain fr«a» polkitiiig ii river, iiiid
llie (li'f. •Hliilit'- H ie (M yiiip oul Works to coinplv with the
order, the liijjii t 'ourt in .tu iictii'ii l<y ii riparmn owner, ut
whose instigation the county eouneil Iwd obtained the sum-
niiiry order, refuHed to grant him fwrAer relief by wuy of an
itijunetion
HKCTiON 6.— MUMAMCKS TO NAVKUBLI TIDAL WATIRB. 8eot. S.
Thm iK>il of the seashore (n),or bed of an estuary, or tidal "f >«'wImw»
. •nil ti«l of
nuvigahle river, between tho luedium high anil low water Mi*!f»U« tidal
mark, is primu facie vested in the Oown, and is u beneficial
ownerHhip. subject to the public rights of navigation and fish-
ing in the superjacent waters (o).
(/.; Nilfforilshirr I'onnti/ t'tiiinril
V. tieitilon Rural /Jutrirt Council,
(1907) 96 L. T. 328.
{') lb.
(nO llarriniftm {Karl) v. Derby
<;,ii r.,ti„i,. (KKl,-)) 1 Ch. pp. 308,
r.M 1 L. J. ( ii. •.'!!».
(// As to iiii'iiniiif; of tiTiii ' m ; -
~liiiri'," sec All.-<nn.\. < 'lirtiiih> )■',
■■ \)o il. M. & O. •.>(»« : •r.i T,. J. fh.
lit.-.'; I'l,ilj,„t V. Ilat/i, {mH) 20
T. I,, U. 5H9; 21 T. L. B. (iM;
Melhr V. Walmt$ltt, (1906) 2 Ch.
p. 177 : 73 L. J. Ch. 7M. An tn
the bed and ml ot the Thames,
nee Thames Ctmaervaiicy Act,
1894 (ft7 * M Ykt e. eUxxviL),
sects. M, 72, 2aH ; Port of I<oudon
Act, 1908 (« Jidw. 7, c. 68), »«et. 7.
See also Cotuertotim of Itiver
Thamtt t. Lomdom Pert fktnitarjf
AuihorHy, (18M) 1 Q. B. 647 ; 63
L. J. IL C. 131 ; Vmuermtor* of
River Tliamei v. Smenl, (18!t7) 2
H. H. 334 : 6(i T,. J. Q. U. 334.
(<•) llaiiiiv. I 'lie Fialieraf/ Whit-
ftahh, 1 1 II. I,. V. 192, 207 ; 3S
L. J. L'. V. 20 ; ForrmaH v. Frte
Fuhen 0/ WhiMMt, L. B. 4 H. L.
p. 283; Att-'Otn. t. TtmUiM, 14
r. n. p. 6»; 49 L- J, C*. 977:
AH.-Orn. V. Emerton, (1891) A. C.
(i49 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 79 ; Urinekman
Jfot&y. (1904) iOk-yp. 31ft, 316,
368
NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERS.
NniMum to
pnblie right
o{ lutTigUion.
*sirt.r' inyasion or encroachment on the soil of the sea-
Parpreituw.. ~ °' ^ °^ estusry Of navigable tidal river,
while the same is vested in the Crown is a purpres-
ture (p). There is a wide difference between a pur-
presture and a nuisance. Although they may both co-exist,
either may exist without the other. If the act complained of
be u purpresture, it may be restrained at the suit of the
Attorney-General, whether it be a nuisance or not. Being an
encroachment on the soil of the Sovereign, like trespass on the
soil of an individual, it will supfwi t an action irrespective of
any damage which may accrue. Hut to constitute a public
nuisance, damage to the public right of narigation or other
public right must be shown to exist. If the act complained of
be a mere purpresture without being at the same time a
nuisance, the Court will usually direct an inquiry to be made
whether it is more beneficial to the Crown to abate the pur-
presture or to suffer the obstruction to remain. But if the pur-
presture be also a public nuisance, this cannot be done, for the
Crown cannot sanction a public nuisance (q). The Crown has
no right to use its title to the soil so as to occasion a nuisance
to its subjects, nor can it give any one a right to do so. Build-
ings or other erectimis which interfere with the public right
of navigation over the water arc nuisances at connuon law,
whether made by the Crown or by a subject (r). The erection
of a pier or embankment is noi neemsarily a nuisance. The
true question in each case is, whether or not a damage accrues
32S ; 73 h. J. Ch. 642, (yiC, ; Fitz-
liarilii,;/t {l.i.rfl) v. I'lintU, (1SM)8) 2
t'h. p. ; 7" li. J. Ch. pp. 529,
546; Jtena'iy anil <\i,lelii/ Collieries
> ■<: V. Anam, (1911)1 K. 1!. p. 2()« ;
80 L. J. K. B. 320.
(iO Att.-Gen.\. Vhamberlaint, A
K. * J. 292; 116B.B.33].
{q) Att.-Gtn. t. Burridge, 10
ftice, 3aO; 24 E. B. 705; AU.-
Oen. V. Pamwnler, 10 Price, 412;
24 R. B. 723 ; Jit- Oni. v. Joh
2 Wils. Ch. 87 ; 18 R. H. ISO; dann
V. Free Fithert of WliiUtabie, 11
H. I.. C. 1!I2, 208; 35 L. J. C. P.
29 ; Att.-Uen. v. Lonsdale {Karl), 7
Kq. 377, 389; 38 L. J. Oh. 334;
AH. -dm. V. Terry, 9 Ch. 423.
(f)Ib., and lee Att-Otn. r.
Tomline, 14 C. D. p. 69 ; 49 L. J.
Ch. 377 ; LwtrpoU and Nerth Wales
8teetm*hip Co. y. Mersey Tradiny
Co., (1908) 2 Ch. 4(iO; 77 L. J. Ch.
6fi8 ; (1909) 1 Ch. 209 ; 78 I.. J. Ch.
17; Jknaliji and Cailtlii/ Collieries
Co. V, <4b«.r. (1911) 1 K. Rp. SOS-
SOL. J. K. B. 330.
NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERS.
269
Chap. VI.
.B.
t . e navigation in the particular locality (s). If an erec-
tion be a hindrance to the navigation, it is no defntce fliat
the public inconvenience is coonterbalaQced by the benefit to
be aCorded by it (*).
A riparian owner on the banks of a tidal navigable river has R5«''t» ot
the same rights or natural easements which belong to a on^auksT""
riparian proprietor on the banks of a natural stream above Jj^
the flow ot the tide. In the part of the river where the tide
flows and reflows, the soil between hi^ water mark and
low water mark and the soil in the bed of the river are primd
facie vested in the Crown, but the public are entitled to the
rights of navigation and fishing, and to nse the shore, the pro-
perty of the Crown, for the purpose of embarking and dis-
emb>.rking, and for other purposes ancillary to their right of
navigation and fishing («). A riparian owner has the right
of navigating the river as one of the public ; but wbra iliedgfat
of navigation is connected with an exclusive access to and
from a particular wharf, it ceases to be a right held in common
with the rest of the public, for other members of the public
have no access to or from the river at the particular place ; and
it becomes a form of enjoyment of the land and of the river in
connection with the land, the disturbance of which may be
viiuiiciitod in damages by an acticm or restrained by an in-
junction (x).
U) IMh V. liatte, 15 A. C. 188;
r,. J. p. f. 41 ; Denaby and
('will,,/ (\.l/ierie» Co. v. Anion,
(I'.dl) 1 K. B. pp. 206, 207 ; 80
L. J. K. B. 320, and Me Livayeol
ami North Wale» Steamthip Co. v.
ifertfy Trading C,<., (1908) •_' Ch. p.
iT-S : "7 L. J. Ch. 658 ; (190!») 1 Ch.
•-'0!) ; 78 L. J. Ch. 17 ; and Cam/Mrt
Tni.-fn.i V. Sirefiiei/, (1911) S. C.
I'llii (nids moored in non-tidal
I'ul.lii' river).
{'• III.,- V. linn/, I A. & B. 384;
•'1.. J. (X. S.)K. B. 221; 43B,B.
m -. %. V . BtUi, lUU. B. 1023;
19 L. J. Q. B. 531 ; AtL-Ot^ r.
Terrs, » Ch. 4S3 ; and Me iWy
and Cadehi/ Collieriei Oe. T. jlmoii,
(1911) 1 K. B. p. 210; 80 L. J.
E. B. p. 338; WtdneAuty Corpora-
tioH T. Lodge ffoUt OoUierg Ch.,
(1907) 1 K. a p. 91 ; 76 L. J. K. B.
p. 74 (reversed on other grounds,
(1908) A. C. 3'.'3 ; 77 L. J. K. B.
S4"); see CamphMt IVtllttM
S'veeney, tupra.
(u) Hindton v. Athby, (1896) 2
Ch. p. 9; 66 L. J. Ch. p. 517;
Copfiittger r. SKethan, (1908) 1 L B.
519, 525.
(s) Lj/on V. FUhmmgtn Co., 1
A. C. 662 ; 46 L. J. Oh. 68. See
aMr.Corfamioin/(im»b»c,6A..O.
•4; ML. J. P.O. 1; Smik Bktn
270 NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERa
Chap, yi. The public rights of vmr of the sea or navigable tidal IrateM
Swct. »■ . . .
W**ig«ti««. " ""^'S^i'on. are more extensive than in the analogous case
of a highway (//). The right of navigation includes the right
of passage, and of anchoring, or otherwise securing in position
the navigating vessel, and all rights ancillary to navigaticm.
But the right claimed must be a right incidental to the naviga-
tion of the person claiming the right, and not a right inci-
dental to the navigation of others. Thus a claim by a colliery
company to moor a coal hulk in Portland Harbour for the
purpose of supplying coal to vessels entering the port, was
held bad in law, the sale of coal not being an act incidental to
the company's own navigation («).
iiMtiag. A riparian owner has a right to moor a vessel of ordinary
size .ilongside his wharf for the purpose of loading or un-
loading at reasonable times and for a reasonable time and in
a reasonable way ; and the Court will restrain by injunction
the owner of adjoining premises from interfering with the
access of such vessel, even though the vessel may overlap his
own premises, though such vessel would not be allowed to
interfere with the proper right of access to the neighbouring
premises, if used as a wharf, nor to theiree entrance to or exit
from such premises if used as a dock by other vessels (a). A
right on the part of the owners of Ashing boats and other craft
to fix moorings in the foreshore of tidal navigable waters may,
upon evidence of inttnemorial user, be supported either as an '
ordinary incident of the navigsvtion of such waters, or on the
presumption of a legal origin by grant from the down of the
foreshore subject to such user, or by presumption of a con-
cession by a former owner of the foreshore to ^11 persons
navigating the waters to use the foreshore for fixing moor-
Rmlway Co. v. Pirn, 14 A. C. 612 ; Co. v. Amon (1911) 1 K. H. 171 ; 80
69 L. J. P. C. 25. L. J. K. B. .m.
(;/) SimpBoti v. Alt.-tleii., (1901) (a) fPru/inal Uitrtteimit Collieries
A. C. p. 50<»; 74 L. J. Ch. 1; Co. v (fihh, 5 CD. 713; 46 L. J.
Dmaby anil Cailehi/ Collifrie» Cn. y. I'h. .'Ill; Lattil Senirilies Co. v.
^InsoH, (1911) IK. B. pp. HW, 19!); Cnnimtnial das Co., (1902) IS
80 L. J. K. B. p. aa2 ; see T. L. B. 405. As to mooring iu
CampMr* Truttm v. Sweenty, navigable non-tidal watm, Me
(1911) S. C. p. 1324. Cami.btWt TriMfen t. fiiMii^,
(;) Iknahy ami Cadtbg (Mlieria (1911) a C. 1319.
NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL W\TEE8.
271
ings. It seems that such a right might also, in the case of the Chip- vi.
river Thames, hare been sniqmrted on presumption of regu-
lations of the port authority of the port of London (ft).
Tlie right to fish in the sea between high and low water ruuag.
mark, and in tidal (c) rivers, is prima facie vested in the
public (tl), but in the case of non-tidal rivers or lakes, even
though thoy be navigable, the public have no such right (e).
Persons using a navigable non-tidal river no more acquire
thereby a right to fish therein than persmis passing along a
public highway on land acquire a right to shoot upon it (/).
The same principles apply with respect to nuisances arising FonUag mnipr
from the discharge into navigable tidal rivers of matters in-
jurious to health as are applicable in tiie case of ordinary
rivers (g).
There is no right at common law to discharge sewage into DiMharge of
the sea so as to commit a nuisance (h). The right of drain- ■•"^'■•••^
11 (Tc into the sea and navigable tidal rivers, conferred by the
Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, is subject to the con-
dition that no nuisance be created (»).
('.) Att-Oen. V. U'riyht, (1897) 2
(i. U. 318 ; 66 L. J. Q. H. 834.
As to meaning of " mooring," see
Liverpool and Hurth Wula Steam-
thi)) Co. v. Mtrtey Trading Co.,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 474 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
678, and m to " Davigable," Reece
V. Miller, 8 Q. B. D. 626; fil L. J.
M. C. 64; llfhetter {Karl) v. Jiaish-
high, 61 L. T. 478.
(-•) As to " tidal," see Reere v.
Miller, siijm ; Yorkshire ( ire»< /lid-
i";/) Itivert Hoard v. Tadcattk Rural
Cuiim-il, (li»07)97 L. T. 436; /orm
V. Llanrwtt Urban CoH,ita, (1911)
1 Ch. p. 401 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 149.
(</) Xeill V. Duke of Devonthire,
8 A. C. p. 177 ; Iteete v. Miller, 8
Q. B. D. p. 629 ; 51 L. J. M. 0. 64.
(f) I'earce v. Srotrher, 9 Q. B. I).
16 L. T. 342; Smith v.
Am'rfr,. (1S9I) 2 I'h. 678; 65
L T. 175 ; Umlton v. .4«Afty,(1896)
2 Ch. p. 9 J 64 L. J. Ch. p. fll7 ;
Johnttwi V. O'Xeill, (1911) A. C.
p. 577 ; 81 L. J. P. C. p. 31. See
aa to the Norfolk Inoads, MidHe-
thwait r. Vincent, 67 L. T. 23fi;
BUjwtr T. mi$, SO J. P. sae.
(/) Smith V. Andrewt, (1891) 3
Ch. pp. 695, 696 ; 65 L. T. 76.
((/) Att.-Gen. v. Kingiton-on-
Thamet (Corporation, 34 L. J. Ch.
481.
(A) Fi>ster v. WHrblinyUm Vrhan
I •<mn, il, (1906) 1 K. B. pp. 666, 678 ;
7S L. J. K. B. 614 J Hohart v.
Sonthend-m-Sea Corporation, (1906)
75 L. J. K. B. 306 (compromised
on appeal on nflior grounds, 22
T. L. B. 530; ; , v. Faverthmm
Corporation, (19(i;i} 73 J. P. 33.
(i) See 10 & 11 Vict. c. 34, wot.
24 and Att.-Oen. v. Kinyston-on-
Thaiim Curporation, tiipra, and
Prict's Patent Candle Co. v. Lundtm
Comntg Ommea, (ItW) 3 Ch. 626;
TtL. J.ab.1.
S72
NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERS.
cb«p. VI. Where a local authority discharged sewage into the sea and
rendered the plaintiff's oyster ponds unfit for use, the plaintiff
fi»heTy"'° '"^ occupier of the ponds wus held entitled apart from proof
nwtrikineJ with- of any title to the soil or to a several fishery, to maintain an
oiraerahip of the action for the trespass (k). So, also, where a defendant had,
by erecting an embankment and enclosing the bed of a tidal
river, shut out and prevented thi3 tide from reaching a mussel-
bed and breeding-ground, the Court granted an injunction
without deciding or entering upon the question as to the
ownership of the soil (/).
Commiuionen By various Acts, the Commissioners of Sewers have been
invested with the power of determining where, aud to what
extent, public convenience will justify an obstruction to any
arm or inlet of the sea or navigable river, and of otiici-wise
controlling and regulating them as the exigencies of the public
will require (m). Acting bond fide for the benefit of the
levels, the Commissioners of Sewers may erect defences
against the inroads of the sea, altliough they may thereby
cause the sea to flow with greater violence against the adjoin-
ing land (n).
The owner of the land on the seashore is not bound at
common law, ai>art from prescription, to keep in repair a sea-
wall ; nor is the mere fact that each frontager had always
maintained the sea-wall in front of his land, and that no one
had thought it necessary to erect a wall to protect his land
from the water which might <»»ne from h j neighbour's land,
sufficient evidence to establish a prescriptive liability <m tiie
[k) Fiisttr V. Warhlinijton Vrhan irf// v. //aroW, (1912) A. 0. 287 ;
Council, (1906) 1 K. B. 649 ; 75 81 L.' J. P. C. 162.
L. J. K. B. 614. ('") ^'■o '^'^ lien. «, c. 5 ; 3 & 4
[Vj Brvlgtt T. Highttm, 11 L. T. WiU. 4, o. 22; 24 & 26 Vict c.
(N. S.) 653. A«to liaWlitr of Con- 133.
■ervaton of the river Medway f«» (n) Rex v. ComffltM<M«r(
injury to oyster beds by wreck, see Sewrrt/or I'ayham, 8 B. ft C. 366 ;
TAf Wen, (1911) P- 40 ; 80 L.J. P. Att.-den. v. Earl Lons'lale, L. B.
59. Fishing for ouIiiidu by means 7 Eq. p. 3M7 ; .'iS L. J. Ch. 335.
of drift nets is illetjal in Scotland, See Muxri/ Uniiuni/f Itmird v. fr'roo<
Wtddtrburn v. />"Ar vf Adiuil, Xurl/iein liutUay Co., (1912) lOd
(1900) A. C. 403 (Sc.) ; 16 T. L. R. L. T. 429 ; 6« 8. J. 876.
413, but not iu Irelncd, Irish
SM-mtls.
M'ISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERS. 278
part of a frontdger to muintain the vail for the protecticm of Om^ VL
the adjoining landowners (o). 8«ct.5.
The Crown is primd fade entitled to every part of the Fo™.b.r.
forcsliore (/>), that is the land which liea between high and
low water mark of ordinary tides (q). The public have the
right to pass orer the foreshore when covered by the tide for ^^^^^
the purposes of navigation and fishmg (r). The right of navi-
gation includes the right of access to the sea («), and of
anchoring and doing other acts incidental to the navigation of
the person claiming the right (<). When the foreshore is un-
covered by the tide, there is no common law right in the public
to iKiss over it except for the purposes of navigation or lish-
ing(M), Accordingly the public have no right to use the
(0) HudtoH V. Tabor, 2 Q. B. D.
•m; 46 L. J. (J. ](. 46:J; AU.-Oen.
V. Tomliiie, U C. I), p. 05; 49 L.J.
I'll. t'ommissiiimrs of Seirera
h r /-.s i r V. Rfj., n A. C. 449; 50
I.. J. M. (.'. 1 ; ItmaUe v. Ilearle,
( 1 >>.!if<} i Q. B. p. 90 ; 67 L. J. Q. B.
I' T44 ; and lee Ltmdm and North
Wtdtrn Railway Co. v. Commu-
aionert of Stwtrifor Fobbing Level*,
66 L. J. Q. 15. 127.
{p)Atl.-ilei,. V. Kmmertot), (1891)
A. C. 049 ; 01 L. J. Q. li. 79 ;
M'!'or V. Wabnealey, (1905) 2 Ch.
1'. 177; ■ t9(H)73L. J.Ch. 758; /Vk-
/.iinli,,,,. {f.oni) V. J'lircdl, (1908) 2
t li. II. 107 ; 77 L. J. Ch. S29. The
uwnerfship of the foreshore may be
vested in a subject by grant or
prescription, Denabt/ awl Vaihhj
iollkriea Co. v. Anton, (1911) 1
K. li. 177 : 80 L. J. K. B. 320.
As 1 1 the dwiicMhip uf a several
li-Ii. I y riii.siiisr a prewiimption that
till' .sdil Ls in the grantee of the
tishory, SCO Mt-Oen. v. Emmermm,
»"/■'" ■ Itea«/ort {Dukt) r. Aird,
('""i; ^'0 T. L. B. 602! TWcq,.
V. Sati MorWg, (1907) fil
S. J. 629. '
(7) Maor T. Wedmtdtg, tupn ;
K.I.
Ftizhardimje {Lur,l)\. /'„ rvell, ( 1 908;
2 Ch. p. 165 ; 77 I.. J. Ch. 52U.
(»•) UluwUll V. VatteraU, 5 B. &
Aid. pp. 268, 301 ; 24 E. B. 353;
(Ian,, V. Free Fi»hert of WhiUUMt,
U U. L. C. 192; 3a L. J. C. P.
29; Bnnckmiui t. MiMtg, (1904) 2
Ca. pp. 81«, 316 ; 73 L. J. Ch.
642 and see Fitzhanliuije {Lonl)
v. Ptrcell, (1908) 2 Ch. 139 ; 77
L. J. Ch. 529 ; Denahi/ and Cailebi/
Cullieries Co. v. Anton, (1911) 1
K. B. pp. 198, 208 ; 80 L. ». K. B.
p. 332. As to the management of
the foreshore, see 6 Bdw. 7, c. 28,
sects. 2 & 3.
(•) Att,-GeH. V. H'emytt, 13 A. C.
192 ; 57 L. J. P. C. 62; Brinckman v.
Matli-y, supra ; Mtllor v. Wiilmetley,
(1905) 2 Ch. p. 180; 73 L. J. Ch. 758;
Coppimjtr V. Sheeham, (1906) 1 Jr.
519; Fitzl,ar<lhln;ie[Lor<t)y. Purcell,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 166; 77 L. J. Ch. 629!
(?) Pmaby and Codeiy Chllitriet
Co. v. Anton, (1911) 1 K. B. p.211 ;
80 L. J. K. B. p. 330. As to
mooring in a non-tidal river, see
OampbelPa Trviim v. ■^uttntu
(1911) S. C. 1319.
(u) Llandudno Urban Council r.
Wmii, (1889) a Ca. 709 ; 68 L. J.
18
274 NUISANCES TO NAVIGABLE TIDAL WATERS.
ciisp- VI- shore for tho jiu posrs o." bathing or iimusement (x), or
— ''' meetings (y), or to place thairs for hire thereon (z), or to
shoot wild fowl thereon (a), or to apim>prwte any part thereof
for the storage of oysters to the exclusion of the pablie (6),
or to remove sand or shingle therefrom (c).
Prouction rf It 18 the duty of the Crown to protect the realm from the
hwh^u""* inroads of the sea by maintaining tho natural barriers or by
raising artificial barriers, and therefore, no subject is entitled
to destroy a natural barrier against the sea ; and if the destruc-
tion of such natural barrier would cause an injury to a neigh-
bouring landowner, he is entitled to an injunction to restrain
it (</). In an action accordingly by the Attorney-General
suing on bdialf of the Crown, as owner of » {Mece of laod
adjoining the foreshore, an injunction was granted to restrain
the defendant, the owner of the foreshore, from removing
shingle therefrom so as to expose the land of the plaintiff to
the inroads of the sea, although the shingle was removed for
sale in a natural and ordinary user of the land (e).
In order to prevent damage being done to the shores of
ports, harbours, or havens, the Board of Trade has power hj
Act (/) to prohibit the removal therefrom of shingle by any
person, provided that nothing in the Act shall take away any
right of property possessed by any corporate body or person
in any pcnrts, harbours, or havens, or in the shores thereof (9).
Ch. 623; Brinekman v. MatUy, (1908) 2 Ch. 139 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 529.
(1904) 2 Ch. p. 313 ; 73 L. J. Ch. (i) Truro Corporatiou v. Sowe,
642 ; Behrau v. Sichard4, (1905) 2 (1902) 2 E. B. 709 ; 71 L. J. K. B
Ch. p. 622; "4 L. J. Ch. p. 619; 974; FoUer v. Warhlington Urban
FiUhardimie {Lord) T. PurttU, Council, (1906) 1 K. B. p. 666;
(19(m) 2 Ch. pp. 166, 168 ; 77 7fi L. J. K. D. 514.
L. J. Ch. p. 545. (f) lirinckman v. Matley, supra
(j ) lAawiudno L'rhan Council v. and see tn/ra, notes (/), (j).
]\'cK,(U, Briiitkman V. Mallei/fSupra. {d) Att-dm. v. 'Tomiine, U
(j) LlawMno Urban CovncH v. C. D. 58 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 377.
II W(, tupra ; Brighivn Corpiration («) lb. See Laird v. Brigg$, II
T. I-acHtm, (1908) 24 T. L. B. C. D. 22 ; 46 L. T. 238.
60.3; 72 J. P. 318. (/) HMbonw Aet, 1814 (ft
(r) p.,f.:'.t>jntt Corporation v. M- Geo. III. c. 159), Mot. 14, MtMdw
linii', (1906) 22 T. L. B. 369; 70 by Harbours Transfer Act, 1861 (»
J. p 132. & 26 Vict. c. 6!?), ». 16.
(a) FiHhardii»s«(Lort()Y. PurttU, (9) M * 86 Yklt. e. 69, ■. 41
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OP WAY.
376
SBOXtOM 6 NUIUirCBB TO BI0HT8 OF WAT.
SmIS.
Anothbb class of oases in which the interference of the
Court by injonetitm may be sou^t are naisanms to rights of
way.
A private right of way may arise by grant, express or im- Mod«. ot
plied (/i), or by prescription at cwnmon law, or tinder the "gbt"'***
I'rcscription Act (i), or by virtue of an inclosure Act (A;).
If a right of way is appurtenant or annexed to land, it Qnai.
passes by a grant of the land to which it is appurtenant with-
out any special words of conveyance (l). But if a way is not
appurtenant to land, it will not pass by general words of con-
veyance, unless there be something in the deed or in the
general circumstances of the case to show tiiat the parties
intended the words in a way other than their strict sense {in),
or unless the right is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment
of the premises for the purposes far wiatb, according to the
obvious intention of the parties, the grant was made (»).
Seo Anderion v. JaeoU. (1906) 93 (1909) 2 Ch. 670 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 457.
L.T. 17; 21T.L.R.46S; JTmmC
buryh Bed Eitate Co. MiutMttrgh
CopppraWow, (1906) A. C. 491 ;
Burton v. Budton, (1909) 2 KB.
m ; 78 L. J. K. B. 906 ; Lake v.
■Smith, (1912) KHi L. T. 41.
{h) See Ax/./v. Burchell, 31 L. J.
Ex. 364, 368 ; Miller v. Hancock,
(1N'J3) 2 a. B. p. 180; 69 L. T.
11. 215 ; DvniieVy v. Adami, (1908) 1
Ir. 154 ; MUner'i S^ft Co. r. Ortat
Xorthtm emd City ifaiilteay Co.,
(1907) 1 Ch. 208 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 807 ;
Jtudd r. Bowk*, (1912) 2 Ch. 60;
81 L. J. Ch, 277. As to the reser-
vation ot an easement operating
as a re-jrant i>y the grantee to the
grantor, see Durham and Sunder-
hiul Ruilway Co. v. Hatter, 2 Q.B.
P »67; 11 L.J.Ex.p.446; JToyr.
llellerille, (1906) 20fc. «85 ; 74 L. 3.
Ch. 678. Aa to pmoxniiig a loat
«<»«»». see ScbtrU Jm»m, (1903)
89L.T. 282, aad HMtrt r. IMt,
{«■) 2 4 8 Will. 4. c. 71, sects. 2
•ai4,aQd3e6 ffulbertv. Aifc,(1909)
2 Ch. pp. 576, 577 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 457.
(t) See Ilulbert v. Dale,
(/) Skull v. Oleniiter, 16 0. B.
N. a 81 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 18*. 8m
Watt* T. Keiton, 6 Ch.. p. ITS; 40
L. J. Ck 128 ; Tkorpi r. Bmm/ltf,
8 Ch. 860; JToy Oid^, L. E. 10
a B. p. 366 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 210;
»nd see C. A. 1881, s. 6.
(m) Jamet Plant, 4 A. & E.
p. 761 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 260 ; 43
E. E. 465 ; WorthingUm y. Oimton,
2E1. &E1. 618; 29 L.J.Q.B.U6;
119 E. R. 873; Kc^ r. Qdtg, L. fi.
10 a B. MO; 44 L. J. Q. B. 210;
Brett T. Chumr, t O. P. D. p. 382.
(«) Kmnnagh v. Cod Mining Co.,
14 Ir. C. L. 82 ; Thomon v. (f
6Eq. 36; 37 L. J. Ch. 490;
Bayley y. Ortat Wettern Bailamy
Co., 26 0. D. p. 463. Sea WaU*
T. Almi, 8 Oh. 168; 40 L. J.
276
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OP WAY.
cb»p. VI. Gener»l words such as " appurtenants," " appertaining to,"
" bekmigiiig to," ke., are not miffieieat to pus the ri^t (o),
nor would a mere reference in the deed to an intended way be
sufficient to pons the way (p), but a conveyance of lands with
"ways heretofore," or "therewith used or enjoyed," expressly
mentioned (q), or deemed to be included by virtue of
sect. 6 (2) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (r), is as a general
rule eufificient. Where there are two adjoining closes and
there exists over one of them a formed and constructed road
which is in fact used for the purpose of the other, and that
other is granted with tlie general words " together with all
ways now used Or enjoyed therewith," a right of way over tiie
formed road will pass to the grantee even though that road
has been constructed during the unity of possession of the
two closes and has not existed preriously («). But if the way
is not a defined road but is merely a way which has been used
by the owner of two closes for his own convenience during
unity of possession, it will not upon a severance taking plaoe
pass even under the words " used or 6nj<qred " (f). The mere
Ch. 126; Donnelly v. Adanu, (19()8)
1 Ir. 154 : Browne v. Flower, (1911)
1 Ch. p. 225 J 80 L. J. Ch. p..l84.
(o) Plant V. Jamm, A B. ft A.
p. 794 ; Pheytj/ v. Vicary, 16 M. *
W. p. 496 ; 73 B. E. 883 ; BolUm v.
Dvlton, 11 C. D. p. 971; 48 L. J.
Ch. 467 ; Baring v. Abingdon, (1892)
2 Ch. p. 390 ; 62 L. J. Ch. pp. 112,
113; aee lie Peck and tht London
School Board, (1893). S Ch. p. S20 ;
62 L. J. Ch. 698.
( p ) HardingY. WiUom, 2 B. & C.
96; IL. J. K. B. 238 ; 26 B. B.
287; BoUon v. BoUam, II C. D.
p. 971 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 487.
(7) Plant V. Jamei, 8 B. ft A.
p. 794 ; ]\'vrthinyton v. Gvmon, 2
El. & El. 624 : 29 L. J. Q. B. IIB ;
1 19 K. R. 873 : Kay v. Oxley, L. \.
10 Q. B. p. 367 ; 44 L. J. Q. B.
210; May v. Belleville, (1908) 2 Ch.
fg. 606, 613 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 678.
(r) International Tea Stores v.
Hobha, (1903) 2 Ch. 165 ; 72 L. J.
Ch. 643 ; see Lewit v. Meredith,
(1913) 1 Ch. 679; 82 L. J.
266 (watoroooiM).
(«) AirfaMMV. CHnM, 18 C D.
p. m-, 60 L. J. Ch. 731 ; Bayley
V. Oreat Wutem Railway Co., 26
C. D. p. 487 ; 81 L. T. 337; Baring
V. Abingdon, (1892) 2 Ch. p. 390;
62 L. J. Ch. 108 ; Nicholli y. N.,
(1900) W. N. p 4 ; 81 L. T. 811.
See International Tea Store* Co. y.
Hobbi, (1903) 2 Ch. 166 ; 72 L. J.
Ch. 643; May v. BeUtmUe, (1906)
2 Ch. p. 613 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 678.
(<) Langley y. Btmnumd, L. B.
3 Exch. lei ; 37 L. J. Ex. 118;
Kay V. Oxley, L. B. 10 Q. B. 361 ;
44 L. J. Q. B. 210 ; Brett v. Vloweer,
6 C. P. D. 382 ; see Re Peck and tlu
London School Board, (1898) 8 Ch.
316; 62 L. J. Ch. 698.
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OP WAY.
277
fact however that the way did not exist oa a right of way before VI>
unity of possestion, will not prevent the Court frtnn luriding
tliiif a now riglit of wiiy as appurtenant to tiw UM <rf tiie
premises is creuted (w).
Although the mero grunt of " all appurtenances," or of all
nays appurtenant to the principal subjeot of the grant has
l)pcn held in many cases not to create a new right of way
where the right was not pre-existing ut the date of the grant,
the word " ai^rtenances," n»y in the etreumstanees of the
liiso, admit of a secondary moaning and be equivalent to
rights " usually employed " with the land conveyed (*).
It is upon the principle that upon the grant of a thing
everything is impliedly granted which is necessary to enable
the grnntee to enjoy the subject of a grant, that a way of
necessity passes with land when granted (y). The same
principle which applies to the use of conreyanees also allies
to cases where a severance of a heritage takes place by will (z).
One devisee, if necessary, may pass over land devised to
another, in order to gain access to land irtiich has been devised
to himself (a).
Sect. 6 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, under which Co.»„mk<h
general words are imj^ied in conveyances of land, ^applies ■•
only to conveyances and does not affect eoatnetB(b).
(«) Bayltyy. Great Wftlern Rail. (1903) 1 Ir. 151 ; nioii-ne v. Floirer
"oy Co., 26 C. D. p. 458 ; 61 L. T. (1911) 1 Ch. p. 225 ; 80 L. J. Ch!
337. Soo llrowu v. Alabaster, p. 184.
('. I). 490; 67 L. J. Ch. 255; (j) PheyM-y v. ricar,,, 16 M. &
.\i'!,<,lh V. .v., W. N. (1900) p. 4 W. 484 ; 73 R. E. 583 ; I'ot.len v.
M L. T. 811 ; Ilromie v. Flower, liattard, L. B. 1 Q. B. 156; 34L. J
(1IM1) 1 Ch. p. 335 ; 80 L. J. Ch. Q. B. 92; Phillip, v. Low, (1899) 1
/^^ Ch. 47; 61 L. 3. Ck 44; Milntr'$
Thomas v. Owen, 20 a B. D. Co. y. Ortat NoHher* md CUy
'!2o; 57 L. J. a B. 198 : NitMU Rmivag Co., (1907) 1 Ok. p. 919;
V. N., (1900) W. N. p. 4; 81 L. T. 75 L. J. Ch. 807.
^'1- (n) Pearson v. Rpenrrr, 1 B. & S.
(y) Htai>U V. Heydon, 6 Mod. 1 ; 584 ; 3 B. & S. 760 ; 124 R. R. 656,
Pmrson v. Sjiewer, 1 B. & S. 584 ; 667 ; Mihrr's Sn/e Co. v. (;re<a
R. E. 656; /lai/leij v. dreat Northtrn and vit;, Hailxai, Co.,
lli»Y<T/i Haihraii C<i., 26 0. D. supra. '
1>I> 16-:. 453 ; 51 L. T. 337 ; Miller (6) lie Peck and tht Won Sthoal
V. nnm ork, (1893) 2 Q. B. p. 180; Board, (1893) 9 C». 815 ; M L. J.
69L.T.p.216;i>o»«ayv.^dos„ Ch. M8; B* Huthm mi Aritltg,
878
Clwp. VI.
Sect. «.
«rbN (cqairad
NUISANCES TO BIGHTS OF WAT.
Acoordingljr, under s contract for m1« of land "with the
appurtpniinces," the putchiiscr is only entitled to have such
general words inserted in the conveyance as he would have
been entitled to before the Conveyancing Aet, 1881, came into
operation ; and if the general words implied bj sect. 6 uro
more extensive than the contract the vendor is entitled to have
them limited accordingly (b).
If a right of way be acquired by grant, the extent of the
easement must be determined by tlie words of the grant (o).
In construing the terms of a grant and its meaning with
respect to the nature and extent of the easements that pass
with it, reference is to be hud to the existing state of things at
the time of the grant (d), and what must be imputed to the
parties as their intention at the time of the deed will be
regarded (e). As a general rule, the grant of a right of way
imports the grant of such a way as is reasonably necessary
for the purposes for which it was granted. The grantee may
use the way in such a manner as is necessary for its moat com-
modious enjoyment (/). The grantee is not however neces-
sarily entitled to the use of every part of the surface of the
(1900) 2 Ch. S95; 69 L. J. Ch.
741.
{/.) See note {/'}, mile.
(i ) iVilliama v. Jamft, L. R. 2
C. P. 681 ; a« I,. J. ('. r. 23»);
Watti V. Ktlum, 6 Ch. 166 ; 40
L. J. Ch. 126 ; Unittd Laml Co. v.
Gnat Etultrn BuHtvag Co., 10 Ch.
586 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 6M ; Cmium t.
Villari, 8 C. D. 420 ; 47 L. J. Ch.
S97; Milner'i Safe Co. v. Oreat
Sjrihern iiml City Railway Co.,
(1907) 1 Ch. p. 220 ; 75 L. J. < h.
807 ; White v. drawl ll"t(l, EaM-
hovrne, (1913) 1 Ch. p. 116; 82
L. J. Ch. 67.
(d) Hentn'ng v. Burnett, 8 Ex.
187; 22 L. J. Ex. 79; Peamm v.
Spencer, 1 B. 4 8. 688; 124 B. B.
6iQ ; Wood v. Haiindfrt, 10 Ch. 582 ;
Coinwii V. Villara. 8 C. I\ 420 ; 47
L. J. Ch. 697; iiayUy v. Ureat
Wee^T: Mliifty Co., 26 C. D. 453 ;
51 L. J'. .;37 ; dreat Northern Sail-
irny C„. v. M'AlisUr, (1897) 1 Ir.
6S7 ; (Irtat Western lliiiluay Co. v.
Tallmt, (1<)02) 2Ch. 789; 71 L.,J.
Ch. 8116 ; Milner'i Safe Co, v. (Irtat
Xorthern and City Raibray Co.,
(1907) 1 Ch. 208 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 807 ;
r*on.to» V. LiUU, (1907) 97 L. T.
24 ; W. N. 68, and Me T^f TtU
Raihmy Co. v. Oordrnt-VrnmiimS'
(1!K!9) 2 Ch. p. 53 : 78 L. J. Ch.
492.
(f) ' •i.llin$ V. Slaih, 23 W. R. 200 ;
W. N. (1874) 205 ; Milner'i Safe Co,
V. (heat Northern and City Railway
Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 227 ; 76 L. J.
Ch. 807.
(/) StHhoMts. Chrittim, 1 T. B.
360; 1 B. B. 300; Cmmn v-
minrt, 8 C. D. 420 ; 47 L. J. Ch.
597: Vliiord v. How, L. B. 9
NUISANCES TO BI0HT8 OF WAT.
S79
way (g). Winn then «m » grant of a way with liberty to
miiko nnd lay cauapways, and to use and enjoy the samp with
cul ts, waggons, and other carriages, and to carry coala, it waH
held that the grantee had a right to lay a framed iri({gon
way {li'j. So also where a grant was made of a j)iece of land,
as a foot or causeway, with other ltbert.i>>s, powers, and autho-
rities incident to or appurtenant, needful or necessary to the
use, occupation, or enjoyment of the Haid road, way or pass-
age, it was held that the grantee had a right to put a piece
of flagstone upon a part of the land in front of a door opened
by him fnmi his house (<)• So also tiie grant of a wayleare
to a coal mine comprises such a waylrave as will be reasonably
Kuflicient to enable the grantee to get all the seams of coal at
8 reasonable profit. The right is not confined to such ways as
were in use at the time of the grant. A railway may, it would
appear, be laid down for the purpose (k). In a case where
lessees were authorised to take and use full and sufficient rail
or other ways, paths and passages to carry all or any of the
coal, iron and ironstone, the produce of the mines demised or
any other mines, it was held that they might lay down a rail-
way for the carriage of coal raised by tiiem! from the {Hta of
adjoining collieries worked by them, and that they were not
restricted to using the railway for the carriage of coals raised
by or through the pits of tiie mines demised to them by the
lease {I). The ri^t, however, is limited to such ways as are
reasonably necessary or proper for enabling the grantee to
get at the things conveyed, and does not ezt«nd generally to
making roads for other purposee (m) . Bat if a rif^t of way is
granted over land in general terms, the grantee is not limited
Chap. VI.
Sect e.
0. p. p. 371 : 43 L. J. c. P. a« ;
^'Hck T. City Ofieu Co., (1906) 22
'■: L. B. 667 ; MHntr't Sq/e Co. j.
Urtat yirrthern Uailwiiy Co., (WOT)
1 Hi. p. Tli ; 75 L. J. Ch. 807.
(</) Striiky. Vitji Offiftt (\i.,tujira.
(//) SeiilmiiM V. Ghrut.an, 1 T. R.
.'Hill ; 1 It. R, :<(H).
(i) Hemnl v. Cvoke, 2 B. &
K N. B. 109.
(i) Dand r. Kinat >, 6 If & W.
174; 9 L. T. (N. aiO; 6i
B. B. 660 ; Proud tiattt, M L. J.
Ch. 40T ; XeimiiiiFii v. CoulwH,
i C. I), pp. l;{9, 1 15.
(/) llplilir V. yvrlli Slaffiirdsliire
liailii'aii Co., i (}. R I». p. «•_>!): |S
r. .1. Q n .'IS
(m) Durham and Suutlerland Kail-
wofCo. V. ITofibr, 30. B. 940: 57
VI.
«0 NUISANCES TO RiOHTfl OP WA\.
to B nphl of wiiy for agrieultaral purpaiwi. If hooM^itr' hoHt
- iifxin tlio liiiul, tlx' prant. I, u iif,'lit of way for nil on-
ultli- |)Ui|)OH( M to all the hou^t-H wliali may I)p huilt • the
land («). 80 kim wherp n privMr nght of wnr wm rreatod
l>v an iticiosurc award, lo ,, im iciil.ir plaof, 10 the unw-
Htrieti'd use of which tli«« ^lanU't- of tho right of way was
entitlf^, the grant was hp! ' not to 1h( restricted to aecesB to
tlip ;.infl for |)ur|><.-. '<>y u, fi iicc-s was required at the
time of th<' Rraiil Anil \vli( Microssu on
Btructed by it railway r uij)a?iy mm, 1 1. 68 of tli iiuilwa
riHuws Consolidation \ct, 1846, to connect f«fricn(t(ir il
"hich had boen s( \ ' > llicir liii. . tl L .tkmV urifr
iJic (.row.Hing was held ut to I" rohl ricteii to ..^ icultural |.iir
fumes, bat user of the trossint; ;.y the landowner's tenant >. and
li 11 icenaees, as a mcan^ of accoas to a tenni-^ clult wh "h
haii lK>en established on part of the land, so au tu ' stn
tncreaHP the burdw on the aerviont tenement, was 1 11 ,i
lawful user (//
\Vlu>ri' a I 'vht of way is f? anted 'o ' the (iwnor own*
for till' time U-ing of lands, and toe lands r<> sui,,,. i^unni
severed, the grant gives r riffh of way to thf wner, foi the
(imi bciiij. . , v. ry pa ! of i\u' sevfiod land- If ih^ nd
parcelii il out luto allotment.-, i v. ry aliotf w . lave
a rtght of wav The grantee of lit. ,as ,'ht
of way to ( uiHJn ;he land of tht ipanto which the
way extt-nds, for the purpose o aial^ •m tb i/ranr oftectivp,
so as to enable him to < sj^rcii^*^ tl njfhl y anted tn hiiE
If a man grants another 1 ' = if < ri^o way ovt i..
to liiaisc, the tjiunlc- !i.<, rii- ■ or and ; a
carriage way over Mirh f>orf (.' [ li ,f^.
B. B. S42. See Farrow y. • , , t
tart, 1 Ea. . 1. 602 ; comp. flo»f. ;/„ , ,, , „.a (
s.Si.lch,r . IS H. s;3. U ! 74 1,.
in) \' iii'li V ■ i», .'1 ■ (1. p. 1;!
l:i.t;4til. rOi f. S,*S, (p) TaM ay-.
\ 'IrenI r„ -a,/ ( |. ^liirdoH-VaHHi, yimr. i Ch. 4.
1. T. NS i K /(t> V. Urand tJulel, s J JT. Ck 4»2.
KuiUuniT . (1»13) 1 Ch. 113; 82 Ut .V«««.. « y. Cte/aoa, « C. D.
^ J- » ; 46 L. J lIl 4M.
(o) fi V. <t „ Wutem iiai
FHANCES TO BTHIT8 OF WAY. m
eipiit to |.jM>i 1 ciiri iugp niul horsAs ,»nd tli»' ordinary traffic ^'^»t ^ t-
<<t a mrriafB way (r). *■
A" «h. .'r^nt of .in oiisonv i ia primi faeie the grant of Uf^Mmmy.
■ h .m -illmy ngtits ^ are reufWimbly nsOMMr for its Pn-
! irH«nt. the grantee of a right -f wwy ha* the right to repair
^ My fi ,111 tiiiu' to time, hut the giantor \h not, npsrt from
xpi contract or by necesiiBry iin plication, homul to rxcoi/fo
ii\ iwirs to pf\Hure the Mijt.yni t of the caseincnt by the
(a)-
' ' ' -Hi ,f»ht of way to a hoiiso priind fncie extrndv -m™, c..«.ii.
^ I t' gruntee'a family, h , sorvanta, visitors '^XljV*^^
w < iespeople, although no pressly named (0,
nt right of way to B grant i er tenants, " rlai-
te WB leld to extend to 1 1 .e grantee's pu pils,
the t that, at the date of the grant, the
•rai: . vv„ lying < Hchool upon the premises (u),
- the right to use i adjoining cardf-n in a grant of a
10.: to a purchaser, his heirs and ssigns, his and their
- OS. 8uh-l#.i»8e88 or tenuita, md i is and their families
ikI flionds, was held not to oxt<^nfi th,- members of a
ilnh which had been formed by n <■ .ny which had pur-
chased the house for use as a res =» home and club hy
tlic •!( inlH'rs thereof {x).
I . right of way be granted in ejt]. s for a deflni^ R'k''' """ot b*
■ rpose, the grantee may not use th. ond the tei ms
liis grant. If a man has a right of ro (me elose irf*"*"
IhihI, he may not use the way for ihc purpose of going to
iinother close beyond it (y). Nor can a ri^t of way granted
L. T. 24 ; W. N. 68.
1^: Srinomens. (•„„ho„,5C. D. (x) Keith v. TvtntiMh Ctnt^ni
I> H i ; 46 L. J. Ch. 45» ; Milltr ». VUA, (1808) 73 L. J. Ck M< ; M
Ihncfyk, (1893) 3 1, »■ p. JSl ; 00 L. T. 778.
i^.T.\>.?\i; Huggtttf. Miert,{\9m) (y) Senh„mf\. IV„ ,„„, I T. B.
2K.B.p.287; 77I..J.K.B.P. 7ia; SW); 1 K. K. .in nL-^^r v.
V. I'rilrhar,!, (1908) I Ch. Maclea,,. 2 T)e O. F. &J 415. ai
I'P. <«7. 6:t8 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 409. L. J. ch. 2T.i ; 1Vm,m. v. J<,'„»*,
^ J) llnxendalt v. Siirth Lamlwl), L. R. 2 C. P. 877 ; 36 L. J. C. P.
AtW ar.d na,U,ii CM., {mr2] 2 266; Harru v. ftowtrA Cta.,(WM)
< h. p. 429; 71 L. J. Ch. C06. W. V. 180; (190S) 74 L. J. Ol
(«) rhorntm ▼. Litttt, (1907) 97 p. 130.
382
NUISANCES TO BIOHTS OF WAY.
Cbap. VI.
for a carriage road to a dwelling-house be used for the purpose
of driving cattle to a field (z). So also if a way be granted to
a particular corner of ti field, the grantee may not use it to
enter his field at any other point (a), nor woald the grantee
of a way be justified in making transverse roads across the
land (b). So also the grant of a way for agricultural purposes
is not a general right of way, but is one of a limited character.
It does not include the right to transport coals (c), or lime
from a quarry (d) ; so also the grant of a right of way to a field
is a way for any purpose for which the field may be used, so
long as it continues a field or an open space or is generally in
the same predicament in which it was at the time of the
grant, but it does not extend to a right of way to houses which
may be afterArards erected on it (e). So also an implied grant
of a right of •. -ay over a passage to a dwelling-house and manu-
factory for domestic and ordinary business purposes, was
held not to extend to a right of way for passengers to and
from a station which had been erected by a railway ccmipany
in the place of the house and manufactory (/).
If the grant of the way be not for a definite purpose, but be
in general terms, the right of way taiay be used for whatever
purposes the land is used, anless otherwise limited by the
context (g).
But the grantee of a way is not necessarily limited to the
(z) Brtinton v. Hall, 1 Q. B. 7!f2 ;
10 L. J. Q. B. 288; Hamiiuj v.
Burnett, 8 Ex. 187 ; 22 L.J. Ex. 79.
(a) Hmning v. Uumett, ib.
(6) Smhoute v. Chrittian, 1 T. B.
660 : IB. B. 300.
(c) Cowling HiggimoH, 4 M. ft
W. 34»; 7 L. J. Ex. 268.
(>i) JackKM y. Staetg, H(rit,N. P.
45fi ; 17 B. B. 663.
[f) Allan V. Oomme, 11 A. & E.
759, 772; 9 L. J. (J. B. 238;
Henning v. Hiirneft, Diijjrn ; .^(iiif/i
Melrvpolitan Cemttrri/ Cn. v. Kileit,
IOC. B. SI; ltH)R. K. (M>8; n<//i'<T««
V. Jama, L. E. '1 C. P. J). 682 ; 30
23 W. B. 200; (1874) W. N. 205;
Wimbleilim Conttrvotort r. Dixm,
1 C. D. p. 368.
(/) Milner't Sa/e Co. v. Great
Snrthem and City Railway Co.,
(1907) 1 Ch. 208 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 807 ;
comptomiMd in C. A., (1907) 1 Ch.
229; 76 L. J. Ch. 99.
(g) South Metropolitan Omdnji
Co. V. Eden, eupra ; Unittd Land
Co. V. <lreat Kaetern Railimy Co.,
10 Ch. i>. 59(); 44 L. J. Ch 685 ;
l^oiiiersft V. (Inat i\'f$terii liaihraii
Co., 46 L. T. 884; H7,i<e v. drawl
lliiltl, Kaxiboiiriie, (1913) I Ch. 113;
82 li. J. Ch. u7 (huusc tw.med intu
NUISANCES TO BIGHTS OF WAT.
UM of the way, bo long as the plaee to which it leada eontinaes
in tlie same predicament as it was in at the time of the grant.
He cannot, however, by changing the character of the occupa-
tion of the land in respect of which the right of way exists
impose a greater servitude ujwn the servient tenement. The
question in each case is whether the alteration that may have
taken place is of the substance or the mere quality of the thing,
or whether, in other words, a more onerous burden i: sou^t
to he imposed upon the servient tenement (h). And in deter-
mining this question, the matter must be looked at from a
reasonable point of view. A mere small alteration or addition
to the burden will not be considered an illegal act (t). If, for
instance, there be a grant of a right of way to a cottage, the
right is not lost by reason of the cottage being altered (k).
So also where a man having a right of way to his dwelling-
house opened a small shop in one room of his house, it was
held not to be such an alteration of the dominant tenement as
would be an illegal excess of his right of way (l).
'iiii' grantee of a right of way which has been obstructed by ItovtaUM.
the grantor has a right to deviate over the grantor's land, and
is entitled to have this right protected by the Court so long
as the obstruction exists without the necessity of i»ooeeding
against the grantor for the removal of the obstruction. The
right exists as against a purchaser from the grantor with
notice, and will be enforced by injnnotion ('tu).
The reservation of a right of way in a deed, executed by
buth grantor and grantee, operates as an easement created by
way of grant from the grantee to the grantor (n), for a right
(/') Alhn V. Oomtne, 11 A. ft E.
"oil, 772 ; f) L. J. Q. B. 258 ; Harrii
V. flvre, ,{- Co., (1904) W. N.
180: (1906), 74 L. J. Ch. 12";
Mihier'a Safe Co. v. Great Nortktm
and City Itailumy Co., (1907) 1 Ch.
•m, 227; 76 L. J. Ch. 807 ; 70
L. J. Ch. 99; Tag Tmlt Haihta^ Gt.
T. Uoni(M.OBMk%, (1909) 2 Ch. 48 ;
78 L. J. C%. 492.
(i) It nniv. fe'aNNi/ert, to Ch. ;
44 L. J. Ch. 014.
(*) Henning y. Bumttt, 8 Ex.
187 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 79 ; Skull v.
aimitUr, 16 C. B. (N. 8.) 81 ; 33
L. J. C. P. 184.
(0 Sloan V. HMiday, 30 L. T. 747.
(t») Stlhy V. Ntttkfmrd, 9 Cfc.
lU: 43 L. J. Ch. a«9; Mwy v.
M«rHN, (1913) 29 T. L. B. m.
(») Durham and Sunderland Rail-
woji Co. V. TaUeir, 2 Q. B. p. 967 ;
II L. J. Ex. p. 446 ; 67 K. E. 842 ;
Lmrd Oynevor v. Teimant, 33 C. D.
284
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OP WAT.
Chap. VI. of way cannot strictly be made the sabjeet either of ezcepti(m
— — or reservation in a conveyance. Where a contract for sale
reserved to the vendor a right of way over the land sold, and
the conveyance contained a similar reservation, but was not
executed by the purchaser, an injunction was granted restrain -
ing a mortgagee of the land who had notice of the reserva-
tion from interfering with the user of the way(o). The
reservation implies such a wayleave as will be reasonably suffi-
cient for carrying out the purjxjsps for which the reservation
was made (p). In Bmdburn v. Morris (q), the owner of a
field with a right of way to it through an occupation road,
a{; reed to sell the surface of the field, reserving the minerals.
The field had never been used for mining purposes, and the
vendor did not appear to have any present intention of working
the minerals. It was held that the vendor having had a
right to use the road for agricultural purposes could not pre-
vent the purchaser from so altering the road as to make it unfit
for the use of the vendor in working the minerals under the
land agreed to be sold. It was also held that even if the vendor
had a right to use the road for minerals, inasmuch as he had
no present intention of working the minerals, the Cou' t would
not interfere.
Acquisition of A good title to a right- of way may arise from proof of
right of way by ... ,
prescription or enjoyment from time immemorial (r), or for such time and
of i«rB>oAm* ^^^^^ circumstsnoes as will satisfy the provi8i<m8 of th4
Prescription Act, 2 t 3 Will. IV. c. 71, or upon the presump-
tion of the existence of a modem grant which has been lost («).
Where there is a tenant tor life in possession of settled land,
a i jst grant of a right of way cannot be implied as against
421 ; 1.3 A. C. 279 : 57 L. J. Ch.
107S ; gee .1% v. IMIfrillf, (1905)
2 Ch. 60.5 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 67H.
(o) Mai/ V. IkllevilU, tupra.
1 1>) Dand v. Kingirote, 6 M. ft W.
174; 9 U J. Ex. 279; Pnmd v.
naU$, 34 L. J. Ch. 407 ; BitUtr v.
North StutMtkirt Ba&wag Co., 4
Q. B. D. p. 4i»; 48 L. J. Q. B.
348.
(9) 3 C. D. 812.
(r) See Wimblnlon and Vutwy
Commiuionera v. IHron, 1 C. D.
362 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 353.
(») Oardntr v. Hudgicm't Si . . '.
BrtiDtry <\,., (1808) A. C ' '
72 L. J. Ch. 358; Hulheri t,
(1909) 2 Ch. pp. 576, 57< . 78
L. •!. Ch. |.. 469.
285
Chap. VL
NUISANCES TO BIGHTS OP WAY.
the remaioderman merely from the user of the way during
the lifetime of tiie tenant for life, and fwan the fact tiiat
during the period of such user the remainderman joined with
the tenant for life in barring the entail and in resettling the
property (<).
By the 2nd and 4th sections of ihe Prescription Act, the iWripiio.
continuous enjoyment as of right (it), of a way as an ease-
ment (x), for twenty years next before the commencement of
somG action, in which the claim has been btmt^t in question,
without interruption acquiesced in for a year (y), is evidence
upon which a jury would be justified in presuming a right if
the claim is otherwise good at common law («). Where such
way has been so enjoyed for the full period of forty years,
Ihe right thereto is absolute and indefeasible, ulees it was
enjoyed by some ccmsent expressly given for that purpose by
deed or writing (a).
It is a rule of the common law that a tenant cannot acquire Tenantcannot
by prescription an easement over land belonging to his land- by'^piJ^c^tT*
lord, for the possessiw and user by the tenant is the posses- rfti,""""
•sion and user of his landlord (b). Nor under the Prescription "
Act can a tenant acquire an easement of way as against
another tenant holding under the same landlord (c). Accord-
ingly, where a plaintiff and a defendant were assignees fd
I of adjoining tenements granted bjr the same IflMW, and
I l«ior.
(0 RobtrU T. Jamm, (1903] 89
L. T. 282.
(«) See Tickle v. Brown, 4 A. &
E. p. 382; 5 L. J. K. B. 119;
Kright V. Walker, 3 L. J. (N. 8.)
K\. 250; Oanlner v. Hvigton'a
Kiiiijittiin Brewery Co., (1903) A. C.
22it, 239; 72 L. J. Ch. 668;
Kilyour V. Gaddtt, (1»04) 1KB.
P 461; 73 L. J. KB. ass.
(x) 8e« Jkmptt t. AmmM, (1901)
2Ch.3«0; 70 L. J. Oh. 667.
(y) Ante, pp. 189 tt te-i-
U) See HoUini y, Verii'v. 13
U. B. D. 304 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 430.
(u) Presoriptioii Act, wet. 2.
(ft) (Jayford v. Moffatt, 4 Ch.
133; Outram v. Maiule, 17 C. D.
p. 404 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 783 ; BayUy
V. Qreat Western Railway Co., 26
C. D. p. 441 ; 31 K T. p. 339;
Kilyoiir v. Oaddes, (1904) 1 K. B.
p. 467; 73 L. J. K. B. 233.
(«) KHfttur T. amUt$, (1904) 1
K.B.^4W; 78 L. J. K. B. 233.
See kowarw m to the right to light,
Fear v. Morgan, (19061 2 Ch. 406;
75 L. J. Ch. 787, affirmed ; lub nom.
Moryan v. fear, (1907) A. C. 425;
76 L. J. Ch. 660; Siciardton v.
Graham, (1908) I K.Jt. f. U} TJ
L. J. K B. 27.
286
NUISANCES TO EIGHTS OF WAY.
Chap. VI.
8Mt.e.
Limita of right
when Mqnired
by prweription.
a pump on the plaintiff's premises had been used as of right
for a period of forty years before the commencement of the
action by the occupiers of the defendant's premises, it WM
held, that no right of way had been acquired by the defen-
dant to the use of the pump under sect. 2 of the Prescription
Act. Bach an easement can only be acquired under tiie see
tion by the owner of the fee in one of the tenemttite, as
against the owner of the fee in the other (rf).
If a right of way be acquired by prescription, the character
and extent of the easement is fixed and determined by the use
and enjoyment under which it has been gained. The right
acquired must be measured by the extent of the enjoymeot
which IB proved. The purpose for which &e way may be used
is limited by Ihe actual user which has taken place during the
whole period necessary for the acquisition of the right. The
right of way cannot be increased so as substantially to impose
a greater burden on the servient tenement (e). If the proof
by usage be of a carriage way, a right of way for cattle is not
necessarily established, though it may be competent evidence
to go to a jury in connection with other evidence in estaUisK-
ing the extent of the right claimed (/). Nor will proof of usage
of a way to bring goods to a tanyard, for the use of the tan-
yard, authorise the use of ibe way by other occupants, and tor
other parposes than the occupancy of the tanyard (g). Nor
will proof of a prescriptive right to use a way in order to
fetch water from a river, support a claim to use the
way in order to fetch and carry goods (h), and a right to cart
timber will not sustain a plea of a general right of way on foot,
and with horses, waggons, and other carriages (t). Nor will
((/) Kilyour T. CM'{t$, (1904) I
K. B. 457 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 283.
(«) William* v. Jama, L. B. 2
C. P. 582 ; WimMnUin and Putney
CornmiHsi'iiieri v. Dirun, 1 C. D.
368 ; Ifarrii v. Flower ik Co., (1904)
W. N. 180; (1905) 74 L. J. Ch. p.
132; Milner'i Safe Co. v. Qrtett
SvHhtn mi Cfitg AoOiMy Cb.,
(1907) I Ok 9» ; 7S L. J. OIL
807 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 99.
(/) Balt»tt r. Dytom, 1 Tatmt.
279; 9E. E. 770.
(</) Bowtr V. Hill, 2 Diug. N. C.
p. 339 ; S L. J. (N". S.) '". P. 77.
(/() Kniykt V. )ro..rf, 3 Bing. N.
C. 3 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 135.
(t) Sigham V. Ritbbftt, 6 'Bing.
N. 0.6»; MB.B.U1.
8#ot* 6*
NUISANfiPS TO RIGHTS OF WAY.
proof of user for certain purposes necessarily prove a general
right of way for all purposes ; the user, for instance, of a way
to a field used mly for agrieultursl purposes does not give a
right of way for mineral purposes (fc), and, if it appear that
a way has been actually enjoyed for all the purposes for which
the use or enjoyment of the premises at different times re-
quired its exercise, it is such evidence of a general right to
U6b H for all purposes as to be a ground for inferring such a
right, although for some of these purposes it may appear
that t; . ' way was first, ivi fact, used within the period of twenty
years (I). But proof of user of a way for all purposes for
which a road was wanted for the enjoyment of property in its
original state will not establish a right for all purposes in an
altered condition of the property, where the effect would be to
impose a greater burden on the servient tenement (m). Where,
accordingly, a road had been immemorially used to a farm, not
only for usual agricultural purposes, but in certain instances
for carrying building materials to enlarge the farm house and
rebuild a cottage on the farm, and for carting away sand and
gravel dug out of the farm, it was held that that did not
establish a right of way for carting the materials required
for building a number of new houses on the land (n).
A ripht of way arises from necessity, where a man having w.^ot
a close, which is wholly surrounded by his land, sells the dose. '
In such case the grantee is held by implication of law to have
a way over tiie grantor's land, as a necessary incident to the
grant, for without the way the grant would be useless (o). So
also, where an owner of premisMletsthMutoteoante in ibta.
287
(t) BnMttrn v. Mtrrit, S C. D.
812.
(/) Cowling v. Tliggiinon, 4 M. &
AV. p. 248; 7 L. J. Ex. 266 ; 61
U. R. 556 ; Dart v. EmMtate, U
L. J. Kx. 246.
(»i) f\'imbletlon and Putney Com-
' liiMtonert v. Dimn, I 0. D. 362;
45 L. J. Ch. 353. 8m Miitim'$
Sye Cu. V. Ureal Nurihtrn and City
Bailwag Co., (1907) 1 Ch. pp. 326,
227 : 7S L. J. Ch. M7.
(«) WimhIedoH and Putntf Com-
mMonert v. Diron, tupra.
(") Clark V. Cugge, Cro. Jac. 170;
Oa,//ord V. Moffatt, 4 Ch. IM,
p. 277 ; Wkt^don v. AtrfMM, H
CD. 31; 48L. J.0k.8M; Uniem
LighkrtiSt Co. v. London Orming
DoA a».,(1902) 2 Ch. p. 672; 71
L. J. Ch. p. 799 ; Browne v. Flower
(1911) ICh. p. S3S; ML. J. Oi!
p. 184.
NUISANCES TO lUGHTS OP WAY.
retaining the staircase in his occupation and control, an ease-
ment over the staircase is impliedly granted to the tenants
for the purpose of the enjoyment of their respective flats (p).
Thf priiu iple has been carried so far as to be applied to the
case of a trustee selhng land he held in trust, and to whioh
there was no aeeMt hat over the trostee's own luid (q). The
principle, it aj ears, is applicable, if the close granted be
not entirely surrounded by the land of the grantor, but partly
by the land of a stranger (r), bat the Court refused to extend
the principle to the case of a grant where one side of the land
conveyed abutted on a highway twenty feet below it (s). So,
also, and upon the same princii)l<', if a man grants trees
growing on his land to another, the grantee may enter upon
the land for the purpose of cutting them down and carrying
them away (t) . So, also, where trees have been excepted by the
lessor on an estate demised, the law gives him, and those
claiming under him, power, as incident to the exception, to
enter upon the land and cut the trees (u). So, also, if a man
gives another a licence to lay pipes of lead in his land, to
convey water to a cistern, he may enter upon the land and dig
therein to clean or mend the pipes (x) ; and an injunction
will be granted, if necessary, to protect the easement (y).
The grant Uiat carries with it a right of way by neeeaisity,
does not necessarily imply a carriage way, even though the
thing granted is a house. But the grant of tillage land implies
a carriage way, because such a way is necessary in order to
carry oS the crops, unless by the custom of the vicinage the
crops are carried oS by men instead of team3 (z).
A way of necessity arises also by implication of law, where
(p) MUUr V. HaneotJt, (IMS) 2
Q. B. p. 180 ; eg L. T. p. 215.
(9) Howton V. Frearxm, 8 T. B.
60; 4 B. B. 58i.
(r) 2 Boll. Au. (iO ; Osborne v.
Wite, 7 C. & P. "03 ; 48 H. E. 846.
(«) TUchmarth v. Boytton Water
Co., (18W) W. N. ase; 81 L. T.
078.
(<) Flowd. Ooom. 16.
(«) MM, 11 Co. B^, Al b.
62 a : Dareg y. Atkwith, Hob. 834.
(at) Potufiret r. Rieroft, 1 Wins.
Saund.321. heeJoHMS.Pritehard,
(1908) 1 Ch. p. eS8 ; 77 L. J.
p. 4(W.
(y) (hmlhart v. Uyett, 35 C. D.
182 ; 32 W. H. 165.
{i) Osborne v. Wite, 7 C. 4 P.
p. 766; 48 it. B. 846; and SM
Ommm v. FOior*, 8 0. D. p. 411;
47 L. J. p. flW.
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OF WAY.
a man, having eereral closes of land, sells all but one, which
is completely rorroimded by those which he has sold. In
Mich cases, a right of way by naeeMiiy over the surrounding
closes which he has sold is presumed by implication of law to
be reserved in favour of the grantor (o). In p . vhere the
purchaser of a oIom of land had notice thn : adjoining
land retained by the vendor was to be laid cat ooiMing,
in a manner which would make a right of way over the pur-
ohased land necessary to the yendor, it was held that such
l ight of way was reserved to the midor by implication as a
« ay of necessity (6). But if the close retained by the vendor is
iigricultural land and the purchaser has no notice that the
vendor intends to lay it oat in building, the owner of the close
can only claim such a right of way as is suitable to the enjoy-
ment of land in that condition- He cannot claim a right of
way suitable to the user of the cloae as buUding land (o).
Where the owner of several closes of land had executed deed*
of conveyance to three purchasers on the same day, it was held
that the parehasen were entitled to rights of way, indepen-
dently of any speeial gnnt or nwemrtion of any partieolar
way (d).
A man cannot claim a way of neceeeity by reason of its Wayrf
superior convani«Mse orer another way which he has (e). —
Whore a grantee is entitled to a way of necessity over another
tenement belonging to the grantor and there are to the tene
ment granted more ways th«i one, the grantee is entitled to
way only which the grantor may select (f). Then may
36b
Chap.Vt
oni
it would appear, a way of neeesuty, at least in favour of a
(a) CM T. Oegt$, Cbfo. Jao.
170; PinntTtflan t. OaUand, 9 Ex.
1 ; 2'> L. J. Ex. 348; London Cor-
l« ration V. Riggt, 13 C. D. 798; 49
li. J. Ch. 29" ; Union Lighteragt
'')• V. London Oravimj Dock Co.,
(I!"t2) L' Ch. 657, 672; 71 L. J. Ch.
1< 7!ld : £ay t. HtutUiM, (1904) 2
i h pp 19, ao; 78L. J. Cfc. p. fl».
(6) Oavim r. &ar, 7 Bq. 4B7 ;
38 L. X Oh. M*. Bm WitiUMt T.
liwrcw,, la C. D. p. Wj 4ilfc J.
K.I.
Ch. MS ; Serf v. Acton Local Board,
31 C. D. 679 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 669.
(c) Corjtoriition of London y.
Sigg; 13 C. 1). 798 ; 49 L. J. Ch
297.
{d) I'innington v. Oalkmd, 9 Bx.
1 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 3«8.
{*) Morrk w. Mg mg l i m , 3 Tkaat.
SI ; 18 B, B. •TS: Dedd v. BurtkaU,
IH. 4 0. 119; 31 L. J. Ex. 3»54.
(/) BoUom T. Bolton, 11 C. D.
^»71; M L. J. Ch. 467.
19
290
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OF WAY.
ciuip. VI. grantee of land, even although there be no absolute necessity
for the right claimed. The right may be impliad where a
tenement is so constructed as that p»rt of it invoWes a neees-
sary dependence on other parts, in order to its enjoyment in
the state in which it was at the time of the grant (3). It
would seem, however, that a reservation of a righi of way in
favour of a grantor will not arise from implication of law,
unless the way be one of absolute necessity {h). In Holmes
V. Goring (i) it was laid down that a way of necessity is
limited by the neevasity which created it, and will eaaae if, at
any subsequent period, the party entitled to it can approach
the place to which it led by pasaing over his own land. But
in Proctor t. Bodgton (k). Lord Wensleydale said he ocm-
sidered the Court was wrong in Holmes v. Goring, and ihat
he -hould have thought that an implied way of necessity
" meant as much a grant for ever as if expressly inserted
in the deed."
Dinctionot w.y The authorities determine that the person by whose act a
tt necMBtr. ^j^y q{ necessity ia created, in other words the grantor, should
designate the way, sabject, however, to this, that the way
should be a reasonable and convenient one (l). In general,
especially in cases where there is an occupation by a tenant,
there must be an actual existing way, by ^hich the premises
are used and enjoyed ; and in such case the intention of the
testator, if the seTerance of the heritage be by will, is besi
(5) Pearton v. Speneer. 3 B. ft 8. (1904) 2 C%. pp. 19, W : 73 L. J
760; 124B. E.667. MUntr't Safe Ch. p. 630.
Co. V. Great Northern and City Rail- («) 2 Bing. 76 ; 2 L. J. 0. P. 13*
;"0v Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 220; 76 27 E. R. 849.
T J. Ch. 810. Comp. E»pl>y v. (k) 10 Ex,-h. p. 828 ; 24 L J
Wilktt, L. B. 7 Kx. p. 303 ; 41 Ex. 197; 102 R. R. Hir9..
L. J. Ex. 241. (0 Clarke v. flu'/ye, 2 Boll. Ab
(A) SvJMd T. Broum, 4 De U. J. 60; Pearton v. Spentcr, 1 U. ft S
4 8. 1«8;83L.J. Cai.249;ai>d.'i.-H! 871; 124 E. R. 656; liolton v
Midland ilat/ttwy Co. v. JTiiet, 'A Bolbm, 11 0. D. 971 ; 48 L. J. Ch
0. D. p. 644 ; 86 L. J. Ch. p. 749; 467; Brovm r. AUbadtr, 37 0. D
Taii<$ V. Knowlet, (1891) 2 a B. p. 800 ; 67 L. J. Ch. p. 267 ; Peaeot
f564 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 641 ; Vni-m v. 8mak Stuftm Railtmy Co., fl!
Lighterage Co. v. London Graving L. T. 377 ; and see Be Petk and Th
Dock Co., (1902) 2 Ch. 887, 670 ; 71 London School Board, (1893) 2 Ch
L. J. Ch. 796; Bag r. HmMiHt, p.330.
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OF WAY.
effectuated by construing the implied grant of a way to be a
grant of that way actually used at the time of his death (m). ~
It is difiBealt to say how the way ought to be set out if the
premises before severance a'-e so occupied as to afford no indi-
cation of what was the usual way in the testator's lifetime (n).
A way of necessity, whan once created, must remain the same
so long as it continues at all (o). If there are two ways,
t nch of necessity, the owner of the dominant tenement will be
entitled to that which is most convenient to him (p).
The ri^t to an easement of way may be lost by abandon- Ah
ment. Mere non-user of a way, however, does not amount to **"
abandonment (q). The question of abandonment is one of in-
tention, to be decided on the facts of each particular case. No
definite time has been fixed by law during which a cessation
of enjoyment must continue in order to amount to evidence of
abandonment. The question always is whether, under the
circumstances of the case, an int«iti(m to abaiul(m the r^i
permanently can be reasonably presumed. The mere anspMi-
sion of the exercise of the right is not sufficient to prove an
intention to abandon it. The period of time during which the
non-user has continued is only material as an element in
forming a presumption as to the intention. What period may
be sufficient in any particular case must depend on all the
accompanying evidence (r). In Ward v. Ward (•), ttewrd-
ingly, it was held that a right of way was not lost by non-user
for upwards of twenty years, the user having been discon-
tinued merely by nawm of the party having a more eonrenient
(m) Ptammr.8ftneir, 1 B. & S. Rhalei,, 1 Cr. ft M. 439 ; 2 L. J. Ex.
91 ; Phey$ey v. Vicary, 16 M. & W.
492, 498 ; 73 R. E. 683.
(9) Jama v. Stevtiuim, (1803)
A. C. 162; 62 L. J. P. 0.
Youmg T. Star OmmOm Co., (IBM)
«e L. T. 41; Bmi* T. FUmm *
O.., (I9M) W. N. 180; (18M) T4
L.J.OlLm.
(r) Jieg. v. Charley, 12 Q. B. p.
518; T6 E. E. 330 ; see IlurrU v.
Flower, tupra.
(•) 7 Ex. 838; 21 L. J. Ex.
3S4; 86B.B.8M.
19-s
391
Chap. VI.
Swt. 6.
p. 884 ; 3 B. 4 8. 761 ; 124 B. B.
656, 607. See Mitner'i Safe Co. v.
ilnat Xurthem otuI City Railway
Co., (1907) 1 Ch. ItOS; 75 L. J.
t'h. S07 ; compromised in 0. A.,
(1907) I Ch. 2«; 76 L. J. Oi.
99.
(n) Aamm v. apmetr,
(0) PMnatr.Bpnnnr.l B. *a
871 ; 3 B. ft 8. 761 ; 124 H. B. «6e,
667 .
{ 11) Mornt V. Edgington, 3 Taunt.
24. 31; 12 B. B. 619; Barlow ».
393
ChtLf. VI.
8Mt.«.
StU)>onBion of
right of way liy
altontion of
ilominaut
travBaat.
Kxtiii(«Ulimeiit
PabHe Knd
prinU way m*;
exist am
Mmemad.
NUISANCES TO RIGHTS OF WAY.
way. So, also, a pBiol iiRrooiTK-nt for tho HubHtitiition of a
new way for an old one, and a conHcquent discontiniiwni o to
use the old way, were held not to afford evidence of an Inteo-
tion to abandon tlu> old way (t).
The nirro iniinifostiition of an iiiti iitioii lo iihatidon the right,
is not necessarily nuniciont to destroy the right («). But if
the dominant owner does anything showing a clear intention
of ahandoninp ihc right it cannot l)o afterwards set up (x). So
again, if an intention to alwndon the right can be reasonably
presumed, and the owner of the aervient tenement, upon the
fiiith of such ft belief, has been induced to incur expense or
alter his condition, the owner of the dominant tenement will
be hold to have precluded himself by his conduct from after-
wards setting up that the right has not been abandoned (y).
Where a railway company acquired premises with a righl
of way for domestii and ordinary business purposes, and
pulled down the buildings, and erected a railway station in
their place, it was held that the company could not use the
way for passengers going to and from the station, and that ai
the user of the way by the dominant tenement had beoouM
entirely different from the user contemplated by the grantor oi
the way, the original fight of way was for the time bein{
suspended (z).
A right of way enjoyed by the owner of one tenemen
over another tenement becomes extinguished afoa unitj
of seisin and possession of both tenements in the sami
person, and merges in the general rights of property (a)
A private right of way, however, is not necessarily merge(
and extinguished in a public right of way, if the latter righ
(t) Lovell V. Smith, 3 C. B. N. S.
120.
(u) See Moore v. Haw/on, 'Sli.&C.
332 ; 3 L. J. (O. 8.) K. B. 32- 27
B. B. 376 : CrouUy v. Lightowkr,
2 Ch. 488; Sa L. J. Ch. 688;
Young T. Sfcw Onmibu* Co., 86
L. T. 41.
(i) Mi'lland Bailway Co. v.
UrihhU, (1895) 2 Ch. 827. 831 ; 64
L. J. Cb. 826.
[y) Reg. v. Chorlry, 12 Q. B. 817
76 R. B. 330.
(z) Milner's Safe Co. v. Ortt
Northern and City Bailuay Co
(1907) 1 Ch. 208 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 807
conipromised in C. A., (1007) 1 Q
229 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 99.
(•) Jame$ r. Plant, 4 A. ft 1
761; 6 L. J. Kx. 260 ; 43 B. ]
4«: Hid Me Dm^fw t. AwmI
(1901) 3 Cb.SM; 70 L. J. Cak. 6ti
NUISANCES TO RI0HT8 OF WAT.
is acquired over the same soil whore the private ri^t
(tzists (b). It ia, tberefbra, no annrer to m aetioi or ob-
striK liiif,' 11 privutf right of way to 8uy tliat a publie li^t of
vs ty has been acquired over the same road (o).
The Oensral Ineloaara Act, 8 4 9 Viet e. 118, Met. 68,
jiiov idcs that all roads and ways not set out by the valuer in
making bin award shall be for ever stopped up and extin-
("lishcd (d).
ill actions to restrain the obstmction of a private way, the pi««]iafi.
phiiiitiff ought to lihow in his statenient of cltiim, whether he
cliiims the right by grant or by prescription, and he ought
also to alleg*, with reoaonaUe certainty, the termini of the
Wiiy iind its course (c).
In claiming a right of way under the presumption of a
lost grant it is not necessary to allege the date of, or parties to,
the deed of grant, but if the plaintiff relies on the grant as
having been made before or after a particular date, this
should be stated (/).
A reversioner cannot sue for interference with his ri|^ ot wim mm-
way, unless the interference is of a permanait ehsraeter, or "'*^'*" "**"
operates us a denial of his right {g).
In addition to the remedy by action for an injunction and
(hiinagcf, the owner of a right of way is entitled to remove the
obstruction himself, but his right to abate the nuisance should
Bukardmm v. Oraham, (1908) 1
K B. 41. 42; 77 Ti. J. K. B. 27.
CO lie;/. V. ('*(«■/../. 12 Q. B. 615;
7l> R. li :(.«) ; Ilr :>-nhm v. Timtin-
»./.. 1 M ai. & a. 484; WtlU v.
/.'■iiilnif I'illiini/, and Snutheud
I'.nil'ni , 5 (.■. I). 126; 37 L. T.
■ill:! ; tiud see AU.-Otn. v. Ether
l.inolmm Co., (1M1)S<&.M7; 70
li. J. Ch. 808.
(c) Allpt T. OrmoRd, 8 Eaat, 4 ;
9 K. B. 363 ; DiMMOti v. Lomek, S
Q. B. p. 910 ; 14 L. J.a B. 18S ; 66
U. R. 592.
(■.') Son Tumfr v. CYtish, 4 A.
• Jlil ; 48 L. J. Ex. 481; Jlty-
iwldi V. Bama, (19(W) 2 Ch. 361,
370; 78 L. J. Ch. 641.
(t) Harrit r. JtnhiHt, 22 C. D.
481 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 437 ; Donnelly v.
Ad,imt. (1905) 1 Ch. p. ISl. See
SMijt V. I'omfrrt, (1905) W. K. M;
74 L. J. Ch. 357 (watercourse).
(/) Piilmer v. (hiadayui, (1906)
2 Ch. 494 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 721.
(9) KidgiU r. Jfoor, » 0. B. 364 ;
19 L. J. 0. P. 177 ; Bell y. Midland
Saawttg Co.. 10 0. B. (N. 8.) 287:
90 L. J. C. P. 273 ; Afai/fair Pro-
perty Co. V. Johmbm, (1894) 1 Ch.
pp. 516—519; ./(»«» y. JJanrwtt
i'rban Cauacii, (IvU) 1 Ch. p. 404 ;
80 L. J. Ok p. IM.
MUI8ANCBB TO BI0HT8 OP WAY.
VI. not be emrdsfld until after wrongdoer Iim bem Mrrad
with u propi r iiutii'o and requcMt U) roiiiovf the obHtruction,
and has iffused ur neglected to do so. The right of abate-
ment is not lout by (he fact that the C!ourt has refused to grant
a mandatory injanetion for tiie remoral of the obatruetion (h).
UekinK piiM Locking gateti across a way is an obstruction of the free
U«u(hkcf>' righi of way, and it is no answer to the plaintiff's claim to say
that keys will be rapplied (i).
oiitmctlon of The riffht of the owner of roadside proix i ty to have access
oUtrnctHHi u a Iht-roto is a totally dilTerent right from the public right of
paUieraad. passing and re-passing along the highway. The right of a man
to step from his own land on to a highway is quite a different
right from the public right of using the highway (k). If a
private way leads into a public road, an action will lie for
obetmeticm of the private way, aMioa^ the obetraetiMi n
actually placed in the public road d), and in such case, the
owner of the private way cansue without joining the Attorney-
General (m). Bat the piimtt right of aeeaes whi^ ^ owaar
of property adjoining a highway is entitled to does not extend
to the carriage of goods to and inm hia premises. The right
of such owner to carry goods aeroes the pavement to or from
the highway, is a right enji yed by him at one of the /mNk.
It is in fact part of the right so to o the highway at th. spot
in question as to enjoy the sam' reasonably in common with
other members of the paUie entiUed to use tiie aama («). In
case of doubt or difficulty the right of the oecupier of pteraiaes
(i) Une T. CapMi,, (1891) 3 Ch. BaUwi^ Co. v. ITatttr'* IVwfcw,
411; eiL. J.CIi.6*. 7 A. C. 3U: ud ne JSM«r T.
(f) Outtea Etiaitt Ob, v. MOmtr'* Pmhf, (1893) 2 Ch. 4S2, 483; 63
8(01 Co., 11912) 28 T. L. B. 69. L. J. Ch. p. 626 ; Bo^ce v. J^adiling-
(*) Jtt.-Utii. T. Thamtf Cim- ton Borouyh CouiiHl, (1903) 1 Ch.
>ervaior$, 1 U. & M. p. 31 ; Chaplin p. 114 ; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 32 ; CampMl
i- Co., Ltd. V. )ye»tmiiistcr Corpo- t. Piidilint/ton Corpirratum, (1911) 1
r,Ui>m, (1901) 2 Ch. 329; "0 L. J. K. B. 876 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 743.
< 'h. 679. (to) Boyre v. Pnd'Hiiijtm Bonmy'i
(/) Hot V. Orovre. r, Man. ft O. Cotineil. (1903) 1 Ch. p. 114; W
613; 13L. J. C. P. 2A1; 63 B.B. L. J. Oh. p. SS.
416; /.yoH v. Fi»kmoug«r$' Co., 1 («) Chtg^im * Co., T.ul. v. W*d-
Jl. C. 662; Btujamim v. Stmnr^ miiukr CBtfertMrn, (190!) 2 Oi.
li. B. 9 C. P. p. 406 ; FriH y. Hob- 3»; TOl^ J. Oh. «7».
toN, 14 C. O. 642 ; CaUdoniau, tic..
NUI8AKCE8 TO RIGHTS 09 WAY.
aiwtting on u highway to make a reaaonablr oe of it, for the
pur|)o»^<' of landing and unlouding gcxxlH ut hi& firmniiieH, muBt
yield to t\w iiublie right of uoobatruc^ed |iMMge along the
highway (o).
In Thorpt r. BrtmfUt (p) tlM eoDtino*! •bctrootkn of •
privato WHy to an inn yurd, hy loading and unloading waggons,
was rusttrained by injunction ; although the obstruotiona were
not created by one defendant ahrne, but by aereral who had
irchousps abutting on the way, and although the (AttniO-
tion created by each separately might not bar* been rafl-
cient of ikieif to support the action (9).
Where a local board is a highway authority, it has tbs
power to alter for the accommodation of the public the level
uf any utr«et, though such alteration may interfere with the
free aceess of adjoining ownmrs to tiieir property atatting
on tho street. Any remedy which the adjoining owners may
have except on the ground of unreasonable conduct on the
part of the local oathority, should be by way of compensation
under sect. 308 of iin PaUto Heoltii Aet, 1876, owl not hy
injunction (r).
VL
■TIOK 7.— VUISANinS TO noBWATS.
ANOTit^'K : coses in whidi the equitable rvmodj bf
injunctio!, - moght are naiaanoea in pahlk roods or
liighwayb.
A hl^way is • rood givoi to tiw pi .>>li, ,> -> j fade for Wtatb*
passing (•) from ono paUic {daoe to ooot; >iL 1 :«iiiie plaos (<).
(0) AU.-OfH. V. BrightuH Supi>l^
Amieiativn. (1900) 1 276; 60
I. T Ch. lUH.
W) N Ch. 650.
('/) St'f aU, U „■■/,.,, . MtUith.
(IMH) 3 Ch. 163, 166 ; 6J L. J. Ch.
I' MO; It. S. C. Ord. xvi,, r. 4.
[r] KtlUir* V. Matiurk Hoar ' of
Uralth, U Q. B. D. 8»: U S.
Sm AHimtm t. Gkul ^
Comdif Cmmea, «0 J. P. 6 : Lmgk-'
V. dkrUtrhuTch Curpuratum, (1912)
3 K. B. 395; Wi L. J. K. U. 37
(drainage).
(- ) HarriKm v. Dukt of Jutland,
' 1 Q. ' , 116 ; 62 L. J.
Q. i!. 117; ll'ckman v. Maiu^,
(ls<00) 1 (i B. p. 756 ; 69 L. J. Q. E
511; Att.-Om. v. Blackpool Curptra.
ti(M, (1907) TI J. P. 478; Fiti-
kardinge [Lord) j. PtirtM, (ItM) 9
0h.p.iM',n L.j.ch.p.m. n»
T^ublic in additiun to the riglit ot
paaaago can use the highway in the
(tj For note (<) aee next page.
r
296
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Chap. TI.
SMt.7.
enfttiagft
whether it be a carriage way, a footway, or a horse -and-cart
way (u) . A highway need not neeemrily be a thoronghfiire ; a
cul-de-sac may be highway (x) ; but the dedication of a cul-
de-sac as a highway will not, it seems, be presumed from mere
oaer by the pablie witiioat sridenoe of ezpeoditare thereon
by the local authority (y) ; nor is it necessary that the ter-
minus of a highway should be it8<.lf a public place, if it lead
to a public place {z).
A highway may be created either by statute (o), or by the
dedication to the public by the owner in fee (6) (or in certain
cases by a limited owner (c)) of the surface of his land for
the purpose of passing and re-passing (d). In order to prove
ordinary and usual way {//arrUun
V. Dttke of Rutland, (1893) 1 Q. B.
p. 146; 02 L. J. a U. U7 ;
Hadwdl T. nighton, (1907) 2 K. B.
p. 348 ; 76 L. J. K. B. p. 89S);
f.inyke v. ChrisUhurch Corporation,
(1912);3 K. B. 601, 602 ; 82 L. J.
K. B. 42 ; and see Burden v. Rigler,
(1910) 27 T. L. B. 140, as to hold-
ing a meetin;; on the highway.
(t) (^ampbell v. Lang, 1 Maoq. 451 ;
JtohTke V. DavU, 44 C. D. 110, 121 ;
38 W. B. 167 ; Uarrit<m t. Duie of
Rutland, tujira ; Hidtmm v. Mauey,
(1000) 1 a B. 7W: 69 L. J. a B.
oil ; Jft.-am. V. Antrobut, (1906)
2 Ch. 188, 206 ; 74 L. J. C j. 599.
(") Rex V. Salop (Inhabitantt oj),
13 Kiist, p. 97. As to the definition
of a highway, seo Highway Act,
1835, s. 5.
(z) Bateman v. Bluck, 18 Q. B.
870 ; 21 L. J. a B. 406 ; 88 B. B.
813 ; Young r. CvihherUon, 1 Macq.
455 ; Vernon v. Vettry of St. Jatnet',
16 C. 1). ji. 4o7 : 50 L. J. Ch. 81 ;
Rourke v. Ihirit, 4^ ('. 1). 1 10, 123 ;
3H W. 1!. 107 ; AttMlni. v. Ruli-
Mimd ('or/ioratKm, (1904) 89 L. T.
700; Att. Oeii. v. J/(<r../i/«, (1905)
2 Ch. p. 20<i ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 608 ;
WhUehMtm T. Hugh, (IINM) 1 Ch.
p. 264 ; 7S L. J. Ch. p. 167 ; (1W«)
2 Ch. 2S3; 75 L. J. Ch. 677;
Jtt.-aen. r. Chandoi Land tmd
Btmimg Bacittg, (1810) 74 J. F.
401 ; JoMtUolm t. HUIcr, (1911) 7S
3. P. SIS ; and see London County
Council V. Hughes, (1911) 104 L. T.
685, as to dedication where an
estate is bting ■^m< «{ « 4t f^ j| ]^ ^Im
Court.
(y) AH.-Gen. v. Anirobu$, WMt-
house V. Hugh, tHpra; but Me
Att.-Oen. T. CiMmdM, (1910) 74
J. P. 401.
(z) OtmfMl T. Lang, 1 Maoq.
441; AU.-Om. v. Antrobui, Att.-
Otn. V. Chandot Land and BuHd-
iny Society, lupra,
{") E.g., by trustees imder
Turnpike Acts, or by Comniissioners
under Inoloauie Acts, or by a
Boad Board under 9 Edw. 7,o. 47,
aee aeeta. 8 and 9, or by a Looal
Anthtnity aee 9 Bdw. 7, o. 44,
sect 6.
(6) See Atl.-Om. t. Antrabta,
(1905) 2 Ch. p. 201 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
599 ; h'arquhar v. Ntwbufy Bmral
Coumil, (1909) 1 Ch. 13; 78
L. J. Ch 170.
(< ) See sect. 16 of SettUd Land
Act, 1882, and teot. SO <A SetOed
EitatM Atit, 1877.
(<0 ae«eaataiMita(«).M|»«.
Ch»p. VI.
8ectr.
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
a public way created by Act of Parliament, it is necessary to
show that the provisioas of the Act have been strictly fol-
lowed (c).
The dedication by an owner of the surface of his land to IMiaatiw.
the use of the public, has not the effect of divesting him of
the ownership of the soil, or of vesting tiie aoil in the loosl
authority to the use of the public. An owner who dedicates
to i)ublic use as a highway a portion of his land, parts with no
other right than a right of passage to the public over the land
so dedicated, and so much of the actual soil as may be re-
quired for the maintenance and preservation of the right of
passage (/), and he may exercise all rights of ownership not
inconsistent with such dedimtion. Highways are dedi«(ted
prima facie for the purpose of passage only, and the user of a
highway otherwise than in the ordinary and usual way, is a
trespass as against the owner of the soil and in a proper
case will be restrained by injunction (g). The appropriation
made to and adopted by the public, of a part of the street to
one kind of passage, and another part to ano*:her, does not
doi)rive him at common law of any rights as owner of the land
which are not inconsistent with the right of passage by the
public. The provision of the Highway and Metropolis Local
Management Acts, so far m tbqr vpflj to roads and streets, are
subordinate to the paramount rights reserved by the owner (A).
A dedication to be valid must be made by the owner of the Wko cm
fee (•), or by the tenant for life and remaindmnan in fee ^
297
(f) CuhM V. Maxte. h. B. 8 C. P.
p. TI5; 42 L. J. C. P. 278.
(./ ) Seo Mai/orof TunMilye fVeth
•. IMr<l, (1896) A. C. 434 ; 66 L. J.
n. H. 451 ; Foieg't Charity Tn»lm
V. Dudley (kfpmMm, (1910) 1
K. B. p. SaS; 79 L. J. K. B.
P- 416; Andrewi v. AbertiUery
I Than Council, (1911) 2 Cli. p. 413 ;
XO L. .1. (^h. 1). 741; Schireder v.
W'Tthii,,/ (,',!« U(/lit and Coke Co.,
(l!My)l(h.i). 124; H2L. J.Ch.67:<.
(y) Jiirk-num v. Maitty, (1900) 1
U. B. p. 766; a» L. J. Q.B.611;
we fkUtu T. tVw, (1904) 28
T. L. B. 411 (catching moths),
wlim an injnnotiaB waa reftuad.
(A) St. Mars Nntimglm Vmtry v.
.TaaM, L. B. 7 Q. B. 47; 41 L. 3.
M. C. 73; and aee Harrimmy. Dukt
«/l{«*/«nid, (1893) 1 Q. B. p. 157 ;
62 L. J. Q. B. 117; Lutcmnhe v.
<hfat Wiitrrn /iailn ai/ Cv., (1899) 2
Q. B. p. 31« ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 711.
(») (IVW V. Veal, 6 B. 4 Aid.
464; 24 B. E. 464; Eyrt v. Ntw
FiTct //iyhway Board, 66 J. P. 417 ;
Att.-am. V. AntrtAut, (190ft) 2
Ch. pp. 901, 202 ; 74 L. J. Oh. Ms) ;
AU.-Chm. V. Chrnm^M Umd tmd
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Chap. VI.
8Mt. 7.
1 f
together (k), or by a limited owner under statutory iwwers (I).
. A eorponition luiiy dwiicuto, providwl tlio dcdiciition is not
ineompatible with its statutory objects (m). There can be
no dedication, unloes there be an intention to dedicate (»), and
such intention must bo unequivocally proved. But it may be
manifested by writing, by dt'duration, or by acts. The mere
acting so as to lead persons into a supposition that a way is
dedicated doM not aaimmt to a dedicatiMi, if there be an
agreement which explains the transaction (o). Nor is there
a dedication, though there may have been originally an inten-
tion to dedicate, if the intention to dedicate has been aban-
doned or something has been done to show fliat tlw (Original
intention has been abandoned {p) .
If an intention to dedicate can be clearly shown, no parti-
cular time is necessary to render the dedication valid. It
may be immediate, or as soon as some act is done on the
part of the public, or persons claiming an interest in such
Bniiding SodHy, ( 1 910) 74 J. P. 401 ; Ortat Cmlral Bailw^ Oo. r. BaUy-
wi*h,Heithorpe UrbanCitnril, ( t91-i)
2Ch. 110; 81 L. J. Ch.ft96; aright
of pre-emption in adji>ining owners
does not prevent dedication, Coateiv.
Ilere/vnhliire Count;/ Ccuntil, iiifira.
(») H'otx/i/er V. Iladilm, a Taunt.
123; 14 E. B. 706; Ilarrad.iiyh v.
John*m,»k. &£. 09 ; 7 L. J. Q. B.
172; 47 B. B. S06; Bimfom tV
AtL-Ot*., (1804) A. C. pp. 49S,
494 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 11 ; AH.-Oen.
V. AntTohut, (1905) 2 Ch. p. 201 ;
74 L. J Ch. 599; /lolloimy v.
Hyham Dinirici Cmnril, (1908) 72
J. 1'. i'ti'A ; HOC Kirhi) v. I'aiipiton
Vilmn I'mniril, 1 Oh. 597,
347 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 198.
(o) Woodt/tr V. Haddtn, JSorra-
eUmgh T. Johnson, Simptom T. Att,-
Gtn., tufira.
{p) Hall V. tUwUt Corporativn,
29 W. li. S«2 ; 44 L. T. 873 (plans
of wtri'Ot pasMCiI liy loonl authority) ;
see Kirhy v. I'aii/nton L'riian
CdimeU, tHftra.
Webb T. BaUwin,{mi)U J. P. fi64.
(*) Farquhar v. Nttebury Rural
CuHmil, (1909) 1 Ch. U; 78
L. J. Ch. 170.
(0 See Settled Lund Act, 18S2,
s. Hi, and Settled Estates Act,
1877, s. 20.
(m) Bex v. Ltake 6 fi. ft Ad.
469; 39 B. B. ft31; MuUiner v.
Midhmd Railway Co.. U C. D.
p. 623; 48 L. J. Ch. 258; Orand
Junction Caniil Co. v. I'tlii/, 21
Q. B. I). 273 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 572 ;
Siret/orit I'rban Coiinril v. Man-
chester South Junftitm liaiiirai/ Co.,
(1903) 19 T. L. R. 546; AU. -(Ifn.
f.ondon and SmUh W$item Rail-
tvay Co., (1905) 21 T. L. B. 220;
Tag Tale Ritilmay Co. t. PrntyprUd
Ikhan Comtcil, (1905) 93 L. T.
pp. 129, 130; Co>it» V. Iltrtfordthirt
Coimtii roMnciV,(1909)2Ch. 679; 78
L. J. Ch. 608, 781 ; Arwtt v.
H7<i% rW-.in CoumU, (1909) 101
1,. T. 14; .4m.,W v. Morgan,
2 K. B. 314; 80L. J.K. B. p. 963;
299
Ch»p. VI.
SMt.7.
KUIBANCES TO mOHWATS.
dedication, denoting their intention of accepting the gift (g).
A mere dedicai^iuii by the owner of tiie soil will not of itsdf
create a highway. There must also bo an acceptance by the
public. Dedication by the owner, and iMer by the public,
must eonenr to ereste a road otherwise than by statute (r).
Where there is a public right of footway aetMt land, and
there is some surface land lying along the course of the public
footpath, devoted to traffic, even if it be private traffic, then
prima facie the owner of the soil mostbetekai to harededi-
catixl to the public so mm h of the surface as he has in point
of fact devoted to traffic, even though it he private traffic (a).
Enjoymeot and oser of a way by the public openly as of DedicUon pre-
right {() is evidence from which an intention to dedicate may JSSf ^
be presumed (a). The continued user by the public of a
way raises the presumption that the way belongs to the public,
llmt it has been dedicated by the owner for the publio use for
which it has been used. It is not incumbent upon the public
to show by what particular owner the road has been dedicated.
If dedication is poasible, dedication will be assumed. Bot it
is open to the owner of the soil to est^iblish that owing to tiie
( 7 ) I'mU v. Hmkifon, 11 M. & 74 j. P. p. 297; WAh t. BdUiwm,
W. s-'ii; 63 B. E. 782; Sm-th
I.iiiiilon RaUway Co. v. St. Mary'i
I 'rstry, 21 W. B. 228 ; 27 L. T. 672.
(r) CubUt T. Mmt»e. L. B. 8 C. P.
716; 42 L. J. CP. 278; ir<wM(T.
Heme Bay Commimonert, 87 L. T.
873; AH.-Oen. v. Uiphoiphate<l
ihiaiK. Co., 11 C. D. 327 ; 4!» L. J.
' li. 68; HoUoifay Y. Kghum I'rhiin
'■•■>n„il, (1908) 72 J. P. p. 434;
'l"tttnliam Vrbim Crninril v. Rowley,
(li'12) 2 Ch. 643 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 84.
(«) Att.-a«m. T. Ether, (IMl) 2
Ch.647 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 808.
(0 Ait,-atn. T. Antrohu, (1906)
2Ch.p.202 ; 74L.J.Ch.899. See
Itehrnis v. /lirhnnl; (1905) 2 Ch.
PI'- 619, 620; 74 L. J. Ch. 616;
'\xils V. IhrefortUhirt County
i'<mm-il, ;i!M)9) 2 Ch. p. 594; 78
' J. Ch. 668, 781; Tiafford v.
Faith't Rural Couneil, (1810)
(1911) 76 J. P. fl64; Kitbg
PtaspUom Vrbm Ootmeil, (IM8) 1
C*. 346, 347 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 198.
(M)8ee Peohv. niukiunn, n M. *
W. 827 ; 63 B. E. 782 ; Reg. y. Ea»t
Mark Ty thing, 11 Q. B. 877; 17
L. J. Q. B. 877 ; 76 E. B. 653 ; Reg.
V. I'etrie, 4 El. & Bl. 737 ; 24 L. J.
U.B. 167; 99B.B. 718; ^otmit.
lhan, 3 Bing. 447 ; 4 L. J. (O. a)
CP. 144; JW* «M«Wi«, 8 C.
B. N. a 848 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 343 ;
runwr V. W alih, 6 A. C. ftl2; 80
L. J. P. C. 66 ; Mann v. Broilie, 10
A. C. p. 386 ; Fnrquhar v. Newbury
Rural <;,uneil, (1909) 1 Ch. 12;
78 L. J. Ch. 170; Att.-Gen. v.
M'lil/ord Rural Coimril, (1912) 1
Ch. 417 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 281 ; Arf T.
Jkriuhire Cmm^ Coimeil, {l»U} 166
L.T.«; 76J.P.M.
i!
J
800
NUIBANCEB TO HI0HWAY8.
Chap. VI.
SMt. 7.
i i
Intentiun to
dedicate
nbttttMi.
ccmdition of the title dedicatitm was not possible, and if he
- abon that, then the presumption which results from the
continued user is rebutted. But notwithstanding that it is
shown that tot a long period dedication has been impossible,
it is (qieo to the Court to infer, if the facts will justify the
inference, that dedication may have taken place, and if it may
hare taken place, that it did take place before the period
daring yg^mb dedication was impossible (x). Where the
character of the user has left no doubt as to the intention to
dedicate by the owner of th(> land over which the way ran and
the assertion of the right on the part of the public, a user of
not many years continuance may be sufficient to establish
the right (y). The idea of dedication may be rebutted by the
nature of tho locus in quo, and by the character of the user, as
where perscms bad been allowed to stroll along cliffs, the land-
owner jwrmitting what caused him no injury, while his refusal
would have been an unreasonable act (z) ; or by evidence of
acts showing that the owner of the soil contemplated only a
licence revocable in a particular event (a) . The erection of
a post or gate at the entrance of the way, or other similar acts,
will negative the intention to dedicate ( b) . But acts of owner-
ship relied on as rebutting an intention to dedicate, may be
referable to the ownership of the soil rutHer than to an inten-
tion to exclude the passage of the public (c). A single act of
interropiion by the owner of the fee is of mnch more weight
(x) Fm^uJiar v. Newbmrff Sural
Counea, (1908) 3 Cb. p. 596 ; (1909)
I Ch. 12 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 173 ; and
see Coats v. llerefvrdthire County
Council, 2 Ch. 595, 696; 78
Ij. J. Ch. 5(iH ; Paris Lymin<iton
Itiiral Council, (1911) 75 J. P. (Jo.)
88.
(y) Att.-Oen. r. BiphosphtOed
Uwme Co., 11 0. D. p. 341 ; 49
L.J.Ch. 66.
(«) BehrtM T. Richarit, (1906) 3
Ch. 614. 620 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 618.
(a) liarraclongh v, Johnsm, 8 A.
& K. 99, 104 ; 7 Ui. Q. B. 173;
47 U. H. 506.
(&) BoUrU r. Karr, 1 Camp.
263, n.; Bu^ Charity v. Mtrry-
umther, 11 East, 376, n. ; 10 E. B.
528 ; .l/(7,/m/ v. U etiver, a P. & F.
30 ; 6 L. T. 225 ; Vestry of Uer-
mondsey v. Ilrown, L. K. 1 E(i. 210,
215 ; Jlealey v. Bailey I orpuration,
L. B. 19 Kq. J). 388.
(c) Coats v. Her^ordskirt County
OouneV, (1909) 2 Ch. 079; 78 L. J.
Ch. m, 781 ; and um Att-Otn. v.
Chandns Land and SuUdinci Sucieti/,
(1910) 74 J. P. 401 ; An*< v. /Mslii<r
County Cuiim il, (1911) 76 J. P. 35 ;
Alt..aen. V. Lindsay Hogg, (1912)
W. N. 176; 76 J. P. 450.
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
801
CIMP.TL
8Mt.7.
ui>on the question than many acts of enjoyment on the part
of the public (d). In a case where a highway over a common
had, without the authority or interfermM of the owner of Hhe
soil, l)('t>n diverted by an adjoining proprietor, who substituted
for it a new road, which waa used by the public for more than
twenty yeara, it waa held that there waa no dedication of tiie
substituted road, but that the use of it was referable to tfis
l ight of the public to deviate on to the adjoining land, when-
ever the owner of the aoil stops a highway or suiferB it to be
fiiundrous (e).
Enjoyment and user of a way by the public is evidence from Dedi«iiN«kM
which the assent of the owner, whoever he is, may be inferred. pSSTi^
It is sufficient if there might be a peraon who waa competent
to make the dedication. It lies upon the party dmjiag the
inference from the user to show that there waa no pwaon who
had the power of dedicatmg it at the time the dedication ia
proved to have taken place (/) . From evidence of acta of oaer
of a footway by the public, extending over the whole time of
living memory, during which, however, the land crossed by Uie
way had been undar lease, it waa held that the jnry might pre-
sume agiiinst the reversioner a dedication of the way by hia
ancestors to the public at a period of time anterior to the land
having first been leaaed (g). And where aettled land was
['I) Marqiiii of Stafford y.Coijney,
7 n & C. 257; 5 L. J. (O. S.)
!\'. K. •.'S.-) ; :jl H. R. 18(i; /We v.
11 M. & W. 826; 63 R.
li. 7K2 ; Ilmdley v. liatley Cor/Kira-
fi:,,, L. K. 19 % p. 388 ; 44 L. J.
<'li. p. 643; C/iinnock v. Hartl*^
fVintnejf Rural CmttuH, 68 J. P.
327 ; LeMamplom Qmarrim Co. t.
Mlinger, (1904) 20 T. L. R 659;
and aee Trafford v. St. Faith's Rural
Council, (1910) 74 J. P. p. 298.
(e) DauKs V. Ifairkina, 8 C. B.
X. !<. 848 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 343.
(/) Rei/. V. AW Mark Tything,
1 1 Q. B. 877 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 177 ;
T.j B. B. 663 ; /t^, v. Petrit, 4
E.&BL7M: a* L. J. Q. B. 187 ;
Tunur », WaUk, 8 A. a 636; 50
li. J. P. C. So ; Vernon v. Veitry of
St. James, 16 C. D. 467 ; 60 L. J.
Ch. 81 ; Eyre v. New Forest High-
way Board, (1892) 66 J. P. 517;
Chinnock t. Bmrtley ITMMy
Rmral ComcO, (1M9) 63 J. P.
3J7; Taff VttU Bailwttif Co. v.
P«iUSpridd Urlxin Council, (1906)
98 L. T. 126; Farquhar y. Newbury
Rural Council, (1908) 2 Ch. p.
696; (1909) 1 Ch. 12 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 170; Coats y. Herefordikirt
County Council, (1909) 2 Ch. pfi. 595,
596 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 668, 781 ; sad Me
AU.-0*ti. v. Wa^/Ml Bunt (ksmeO,
(1913) I Oh. 417; 81 L. J, Ch. 281.
(g) WimkrboUomy. Earl of Derby,
L. B. S El. 316 : 30 L. J. Ex. 194;
H to piwnniing oonMnt tA Imat,
802
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Chap. VI.
SMt.7.
: i
1
iUMoatol
aatrtepnre
dadiMtim.
There may b«
dedication for
spMial UM,
under the management of the remainderman in fee, who laid
out a road which was used by the public for a period of sixty
years, the Court inferred that the tenant for life had know-
ledge of and acquiesced in the public user, and that there had
been a dedication to the public by the tenant for life and
rt>maindermsn^&). So also where there has been long user
by the public of a footpath across copyhold land, dedication of
the path to the public by the lord as well as by the copyholder
will be preeumed, unless there is evidence to rehat the pre-
siunption (»). Where a strip of land which had been set
out by an award as a public footpath, had been used for
a period of forty years for carts, and regarded by the owner
of tiie soil as a highway for all purposes, the Court woald not
presume dedication for wheeled traflRc, such user having been
in its inception and throughout a public nuisance, which no
length of time eoald legalize (k).
It is an unsettled question what length of enjoyment of
a way is requisite to raise the presumption of dedication (2).
The amount of oser and enjoyment by the public which is
required in order to prove dedication varies according to the
nature of the district in which the way is situated ; e.g., in
a thinly populated or mountainouii district slight evidence
of user might be anfficieot (m).
There may be a dedication of land for special uses or for
a limited purpose, as for a footway, a horse way, or a drift
way (n). A dedication may be made subject to the reserra-
see Simpton v. Att.-Oen., (1904) A.
C. p. 507 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 18 ;
(.'oriellis v. London County Council,
(1907) 1 Ch. 712, 713; 76 L. J. Oh.
313 ; on apped, (1908) 1 Ch. 21 ; 77
L. J. Ch. 120 ; Opetuhaw PiiiMring,
(1913) 77 J. P. 127.
(/i) Farquhar y Newbury Rural
Council, (1909) 1 Ch. 12 ; 7H L. J.
Ch. 170.
(i) /'oi. frs V. /latfiurst, 28 W. E.
390 ; 49 L. J. Oh. 2lM.
(i) Sheringham Urban Council y.
Jibbty, (IWM) W. N. 83 ; 91 L. T.
23d.
{!) See Ruyhy Charity v. Merry-
wetither, 11 East. 376; 10 B. B.
528 ; Tarvit v. Dean, 3 Kng. 447 ;
4 L. i. (O. 8.) C. P. 144 ; Wwd^
r. H9ddm, 5 Tknnt. ISA ; 14 R. B.
706 ; Rfg. y. Pttne, 4 E. & Bl. 767 ;
24 L. J. Q. B. 167; Att.-Om. y.
l!i)'h<'»]'liatfl (luano Co. 110. D. p.
;H1 ; 49 r,. J. Ch. p. 73.
(m) Maii>lier$on v. Saittith Bightt
of }Vay S<<iety, 13 A. C. 744. See
Alt.-Orti. V. ]\'at/or<l Rural Council,
(1912) 1 Ch. 417 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 28ft.
(tt) AwfeT. nuMnom, U H *
W. p. 830 ; 63 B. B. 7^; Jfer^wM
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
tion of a private right to some extent interfering with the
public one(o). There may in law bo a dedication to the
puWic of a ri^t of way, sach as a footpath across a field,
siihjpct to tho right of the owner of the soil to plough it up,
in duo course of husbandry, and destroy all trace of it for a
time (/>). But there cannot be a dedication by an owner of his
liiiid to the |)ul)lie subject to payment of a toll, except by the
iiuthority of tho Crown or of a statute (q). Nor can there
be ft valid dedication to a limited class of persons or part of
the public, as to a parish. If there be a dedieatioo at all, it
must bo in favour of tho public (r). Nor can there be a dedi-
cation to the public for a limited time, certain or uncertain.
If there be a dedication at all, it most be perpetual (g).
A dedication must be taken to be made to the public and
accepted by them, subject to the inconvenience or risk arising
from the existing state of things. If there be an erection or
excayation existing in the way at the time of the dedication,
the owner of the soil is not liable for accidents thereby occa-
sioned. The public must be taken to accept the way, subject
to the ineonventence or risk arising from the existing state of
things (0.
p. IS.
(r) /WfT.aM*M»o«,nM.4W.
830; «S B. B. 7S2; Bermondtty
Vtttrg v. Brown, L. E. 1 Eq. 204 ;
Farqiiharv. Nnrbury Hural Conm ii
(1909) I Ch. 12.16; "SL. J. Ch. 178.
By custom a class of perrous, aa the
inhabitants of a parish, may havtt a
ohiirchwuy oyer land, aee BraMt-
ion* v. Thomfton, (1903) 2 Ch. 344;
72 L. J. Oh. M : Far^uhar v.
NtwhrnrtBimi CMmea, (1909) I {»,
P- 19 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 170.
(•) Dme* T. Hati lcint, 8 C. B
N. 8.848; 29 L. J. C. P. 347. See
CorteUi* r. London County Council
(1907) 1 Ch. p. 71.'}; 76 L. J. Ch.'
••tl:!; (IiH)8j 1 Ch. p. 21; 77L. J.
Ch. 1 20, as iv> dedication by a tttowr.
(<) Fithtr t . Prmtm, 3 B. * 8.
p. 780 ; 31 L. J. Q.B.aM; RMmu
r. Jmm, 16 0. B. N. 8. 321 ; 33
L. a P. 1; Bmdk V. Btmk,
808
Chap. VI.
Sect. 7.
■nbjsct to
priTato rigkt.
bat not to pcj-
■Matofatsll, Mr
taaliaMelMi
oil
orforalfaaiM
IMIeation mail
be taken to ba
accepted bj the
public, lubjeet
to ineoDTeiiiaaet
aridngfioa
of
':/' Stafford V. C<ii/iiei/, 7 B. & C.
■2m; 5 L. J. (O. y.) K B. 285; 31
■■.li.IH6; .4M.-f/fn.v.tfonMr,(1913)
2 Ch. p. 180 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 3S9.
(•>) Murant v. Chamiwl^ 6 H. *
N. Ml; 30 L.J. Bx. 299; 123B.B.
1172 (dcpofit of Roods) ; Oingell v.
Stfpi.ci/ /lur,>,.gh Council, (1908), 1
K. II 115; 77 L. J. K. B. 347
(oxtTcise of n.urkct rights); on
apite-il as to form of Order, (190n)
A. C. 245 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 673; aee
Ml.-den. V. Homer, aupra.
(;<) Jtfercer t. WoudgaU, L. B.
S Q. B. 28; 39 L. J. II. 0. 21;
Arnold v. Blaker, L. B. 6 Q. B., p.
40 L. J. a B. 185 ; liundle v.
Ilmrk, (IN!(8) 2 Q. B, p. 88; 07
I- J U. li. 711.
(■/) Aiisterltftry v. Oldham Cor-
,'"r,tli,m, 29 C. D. 750, 770; 66
I., r ! li. (;:i8 ; .Ul. am. v. Simpim,
(1U04)A. C. p.a00; 74 L. J. Clh.
804
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Clukp- VI.
.7.
Dcdieition of
way along rd
embankment.
Highwajr not an
eaaemcnt
Ownenhip of
HUefWtkway.
There ia nothing inconsistent with the purposes of a sea or
river wall, or embankment ereeted to protect neighboaring
lands, in a right of way along the surface; and the Bame
evidence of user will raise a presumption of a dedication of a
right of way by the owner of the soil in the case of such an
embankmoit, as in any other eue of anintermpted and op«i
user by the public (m).
A public road or highway is not an easement properly so
called (x). The soil of a highway up to the centre of the toad
is presumed in law, in the absence of other evidence of owner-
ship, to belong to the owners of the land on each side, subject
to the right of passage of the public (y). So maeh of the loil
of the surface as may be necessary for the control and main-
tenance of the road as a highway for public use, is however
vested in the local authority (z). A conveyance of land,
bounded by a highway, is always presumed in law to carry the
fee up to the centre of the road, as part and parcel of the
grant; unless there be enough in the circumstances or
enough in the expressicms of the instrument to show a con-
(1898) 2 a B. 89; 67 L. J. Q. B. (v) Mai/ur of Tun'riiUje ]Vell» v.
741; 800 Chnrley ('orpiTatian v. Daird, (IWtti) A. C. p. 44J ; 65
Xighltngale. {imi) 2 K. 15. pp. 617,
618 ; 75 L. J. K. It. 793 ; on appeal,
(1907) 2 K. U. 637 ; 7(1 L. J. K. B.
1003 ; McClelland y. ManehtiUr Cor-
ponMm, (1912) 1 K. B. p. IW; 81
L. i. K. B. p. 104; Att-Qm^ r.
Hornfr, (1913) 2 Ch. p. 170; S2
L. J. Ch. p. 369.
(u) Grtenu ieh Board Iff Workiv.
Maudiley, L. R. fi Q. B. 907; S9
L. J. Q. H. 205.
(r) Rangdy v. Midland Railway
Co., 3 Ca». p. 310 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 313.
(y) Smith v. Howdm, 14 C. B.
N. S. 398; Leigh t. Jack, 6 Ex. D.
p. 273 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 280; StektU
V. Lmi$ OorporaHom, 7 Ch. 431 ;
Harriton r. Duke of Rutland, (1803)
1 Q. B. p. 155 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
p. 124; Central London Itailn ai/ Co.
V. at 11 of London I.mul Tar Cnm-
miMiimera, f IHI 1 ) 2 Ch. pp. 475, 476;
(1912), SI T>. J. Ch. p. 27 ; (1913)
A. 0. p. 371 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 278.
L. J. Q. H 451 ; Finchley Kltctric
Light Co. V, Finchleii I'rhan Couni^il,
(1903) 1 Ch. 437 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 297 ;
Poplar Corporation v. Milwall Duck
Co. (1804), 68 J. P. 339; Fol«^*~
Charity 7nM(m< v. DutU^ Otrfcn-
Hon, (1910) 1 K B. p. 322 ; 79 L. J.
K. B. p. 41fi ; Cai'on County
Council, (1010) 2 Ir. 644, 666;
Andrew! v. Ahertillery Urban
Council, (1911) 2 Ch. p. 413; 80
L. J. Ch. p. 741 ; Hchweder v.
Worthing Gas Light and Coke Co, ,
(1913) 1 Ch. 118; 82 L. J. Ch. 71.
Aa to th« Yttting of n»dt and
8tre«U, ne Public Hefttth Atst ,
187S, H. 144—140; Ifetx^poUs
Mana((Mnent Act, 1800, s. 96;
Local Oovorninoiit Act, 1888,8. 11
(6) ; Public Ilraltli (Fxindon) Act,
1891, n. 44 ; and the Development
and Bead Improvoment Funds
Aot, 1009, i. 9.
NnSAN'CES TO HIGHWAYS.
800
VI.
8«ot. 7.
trary intention (a). This preHumpfion upplios to leases as
well as to conveyances (b). and to streets in a town as well as
to highwuys in the ooontry (c), bnl not to a conveyance of
land adj-.ming a railway (d) . It seems that if A. owns hooMs
on one side of a street and B. owns houses on the other side
but it turns out that the soil of the highway is not evenly
•livi.h^ h,.tween thcin, A. owning a little more or » little leu
than hulf the highway, then when A. conveys his houses de-
scribing them as bounded by the highway, that portion of the
lufjhway which is veeted in A. will by preeumption of law, in
tiu. absence of circumstances showing a contruy intention,
jiiiss to the purchaser (e).
Strip, of wMte land between old indosures and the high- 8trip.o,...t.
«ay, \wUmg prima facie to the owners of the adjoining inclo- '^J''*"'"*
suns, unless there be something in the circumstance, of the
case to rebut the presumption (/).
Fences by the side of an ordinary highway are primd facie B..«nj„i„
the boundaries of the highway, so as to raise th« presumption
that the public right of passage extends over the whole space
(.) Ilerridg, t. Ward. 10 0. B. «ay Co. v. W^,nirul^ Corporation
(1902) 1 Ch.p. 27!.; 71 L. J. Ch
38 ; Afa/ifiin \
N. 8. 400; SO L. J. 0. P. 218;
MKldtthmuUe r. tfewlay Bridge Co.,
33 Ch. D. p. 146; 65 L. T. 336;
Mellor V. Walmealey, (1906) 2 Ch.
I'. 179 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 482 ; see
'Vn/ra/ l.imilon Railiray Co. v. City
of l.„u,li,n Land Tax CommiMimert,
(I'JII) 2 Ch. pp. -173.474; (1912)
f*l L. J. Cli. pp. 2«, 27 : (1913)
A. V. ,171. 372; 82 L. J. Ch. 278.
A:t to what ia lufflcinit to nlmt
the presumption, soe Pry«ry. Petre,
(lH94)2Ch.U; 63 L. J. Oh. 631 ;
Mappin V. Liberty * Co., (1903) 1
Ch. p. 128; 72 L. J. Ch. 63;
Central l.owlun Railway Co. v. City
'■/"lomlon Tax Commitnonera, aui>ra.
CO .Vo/7,in V. Liberty 4 Co ,
(l'J03) 1 Ch. p. 127; 72 L. J. Ch.
fi3.
{c) In re WhiU't Chariliet, (1898)
I'll. 659 ; 67 L. J. C3h.430;Mid
see Londm imd Norih Wt$tmt Bait.
K.I.
p. 38; Afarfin v. Liberty ,t Co.,
(1»03) 1 Ch.p. l-2(i; 72 L.J. Ch.
63 : Central London BaUway Co. r.
City of London Land Tax Com-
miuionert, (1911) a Ch. pp. 473
474; (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. pp. 26 27-
(1913)A.C.3M; 88 L. J. Ch. W
(d) Thomfm T. Hitknum, (1907)
1 Ch. 660, AM ; 7« L. J. Oh.
264.
(e) In re White', Churltiet, {mi)
1 Ch. p. 666 ; 67 L. J. Ch. p. 433.
(/) Doe V. Pearny, 7 B. ft
304 ; 31 fi. E. 209; Orot, y. Wml
7Tauiit. ;J9; 17 B. B. W; Db. t,
Ilamptim, 4 0. B. 387; 17 L. J.
C. P. 226; atmpem y. Dmdy, 8
O.B.N.8.4S8; Curti, y. Ke,te, en
County Council, 45 C. D. 604 ; 60
li. J. Oh. 103 ; Counteu of Bilmore
V. K«U County Council, (1901) 1
CSi. 878 ; 70 Ifc J. Ch. 601. See
806
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Ckaf. VI. of (rrouiul botwucn the fences, and not merely to tb« {mH
— ^atll — which may be metelled (g).
Rtl^ilavMr Hi'iiif,' owners of the soil f 11 highway, the adjacent pro-
jj^jjj^ prittun* htivo a right to all oiainary remedies for the free-
hold, nnd may maiotain actions against any panoo iriw djfs
up till Hoil or cuts down trees growing on the side of tha Nad,
or left there for shade or ornament {h), or who exoaeda til*
ordinary and reasonable user of the highway (i). The frea*
hold und all tha iHR^ta of the soil belong to the owners of the
Boil. ! 'm y may carry water in pipes under the highway, and
have every use and remedy tliali is consistent with the right of
passage in taToar of the publio and the provisitms of the High-
way Acts and police regulations (k). If trees growing hij tha
Kiisf V. llerkihire ('minty t'uiinril,
(l!U2) 10« L. T. «4; 76 J. 1'. 3ft;
Att.-Om. V. Lindtay-Huyij, (1912)
W. N. 178; 76 J. P. 460.
(y) Am T. Wright, 3 B. * Ad.
Ml ; I L. J. (N. a) M. 0. 7« ; 87
B. B. A80 i /leg. T. Vniltii Kittf-
<lim Klettrk Ttttyraph Co., 3 B. ft
.S tilT, n. ; 31 L. J. M. C. 166;
l.ixkr-Kimi V. W'okinii Urban
Cunmxl, (1898) 77 li. T. 790 ; Netld
V. Iltnd.^n I rbaii tWnf//, (1899) 81
li. T. 405; <'ounlr$t oj Itrlmvre v.
AV«< t'ouut;/ (Jouneil, (li»()l) 1 t'h.
pp. 877, 878; 70 I,. J. Ch. 401;
Uarmn t. Truro Iturul Council,
(1903)201.638 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 70S ;
Att-Oen. T. Arry, (1901) 1 Ir. B.
'247; OJin y. Roekford Rural
Council, (1900) 1 Ch. 342 ; 7S L. J.
Ch. 348; Alt.-Uen. v. Croydon
Hut- ' Counril, (1908) 72 J. I'. 123.
And see Coalt v. lltrtfonUhirt
County Councii, (1909) 2 Ch. 679 ;
78 L. J. Ch. 668 ; Coputak* v.
Smias County Council, (1911) 2 Ch.
331 : 80 I.. J. Cli. 673; Sa$t t.
Btrhtkirt County Camea, (1912)
in« li. T. 66; 76 J. P. p. 38;
Att.-Utn. V. Liudviy-U^jgy, kuyra ;
I'otlenham Urban Council y, Rowlty,
(1912) 2 Oh. M6; n L. J. Oh.
p. 86.
(A) Frompttm v. Tiffin, 2 Jur.
i<s6 ; Uoodtm w. RichartUun, 9 Ck.
231 ; 43 L. J. C9k TM; Cm*i» t.
Kmtmm Cmmlf C $mt il, U CD.
004; aO L. J. Ck. 108.
(i) Se« Harriim v. Duh* of Rut-
land, (1808) 1 Q. B. p. 146; 62
L. J. a fi. 1 17 ; Hickman t. Itaitey,
(1900) 1 Q. B. 762 ; 69 L. J. a B.
611 ; Fitzhardingt{Lord) v. i^rctl(,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 168 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
p. 646 : Marriott y. Eatt OrimlMd
Qai awl W«kr Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 70 ;
78 L. J. Oh. 141. Aa iajuBctioB
will B«i be gnwtad to reatnuD
trivial Mtl, FmMm ▼. Cox, (1906)
22 T. L. B. 411 (catching moths).
{k) 1 Roll. Ab. 392 ; 2 Inst. 706;
Lade v. Shepherd, Str. 1604 ; Uood-
titUv. Alker, 1 Burr. 133; Cunlifft
V. Whalliy, 13 Bear. p. 416 ; 88
B. B. 411 ; Uarritom r. ]>uk$
RutUmd, (1893) 1 a B. p. IM; 63
L. 3. Q. B. 117. Sm AU.-af». t.
A$Kby. (1907) 71 J. P. 337: cosn-
proBiMd on anpaid, (1908) 73 1. P.
449.
NOTSANCES TO HIOHWAYfl.
807
side of a oarriage way are an obatruction to the highmj, th* OM^ VL
highway aatiiority may order them to be cut (/).
If a highway be foundrous and impMMbk. • ri^t to go tmUimt
over the aajoining land may exist, where the public have from
time immemorial been acciutomed to deviate ; but where there
.s a limited dadioatioii of a way, the pnblie hara no right to
deviate, if the way is oat of rfijNjir (m).
The owner of propnrty at the aide of a highway has a right tuuum^
of aoeeaa theroto and any interference with such access is an ♦^"W-
infringement of his private right. The owner's right, bow-
ever, to use a portion of the highway for loading and unload-
ing hie goods and carrying them into his premises is a right
enjoyod by him as one of the pabiie, and it not a private right
entitling him to an injunction to restrain the reasonable
user by the local authority of their statutory power . rect
lamp-poita in the highway, though they may obstruct hun .n
eiirrying on his business (n).
Atowing path is a highway to be used only for the purpose T-wh,-*.
of towing bwrgee or vessels (o). The owner of the land oppo-
site the towing path is owner of the land ovar whiefa the
towing path passes, unless there is evidence to show that the
trustees or conservators of the navigation have acquired a
right to the soil. Ha has every right over that land which is
Ins own other than a right fo impede the navigation. The
duty of the trustees is to keep the towing path in a fit state for
the public use aa a towing path, and in a proper case they may
have an injonetiQa to natiain tha owner of the aoO from so
(/) See sects. 64, 66 Highway
Act, 1838 ; Turntr y. JiingiiDod
llujhwaji Board, 9 Bq. 418; 21
h. T. 745; £/)Min» v.iraMaii.(1891)
2 a B. lis; aO L. J.aB.«81;
%noW« T. Prmkii» f^rkm Cvuneil,
(1896) 1 a & «0(: 6A L. J.
B. 400; Arifaa v. FaMb, 77
I- T. 689.
{'«) Arnold y. ffolbrook, L. B. 8
<i 11. p. 100; 42 L. J. Q. B. 80;
t:yrt V. AW Fore$tB^kmm BomnL
4'i J. P. p. fil8.
70
to
(») CAofilm T. WtHmimlir Cor-
/•orrtiw, (1801) a Oh. 329;
L. /. Ck 879. Aa to access
Midways over footways, see Tat-
Um^am Vrhtm Council v. ttowleu
(1912) 2 Ch. p. 644; 82 L. J.'
Ch. p. 84. PubKo Health Acts
I— idwH Aat. I9B7. sscU. % (>),
18. * *
(o) ^yinchs.ThmmOmmmaan,
L.K.7C.P.p.471:41L.J.C
ao-3
.P.
I
806
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
Chap. VI.
Sect. 7.
Nuisance to
highw«7.
Right to abat«
nuiaance.
using it as to interfere with its use by the public for the pur-
poses of the navigation (p).
The withdrawal of a part of a highway from its ordmary use
HO as to render the way substantially less commodious to the
public is a nuisance to a highway (q). It is no answer that the
highway authority has consented to the nuisance, or that the
public will be benefited thereby (r). A county council casnot
legally sanction the erection of a permanent structure not
authorised by the aacessities of the public service upon a
coimty road (<). The owner of the land has no rif^t to create
an obstruction so as to prevent the public from passing along
the side of the highway (t). If a part of the highway be in-
closed by a private individual, the highway authority may
remove the obstruction (u). Any member of the public may
abate an obstruction to the highway from which he suffers
special damage (x). But it seems that such right of abate-
ment does not exist where the nuisance is one arising from
mere non-feasance; e.g. where a bridge has been allowed to
fall out of repair (y).
(p) Lm Contertmnof Board v.
Button, IS C. D. 383 ; 6 A. 0. QU;
81 L. J. Ch. 17.
((/) He(/. V. l't>iM KitKjdom
Electric Teleijrai'h Co., 31 L. J.
M. C. 166 ; 6 I.. T. N. S. 378 ; Rtx ■
V. BaHlwloiruw, (1908) 1 K. B.
p. 661 ; 77 L. J. K. B. p. 280 ; and
tee CampbeU v. I'addingttm Corpora-
titm, (1911) 1 K. B. 868 ; SOL. J.
K. B. 739. Asto tonncrf older Me
AU.-Oen, \. Orayt Chalk Quarries
Co., (1910) 74 J. P. (Jo.) 147, where
the defendants had excavated and
erected fence across the highway.
(r) Heg. v. Train, 2 B. & 8. 640;
31 L. J. M. C. 161) ; Hey. v. Longton
Ocu Co., '2 El. & El. 851 ; 29 L. J.
M. C. 118; Pretton Corpvratimi v.
FuUwood Local Board, (1886) W. N.
313 : 34 W. B. 196 ; An.-Gtn.
Barhar, (1900) 83 L. T. 246 ; Harvty
V. Truro Rural Council, (1903) 2
Ch. p. 645 ; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 708 ;
tt'edneaiury t'or{HjrattoH v. Lodge
Hotrn OoWwy Co., (1907) 1 E. &
p. 91 ; 76 L. J. E. B. p. 72 ; ra-
vened on other grounds, (1908)
A. 0.328; 77 L. J. K. B. 847.
(») Att.-Oen. V. Mayo County
Council, (1902) 1 Ir. E. 13 ; see
Campbell v. I'addingtun Cur/ioration,
(1911)1 K.B. 869; SOL. J.K.B. 739.
[t) Nicoll V. Beaumont, S3 L. J.
Ch. 854 ; and see Barber v. I'enley,
(!S93) 2 Ch. 44'. ; 62 L. T. Ch. 623 ;
Att.-Ot». V. Brighton Sufptg A*$o-
eiation. (1900) 1 Ch. 276 ; 69 L. J.
Ch. 204.
(u) Bagthaw v. Buxton Local
Board, 1 C. D. 220 ; 45 L. J. Ch.
200 ; Reynolds v. I'retteign I'rban
Council, (1896) 1 Q. B. 604 ; 65 L.
J. Q. B. 400; Murray v. Eptom
Local Board, (1897) 1 Ch.p. 39; 66
L. J. Ch. p. 109.
(x) Campbell Davyt v. IJof/d,
(1901) 2 Ch. p. 623 ; 70 L. J. Oh.
714.
(y) lb.
NUISANCES TO mOHWAYS.
809
ca^p. XL
SMt. 7.
An Urban District (Council baa power to renunre an en-
cifmchmcnt upon any highway vested in it by sect. 149 of
the Public Htulth Act, 1875, without first taking proceedings
summarily or by indictment against the person alleged to
have encroached (2).
The Attorney-General can maintain an action to restrain a Action to
nuisance to a highway without adducing evidence of actual ^^^^
injury to the public (a). But a iM-irate person cannot sue to
restrain interference with a highway without joining the
Attorney-General as a party, except where the interference
with the public right is such that some private right of the
plaintiff is at the same time infringed, such as his right of
access from and to his premises, or where he suffers some
special damftge beyond the injury to the public (6).
It is the duty of a highway authority to keep its roods in a Duty of highway
proper condition to bear the traffic which may reasonably be ma?n°t^nk^
expected to come upon thorn (c). The obligation to repair
1 Ch. p. 114;
(z) lleyiKihh V. I'resteiyn Vrlian
I'oHucil. (IS96) 1 Q. 13. 804; 66
L. J. Q. B. 400 ; Murray v. Eptom
Local Buard, (1897) 1 Ch. p. M.-
ee L. J. Ck. 107. Aatothepower
of Coonty C!ounoila to remove
obstructions, »ee Local Govern -
mout Act, 1888, s. 11 (1); as to
I'-strii t Councils, Local Oovem-
mont, 18!)4, s. 26 ; as to the rights
of a Tarish Council to sue for
trespass to the grass on roadside,
Att.-Gen. v. Oamer, (1907) 2 K. B.
480 ; 76 L J. K B. 966.
(fi) Att. - Gen. v. ShrtwAury
lirithie r.i., 21 C. D. 732; 61 L. J.
t'h. TKi; f.omltin Attociuiinn of
y/iiiinidiitrs V. London and India
l',Hi-H Committte, (1892) 3 CL
p. •->;().
(/') iVinterkittiim v. Lord Derby,
L. B. 2 Ex. 316; Cook v. Bath
Corporation, 6 Eq. 177; BwjomM
v. autrr, L. E. 9 C. P. 400 ; 43 L.
J. C. P. 162; AU.-Oen. v. Barker,
(l!»0«)8? L. T. p. 248; Boyrr v.
I'addiiiyton Uvrouyh Vouncii, (1903)
72 L. J. Ch. p. 32 ;
SmUh V. Wiliott, (1903) 2 Ir. B.
605; Sheringham Urban CoHneil
r. Uoltey, (1904 ) 91 L. T. 226;
Wednetbury Corporation v. Lodge
Holet Colliery Co., (1907) 1 K. B.
p. 90; 76 L. J. K. B. p. 72;
reversed on other grounds, (1908)
A. C. 326; 77 L. J. K. B. 847;
Cavan County Council v. Kane,
(1910) 2 Ir. R p. 666 ; CampbiU r.
Paddingtm GerponOiom, (1911) I
K. B. 869. 874 ; 80 L. J. K B. 739,
742 ; Lyoni A Co. v. Capital Syndi-
cate, (1913) 29 T. L. R. 428
(theatre crowd). So also as t ■ local
authorities, Waltatey Loral Board v.
Oracty, 36 C. D. 593 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
p. 741 ; Tottenham Urban Council r.
WUlianuon, (1896)2 Q. B. 363 ; 66
L. J. a B. «S1; Sheringham
Urban OomneU v. Holtey, Cavan
County Council v. Kane, mpra;
Att.-aen. V. Oarntr, {1907) 2 K.B.
p. 487 ; 76 L. J. K. B. p. 968.
(c) Att.-Oen. V. Scott, (1906) 2 K,
B. p. 166; 74 L. J. K. B. pp. 807,
810
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
CIm*. vl and keep in repair will not however be enforced by injonc-
- tion (rf).
TnwtiiHi anginrs A local authority will be restrained by injunction from
wetgST*'" asing steam rollers for the repair of their roads in sach a way
as to injure the mains and pipes of a gas company properly
laid 'n the highway (e).
The use of a traction engine of excessive weight, which
causes damage to the highway, is a public nuisance (/) which
will bo restrained by injunction (r;).
0ier of highway Tho right of a landowner to use a public higliway for the
m JjJlnMUoi purpose of bringing materials for building or repairing a
with his house on the land must be exercised reasonably. The public
property. ^^^^^ submit to the inconveniences cecasioned necessarily in
repairing a house. The question in all cases is whether or
not the obstructitHi of tiie street is greater than is reason-
able in point of time and manner, taking into consideration
the interests of all parties, and without unnecessary incon-
vmience. If there are several ways of access to land, there
is no absolute right to use the land in the most convenient
way exclusively without regard to the convenience of neigh-
bouring land owners (h). In a case of doubt or difficulty the
right of the occupier of premises abutting on a highway to
make a reasonable use of it for the purpose of loading or un-
loading goods at his premises, must yield to the public right
of unobstructed passage along the highway. It is in each ease
808; Chkhmler CorponObm t. p. 167; 70L. J. E. B. 33; ^«.-0m.
F«««er, (1906) 1 K. B. p. 173; 7» Sharpnm New Dock* Co.,»»pni
L. J. K. B. p. 36; AH^-Om. r. Sharp- (injury to bridges).
vess Xew Dockt Co., (1913) 1 K. B. (/) Chichuter Corftrotiim y.
lip. 440, 441 ; 82 L. J. K. B. p. 198. FoOtr, (1906) 1 K. B. 167 ; 73 L.
(«/) Att.-Gen. v. Stuffurdshire J. K. B. 33; Cavan Vuunty Council
CmnUi roinicil, (1905) 1 Ch. :«6 ; v. Anne, (1910) 2 Ir. R. 644, 656 ;
74 h. J. Ch. 153 ; and 8eo Reyiioldt ih., (1913) 2 Ir. E. 250.
V. JJariiea, (1909) 2 Ch. p. 372 ; '8 {g) Att. Oen. v. Scott, (1904) 1 K.
L. J. Ch. p. 64" ; Iter v. Wiltt and B. 404 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 196 ; where
Berki Canal Cu.,{U)Vl)SK.'B. 623; an interlocutory injunction waa
82 L. J. K B. 6 (mandamus). granted, but was dissolved at the
(e) aa$LigMond(!okeCo.r.KM- heating on the facts, see (1905) 2
tingUm Vettry, 15 a B. D. 1 ; M K. B. p. 167 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 807.
L. J. Q, B, 4 14 ; nfo Chirhfttr Car- (A) Friia r. ffobtm, 14 O. D. M ;
poratiun v. Fvtter, (19U6) 1 K. B. 49 L. J. Ch. 321.
NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS.
811
a question of degree whether the exercise of thiH private right ^i"*?- vi.
of access to premises, which must of necessity involve some — ^'
olMtruction of the highway, is or is not reasonable, and in
determining this question regard must be had to all the facts
of the case (t). In a case in which traders carrying on a large
business in Brighton, at premises situate in a street the road-
way of which was less than 20 feet wide, kept as many as six
vans at once during every alternate hour In the daytime load-
ing and unloading goods at their premises, it was held that
this was an unreasonable use of the highway, amounting to
a public nuisance, the continuance of which must be re-
strained by injunction (k).
The driving of cattle along a highway is an ordinary use Csttu on
of the highway, and is not aeti<mable. Per8<ms living in
houses looking upon a highway, must accept the advantage
of having the highway there in return for the inconvenience
which may attend upon its existence (Q.
No Imgth of time can legalise 8 public naisBQce (m). Noieagtiiaf
SBCnOK 8. — NUISANOBS TO FBBRtBS.
Anotbbb class of cases in which the interference of the
Court by injunction is sought are nuisances to a ferry. A
ferry is a highway for all the King's subjects paying the
toll (n). It is a franchise which none can set up without a
(«) Att.-Oen. V. Brighton, etc.,
Supply Auociation, (1900) 1 Ch.
276; 69 L. J. Ck. 204 ; AtL-Om.
V. IT. H. BmUk a»d Som, (1910)
103L. T. 89; 2« T. L. R. 482.
(t) AH.-CftH. Y. Brighton, etc.,
Supply Attociation, tupra ; cf. Att.-
Oeii. V. W. If. Smith and Sont,
tupra.
(/) Truman v. London, Brighton,
dr.. Railway Co., 25 C. D. p. 428 ; S3
Ti. J. Ch., p. 211, revened on other
points, 11 A. C. 45; 35L.J.Ch3M.
As to whetJim an ownariK ooeopitr
oi premiwi it bound to prev«&t hit
animals straying on the highway,
see Hadwell v. Righton, {1901)2K. B.
34S: ?e L. J. K B. 891; Higgnu
V. Searte, (1909) 100 L. T. 280 ; 25
T. L. B. 301 ; EUi$ T. Stmgard,
(1912) 28 T. L. B. 122 ; Jona y.
Lee, (1912) 28 T. L. E. 92.
(m) MoH V. Shnolbred, 20 Eq.
p. 24; 'latterworth v. Yorhahire
(W. R.) Hii'ere Board, (1909) A. C.
p. 37; 78 L. J. K. B. p. 208.
(») North and South ShiM$
Firry Co. r. Barktr, 2 Ex. p. 149 ;
76 B. B. 531 : AiL-Otn. London-
dtrry Dritlgt Committiontr$, (1903)
pp
312
NUISANCES TO FERRIES.
Clwp. VI.
.8wt. 8.
tmy nneoB-
aeetodwith
owMnbipof
lawL
Natore of the
fnuiohiM.
licence from the Crown, and in the case of a ferry by pre-
scription, a Royal grant or licence is presumed (o). There
may be a franchise of ferry from rill to vill, as well as frtMB
highway to highway (p). A ferry is wholly unconnected with
the ownership or occupation of land (q). It is not necessary
that the owner of the ferry should have a proi)orty in the soil
on either si ' He must have n right to land upon both sides,
but he need imt have the proiRnty of the soil on either side.
It is sufficient if the landing-place be a public highway (r).
A ferry exists only in respect of persons using the right of
way. The right of the prantoe of a ferry is the exclusive right
of carrying across water from one point to the other all who
are fning to use the highway to the nearest town or vill to
whicn the highway leads on the other side (s). The owner of
a ferry has not however an exclusive right of carrying passen-
gers and goods by any means whatever, but has only a grant
of the exclusive right to carry them by means of a ferry (t).
Accordingly, where a bridge for vehicular and passenger
1 affic was constructed across a river, sixty yards below the
plaintiff's ferry, connecting the same highways as the ferry,
1 Ir. E. p. 402 ; see this case as to
right of the officials of the Post
Office to 1)6 carried free. As to
right of owner of a ferry to demand
a toll for both entry on and exit
from the ferry, see Sobiruon t.
Balmain New Ferry Co., (1910)
A. C. 296 ; 79 L. J. P. C. 84.
(o) Iliaieg T. Field. 2 Or. M. ft
E. p. 440 ; 4 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 239 ;
41 B. B. '. j ; SetUm v. Gooilden,
L. R. 2 Eq. 123 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 427 ;
Simpxm v. Att.-Oen., (1904) A. C.
p. 490 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 9 ; DlhiHn
" Skirrow, (1907) 1 Ch. p. 441 ;
(1908) 1 Ch. p. 48 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
p. 110.
(p) Tripp V. Frank, 4 T. B. 666 ;
2 B. B. 495 ; Pim v. Curell, 6 M. &
W. 234 ; 65 B. E. 600 ; Huzzey v.
I'ielil, supra ; Xrirton v. Viihiit, 12
C. B. N. 8. p. 58 ; 13 C. B. N. 8.
804 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 246; C\,mi
I'rlian Connril v. Sdiitlaimiiton, etc..
Steam Packet (',.., (19(),-)) 2 K. B.
p. 295 ; 74 L. J. K. B. p. «68 ; see
(leneral Estatet (\>. v. Beni er, (1913)
2 K. B. p. 433 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 585.
(}) Peter y. Kendal, 6 B. & C.
703, 710 ; 6 L. J. (O. 8.) K. B.
282 ; 30 B. B. 604; see Earl of
Dy»art v. Hammerton <t Co., (1913)
W.N. 126; 29T. L. R. 464.
(r) Peter V. Kendal, tui>ra; Aft.-
Gtn. V. Simpioii, (1901) 2 Ch.
p. 718 ; 70 L. J. Ch. p. 842 ; (1904)
A. C. p. 490 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 9.
(») Iluizey V. Field; SimpuM T.
AU.-Oen., tupra; Cowt» Vrbam
Council T. Sovlhampttm, etc., Sttem
Packet Co., (1908) 2 K. B. p. 296 ;
74 li. J. K. B. p. 669.
(f) nihdin v. Skirroir, (1<K)7) 1
Ch. 437; 76 L. J. Ch. 268 ; (1308)
1 Oh. 41 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 107.
Chap. VI.
Sect. 8.
NUISANCES TO FERBIES.
nnd the public thereupon ceased to use the ferry, it was held
that the bridge was not a disturbance of the ferry, and that
the ferry owner had no remedy (jt). The owner of a ferry is Obligation to
under the obligation of always proTiding proper boats with JSj?^"
compotont boatmen and all other things necessary for the •<>»««lti«ii.
maintenance of the ferry in an efficient condition for the use
of the public, and this obligation is enforceable by indictment
and fine (x). The neglect to maintain a ferry in proper con-
dition does not ipso facto destroy the franchise but renders the
grant liable to be annulled by the Crown (y).
If a new ferry is erected on a river, without the King's inte.fercnce
licence, so near nn ancient ferry as to draw away its custom, n^J^^
it is a nuisance to the owner of the ancient ferry (z) which
will be restrained by injunction (a). The owner of the ferry
has a cause of action for carrying in the line of the ferry,
whether it be done directly or indirectly. He has a right to
the transport of passengers using the way, and if the alleged
wrongdoer inukes a landing-place wear to the ferry landing-
place, so as to be in substance the same, making no difference
to travellers, he would indirectly carry in the line of the owner
of the ferry (6).
81S
(«) DiMin v. Skirrow, (1907) 1
Ch. p. 437 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 268 ; (1908)
1 Ch. 41; 77L.jr. Ch. 107.
[x) SttUm T. (Toodiim, L.B. 2Eq.
p. 131 ; 3a L. J. Ch. «7; Atl.-
<lfH. V. Simptm, (1901) 2 Ch.
p. :iS ; 70 Ti. J. Ch. p. 842 ; (1904)
A. V. p. 4!»0; 74 L. J. Vh. p. 9 ;
W'alfrfirr'l Ilriilye Co. v. Ifnter/ortl
' oTi«iration, (1905) 1 Ir. E. p. 328 ;
HV lin V. Skirrow, (1907) 1 Ch.
II. H4 ; 76 L. J. Ch. p. 271.
(//) I'ettr V. Kendal, 6 fi. & C.
p. 710; « L. J.(0. 8.) K B. 282;
30 B. E. 604 ; atneral Estate) Co. v.
liwver, (1913) 2 K. B. p. 453; 82
r-. J. K. U. p. 592.
{-.) Srtton V. QtiCiliUn, supra ;
/.tamy v. Waterfonl and Limerick
Itaihi-ay Co., 7 Ir. C. L. 27 ; and
9oe Cutvt* Urban OvtmcU v.
SoiUhampton, etc.. Steam Packet Co.,
(190fl) 2 K. B. pp. 297-299 ; 74
L. J. K. B. pp. 665, o ■ ; Water/ord
Bridge Co. v. Water/ord Corpora-
tion, (1905) 1 Ir. E. pp. 319, 320.
(a) See Cory v. Yarmouth and
Norwich Railway Co., 3 Ha. 593;
64 E. R. 435; Setton v. Goiddeh;
Cou>es Urban Council v. Southamp-
ton, etc.. Steam Piacket Cb., eupru;
Oenerat Eetulet C4>. Btaver, (1013)
2 K B. 438; :2 L. J. K. B. flSfi.
A« to jnriadiction of County Court,
»ee OenercU Eitatet Co. v. Beaver,
(1912) 2 K. B. 308 ; 81 L. J. K. B.'
761.
(/') Xeiitim V. Cnhitt, 12 C. B.
N. S. p. 58; 31 L. J. C. P. 246;
see Earl of Uyaart v. ffammerkm 4
Co., (1913) W. N. 125 ; 29 T. K R.
4«4.
814
NUISANCES TO FERBIES.
GlMp. VI.
Beet. 8.
The accommoda-
tiun of a new
and (litferent
traffic from that
nriag oM {erry
■ot Kctiogable.
Neglect 3( ferrj-
owner to main-
tain efficient
ferry.
Action for
diBturbanee o(
ferry.
But in cniisideririR whfther the owner of an ancient ferry
- has a gruuna of action against a person who sets up a new
ferry in the neighbourhood of the anoier t f'^rry, the interests
of tile public will be regarded. T*^e area of the monopoly of
a ferry will depend on the need of the public for passage.
A limit which would be suited to the simple wants of a rude
life, where inhabitants are few, is unfitted for large towns,
where daily wants are greatly multiplied, and where new
conditions are be" ig created by the growing traffic. If the
public convenie -equires a new passage at such a distance
from the old as miikp.< it to be a real convenience to the
public, the p^viximity is not actionable. It is reasonable that
if the franchise of a ferry is established for facility of passage,
and if the monopoly is given to secure convenient ac >mmoda-
lion, a change of circumstances creating new highways on
land, would carry with it a right ' continue the line of thoee
ways across a water highway (e, . ae owner of an old ferry
cannot therefore maintain an action for loss of traffic against
a person setting up a new ferry bond fide for the purpose of
accommodating a new and different traffic from that whidi
was accommodated by the old ferry (d). The neglect of duty
on the part of the owner of a ferry to maintain it in an efficient
condition for the use of the public is no answer to an action foe
disturbance of the ferry though it may render the grant Iiabl«
to be repealed by the Crown (e).
In an action for disturbance of a ferry, it is sufficient for ' '
plaintiff to prove that he was in possession of the ferry at the
(<■) Xen ton V. Ciihitt, 12 C. B.
(N. S.) iip. r.S, Vi V. B. (N. S.)
864 ; m L. J. V. V. 2i(> ; Hopkins
V. (inat Kcrlhern liailiray Co., 2
a B. D. pp. 231, 232 ; 46 L. J.
Q. B. p. 269 ; Coirei Urban Council
V. Sf'iithamjiton, etr., Sleam Padeet
Co., (190.-)) •> K. 15. i>. 297 ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 070; Ihhilen v. Skirrw,
(1907) 1 Ch. J). 444 ; 7t> L. J. I'h.
p. 271 ; (190H) 1 Ch. ]). 44 ; 77
J. C:h. p. 109 ; Karl of [hjnaH y.
Hammerton <t Co., (1913} W. N.
125; 29 T. L. R. 464.
(d) Iliijikini V. Great Northern
Rail/ray Co. ; Cou rt Vrhan Council
V. Soiithamjiton, etc., Steam Packet
Co. ; Earl of Dytart v. Hammerton
4t Co., tttpra; Oeneral EtMm Co.
T. Beover, (1913) 2 K. B. p. 403 ;
82 L. J. K. B. p. 892.
(f) Vftrr V. AVn</<i/, 6 B. & C.
7().J ; 5 li. J. (O. S.) K. B. 282 ; 30
R. K. 504 ; UenenU Kttatet Co. v.
fleaver, au^ra.
NUI8ANCEB TO ICABKET. 815
time whon the cmso of action arose. It is not neeessanr to ^'^p-
prove its legal origin by grant or {nreseription (/).
SECTION 9.— NUIBAN0B8 TO UAKOIt.
ANi'TiiKn class of cases in which the interference of the
Court by injunction has been sought are nuisances to rights
of market.
The right to a market is a franchise and may exist by
charter, by prescription, or by Act of Parliament (fli).
Where, after the grant by the Crown of the rights to a
market franchise, the same rights, or larger or different rights
of the same nature and character are created in favour of the
grantee by statute, the privileges of the ancient franchise are
superseded by the statutory rights, and the grantee no l<nger
holds the franchise under his originr' title, but by virtoe of
the statute (h).
It is not essoitial to make a right o. market good that it
should be granted to a person who had actually got the free-
hold or ever had an interest in the land. The grant of a right
of market is a franchise which gives to the person to whom it
is ^'ranted the right to exercise it if he can. The grant does
not confer the right to hold a market on another person's land
without his consent. If the owner of the land over which
the right of market is exercisable ahoold refuse to conrey his
land to the grantee of the ri^t of market and should merely
(/) Ptier v. Kendal, note (e),
siijira.
(;/) See De Rutzen v. Lloyd, 5 A.
&E. 456:SL. J. (N.S.)K.B.202;
44 B. B. 468 : Penfyit Corforation
V. 0r<(, 3 Ex. D. 293 ;48 L. J. Ex.
1!>3 ; AH.-Om. r. Homer, 11 A. 0.
6(i; 55 L. J. Q. B. 19;!; Man-
ihester Curjioration v. Lyons, 22
C. D. 2H- ; 47 L. T. *i-7 ; Aber-
(javmny Imprirvement VommUtinnert
V. WroAier, 42 C. D. 83 ; 58 L. J.
< 'h. 717 ; Haynti v. Ford, (1911)
2 Ch. 237 ; 80 L. J. Ck. 490 ; Att.-
Gen. V. Homer, (1913) 2 Ch. 140;
82 L. J. Ch. S39. As to fiun. im
Newcattle (Duke of) Worktop
Urban OomeU, (1903) 3 Ck 145 ;
71 L. J. Oh. 487.
(4) Mancheiter Corporation v.
Peverley, 22 C. D. 294 (n.) ;
Manchester Corimration v. Lyont ;
Ahrryanenny Improvement Com-
miisioneri, tupra ; Birminyham
Corporation v. Folter, (1894) 70
L. T. 371 ; (1894) W. N. 43 ; A' •
Windiar Corporatiom v. Tuyivr,
(1889) A. C. pp. 4ft, 49.
81tt
NUISANCES TO MABKET.
Saet. ».
KxttniioD ot
mwrlMt,
Right of
gnntM
to reitntin
interference
with market.
lease i*, for the purpose of holding the market, the fimndliM
may be exercised bo long as the term continueH (>).
If the Lord of a Manor provos a market immemoriiiUy held
in certiiin piacoH within the manor, it is not a necessary
inferencL that the market was granted (" be hoiden in thone
places only, but a jury may presume that the market wa»
granted to be hoiden in any oonrenient place within the
manor (A-).
A market granted without metea and bounds may extend
from time to time as the exigencies of the market may re-
quire (Z). Thus where a manorial market without metes
and bounds had been held from time immemorial in the main
street of a borough, and owing to the increase in size of the
market it had been for over forty years held without inter-
ruption by the highway authority, in certain adjoining streets
constructed under Improvement Acts, the Court held that the
right to hold the market extended over the new streets when
the main street was overcrowded, and that the new streets
must be presumed to have been dedicated subject to the exer-
cise of the market franchise (m).
Where a charter conferred the right to hold a market on two
specified days in the week, and the market had been held on
the remaining days of the week as well, the Court refused to
presume a lost grant of the market for the other days (n).
The grant of a right of market gires the grantee the right,
L. J. K. D. 777; (1908) 1 K. B.
116; 77 L. J. K. U. 347.
(/) Att.-Oen. V. Horner, 11 A. C.
«6 : r,:, L: J. Q. B. 193 ; Gingtll
<fc Co. V. Stejinty Bunmgh Comteil,
(1906) 2 K B. p. 481 : 7« L. J.
K. B. 777; (1908) 1 K. B. p. 128 ;
77 L. J. K. B. p. 3A1.
(m) OingtU «t Co. t. SUpney
Uoroiigh Council, (1908) 1 K B. 116 ;
77 L. J. K. li. 317.
(n) Att..(lcn. V. Ilorwr, U Q.
I!, i). 245; 54 L. J. il B. 227 ; 11
A. C. (i6; 65 L. J. Q. B. 193 ; seo
Att.-Om. V. Horner, (1913) 2 Ch.
140; 82 L. J. Ch. 339.
(i) Att.-Oe:). V. Horner, 11 A. P.
p. 80; o.-) L. J. H. B. p. 200;
(Hnyell d- Co. v. Ste/mri/ Uoroufih
Council, (1908) 1 K. B. p. 129; 77
L. J. K. B. p. 351 ; (1909) A. C.
248 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 673 (as to eSeot
of oidw of C. A.).
(A) Dt Ruizen v. Lloyd, 4 A. 4
B. 456 ; 5 L. J. (N. S.) K. B. 202 ;
44 R. R. 468 ; Ciiriiw v. fktlkeM. 3
East, 538; 7 R. R. 610; He fsliny-
tim Market Hill, 3 ('I. & K. 613,
518; 39 K. R. 32; Ma;/i,trates of
Eiiinburyh v. Biackit, 11 A. C. 665 ;
GitujtU (f Cn. y. fitepnti/ Boremgh
CouneU, (1906) 2 K. B. p. 477 ; 76
NUISANCES TO MARKBT.
817
if he has ilonc nothing to forfeit or waive the grant (o), to ch«p. vi.
hinder other persons from meddling with the fninchlHe. He
is entitled to hold the marint during market hours, und, it
would scorn, cannot be interfered with erwi thou^ ..r
obstruction of the streets which, hut for such grant, woold
iiuiount to a n isance, be thereby caused (/>).
The grant of a market does not of itMlf confer the right to
pifvont persons from soiling on market days in their own
shops, though within the town or miinor whore the market
may be held (q) ; but the right mny l)e acquired by immemorial
onjoyment or prescription (r).
The right to take tolls from buyers is usually but not neces- Tolk
siirily u part of the privilege («) ; and the tolls are due either
1 ros|K>ct of goods bought there or for atallage oe piekage
r tho like in respect of stalls or poles fixed in the soil (t). It
is however essential that the tolls imposed be reasonable in
amount; if the tolls exacted are nnreasmaUe, th« fnochiM
is illegal and void (u).
(«) Ureat h'attern Railway Co. v. Ch. "17.
(/(»W«mW, 25 C. D. p. a,i6; d3L. J. {») Heddy v. Whtdhoum, Oro.
Ch. 371 ; 9 A. C. pp. 936, 937 ; W Elii. SM, a92 ; itet t. Starkty, 7
L. J. Ch. 163 ; but we i%tM* T. A. * R p. 106; eL. J. (N. 8.) K. B.
ford, (1911) 1 Oh. p. 886; ao L. J. 202 ; 48 B. R. 678 ; .nd ieo New-
Ch. p. 284, M to WMVer atatu- taitU [Duke of) v. Worktop Urban
tory body of ri^ TMtad ia it for Council, (1902) 2 Ch. pp. 186, 167 •
the public. 71 L. J. Ch. 487 ; Woolwich Cor'-
(/)) Oolilmid V. (Inat Eattern /loralion v. (libion, (1906) 92 L. T.
flailway Co., 28 C. D. p. 554 ; 53 438 ; 21 T. L. E. 421 ; Att.-Om. r.
L. J. Ch. p. 392; Att.-Oen. v. llor).. , (1913) 2 Ch. 140, 172; 82
H,n-ner, 11 A. C. p. 82 ; 55 L. J, L. J. Ch. 339, 350 (injonotioB
U. B. p. 200. gnmtad rartndning tbe levyiiig of
(<y) liacdafidd Corporaiion r. tdk m " mOm " ol gooda bran^
Chapman, 12 IC. ft W. 18 ; 13 L. J. to ina^).
Ex. 32; 67 E. R. 240; and we (0 2 Inst. 219; see Newcastle
n„ynt$ V. Ford, (1911) 2 Ch. 237 ; {Dukt of) y. Worktop Urban Council,
SO L. J. Ch. 490. (1102) 2 Ch. pp. 145, 160 ; 71 L. J.
(r) Moilty v. Walker, 7 B. & C. Ch. 487 ; Att.-Om. v. Homer
:o ; 5 L. J. (O. S.) K B. 368; 31 (1913) 2 Ch. pp. 172. 173 ; 82 L. j!
E. K. HQ; Uaccletfield Corjtoration Cli. p. 356. Aa to atallage, aa*
V. Chupmar, luina; Penryn Cor- Yarmouth CcrporOlim v. Gnwm
poration r. But, 3 Ex. D. p. 298; 1 H. 40. 102; 82 L. /. Bx. 74 •
48 L. J. Ex. W3, and aee Aim- Att-Om. v. Homtr, mtpra.
?«««ity Tmprovmtia CmmmioMrt («) Hfdd,, v. Whttlhoute, lupra •
V. Siraker, 48 0. D. 88; S8 L. J. Lawrmce v. Hitch, L. E. 3 a B. 62l'.
818
NUISANCES TO MARKET.
CkiV.TI.
PtalWtMMt<<
A man who has the franohise can maintain an action against
any one who s«ta up a rival market lO as to injure hiiD> thoufh
it IB not on the same day, i»OTid«d it it within audi a ditt«iM
as to injure him (x).
It is nut necesHttry to constitute diaturbdnce of market that
the defendant ahouid elaim to have a rival exeliuive rifht of
miirki't. Thoro is a disturluince of miirkut where a mim sets
up a rival place of sale in such a way as to injure and deprive
the plaintiff of the oeneflt of the franchise (y) . The ul* how-
ever by tt man in his own shop in the regular and ordinary
course of business of goods similar in their nature to thoae
sold in the murket is not a disturbance of market (g). But
a man may not under the right to sell marketable articles in
his own shop act in such a way as to set up a niiirket in
rivalry to the legal one. In order to determine this question
all the elements in the ease must be tak«) into oonsidmtioa,
although not one of them might be conclusive upon it (a). A
man for example who erects a pen for cattle where he collects
them and sells them by auction cannot say that he is selling
in his own shop (b). A sale indeed by auction is not what
people generally understand by selling in a shop (c). Whether
a building is or is not a shop, is a question which must depend
upm the oirenmstancea of the case, and also upon tiie lan-
guage of special statutes. A building is none the less a shop
because the trade carried on therein is wholesale, or because
in a sense it is a warehouse by the goods for sale bang stored
there, or because the goods are sold on commission (d).
There is a disturbance of market by intendment of law if a
(x) Jmrd T. Ford, i Sannd. MO ; Oh. 917.
Mo^ey V. Chadwick, 7 B. ft 0. 47, n. ;
Elwes V. Payne, 12 0. D. 468 ; 48
L. J. Ch. 831 ; Cheat Ea»tn-n Sail-
way CiK V. OMtmid, 26 0. D. 611,
648 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 321 ; 9 0.
967 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 162.
(y) Prince v. Lnuii, 5 B. & C.
363 ; 4 L. J. (O. &} E. B. 188 ; 29
B. B. 265; Brteom Oarparatiom v.
Edwardt, 31 L. J. Ex. 368 ; Ortat
Eattem Railieoy Co. t. OMimai, 9
A. C. 927 ; 64 L. J. Oh. 162 ; WUeca
T. au^, (1904) 1 Ch. 212 ; 73 L. J.
(x) Mancheiter Corporatim V.
Lyont, 22 C. D. p. 307 ; 47 L. T. 677.
(n) Pojie V. Whalley, 6 B. & S.
p. 311 ; 34 L. J. li.C. p. 80 ; ifaynM
T, Ford, (1911) a Oil. p. SM; W
L. J. Ch. p. 498.
(h) Fearon v. Mitchell, L. E. 7
Q. B. 690 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 341.
(e) Feanm v. Mitckttt, tupra.
(d) Haynm v. Fmrd, (1911J 2 Ch.
p. 249 ; 80 L. 3, Oh. p. 4W.
As to what 18 a " shop," bm alw
Clayim t. L» Boy, (1911) 2 K. B.
Ch«p. VI.
NtHH.VNCES TO MARKET.
rivul market is held on thfi ^ame day; if the rival mm' tt is
held on a different day, it i, only evidence of disturbttULt; for-
a jury (e).
To mipiKirt an action for (listurlwnce of market, it iH not
nccosBury that the defendant should have actually sold: any
active intorferaiee by him In the conduct of the new market
or participation in its |Mruflt8 or risk in Huffiticnt (/).
In the case of a mere sale outside a market the question
whether tlie seller intended to evade the market tollM ia of
i>"portance in deciding whether there has been a diaturbuiM
oi ihe market or not, but where the sale amounts to sottii.t
up a rival market, the question of the defendant's intention is
no longer relevant or important (gi). Where a defendant held
an anct on sale of ponies in a field near a horse and cattl»
market, partly owing to the accommodation at the ratukel
being unsuitable for his ponies, but disclaimed any intention
of setting up a rival market, and at the trial of the actSon
offered an undertaking not to again infringe the plaintiff's
rights, the Coort being satisfied that the defendant would not
repeat his wrongful act made a declarati<m that the defen-
dant's act constituted a disturbance of the plaintiff's market
and gave the plaintiff liberty to apnly for an injunction if
necessary (h).
Failure on the part of the lord of th narket to afford lni«fW«»
sullicient accommodation for the public is a defence to an kTJriSj^IlI
action for disturbance by ihe settin-^ up of t, nval place of sale. Je/iM
Nnr is the fact that the market la iy be so occupied and so
used that if more paopi'i than act- came to it wished to do
80, they would find I ;nlty in ijr^ing in, an excuse for
setting up a rival market (i). Nor is the fact that the Iwd of
the market did not maintain the market in good and sufficient
I' 1043 ; (1912) 81 L. J. K. B. p. fiC, ( /) Dorchuter Corinrnxtion v.
and a.i to sale by an agent contrary Ensor, tuyra.
(y) Wilcox T. sua, (1904) 1 Ch.
p. 221 ; 73 L. /. Oh. p. 2ai.
(A) lb.
(0 Ortci EtttUm Aitfioay Co. r.
CMitmid, 26 0. D. 611 ; 83 L. J.
Gh. 371 ; 9 A. 0. 927 ; 54 L. J. Ch.
162; Wilcox v. f^trtl, {19(H) 1 Ch.
pp 224, 226; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 221.
818
tu his principal's directions, Wak*
V. Dyer, (1911) 104 L. T. 448.
(f) Dorcheettr Curporationy, Eiuor,
L li. 4 Ex. 336 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 11 ;
OouiHihire (JfarjiiM) (TBnmt, 19
L. B. b. 380. Sm Wikom t. 8M,
(19W) 1 Ch. 212, 218 ; 73 L. J. Cb.
217.
320
NUISANCES TO MARKET.
t hap. VI.
Sfcitntory
remedy doea
not exclmle an
iiy unction.
Power tl Iceal
antbodt;
to prOTid*
Bwkot
Combination* o(
woritmen at
I law.
order a bar to an action for disturbance of market ; but if it
be the fact that it did prevent the defendant from using the
market, that m&y disprove the allegation that he had disturbed
the market by selling outside, inasmuch as he could not hare
sold in the market and was prerented from doing so (A;).
The fact that there may be a statutory remedy does not
exclude the remedy by injunction unless the statute expressly
or by necessary implication excludes that remedy, and the
Court will not infer this intention from a prorisitm for the
purpose of protecting the right (/).
Persons alleging statutory rights in u market, and claiming
an injunction and account, may bring u representative action
if the relief sought is beneficial to all whom the plaintiffs
represent. The rule is not limited to persons having a bene-
ficial proprietary interest, nor need the nominal plaintiffs
have been wronged in their individual capacity. The
Attomey-Ooieral is not a necessary party to such an
action (m).
An urban authority has statutory power, under certain con-
ditions, to provide a market within its district, and to take
stallages, rents, and tolls, in respect of the use by any person
of sudi market, but no market can be established under the
statute, so as to interfere with any rights, powers, or privi-
leges enjoyed within the district by any person adversely to
the rest of the world and peculiar to himself, without his
consent (n).
BBCTIOH 10.— NUIBANCBS CONNBCTBD WITH TB&OB UTBPUTBB.
At common law a conspiracy or combination of workmen
to raise wages was legal (o) ; although there are dicta to the
[k) lb.
(/) ,S7et;«n»v. ('/io)f7i,(1901) 1 Ch.
894 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 571 ; and see
Birmingham Corporation, (1894) 70
L. T. p. 371, and ante, p. 9.
(m) Bedford {Duke of) v. BtUe,
(1901) A. C. p. 12; 70 L. J Ch.
p. 107.
(n] Public Health Act, 187S,8. 160.
See B. 167, which incorporates the
provisions of the Markets and Fairs
Olaiueij Act, 1847, aa to marketa ;
Wotilivich Corporaiiiin v. Gibum,
(1905) 92 L. T. 538 ; 21 T. L. E. 421.
See also 8 Edw. 7, c. 6, as to the
powers of a rural district council to
create a market with the consent of
the Ixjoal Oovemment Board.
(o) Moyul Steamihip Co. v.
MtOrtaor, Oow A Co., (1893) A. 0.
p. 47; 61 L. J. Q. B. p. 304 ;
Gomey v. BriHol Trade and Provi-
dent Society, (1909) 1 K. B. MS;
78 L. J. if. B p. (i'A.
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE DISPUTES. 821
confniry (p) .- various statutes, however, were passed prior to ch.p. vi.
1H^4 expressly prohibiting combinations or conspiracies on
the part of workmen to raise their wages or shorten their
hours of labour {q).
By an Act passed in the year 1824 (r) the laws relating to
the combination of workmen were repealed. In the following
year this Act Was itself repealed and the common law of con-
spiracy was restored (with certain exceptions in farour of
meetings to discuss the rate of wages or hours of work)
and penalties were imposed for intimidation, molestation and
obstruction («).
Doubts having arisen as to the moaning of the words
"molestation" or "obstruction." in the latter Act. it waa
declared by an Act of the year 1859 that workmen who merely
endeavoured peaceably and without threats or intimidation to
persuade others to abstain from work in order to obtain a
certain rate of wages or altered hours of work should not be
deemed guilty of molestation within the meaning of the
Act (<). And by a later Act (it) it was piovided that a person Criminal Uw
should be deemed to molest or obstruct another person if fv" ulT"'
he should persisteotly follow about such person, or if he i^^^vm.
should hide such person's tools or other property, or if he
should deprive him of or hinder him in the use thereof, or
if he should watch or beset the house or other place where
such person should reside or work, or carry on business, or
the approach to such house or place, or if he should with
two or more persons follow such person in a disorderly manner
in any street or road.
The Trada Union Act, 1871 (x), provides that the purposes T.a.ie Union
of any trade union shall not, by reason, merely that they are.
in reatraivi of trade, be deemed unlawful so as to render any
member liable to prosecutiim for conspiracy, or so as to render
void or voidable any agreement or trust,
(p) See mtm v. Eckeriley, 8 129, where the old Acts are set out
K & B. 47 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 199 ; {,-, 5 (leo. 4, c. 95.
iVahh, V. Aniey, 30 L. J. M. C. (.) (i Geo. 4, o. 129, repealed by
121 ; r.i/'ma v. Wilk-int. (1896) 1 Ok 34 & 35 Vir>t, c. 32.
p. H2S ; 65 L. J. Ch. p. 601. («) 22 Vict. c. 34 (repealed by 34
(v) Ur/cin V. Iltlfmt Hnrhour Com- & 35 Vict. c. 32).
mimmen, (1908) 2 Ir. pp. 221, 223. («) 84 4 3a Vict. e. 3S, •. 1.
See i a«o. 4, o. 00, ud « G«o. 4. 0. (z) 34 * 3A Vkt o. 31, m. 2, 3.
Nl ISANCES CONNECTED WITH THADE DISPUTES.
01i»p. VI.
Sect. 10.
Statutory defini-
tions of Trades
Union.
Conspiracy ind
I'rotsctioii of
I'r"iicrty Ai't,
l-i;."-. anil Trade
Dl.spiitea Aot,
1806.
Tho Act provides for the registration of trade unions (y),
and enables such registered trade union to hold a limited
amount of land and to deal with the eame («), and vests all the
real and \h rsonal ostatc of such a trade union in its trus-
tees {a). The Act enables the trustees of such a trade union,
if authorised by its rules, to bring or defend proceedings con-
cerning the property of the trade union (6).
By the Trade Uninn Amondmont Act, 1876, a trade union
is defined as any combination, whether temporary or perma-
nent, for regulating the relations between workmen and
masters, or between workmen and worl;men, or between
masteis and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions
on the conduct of any trade or business, whethw such com-
bination would or would not, if the Trade Union Act of 1871
had not been passed, have be^n deemed to have been an unlaw-
ful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes
being in restraint of trade (c). By the Trade Uni(m Act,
1918, sect. 2, sub-sect. 1, a trade union is defined for the pur-
poses of the Acts, 1871 to 1913, as any combination, whether
temporary or permanent, the principal objects of whi^ are
under its constitution statutory objects, and the section pro-
vides that any combination which is for the time being regis-
tered as a trade union is to be deemed to be a trade union so
long as it is so registered.
The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (d),
as amended by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (e), provides that
an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do, <x
procure to be done, any act " in contemplation or furtherance
of a trade dispute," shall not bo indictable as a conspiracy, if
such act, if committed by one person, would not be punishable
as a crime, and an act done in pursuance of an agree-
ment or combination by two or more persons shall, if done
((/) 34 & 36 Vict. c. 31, secU. 0, amendiug sect. 23 of 34 & 35 Vict.
c. 31 ; and see the jiroviso to the
last mt*ntioned Act, and sect.
>tub-8. 2, of the Act of 1006 M to a
branch of a trad* union.
{d) 38 * 59 Viot. c. 86. ». 3
Tt U Aot d<«B not apply tnrecmen ;
•M MCt. 16.
(0 6 Edw. 7, c. 47, a. A, Nb-i. 3.
13.
(j) lb., seel. 7.
(u) lb.,sei t. S, mid Bee the Trade
Uiiiou Act Ameudiuent Act, 1876
39 4 40 Viet. e. 22, sa. 3, 4.
(i) Section 9; gee the Trade
Dispute* Act, imi, a. 4, buU-b. 3.
(e) 39 & 40 Vict c 22. a. 16,
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE DISPUTES.
838
" in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute," not Chap. n.
be actionable unless the act, if done without such agreement ^
or combination, would be aetkmsble (/).
Thfi expression " Trade Dispute " in the Acts of 1875 and MtMrfi«of
1906 means any dispute between employers and workmen, or *^*'P'*^
between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-emidoyment or the terms of the employ-
ment, or with the conditions of labour of any person, and the
expression "workmen " means all persons employed in trade Workmen,
or industry, whe&er or not in the employment of the employer
with whom a trade dispute arises (<f). The words "an act ActinooBt«.
done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" fittSiSi««l«
mean that mther a dispute is imminent and the act is done di*P"t*.
in expectation and with a view to it or that the dispute is
already existing and the act is done in support of one side to
it ; in either case the act must be genuinely done, as described,
and the dispute must be a real thing imminent or existing,
whether a trade dispute is actually impending or i»obable
is a question of fact in each case (h).
Eyery person, however, who witii a view to compel any other T««»u^ ti,f,
person to abstain from doing or to do any act which each •*''****Nt-
person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrong-
fully and withoat legal authority uses violence to or intimi-
dates (i) such other person or his wife or children, or injures
his property ; or persistently follows such other person about
from place to place (k) ; or hides any tools, or other property
owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or
hinders him in the use thereof ; or, watches or besets (I) the
house (m) or other place where such other person resides, or
works, or carries oa business, or happens to be, or the ap-
(/) 6 Bdw. 7, 0. 47, •. 1.
is) lb., sect. S, Mib-s. 3;
I)„lHmore v. TrOHanu (1»18), 39
T. L. K. 67.
(A) Vouwayy. iro.i«, (1909) A. 0.
p. 512; 78 L. J. K. B. p. 1028.
niillimore t. Williams, sv^.tv:.
(«) See Curran y. TVetoiven, (1891)
1! (J. B. 560 ; 01 L. J. H 0. H;
&x v. Bahtr (1911), 7 Or. App. B.
69 ; Totu^ T. ftck (191»}. 99
T. L. E. 31.
(t) See Smith v. Thtymuton, 62
L. T. 68 ; 64 J. P. 596 ; Rfr. y. WaU,
(1907) 21 Cox, C. C. 401 ; rOmiT.
Rmton, (1910) S. C. 32.
Feron, (1909) 48 Jr. L. T. 19a
(«) Jin r. WaU, (ttpra.
21— a
824
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE DISPUTES.
cba]). VI. proach to such house or place ; or follows such other person
with two or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through
any street or road ; shall be liable on convicticKi to a penalty
or imprisonment (»). But it is lawful for one or more per-
sons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union
or of an individual employer or firm " in c(»templation or
furtherance of a trade dispute," to " attend " (o) at (p) or near
a house or place where a person resides or works, or carries on
business, or happens to be, if they so attaid merely for the
purpose of peacefully obtaining or ccmimanicating informa-
tion, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain
fixjm working (q). The Trade Disputes Act, 1908, in legalis-
ing peaceful picketing " at or near"*' a house, does not, how-
ever, confer a right to enter upon private property against the
will of the owner (r).
The above statutes clearly recognise the legality of strikes
and picketing up to a certain point ; but it is still illegal to use
force or threats of violence to prevent others from working on
such terms as they think proper (s).
Watching and Watching or besetting a place where a person " resides or
betetting. flrorks Or carries on business or happens to be " within the
meaning of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act,
1876 (0> doea not necessarily imply any leogtiiened watching,
(n) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, 8. 7. p. 400 ; 75 L. J. K. B. p. 966 ; Ward,
(o) Sex V. Wall, tupra. Lock <k Co. v. Operative I'rinUrt'
(p) See Larkin v. Bel/ait Harbour Auittanti Society, (1906) 22 T. L. E.
C<mmiMionen, (1908) 2 Ir. B. 214. 327 ; Oain«y v. Bristol Trade arid
(9) e£dw. 7, 0. 47, e. 2, .b-as. Providmtt Society, (1909) 1 K B.
1, 2, repealing aect. 7 of the Act of pp.916,9a3; 78 L. J. KB. p. 624;
1875 from "attending at or near" EuutU v. Amdlgamattd SocMy
to the end of the section ; see Carptntert and Joiittn, (1910) 1
Toppin V. tWon, note (/), tupra. K. B. p. 525 ; 79 L. J. K. B.
(r) Larkin v. BOfaU Harbom p. 615; affirmed, H. L. (1912) 81
Commistioneri, supra. L. J. Ch. 619 ; A. C. p. 436 ; Mudd
(«) Farrer v. CVtWf, L. E. 4 Q. B. v. General L'num of Operative Var-
p. 612; 38 L. J. M. C. p. 139; penters and Joiners, (1910) 26
Mogul Steamship Co. t. McOregor, T. L. E. p. 519; 103 L. T. p. 46;
Oow A Co., (1892) A. C. p. 47; 61 and aee Sauhen y. Butnach, (1912)
L. J. Q. B. p. a04; Qtmn v. 29T. L. B.214: KaeAn- v. Zomioit
Leathern, (1901) A. C. 496, S41 ; 70 SociHy of Qmponton, (1913) A. C.
L. J.P.C.76; Dmaby and CadOn) p. 114; 82 L. J. K. B. p. 235.
Main Collieries Co. t. Yorkshire (() 38 ft 99 Ykt e. 86^ a. 7,
Mmers Association, (1906) A. C. aub-s. 4.
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TBADE DISPUTES. 836
and is not limited to places habitually frequmted by tbe work- <^ VL
men thua picketed (tt). Sae*. iq
A person has the ri^t, at common law, in all matters not iiiu,:«n.e.
contrary fo law, to regulate his own mode of carrying on his The c'r^Tg o»
busmess or trade, and any invasion of this right is a legal ^ *~^«-
trrong (x). It is a violation of leyal right to interfere with
contractual relations recognised by law if there be no aufiScient
j"Gtification for th.-, interference (y). Tho circumstances
which will constitute sufficient justification cannot be satis-
factorily defined, and must be left to the determinatirai o Jw
Court in each case in which the question arises (z). It has
also been laid down that a combination of two or more persons
without juatiflcatior ; *o injure an employer in his bn .aesa or
trade, by inducing his customers or servants to break their
contracts with him, or not to deal with him, or not to continue
in his employment, or a combination to injure a workmen by
inducing employers not to employ him, or amtinue him in
their employment, is, if it results in damngc to such employer,
or workman, actionable (a). But now by the Trade Disputes'
Act, 1906 (b), an act done by a person "in contemplation or
(«) Charnock V. Conrt, (1899) 2 Miners' Fe lerntion, {ms) 2 K B
Ch. 35; 68 L. J. Ch. 650; )Fa/fc« 545 ; 72 L. J. K. B. p. m
V. (Ireen, (1899) 2 Oh. 696 ; 68 H. L., (1905) A. C. 239 ; 74 L. J,
L. J. Ch. 730. K. B. 625 ; Giblan y. .VoKomii
(j ) n^i V. Barr, 6 C. & P. 329 ; AmnlgamaUd Lnhimrtrt' Union of
f.'nnley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216; Great Br^in and Ireland, (1903)2
Il'lton y. Ed^riej,, 6 El. 4 BL 74; K. B. p. 618 ; 72 L. J. K. B p 913
^/i«V. *V.«J.(1898)A. C. p. 92; {,,) Quinn v. Le.Uhem, (1901)
67 L. J. Q, B. p. 168; Qainn y. A. C. 495, 610 ; 70 L. J P C 89-
Leathern, (1901) A. C. p. 526 ; 70 Bead y. Frien.r,, Soci^y of (>y„a.
L. J. P. C. p. 89; Glamoryttii ' oZ tive Htotietnasons, (ly02) 2 K. B 88
' 0. V. .So«<A Jl'alee Miner,' /V.r,<- 9«, 7o2 ; 7 1 I.. J. K. B. p. 994 • <mJt
(l!)o,i) 2 K. B. p. 673; 72 y. National A nuUgamated Labourtre'
L. J. K. B. p. 903; affirmed tub Union of Great Britam emd Ireland
""III. South U'alee Miner$' Feilera- (1903) 2 K. B. 600 ; 72 L. J KB*
' V. (ihmoryan Coal Co.. (1905) p. 913 ; South Wale, ttimr/ Federa'-
A... pp.251, 253; 74L.J.K.B.o2a. ticm v. Glamorgan Coal Co, (1905)
{!/) Quinn T. Leathern, (1901) A. C. pp. 25!. 263; 74 L. J. K B
A. C. p. 610; 70 L. J. P. C. p. 8il ; 525 ; Cmway v. fVwIe, (1909) A. C.
see National Phonoyraph Co. v. 506,510; 78 L. J. K. B d 1027
■^.ii.i.e..i..>.r...,r,.:. J') bhavr. i, c. il,B. 3. Auto
Ch" o! . ' ' " ^ oxpremion •• in
• J*- ff'^- contemplation or furOMranoe of a
(2) Glamorgan Co. y. South IVcUee trade diapute," we m^ra, p. 323.
82fi
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE DISPUTES.
Chap. VI. furtherance of a trade *diapute " is not actionable on the ground
" only " that it induces some other person to bre«k a contract
of employment, or that it is an inttrference with the trade,
business, or employment of some other p» son, or with the
right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his
labour as he wills.
If there be threats or violence, the Act of 1906 gives no
protection, for th^a there is some other grouad of action beside
the ground that it " induces some other person to br»>«k a con-
tract ; " so far the law is not changed. If the inducement be
to break a contract without threat or violence then this is
no longer actionable, provided that it was done " in contem-
plation or furtherance of a trade dispute." If there be no
threat or violence and no breach of contract, and yet there is
"un interference wilh the trade, business, or employment of
some other pwscm, or wi<h the right of some other person to
Ltobiiity of traiie dispose of his capital or his labour as he wiUs," there again
us'sKents'ilefore there is perhaps a change. It is not to be actioni^le, provided
Trlie DUpuL " '° Contemplation or furtherance of a trade
Aet, 1906. dispute " (c).
Before the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (d), a trade union
could be sued for the tortious acts of its agents acting within
the scope of their authority (e). Sect. 4 (1) of i'-'is Act,
however, provides, that an action shall not be entertained by
LUi.iiityof any Court against a trade union whether of workmen or
trurtees of masters or against any members or ofBcials thereof oa behalf
trade uDioD, o .f ^ ^
of themselves and all othor members of the trade union in
respect of any tortious act allied to have been committed
by or on behalf of the trade union ; but nothing in the section
is to affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union tc- be
sued in the events provided by the Trade Union Act, 1871,
(0 Contixm V. IVade, (1909) A. C. L. J. K. B. 269.
pp. 611. 512; 78 L. J. K. B. p. («) Taff Volt RaOwsg Co. v.
1028, per Lonl Lorebam, L.O. ; Amaigamateil Society of RaUumg
see aoBhdl v. Lcmeaakin md Sertwil*, (1901) A. C. pp. 426, 443 ;
Cheshire Miners' Feitratioit, (1912) 70 L. J. K. B. pp. 905, 913; and
28 T. L. R. 519. Beo Trolloi>e v. LtmcUm HuHding
[il] I) IMw. 7, c. K. Tho Act is Trnilt^ Feihrntim, 72 li. T. 342;
iKit it'trosi)e( tivo : Smithies v. i', rlishire M iners' As;orialion, {l9Qi)
Nationat Assoiiaiitm of O/ierative A. C. p. 280; 74 L. J. K. B. p.
FUukren, (1909) 1 K. B. 310; 78 623; Vaehm- v. LomUm SoeMy qf
NUISANCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE DISPUTED.
827
8"ct. 9 (/), except in respect of any tortious act committed by cbap. vi.
or on behalf of the union " in eont«nplBtion or in farther-
ance of a trade dispute " (7).
Accordingly, where non-union men brought an action for
damages and an injunction against a trade union and its
secretary for inducing t'.o plaintiffs' employers to cease to
employ the plaintiffs, tlio action was dismissed, on the ground
that there being a trade dispute, the union was protected by
sect. 4 (1), and its secretary by sect. 3 of the Act of 1906 (h).
The protection afforded to a trade union by the Act of
1906 is not taken away by the fact that the rules of such union
authorise tiie ap|dication of its txmd^ for political par-
poses (i), which was held in Osborne v. Amalgamafed Sodely
of Railway Servants to be ultra virts and illegal (k).
Sob-sect. 1 of sect. 4 prohibits all actions of tort against
a trade union and not merely notions in respect of tortioas acts
committed by or on behalf of a trade union " in contempla-
tion or furtherance of a trade dispute "(/).
The sab-section does not, howeyer, confer immanity upon a LubUit, of
member or official of p trade union personally, but only^i^"**^
prevents him being sued on behalf of himself and other mem-
bers of the trade union in saeh a way as to make the trade
union and its funds liable (m).
Compoiilon, (19ia) A. 0. p. 113;
82 L. J. K. B. m A registered
trade union may be sued in its
registered name, and an un-
registered trade union in a repre-
sentative action : Taff Vale Railway
tVi. V. Amalgamated Society 0/ Rail-
I'aij Servantt, $upra ; Jiuuell v.
Amalyamaleil Society of CarpaUtrs,
(19ia) A. C. 438 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 619 ;
Parr v. Lane, tmd Chmhirt Miners
yrderaUiM, (1918) 1 Ck. Sli; 83
L. J. Ch. 193.
(/) I.e., conceruinpf the pro-
perty of a trade union.
(7) (> Kdw. 7, c. 47, 9. 4, sub-s. 2.
f^oo Vae/ier v. London Society of
Ci/mpmitori, (191.1) A. C. 118, II9';
S2 L. J. K. B. 232.
(A) OoMl V. Lanetukirt and
Oheskirt^iners' /WwaMm, (1912)
28 T. L. R. S18.
{•■) lb.
W (1910) A. C. 87; 79 L. J.
Ch. 87; Wilton v. Scottish Tup,,,
graphical Aaaociation, (1912) & C.
«;<4. See now the Trade Union
Act, 1913, pott, Cdap. XIX.
(J) Butty V. Amalgamattd So,iety
of Sailway Servanti, {IdiiS) 24 T. L.
B. 437,; Facher v. Lon,lon Society of
Cmnp„siturs, (1913) A. C. 107; 82
L. J. K. B. •.>;i2 ; ShinweU v. National
Sailor)' and Firemen't Union, (1913)
2 S. L. T. S.-J.
(m) Butty V. AmcUgamated SocMy
of Sot/way ServaiUt; Shinwia r.
National fitilort' and Firmntn't
Uuiutt, tupra.
CHAPTEB VII.
INJUNOTIOMB TO RBBTiUIN THK INFRINOBMBN 1' Of PAI1KI8.
8BCTIOK 1.— PRINCIPLBS OS WHICH THB COUBT RBSTBAINB
THB INrRINOBMBNT Or PATBKT8.
Chap. VII. Thr jurisdiction of the Court in restraining by interlocutory
: injunction the infi inRPinont of putont rights, is in aid of tho
legal right. The Court proceeds on the assumption that the
person who makes the application has the legal right which
he asserts, but needs the ivid of the Court for the purpose of
protecting his property from damage pending tiie trial of the
legal right (r().
It seems to have been formerly ihe opinion tliat a Court of
equity would not interfere hy injunction to protect a patent
right, until the right had been established at law. Gradually,
howerer, the Court of Chancery abandcmed this positicMi (b),
and since the Judioitiiro Act the question has ceased to be
one of practical importance.
But the reluctance of the Court of Chancery to interfere in
cases of disputed patent right had its justification in reason
as well as in the maxim of equity. We find accordingly that,
while asserting its right to act independently of references to
law, the Court of Chancery still continued to display its
original caution in granting injunctions (c).
Under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907 (d), a patentee
cannot take proceedings in respect of infringements com-
mitted l)efore the publication of his complete specification and
until letters i)atent have actually been granted to him (e) ;
and if any proceedinj be taken in respect of an infringement
[ri) liwun V. Jvufs. 4 M. & 0. nrsitiis v. Bichardton, 6 Ve«. 689
4.16 ; 48 B. E. 143 ; iVw fcrt- y. See now 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, ». 34.
nat/ley, 42 C. D. p. ."HW ; 89 K J. Oh. (p) See poH, p. 348.
p. 13. (d) 7 Eaw. 7, c. 29.
(i) Ox/oril and Cambridye Uni- (e) SectioM 10 and 13,
INFBINOEHENT OP PATENTa
eommitted aft«r a feilnre to pay any fee within the prescri bed ch.p. vil.
limo, the Court may refiue to ftmrd damagM in retpMt of
Huch infringement (/).
A patentee has frequently to consider how he ought to act P»t«iii inM^Ml
when his patent is being infringed by sereral persons at the StSIHi th.
same time. A way out of the difficulties which such a case "^•^
presents was suggested by Wood. V.-C, in Bovill v. Crate [g).
" After getting information of case after case of infringement,
(he patentee might select that which he thought the best in
order to try the question fairly, and proceed in that case to
obtain his interlocutory injunction. He might write at the
same time to all the others who were in Hmili eat* and say to
them, Are you wilh'ng to tako this as a notice to you that the
present case is to determine yours ? Otherwise I shall proceed
against you by way of interlocutory injonction ; and if you do
not object on the ground of delay, I do not mean to file bills
against all of you at once."
A plaintiff is entitled to apply for an injunction as soon as Notice of action,
his legal right is invaded, although unintentionally; and he
is, as a general rule, under no obligation to give the defendant
any notice befo.e commencing an action (h), or to discontinue
proceedings on tha defendant admitting and promising not to
repeat the infringement (i).
Where an account is claimed, all persons claiming any P«rti«t«
mterest, legal or equitable, in the patent, ought to be made
parties to the action, so that the infringing defendants may
not be called upon to account twice. But where only an
injunction and delivery up of infringing articles are claimed,
one of seriral owners has a ri^t to sue alcme (*).
(/) Section 17, sub-s. 3.
(v) 1 E(i. p. -.m. This course
WHS appri)ve<l niid the effect of it
explained in y„rtlt British Rubber
t'o. y. OonuOfy Co., 12 B. P. C.
p. 21.
W rpmmn v. Fort$ler, 24 C. D.
p. 235 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 946; Weingarten
V. Ilni/fr, (1906)92 L. T. p. 513 ; 22
H. 1". ( '. !>. 3o(t. Hut see Kjiaul v.
Monojiole ( 'yde Co., (1906) 2 t E. P. C.
647; Jiurl^yay. II<i(Mm«o«,(IM6}
23 B. P. C. 141, w to Goata.
(»■) Loth V. Bagiw. 1 W. P. C.
p. 200; UptMum v. ForeOer, 24
CD. 231, 2.38; 82 L. J. Ch. 946;
Proctor V. litnnit, 36 C. D. p. 7tiO ;
67 L. J. Ch. p. 22 ; but see as to
cotit.s S}>aiil V. Motiojiole CjfcU Cb,,
aiiirni, and >""(. Sect. fl.
(<•) lkr(jm<inn v. .Mncmillun, 17
C. D. 423 ; 44 L. T. 794.
MO
INFfilNOEMBliT OF PATENia
ch*p. VII. Where • pattot hM been mortgiged, ti>e mortgagor vmj
: — alone n-ithout jotnfalghiB morteagco as a party (/).
■TfiSgii So also if an inTention can be severed into distinct portions
rwiMMT. y,^ owner of one part may sue for infringement of that
part (m).
lientM, It gecmB that a mero liconsoo of u piitent is not a porson
having an interest in tihe {rntent ; he is only a person ()ermitt<>d
to use the inrention, and therefore he cannot sae for infringe-
ment without joining the patentee, even where his licence is
exclusive (n). But an exclusive licensee may maintain an
action agsnist his lieensor where the latter acts in breach of
the lieenee so given (o).
AiMiibrMk. A mere agmt for sale cannot bring the action; whether a
person is a mere agent or not depends upon the facts {p).
AHigM*. A legal assignee of a patent may sue for its infringe-
ment (g), but before doing so, should complete hia title by
registration {r). An equitable assignee cannot sue without
bringing tiie legal owner of the patent before the Goart («).
The action may also be brought by the assignee or trustee
of a bankrupt (t). In a recent case (u), a patentee who had
assigned all his property, including his letters pattnt, to a
trustee for his creditors, was held entitled to sue for infringe-
ment notwithstanding that the trustee was not a party to the
Train tn
bMkniptey,
Tnutw for
ettditon
(/) Ian (lelfirr v. Sowtrby, 44
CD. 1 ; S9 L. J. Ch. 683.
(m) . 'unniclify. Malht, 7 C. B.
N. S. 209 ; 29 L. J. 0. F. 70; 121
H. B. 463.
(n) Heap v. llitrtley, 42 C. D.
461 ; S8 I,. J. Ch. "90 ; but seo
Rmard v. Lefiri$trin, 2 H. & M.
628, &'il ; (W/rane.fe Co. v. Muriin,
(1911) 1'8 R. P. C. 284 (Sc.)-
(«) Onyot V. Thiimfieoriy (1894) 3
Ch. -m ; 64 L. J. t'h. 32.
(;>) Adam* v. North Britith Rail-
way Co., 29 L. T. 367.
(ij) Electric Telegraph Co. Brttt,
10 0. B. 838 ; 20 L. J. O. P. 123 ;
84 E. R. 802.
(r) Chollet v. Hoffman, 7 £. &
B. 686 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 249; 110
B. U. 78A. 8m 7 Edw. 7. o. 29,
8. 71, rab-B. 3,
(«) Ilowilen't Patent! SyiidicaU v.
Smith, (1904) 2 Ch. 86, lii2; 73
L. J. Ch. 522, b'lb ; and see Spenny-
mar Fouwlry Cv. v. Catherall,
(UtOi)) L'ti K. P. C. 822. Cf. Actim
(iesellnlia/t Imliiatrie v. Tetitkr, 16
K. P. C. 447, explained in Bo>c4m'$
J'aleiit* Syndiniie v. Smith.
(() Bloxam V. J':Ufr, 6 B. ft C.
169; 3 L. J. (O. 8.) K. B. 93; SO
B. B. 275.
(h) Duncan v. Loektrbit and
WiUiamtm, (1912) M a J. 673 : 29
B. F. O. 4»9.
INFBINOEMENT OF PATENTS.
881
action, by virtue of the righto conferred upon the paieotoe m Ch*p. vii.
regiitwed proprietor of the p»tmt («). . .^JL.
Wlirro a patent hivs boon granted to two persons jointly Jo'"* tm nt M *
iHjfore the Ist of January, 1908, and one of them dies, the '*'*"*'
patent paasea by •anrirorriiip, nnleas Uiere ha* be«D a
gcvoranco of tho joint estate (y).
Where a patent was assigned to two persons as tenants in T«auu im
common, and one died, it was held that actions for infringe- *°*"^
mmt committed before his death survived to the other, iriio
was entitled at law to recover the whole damaged (z).
But now, by the Patento and Designs Act, 1907, where, P>t«otoud
after the eommenoement of tliis Act, a patent ia granted to u^tu
two or more peiHons jointly, thoy shall, unless otherwiso
specified in the patent, be treated for the purpose of the
devolution of the legal interests therein as joint tenants, and if
any such person dies, his beneficial interest in the patent
shall devolve on his personal representatires at part of his
personal ertate (a).
Any person who infringes or takes part in an infringement DdmAmu.
may be made defendant. Thus where the infringement occurs
in the course of work done under a contract, the contractor Contruton.
who carries out the work, and not the architect who indicates
what is to be done, is the person who ought to be sued (6).
Custom House agents who arrange for the storing and CaMoa Hoaw.
transhipment in an English port of an article which infringes
an English patent do not thereby make themselves liable as
infringers (c). But carriers who bring infringing articles Oonim
into England are liable, and may be restrained by injunc-
tion (d). A person who mer^y prepares the materials from
which the infringing article is made (e), or ^riio merely makes Ml«r«(
(r) See 7 Kdw. 7, c. 29, 8. 71, J».urnal, 224.
3. (r) Nobel'i Kxpiotivtt Co. v. Joim, ttM^^'^
(//) Nalionat Com/iaiiy v. (libha, 8 A. C. 4 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 339; M*
(1899) 2 Ch 289; 68 L. J. Ch. 503 ; BoiUehe Anilin tmd Scda-FabrH
reverted on other grounds, (IBOO) j. Joknmm, {1901)2 Ch. 333; (18W)
2Ch.280 ; 69L. J. Ch.457. A. C. 200; 68 L. J. Ch. 497.
(z) BmUk T. London ai.d North (d) WaMiim Manu/ariurmg Co.
Weitem Railway ComjMtny, 2 Bl. v. Ctmard Co., 6 E. P. C. p. 403.
'V' HI- •!!•• (?) Tnwntend v. Tlaworth, 12
(«) 7 Kdw. 7, c. 29, s. ;J7, uiid C. 1>. 831 n. ; 48 L. J. Ch. 770 n. ;
sec Patent Rules, 1908, r. 51. SmMgt V. BrimdU, 18 B. P. 0. 3flS.
(i) DetUey v. Blore, 38 London
nOPBINOBlUIMT OF PATBNTS.
t'h»p. VII.
Stot. 1.
•ad parekaMn.
ForrigMn.
•ad Mils Mt MTtiole capable of being used M on* of tlM <
■ poMDt parte of a patrated oonMiuitioa (/), b not liaMo
an infringer.
The directors of u cumiwny may bo liable for acts of in
f rin^oient eommitted bjr workmen employed in tlieir Mmkt,
even where such vorkmon have acted in disobeaience to
nzproRs orders. Althou^ the master in whose employment
the infringement it committed is tiie proper defendant, his
Horvunts by whom he has committed the brooch of patent right
are equally liable and may be joined as dofondunts, and it
is no nnmer to say that they only conformed ' ? the orders
of their employer (g).
Whoip an infringinR mnntifacturer sella the patented
article, both the manufacturer who mukea, and the purchaser
wlio uses tiweame are liable to th^ patentee, and maj be Joined
as co-dofpndants in one action (h). Rut where a plaintiff
company sued the makers of infringing articles, and on motion
for an interlocutory injunction accepted ui o>-der under iriiieh
the defendants paid certain sums into Court to represent
royalties, and undertook to keep an account till the trial, it
was held that no interlocutory injunction could bo obtained
"gainst customers who had purchased the infringing articles
from the defendants, to restrain them Irom using sudi
articles (t).
Although foreign subjects committing acts of infrirgonent
in the United Kingdom are liable to be sued therefor (A), the
Court has refused to allow property of a foreign sovereign
which was an infringement of an E ngl ish pr tent to be detained
in this country against the will of thut Sovereigi (f).
(/) Ihmlnp Pntunuaie Tyre Co. 740 j 67 L. J. Ch. 11.
V. Moteloj A Co., (1904) 1 Oh. 612; (0 Pintamatic Tyrt C: v. Qoed'
73 L. J. Ch. 417. »Km. 13 B. P. 0. 723.
{k) CMwta T. Vry.vilittngtit, 9
Ha. 418; 21 L. J. (N.!^)rh. 97;
Vavaaseur v. Krupi . 1) i'. U. 351 ;
27 W. H. 17(i; '/':,re» Co. v.
J'ulmfr Tyre Co., (HKW) 22 B. P. C.
y(>!>. Art to uMer for uavigutiou pur-
(9) BtUt T. Ih VUrt, 3 Ch. 441 ;
37 L. J. Ch. 326 ; Ltahy v. Olmtr,
14 E. P. C. 141; Ailairy. Young.
12 ('. D. IH; aud seo Syha v.
Ilimarth, 12 C. D. 82(i ; 48 I,. J. Ch.
7(;9; Day v. Davlet, (1904) 22
v.. P V. :U: l.n-rr Jlrtihrrit v.
Mifbiiri' l-i/uitahle I'ivneen' Sotitty,
(1912) 28 I. L. U. 295.
(h) Pnxtor V. Butmit, 36 0. D.
Y^^-i !■.;.- f;>rpi-j?i vp-spI-; ir. British
waters, »ee 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, s. 48.
(J) VavoMtur v. Krr^ip, 9 C. D.
361; 87W.B.176.
INFRIHOEMENT OP PATENTS.
888
A mtta who aoeJu tiut tiid oX Uw Court for the protection Cfc.p. vu.
of his ptlMt rifhto ■hoQld shor propor diligoioe in making
the application. If he haa openly encoaragMl or sikntly "
acquiesced in the invasion of his right, or has allowed anc'her
to«zp«ui moiiiM or ereot works upon the faith that no impedi-
ment will be piacwl in the way of bis tajojiiHat, Us eqnity to
the extraordinary interference of the Court is gone This
doctrine is applicable not only to the case of the partioal«r
conduct of the patentea tosmrds person viUvwbom th« eon-
troversy subsi'-ts. but also to cases whoro his conduct with
others may influence the Court in the eswoiso of its equitthlo
jurisdietion (»).
A man whose patent rights are inrsded by atnnl pmons
should give distinct notice to each to discontinue the infringe-
ment. If he proceeds against one only without giving notice
to the others, and allows a eonsidaraU* pwiod to elapse beftora
taking steps to enforce his rights against them, hs maj lose
his right to the protection of the Court (o).
What delay wiU be falsi to an application for an intorloea-
tory mjunction will be hereafter considered (p) ; but delay or
acquiescence which would be fatal to an aj>plication for an
interlocutory injunction may not debar a plaintiff from
obtaining a pMrpetoal injunetion at the trisl (f ).
saono* S.— wa&> » am unnnouim.
The form of letters patent now in use provides that, to the Fonn.f i.u«.
end that the patentee may have and enjoy the sole use and
exercise and the foU benefit of the invention, no one shall
durmg the patent term " either directly or indireetly maka
use of or put in practice the said invention or any part of
the same, nor in anywise imitate the same, nor make or cause
B-B. S67.
(o) Smith T. ZoMfan md South
Wmtmm AtOwog Co., Kay, 41V ; 23
L. J. Ch. Ma. A» to the effect of
(hi) Jiovill V. Vrate, I Kq. 3M;
Ltanhardt v. KalU, 11 B. P. 0. AM;
VortA Brituh Atihr Cb. v.
OormuUy, 13 B. P. 0. ]>p. 18, 20;
OHUUt aaftty Rtaor Co. v. Oama^
<t Cu., (itK)7) 24 Ji. p c. pp. 3, 4.
(n) Ruttdell v. Murray, Jao. 311 ;
'■23 R B. 75 ; Saundert v. SmUh, 3
M-4C. 711; 7 L. J. Oh. 237; 40
delay and aoqniewence, see fnrUt«-,
ante, pp. 20-24.
(p) AK, p. 847.
334
INFRINGEMENT OP PATENTS.
CUp. TII.
8Mt.l
InftinceiMBt.
Intention not
to infringe
iBBatorial.
Innocent
infringer when
not liable for
damage*.
to be made any addition thereto or subtraction therefrom
- whereby to pretend themselves the inventors thereof, without
the consent, licence, or agreement of the patentee in writing
under his hand and seal." Moreover the grant is to the
patentee that he by himself, his agents or licensees, and no
others, may "make, use, exercise and vend (r) the said in-
vention," within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and the Isle of Man.
A breach of the monopoly granted and of the prohibitory
clause is an infringement of the patent for which an action
will lie and an injunction may be obtained. The ways in
which a patent may be infringed are pointed out by the pro-
hibitory words of ttie grant. If the patent be valid, any act
which trespasses upon the patentee's field of invention is an
infringement.
The intentim not to infringe a patent is immaterial if there
has been an infringement. There may be an infringement
though the intention of the party l<e perfectly innocent, and
6vm though he may not know of the ezistaiee of the patent
itself («). On the other hand, mere intention cannot make
any act done an infringement which without that intention
would not be an infringement (t).
A defendant, however, who has innocently committed an in-
fringement of a patent granted after the Ist of January, 1908,
is now exempt from liability for damages by sect. 88 of the
Patents and Designs Act, 1907, which provides that a
patentee shall not be entitled to recover any damages in
respect of any infringement of a patent granted after the
oommencemmt of this Act from any defendant who prores
(r) 8m Ffetentt and DengBsAct,
1907, 7 Edw. 7, 0. », ». 14, sub-a. 2,
and the Patent Bulea (1908), rr. 49
—61, Bched. m., A., B.; BwKwA*
Anilin und So<la-Fabrik T. Ba»U
Chc'ikal Workt, (1898) A. C. 200;
67 L. J. Ch. 141 ; Sarcharin Cor-
poratiiM V. Reilmeyer, (1900) 2 Ch.
G09, CCS , Cu L. J. Ch. T6i ; Baditehe
AHtiin und Soda-Fabrik v. Hidcmm,
(1906)A.O.pp.4S».4t7: 7CL.J.
Ch. 621.
(») Stead V. AndftKm, 2 W. P. C.
166 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 280 ; NM»
ExfUoHvti Co. Jonrt, 8 A. 0.
p. 12; 62L. J. Ch.339;iVoefcirv.
Bennit, 36 0. D. ]>. 760; 57 L. /.
Ch. p. 22 ; Sarcliarin Corpor^.iion
Reilmener, (1900) 2 Ch. p. 664 ; 89
L. J. <'h. p -iM.
(0 Ntwall v. EllioH, 10 Jur. N. S.
p. CM.
INFRINGEMFNT OF PATENTS.
386
that at the date of the infringement he was not aware, nor had Ch»p vil.
reasonable means of making himself aware, of the existence of
the patent, and the marking of the article wit': tlie word
"patent," "patented," or any word or words expressing or
implying that a patent has been obtained for the article shall
not bo deemed to (xmatitate notice of the existotee of the
patent unless the word or words are accompanied by the year
and number of the patent ; provided that nothing in the section
shall affect any proceedings for an injunction.
Any person manufacturing the patented articles without the inftiafMMt
sanction of the ixitentee is an infringer of the patent and liable
as such, iJiough he procures the invention to be made in
England by some one else, or procures it to be manufactured
ul)road, and afterwards imports it into the United King-
dom (a). But the making which is prohibited is a making for
profit either direct or indirect, tiiat is, a making calculated
to interfei e with the benefit which the patentee would otiiflr-
wise derive from his invention («).
It is therefore no infringement to make the patented article b, experiment,
by way of borui fide expwiment merely. If a man makes
things with a Tiew to improving upon an invention, or with a
view to seeing whether an improvement can be made, that is
not an infringement If tiiwe be neiihsr using nor Tending
of the invention for profit, the mere making for the purpose
of experiment ought not to be considered within the meaning
of the imhibiticm, and if it were, it is certainly no* the subject
for an inj unction (y) .
Mere posseesion of n patented article is not necessarily user, u«.r.
but acquisition, and possession of such an article tor trade
purposes, should occasion arise, constitutes user wiiatever the
nature of the article may be (z). Using or exercising the
invention is an infringement, though the user may have been
passive only and not active, and wax thou^ the user was
(m) Oibton T. Cmi^fba, I W. P. M, 87.
C. 631 ; hrmdmeat Chulight Oo. v. (,) Adair v. Ymu.g, 12 C. D. 13 ;
Jiroy<len, 1« B. P. C. 179. Briluh Motor Syndicate v. Taylor,
{■r) UnUtd Tiiq>h<me Co. v. (1901) lCh.122; 70 L J. Ch 21-
'O^arpht, 99 0. D. 164; « L. J. Ch. aad sue BHtish dUed Sko. Co. v!
CoUitr, (low) 26 B. P. 0. on 41,
f^wtm V. £«ak 9 C. O. 539 ; (IWO) 87 B. P. 0. ACT.
886
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
ch«p. VII. merely during transit and Engluud was not the final destina-
tion of the infringing article (o). At the same time Custom
House agents who pass an infringing article through the
Custom House are not liable to the patentee on the ground of
U8er(&). An agent to be liable must be an agent in the
using of the invention, uidnot merely a person who has some-
thing to do with the means by which the goods get from
one place to another (c).
U«><-. Infringement by user may be negatived by showing that flie
user was by way of experiment only, but the Court will
narrowly scrutinise such a defence to see that no profit was
made (d), and where &s experimental user is for the advan-
tage of the person using the machine, even whea pe«aniary
profit does not directly result, such user is an infringement.
The use therefore of the invention for the purpose of instruct-
ing pupils in a business (e), or for the more economical
management of a business (/), is an infringement. Further,
the quan<^^ity made may be too considerable to be consistt at
with mere experiment (g).
To establish infringement by user, however, it must be
sho\*Ti that the infringer is using the invention for the same
purpose as, or for a purpose analogous to, that claimed by the
patentee. There is no infringemoit if the object of the patent
is to produce one result and the object of tho defendant is to
produce another and quite different result (h).
Sftie. The patent grant confws an exahuhe ri^t to vend the
pattnted article. Therefore the mere seller who has not
himself made the article, and who may even be ignorant of
the fact that it is an infringement of a patent at all, is liable
(a) lUttt V. Xeilaor,, 3 Ch. 429, (,/) Hujijs v. Gooihi-in, E. B. &
439 ; 6 U. L. 1 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 5.J7 ; E. 529 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 421 ;
British Motor Sunrlirate v. Tuyhr, Fletcher v. Olatyow Gat Commit-
(1901) 1 Ch. l::2 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 21. «to..er«, 4 B. P. C. p. 389.
(i) Nobtl's F.xi>h,.-^vn T. Jon»i, (y) Mvmta Fotta; 2 W. P.O.
8 A. C. 8 ; 62 I.. J. Ch 339. p. 101.
(e) lb., 17 C. D. 74a, 743; SO {h,) Hetehtr j. OUugew Oat Com-
L. J. Ch. 682. mmumarf, «M/ira; Britith VniteJ
((/) Frmnim v. lot, 9 C. D. p. 67. Shoe Vu. v. C. HiVr, (1909) 26 B.
(A Unitfil 7V/f._:.A,.;,-,f fv V n. p, 5:}4; {19!"; '^7 E. P. C.
Sharpies, 29 C, IJ. 164 ; 64 L. J. p. 672. See Jiobituon v. Smith and
<^ <n> Bitekit (1013). 80 B. P. C. 70.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
887
Ch«p. VII.
Sect. 2.
as fln infringer (i), but damages cannot be reco/ered against
him where the infringement is of a patent granted after the
l8t of January, 1908, if he proves that he had no reason-
able moans of making himself aware of the existence of the
patent (k). The sale of an article in the making of which a
patented product is an essential ingredient is an infringe-
ment (/). The sole right granted by the Crown includes a
monopoly of the sale in this country of products made accord-
ing to the patented process, whether made in the realm or
elsewhere (w). Thus, the sale in England of articles made
in France according to an English patent is an infringwnait
of that patent (n). It is equally an infringement even when
such importation is immediately followed by exportation after
resale to a foreign customer (o). But a foreign manufacturer Deiirery of
who sells and delivers an infringing article outside the United lS°,bn»d
Kingdom cannot be made liable as an infringer here, even if he
so acts with knof^edge that such article is bought for importa-
tion into England ; for where the contract of sale is completed
l)y delivery of the infringing articles to an English importer
abroad, the vendor does not make, use, exercise, or vend the
protected invention within the realm (^).
A person who without licence offers for sale or exposes for Bxponm of
sale a patented article is liable as an infringer even if no sale
(i) Von Hegdm v. Neutladt, 14
C. D. p. 232; M L. J. Ch. 126;
Baditehe Anilin und Soda-Fahrik
V. hier, (1906) 1 Ch. 603 ; 75 L.J.
t'h. 411 ; (1906) 2 Ch. 443; 75
I.. J. Ch. 749.
(A) 7 Bdw. 7, o. 29, 8. 33. See
ant'', p. 334.
(/) Sarrharin Corporatim v. Anglo-
Continental Chemiad Worki, (1901) 1
Ch. 414; 70 L. J. Oh. 194; and see
Brituh Malar Bt/ndirafe v. Taylnr,
(1901) 1 Ch. 122; 70 L. J. Ch. 21.
(m) ro» Heydrn v. Neusiadt, 14
D. 232,233; SOL. J. Ch. 126.
(«) Ehntlie v. Hoiirtier, 9 Eq.
^"'7 ; ;JS L. J. Ch. 32.S ; VuH lleydeu
V. NeutUidt. tupra; SnechartH Cor-
IH/mtioH T. Anglo - ContintnM
K.I.
Chmieal Works, (1901 ) 1 Ch. 416 ;;70
L. J. Ch !'i ; cf. Badiache Ani'un
iindfiotla-: '>^rikv. Hichion, (1905)2
Ch. 495 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 669 ; (1906)
A. C. 419 ; 75 L. J. Ch. p. 623.
(o) VnUed Telephone Co. t.
Shm-plu, 29 C. D. lft»; M L. J.
Ch.633.
(p) Baditehe AnUin und Soda-
Falrik Johnton, (1897) 2 Ch.
322; 65 L. J. Ch. 174; (1898)
A. C. 200 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 141 ;
Saerharin (^yr/ioration v. liritmfier,
(1900) 2 Ch. 659 ; 69 L. J. C»i. 761 ;
Buditche Anilin iiml Soda- Fahrik v.
Hitktnn, (1006) 2 Ch. 495 ; 74 L. J.
Ch. 699; (1906) A. 0. 419; 74
L. J. CSb. 831.
32
338
INFlllNGKMENT OF PATENTS.
Chap. VII.
S«rt. 2.
Skltof
nuterUli.
S«lc of parts to
be fittfil
togethsr.
Bopain.
InfringMnaiit
}ff liamwu.
is effected, and so it would seem if the article is merely used
as a sample (g). But the sale of materials, which may be
used for making a patented article, to a person other than the
patentee, even if the vendor knows they are to be used for
such purposes in breach of the patentee's rights, is no in-
fringement for whidi an action will lie (r). A sale of parts
adapted for fitting togethjr would, however, probably be held
to be an infringement («), and a person who contracts to put
the ingredients together infringes the patent, e-^en if he em-
ploys a sub-contractor to do part of the work (t).
It is no infringement of a j^atent to merely repair a patented
article. But if the process of repairing is carried so far as to
result in what is really a new article made according to the
patented invention, the person executing such repairs will be
liable as an infringer (m). So, too, if rejwiring a patented
article necessarily involves the introducti<jn oneiv of some
component part, itself the subject of a patent claim; such
repairing can only be effected without infringement by some
person holding a licence from the patentee of that component
part (z).
Whcie a patented article is lawfully made and sold, the
patentee licenses the use of the article in the hands of any
future buyer, who is entitled to resell it, or othwwise deal
with it as he thinks fit, and such buyer is no infringer (y).
(7) Oxiey V. IJMen, 8 C. It. N. S. (u) Dunlop J^matic Tyrt Co.
666; 30 I.. J. C. P. 68; Britith v. JVeo/, (1899) 1 Oh. 807 ; 68 L. J.
Motor HyndiixUt v. Taylor, (1901) Ch. 878; Ihmlop Pneumatic Tyre
1 Cb. m ; 70 L. J. cat. 21.
(r) Tounmnd t. Uamrth, 12
C. D. 831. n. ; 48 L. J. Ch.770, n. ;
Dunlop I'jieiiiiiatic Tyre Co. v.
Moteley <{■ Co., (1904) 1 Ch. 612;
73 L. J. Ch. 417.
(«) L'nited Telephone Co. v. Dale,
25 C. D. p. 782 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 296 ;
Dunlop I'neumatic Tyrt Ou. v.
MoHley, (1904) 1 Ch. p. 619; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 420.
(() 8gkt$ T. Howartk, 12 C. D.
826 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 760 ; Inaindaceiit
fhu Co. T. New Inmnileeeent Co.,
16 B. P. C. 81.
Co. V. Holbom Tyre Co., (1901) 18
li. P. C. p. 226; DarUop Pneumaiic
Tyre Cu. v. Moteley, (1904) 1 Ch.
pp. 174, 621 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 422 ;
fiinlar Rubber Co. v. ]ValHnyton,
(1905) 1 Ch. 454 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 315 ;
(190»i) 1 Ch. 252 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 233.
(x) I mted TtUplum Co. y.Nritm,
(1887) W. N. 198.
(y) Thmmy. Hunt, 17 C. B. N. 8.
183 ; Sociiti Anenyme dee Manu/ac-
tiiree de Olaeet v. Tilyhman, 25
C. D. p. y ; 06 L. J. Ch. p. u,
HadUrhe Atulin und Soda-Fabriky.
Itkr, (1906) I Ch. p. 610; S Gb.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Hilt a patrnteo may by notice to a puichaKsor at the time of
llw Hale im|X)se conditions which will have the effect of giving
such purchaser a limited licence only, and where this is the
ease the use of the invention l)y a purchaser, who exceeds
the limits of his licence is an infringement (c). f-eetion 38
of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, however, makes null
and void certain restrictive conditions in contracts entered
into after the 1st of January, 1908, in relation to the sale or
lease of or licence to use or work any patented article or pro-
cess, the insertion by a patentee in a contract of sudi condi-
lions being available as a defence to an action for infringement
of the patent to wliich the contract relates while the contract
is in force. Contracte made before the 1st of January, 1908,
which contain such restrictive conditions may be determined
on three montlis' notice in writing by either party and on pay-
ment of compensation as provided by the section.
An infringement is none the less an infringement because
it is committed by workmen in disobcnlience to express orders
to the contrary. If so committed in the course of their
employment, the employer will be liable as well as his work-
men for the infringement (a).
It is no answer to an action for infringement to show that
the article or process complained of is in fact an improvement
on the plaintiff's patent, if the original invention has been
taken. If the substance of the invention is taken, it is no
excuse to say that you have added something or omitted some-
thing, even if the addition oi omissimi be an imiMt)Tement <6).
(a) BetU V. De Viire. 3 Ch. p. 442 ;
Day V. Davie$, (1904) 22 B. P. C. 34.
An in j unction will not be grantad
lor an isolated aet, Lever v. Maibro'
EqnUaMe Pitrnten Society, (1912)
28 T. L. B. 295.
(h) Khrlick v. Ihlee, 5 E. V. C
889
OUp. VII.
Sect 2.
ReMtriotions on
sale iif {iat«nted
wrtiele.
Pat«nU an<l
DcsigDH Act,
19(1/, a. 38.
LiabiHty of
employer for
infringement
by workmen.
iBpnnaieBti.
443; 75 L. J. Ch. 749; National
I'liKiwiraithir Co. of Atutralia y.
M>>,rk, (1911) A. C. p. S4»; 80
L. J. P. C. p. 110.
(j) Incandescent Oa» Co. v. f VraMo,
12 B. P. C. 262; IntmdMcmt Oat
fo. v. Bngdm, 16 E. P. C. 179;
Jliitieh MutoBcope To. v. ffomer,
(1901) 1 Ch. p. 673; 70 L. J. Ch!
279; JlwHsche Anilin umi So/la-
l-'alirik V. /^ler, su/^ ; and see
.\iUiimai i'iimograph Co. v. Mnirk;
(1911) A. C. 336; SO L. J. P. C.
105.
43; U'enfiam das Co. v. Clmmpitm
Oas Co., 9 B. P. C. p. 56; North
KritUh Ruhher Co. v. Maeintoth, 11
B. P. C. 487; Con»o(idattd Oar
Heatmg Co. v. Cam*, (1903) A. C.
pp. 616, S17; 72 L. J. P. C. 110;
Brim LijHid Air Cb. t. BrUiah
8S-a
840
Chap VII.
8eet.S.
Taking part of
u inrtntioii.
Combiiiation
pktent.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
If a person discover a patentable improvement, he is not
precluded from patenting his discovery ; but if he cannot use
his discovery without using the i>rior invention, he cannot put
his discovery into practice during the torrn of the original
patent without the licence of the original {wtentee (c).
It is not necessary to constitute an infringement that the
whole of the patent should be taken. Taking an essential
part of the invention is an infringement. If part is taken,
there is an infringiement, however much it may be disgaised
or sought to be hidden (</).
To ascertain the essential feature of an invention, the speci-
fication must be read and interpreted by the light of what
was generally known at the date of the patent (e).
Where the patent is for a combination merely, and none of
the component parts are claimed separately, it is no infringe-
ment to take one of such parts, for parts which are not claimed
are not protected (/).
Although to infringe a combination patent it must generally
be shown that all essential parts have been taken, yet the
taking of a part only will be an infringement if the inventor
claims not only the whole combination but also separate parts
of it as independent entities (g).
Where the patentee claims only a combination, the test of
infringement is not whether all the component parts have
been taken, but whether the essence of the combination as a
Telegraph Co., (1911) 27 T, L. B.
Oxygen Co., (1908) 26 B. P. C. 606 ;
26 B. P. C. 628 ; Stone v. Broad/oot,
(1909) 26 B. P. C. p. 380; (1910) 27
B. P. C. 701 ; Marroni v. nritiih
Railio Tel'grnph Co., (1911) 27
T. L. R. 277 ; 28 B. P. C. 217.
(i) Crane v. I'rire, 1 W. P. C.
p. 413; 12 L. J. C. P. 81.
('/) Diidyrim v. Tbomptmi. 11 A. C.
p. 53 ; Stmie A: Co. v. Broail/oot &
Co., (1909) 26 B. P. C. p. 380;
(1910) 27 B. P. C. 701 ; jtfdreoiH v.
BritUh Badio Telegrt^h (1911)
27 L. B. 277; 28 B. r. 0. 217 ;
Lak. V. notax Motor G>., (1811) 28
n. r. ('. iVto.
(e) Marami v. Britiek Sadio
p. 278; 28 B. P. 0. p. 318.
(/) Pca*e$ V. Stevmt, 8 Eq.
p. 367 ; 38 L. J. Cb. 627 ; Davim
V. Towntmd, ' B. P. C. 497;
TowMend v. 12 0. D.
f- ' ; 48 ! , ' Ch. 770, n. ;
.10/) I'nr 'lire Co. v.
Moteley, (\». ch. pp. 172, 173,
612; 73 L. J. Ch. 227,417; SteiM
<£ Co. V. Broad/oot 4e Co., mipra;
Horritm PattnJU Cu. y. NkholtBn,
(1908) 26 B. P. 0. 404.
(ff) Clark V. Adie, 2 A. C. 320;
16 L. J. Ch. 0S5 ; CMttulidateJ O-ir
Ileatinri Co. v. Came, (1903) A. C.
pp. Sie, M7; 72 L. i. P. 0. UO;
Chap. VII.
Ssct. S.
INPBINOBMENT OF PATENTS.
whole has been taken. Therefore, uny substantiul union of
the essential parts for the same object will be an infringement,
even where all Ha parts have not been taken or when
mechanical equivalents have been substituted for some of
them {h). The mere fact that there are certain i)art.s omitted
and certain parts added, if the defendant has really taken
the essence of the jJaintill's ownbination, will not prevent
infringement (i).
Although it is not necessary that all the parts of a combina-
tion should be found in an infringement, it is necessary that
all " ossontial " parts should be taken, for the omission of
oven one essential factor constitutes the remaining ingredients
in fact a new combination ; and the granting of a patent for
one combination does not preclude another inventor attaining
the same end by a simpler c(Hnbination with fewer
ingredients (k).
The infringer of a patent rarely takes the invention in all Coi«,»u,
its details, but generally introduces variations to disguise the ''"|*^»<>'
piracy, and it is always a question of degree whether such
variations are sufficiently substantial to negative infringe-
mont, or are such alterations in non-essential details as would
not protect an infringer. What has to be considered is not
841
hiinloj) Pneumatic Tyre Co. v,
MmtJey, (1904) 1 Ch. pp. 171, 012;
73 L. J. Ch. 417 ; Vm BerM y.
BoUh, (1906)23 B. P. C. p. 604;
SUfiie & Ci>. V. Broadfoot .fr Co.,
(Iit09) 2HE. P. C. p. 380; (1910)
•-'T 1!. P. C. 701.
(/.) Osmond V. Hirtt, 2 E. P. C.
-'(io; Harrison v. Andtretm Foundry
''»., 1 A. 0. p. 593; Xorden/elt v.
(Iard„er, 1 E. P. C. 61, 65 ; Incan-
ilttcent Oat Light Co. \. The De
Mare Irucrndttcma Oa§ Light %(tem,
13 E. P. 0. p. 330 ; Consoiidated Car
Heating Co. v. Came, (1903) A. C.
517, 618; 72 L. J. P. C. 110; Cm-
I'ination Hiibo Co. v. Seahrook, (1906)
r;. i'. r. 2O8 ; Marrom v. Uritith
Jtuilio Teltgraph Co., (1911) 27
T. L. B. 277 ; 28 E. P. C. 181;
ColttHi V. Orten i Co., (1912) 29
B. P. C. 217.
(0 /Voefer V. Bennit, 36 C. D.
740, 736 ; 4 B. P. C. p. 354 ; Con-
folidated Car Ileatiny Co. v. dune,
(1903) A. C. pp. 517, 518 ; 72 L. J.'
P. C. 110; Stone .t Co. v. Browlfoot
<fc Co., (1909) 26 E. P. C. 380 ; (1910)
27 E. P. C. 701 ; ani see ManoniM.
BritUh Radio Teltgraph Co., (1911)
27 T. L. B. p. 277 ; 28 B. P. 0. ^ 217.
(*) Chvt/nn»r. Dryidak, 3 B. P. 0.
49 i OontoUdaM Car Heating Co. t.
Came; CoHiru v. Oreen <fc Co. ;
Stone it Co. v. Broad/oot it Co.,
tiqira ; see Britith Liyht Controllinq
Co. V. Mitropotitan Oat Metert Co.,
(1912) 29 E. P. U. 209; New
Inverted Ineandetcent Cht Lamp Co.
V. iSewM, (1813) SO B. P. C. 168.
843
INPBINGEMENT OP PATENTS.
CkMj^ni. simply whcthor in form or in circumstance that which the
defendant has done varies from the plaintiff's speeiflM^oiu,
but w"ht'thcr in reality, in hub.Htiinco and in effect the defendant
has availed himself of the plaintiff's invention (<).
Subttitntion Where the infringer takes the sulrtance of a patented
o((qainleBU. invention but varies the form by oraitt..ig certain parts and
introducing elements linown to be equivalents for the parts so
omitted, he is said to infringe by the substitution of
mechanical or chemiciil equivalents (w). But where the
objrct attained is old and (he only novelty consists in the
.substitution of bettor (-quivalonts for those already used, the
doctrine of mechanical or chemical equivalents does not
apply; and the patentee cannot bring within his specification
any equivalent which he has not described and claimed so as
to make its use on infringement of his patent right (n).
Where the invention is a new process for attaining an old
result, the patentee is entitled only to protection for his pro-
cess, and it is no infringement to attain the same result by a
different process (o). But where a new combination of well-
known appliances is directed to the attainment of a new
result, the patentee is not limited to the precise combir
which be has patented, but is allowed a wider ambit fi
monopoly (p). The doctrine of infringement by equivalents
is, however, subject to this, that the equivalents used must bo
such as were known to be equivalents at the date of the
patent ; otherwise tiiey constitute new discoveries and may be
patented (g).
(0 Oontoli'latnl Car Ileatimj Co.
v. Came ; Marconi v. Brituh Badio
TeUgraph Co., ntpra.
(m) Setttr$ v. Didtinton, 8 Ex.
312; 20 L. J. Ex. 417; Htnno
Jaffe.etc v. Ru hanhon, 11 E. P. C.
2i'i\ ; lirUialt Vwiiuin Co. v. KHim
Hotels Co., (190H) •>.•) B. P. C. 617 ;
uiul Bee Marconi v. Ilrituh Radio
Teleijraiih Co., fiijira.
(n) Curtu \:Plaa,iC. D. 135, n;
Ti. B. 1 H. L. 337 ; Tw$idiUe r. Atk-
wortk, 9 B. P. C. p. laa ; 17 B. P. 0.
625.
(o) Hmtehintim v. IWtUo, 6
B. P. 0. .lol ; see Hieki y. Simm<mdt,
(1904) 21 B. P. C. 632 ; Van Berkel
y. Booth, (1906) 23 E. P. C. pp. 603,
604.
(}') Ikulitche Aiiilin v. Levinstein,
24 C. I). 170; 5'.' L. J. Ch. 7(M ;
aSBrmed on appeal, 12 A. C. 710.
(}) Vnwin v. Iltath, S H. L. 0.
SOi : 25 L. J. C. P. 8. Set) Marconi v.
BriMt Radio TOegrapk Co., (1911)
37 T. L.B.P. 278; 88B. P.C.p. 218.
INFRINGEMENT OP PATENTS.
SKCTIDN 3. -INTKRLOCUTOHT KKLIKK
Wherk a ijutt-nteo upjdies for an interlocutory injunction,
ok■^ VII.
Scot. 3.
the Court in adjudicating upon the appHeati<m seeks as far wMtkOMut
as possible to mauitain tiie stiiius quo until the hearing. The
Court considers what it cun most satisfactorily do provision -
nlly, and has regnrd to the degree of convenlenee and
iiiconvenienco to the jjartics concerned (/ .
If one clear instance (s) of infringement, or a primd fade When the Court
case (0 of infringement is made out, and the plaintiff has
not been guilty of laches (it), the Court will generally grant
an interlocutory injunction in the following cases: (1) When
the validity of the patent has already been established in a
previous action. (2) When the patmt is of old standing aad
the onjoymont under it has been uninterrupted. (8) When
the validity of the patent is not in issue (x) ; and notwith-
standing that the defendant offers to keep an account (y).
Conversely, in general, if the patent is new, and its validity
has not been established, and it is endeavoured to be shown
that it ought not to have been granted, the Cwrt will not
interfere (z).
Where the Court refuses to grant an interlocutory injunc- wbeninter-
tion it generally requires the defendant to keepan account (a),
When the validity of the patent has been eetabliahed in a dtfendant
previous action, and the Coui t is satisfied that infringement keep account,
has taken place, the plaintiff is generally entitled to an inter- v»l'<iity
of [»tent haa
Hrine Solly i Co. r. Julitu Nordtn acHnk
(r) Bridton v. JPAlpine, 8 Beay.
229 ; Th,mp»(M y. Hvghet, 7 B. P. C.
76 ; BrotAt A Co. v. Lgeett Saidtt
Co., 20 B. P. C. S7S ; Oiratm Lamp
<h. V. BmUh, (1913) 30 B. P. C. 114.
(<) Vnited Ttltpbcnt Co. v.
Shar,de», 29 0. D. pi IW; M
I,. J. Ch. 633.
(() Hacrhann ('orporatum v.
Xatii'iial ^'laliarin Co., (1909) 2«
U. P. C. 654.
(h) See potl, aaot. 4.
(x) HiU V. Thtmpim, 3 Mer.
p. 624 ; Davmport r. Jtptm, 4
DeQ.F.*jr.4«0; Atwaav. Wilim,
2 D«a. M. ft O. p. 288 ; Renvrd v.
.fr Co . (1M4) 21 B. P. 0. p. 618.
(y) Dunlop PnmmaUe Tft$ Co. v.
Huhtard Tyrt Oh. (IMS) » B. P.
C. 540.
(z) l/ill V. Thompson, 3 Mer.
p. 624; Holiiii/iane Co. v. lleretui,
10 E. P. C. p. 19 ; Spencer v. Holt,
(1903) 20 E. P. C. p. H4 ; Zenith
Motor Co. v. Collier * Co., (1911) 28
B. P. C. 9«3; Trautntry. Patmert,
(1913) 29 B. P. C. 60.
(a) Bovill V. Crate, 1 Eq. 388 ;
Spencer v. UoU; Xenith Motor On,
V. CUiM> tk Co., iHfra.
814
INFBINOBMENT OP PATENTS.
Chap, VII.
Wbmi«lMt
iaof oU
loentoij injunetion, notiritlutanding that the defradsnt dis-
putes the validity of the patent on a ground not raised in th«
previous proceedings (b). A prior (iccision of a Scotch
Court (c), and eren the award of an arbitrator (d), have been
held suflBcient to justify the application of tbii nil«.
The patenteo's right to an injunction is strengthened if
he can show tliat the defendant has been indemnillying a
defendant in the former aetion (e), or that the defendant ia a
mere cover for u former inf) ^er who is thiu sedcing to
deprive the patentee of tlio benefits which have acoroed to
him under an earlier action (/).
Where tlie prior action has been won by the patentee
through the defendant failing to appear at the trial, the same
inference of validity will not be drawn. Secus, where tliis
happens in two successive actions by the same plaintiff (ff).
The value of a previous decision will not be discounted by
a suggestion that the defendants were not in a position to call
the best expert evidence (n). Nor will the circumstance that
a patentee has compromised actions previously brought by
him in respect of the same patent necessarily disentitle him
to an interlocutory injunction (i).
The fact that a patent is of old standing and the enjoy-
ment under it has been uninterrupted has [one been recog-
nised by the Court as a ground for granting an interlocutory
injunction. And this is so though there may be wmsiderable
doubt as to the validity of the patent (A:). " The rule is well
settled that the Court assumes the validity of a patent and
grants an injonctitm where there has been long and quiet
{!>) Xewall v. » t/«»n, 2 De O. M. ISerrntein, 14 1{. P. C. 133.
& O. 281' : Heine MIy ,t Co. v. (A) l-neumatic Tyre Co. v. Mar-
Julius Xonlen Jt Co., (19M) 21 wood, 18 B. P. C. 347.
(i) Brtuhtr T. Biueher, 7 R. P. C.
421. Of. SobtrU v. Orayd.m, {1903)
20 R. P. C. 87S.
(.'.) J/urmer v. Plane, 14 Ves. 132 ;
Brest in V. Foril, 2 Coop. V. C. 68;
Calilwell V. VaHvlUtenyen, 9 Ha.
415; 21 L. J. ':'h. 97; 89 B. B.
ShilUto V. Larmuth, 2
E. P. 0. 1,
R. P. C. 513.
(< ) iHiilgeoH T. Thomptim, 30
L. T. 244.
(rf) Litttr V. BattmxMi, 26 L. T.
((). S.)_4.
(f) F'irlien/abrihn l orm r.uyer v.
Dans,.!,, 8 R. P. C. 397.
(/) ,l/(uwr V, SeiveU, 10 E. P. P,
365.
(y) Kfliton Bell I'honograph Cu. v.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
815
ch»p. vir.
8«ct. 3.
enjoyment under it " (/). It ia not possible to say exactly
what iMgth of tiflM is sulBeient for the purpose, but the rule
bus been acted nixm in th« OMe of » iwtoDt of siz jmn'
standing (m).
Long enjoyment, however, is not enough unless it be also
undisturbed and esoioNTA. If the defendsnf eaa proT» thai
tho invention has been openly used by other persons during
the term of the letters patent, this will rebut the inference
which the Court draws in the patentee's farour from tho long
onjoyninnt (n). Hut dis(urb,tnc(. will not defeat tile ri^ to
an injunction where the jititontt'o ha.s takon proceedings
successfully against the infringers. Nor is it necessary that
the patentee should actually hare gone to trial; if the
infringers have submitted and recognised his titie, that is
sufficient (o).
Enjoyment of a patent ri^t mast inchide user. If the
■atent is of old standing but has only recently been put in
use by the patentee, the rule favouring long enjoyment does
not apply. Ohe patentee must show actual public user of his
patent (p).
Where the validi - of the patent is not in dispute, it must wi.ere ,»ii,iity
be assumed to be good, and consequently in such case, where
the infringement is clearly established, the Court will protect
oven a recent patent by interlocutory injunction (q). The
issue of validity may be excluded either through the defen-
dant not electing to raise it, or through the relation of the
parties being such tfiat as against the defendant tiie Court
must assume it in the plaintiff's favour. Thus a licensee
of the original patentee would be precluded from disputing
the validity of the patent (r).
(/) Damijtort V. Jtpum, 4 Da O. 379.
R * J. p. 44". (^,)
('») Hi' k/imI V. ,Sie» M, 1 W. P. 0. Eq. 3
■il i; 8 L. J. Ch. 188; Natural E. P.
<'i'l(iur Kinematograph Oo.r. Spter, (a)
(1912) 29 B. P.O. 669. 184;
(n) Collard v. Mliim, 4 IL ft C. I,. T.
->87 ; 4a B. &. 161 ; CurtUr. OtOU, Oo. v.
2Cw9.0. 0.60; 8L.J. Oh. 184. B. P,
(o) Botkwa V. Ki»g. 3 B. P. 0. (r)
Plymphm V. Maki'lmien, 30
7 ; SpiNMr T. Holt, (1908) 30
0. 142.
Cfar*e V. Ftrgiiao),, 1 Qi£f.
Dudgeon v. Thumptcm, 30
N. 8. 244: Wapthare Tubt
Hyde Rubier Co., (1901) 18
C. p. 379.
£«MM*T. Ftimr, 6 S. ft B.
846
INFBINOEMENT OF PATENTS.
Chap. VTT.
S«. l. ■(.
iullilliX'lllOIJ
injaaetiia.
Injnnetion
txfartt.
WkctC ilefcn-
dMt willing to
kwp «■ acaoant
■RCTION 4.— rSACnCK ON INTBRLOCUTORV INJUNOTIONB.
An applieation for an interloeatory injonetion to restrain
IliP infringcniont of u jKiloiit is tfcncrully nmdc by notite of
motion in tlie Chancery Division {h). Whm u Htrong primd
fade case of infringement is made oat and delay in obtaining
relief would cause serious injury to tlu; pluintiff, the Court
will gnuit iiri injunction ex ptirlr; a plaintiff who iippliea for
an injunction ex parte must hIiow uberrima fnies, disclosing to
the Court all the fads within his knorledge. lo that the Court
may be ablo to juilgc wbctbor it Hliould f^runt relief in the
absence of the defendant {i). The pluintifi must also swwr at
the time of making the application that he believtm tiiai the
invention was new and had never been practised in the king-
dom ut the date of the patent. It is not enough that it was be-
lieved to be hew at the time when the patent was taken out ; for
although when he obtained the patent he might have IXMIMtlj
sworn as to his belief of such being the fact circumstances
muy have subsequently occurred, or information may hare
been since that time communicated to him sufficient to oon-
vince him that it was not liis original invention and that he
was under u mistake when he made the application for the
patent (u).
Where a defendant T-iHin^? tr) koep account pending
the trial of the action the Court may refuse to grant the
plaintiff an injunction (x) ; the Court vill not, however, refuse
the plamtiff an interlocutory injunction merely beeaiMe tiie
defendant offers to keep an acci nit (;/). Rut if the defendant
refuses to keep an account, or does not appear, the Court
930 ; 28Ti. J. aB.26; 106B.B. 47 ; 29 B. B. M ; Jfi^ t. J^^m*.
868 ; Oroulen v. IHron, 10 H. L. 0.
293 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 61Y ; Cvmmingi
V. ><f»',/r/, (i!>i3) HO B r. r. !».
(«) See 7 Mw. 7, c. 29, -*ct. 24. In
the King's Honcli Division the appli-
cation ia by aummoiis to a judge
in (^huniliorsi. See Order 54, r. 12(e).
(() Dalglinh v. Jarvie, 2 Mac. &
G. 231 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 47S ; 86B.B. 83.
(u) Hili V. Tkumfntm, 3 Mer. jk.
624; 20B.B. 1S6; Btrnmy. D* la
Itiie. 5 Bow. p. 339 : 7 L. J. (O. S.)
I J. ft H. 87; and Momr v.
,71ine«, 10 R. p. C. 368.
(.) l.eonl.(ir lt,(- <',.. v. Kd'l,' ,(■ (':..
II R. P. ('. o.'H; lt„l'j,l,a»f Co. v.
llfTfwl, K. P. 18; aHlettt
Snfttii Itazor Vo. v. (famaije ct Co.
(I!t07) 24 R. P. C. p. «.
{y) I'limjituay. Spiller, 4 0. D.
p. 292; HolepkaiM Co. t. Birmid,
16 B. P. C. !>. W; thnttop Ptu»-
moHe Tt/nOa. r. HtMard Tyn Co.,
(1903) 19 B. P. C. m.
INFRINOEMENT OP PATENTS. 847
vill protect the putrntoe by granting the injunction («). The cii.p. vii.
Court raqnirM a fom»l undertaking m to the aeooant to be *•
H'nvn, imd wliern iin iindortuking is given a defendant u m
much hound uh he would be by an injunction, and moat
comply strictly therewith (a).
A plaintiff who seeks an intorlocutory injonetioa must Application fur
apply to the Court without delay. Any iachos on his part lli^lilhii:'","'"'
will disentitle him to this relief. Persons who assert legal
rights are bound to etmie promptly, and, d forfiori, persona
whoauMt i t only equiUihio rights ( h). The delay which is fatal
is delay after knowledge of the infringement. If the plaintiff
in in ignorance, he is excused from the consequences of
delay (c). It is not [Hjusihlo to say what exact amount of delay
will be fatal. It must depend upon the circurnstancoa of
each case. Nine months (H), six months (c), three
months (/), and eren three weeks (g) Uve been held to be
sufficient to disentitle the plaintiffs to interlocutory relief.
On the other hand, delay of three months (h) and eleven
montiis (0 may be explained, and will not then disoititle a
lilaintiff to relief. A plaintiff is not hound on a, mere threat
to immediately commence an action ; he is entitled to wait a
reasonable time to see whether anything is done in execution
of the thrart (ik). Delay against one infringer is no groond
for itsfusing interloculcjy lulirf a^inst another infringer in
regard to whom there hao been no such delay (I).
(j) «ori»T.JWecJ»,12B.P.C. '10. Co. r. Oarnagt <» Co., (HOT) 34
(a) Tkomtem v. AyAw, 7 B. P. C. 3.
R. P. 0. 71. {/) Dunlop Pueumatir Tyre Co.
(ft) r.e<mhar<Nr. KalU, 11 B. P. C. v. Hinnt, 14 R. P. 0. 263.
534 ; .VortA BHtith Rubber Co. v. (//) finer v. Hrut<,l Taiininy Co.,
Unrmnllij Co.. 12 R. P. C. p. 20; 2 E. P. C. 268.
Aitkn (lesel/arha/t v. Temler, 16 {li) I.oefiv. Hw/iie, I ^y.^P. C. 201.
R. P. e. p. 449; aniette Safety («) I'nite,! Telephme Co. y.
Ilavtr Co. V. (/amage .1- Co., (1907) Equtiable TOephau Co., 6 E. P. 0.
B P- 1- 233; M« WMofh heoHimml <fa>-
(<•) <Vo«fay V. Derbg Oat Co., I %M 0».r.amm>iriumdmimfO».,
w.p.c. lao. i8B.p.o.m
(<l) BmiU T. Onrfe, 1 Bq. 388 ; (*) United Telephone Co. v.
Artien Oetelltrha/I v. Temler, IB KquitabU Telephme Co.. aiiirra.
R. P. 0. 44!t. (/) Pneumatic Tyre Co. y.
(e) Eiliton-Bdl r. Hough, 11 Warrilow, 13 B. P. C. 284.
B. P. C. m ; Oiiltttt St^fifyBaMm-
848
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Chap. VII. The object of the Court in granting an interlocutory injunc-
' tion is to prevent mischief and keep things in sttUu quo until
Uon^wo'uTi'rtop hearing (to). Thorofnro, whoro a direction to keep an
works. account will do the plaintiff ample justice, an injunction will
not as a rule be granted (w). Where the trade of the defen-
dant is an old and ostiiblished ono, and an injunction will
have the effect of stopping extensivi^ workn, :ind will therefore
bo likely to do the defendant irreparable inis?hief, an injunc-
tion will not usually be granted on tiie defendant undertaking
to keep an account (o). But whore the trade of tho defendant
is a new one, and the defendant is the seller of goods to a
considerable number of people, it would be less inconvenient
and less likely to produce irreparable damage to restrain the
defendant from selling, than it would be to allow Lim to sell
and merely keep an account, thus forcing the plaintiff to
commence a large number of actions against purchasers.
Accordingly where the defendant's trade is a new one an
injunction will generally bo granted (p). In ono case the
Court, to prevent the injunctitm ruining the defendants' busi-
ness, required the plaintiffs to undertake to suj>ply the defen-
dants, who had been using pirated machines, with lawful
instruments until the hearing (q).
I'liJertaking When an interlocutory injunction is granted, it is the
practice of the Court to require the plaintiff to give an under-
taking to abide by any order the Court may make in the
defendant's favour for dfunagcs, and this is so, even where
the case for an interlocutory injunction is clearly made
out (r). This rule aids the Court in that which is its great
object on these applications, viz. to abstain from expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case until the Iiearing (•).
(m) Plimpttm v. Spilkr, 4 C. D. (p) IHimptom ▼. Spiller, injira ;
p. 289. NoHh Britith RuKber Co. v.
(n) Seihon v. Thomysm, 1 (l<.rmnlh/ Co., 12 E. P. C. 17—20.
W. P. C. '2HG ; Thomiim \. Uu(jhe», (>/) I'lntci' Tele/ihone Co. v.
7 E. P. C, 71. Ta>/.<T. II. P. C. p. 63J.
('•) Ntiltan v. Thnmjimn, 1 W. P. (r) Herxml v. /.e. instein, 2 JI. &
C. 286 ; I'limptm v. S/.«7/er, 4 C. D. M. 628.
p. 292; see Leedi Forge Co. t. (<) Wakefeltl t. BuccUueh, 11
Beightm ftterf Kw Cb., (1901) 18 Jttr.N.8.i}24,i)erElad«rs!a]r.Y..C.
B. P. 0. 340 (iajunotioB siuqpMMM).
as to damagu.
cksp. vn.
S«et. 4.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Sometimes when a motion for an interlocutory injunction is
unsuccessful the plaintiff seeks to obtain an order expediting
the trial of the action, but such an application will not usually fj^^i'!"?
be grer'.. iha rule upon which the Court acts being that
whe. ;in injuiietion !: not given, the damages awarded at the
trial .ire full compen .ation for any loss meMiwhile sustained
by 1i i iruiiT , , ). But in cases of special hardship the trial
will be txpeuiitvi (.,').
849
SECTION 5.— PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
After a patentee has conclusively established the validity
of his patent, and thit it has been infringed, he is as a
general rule entitled to a perpetual injunction against the
defendant (x). An injunction is not, however, a matter of
coui se, but is in the discretion of the Court (y).
Where the Court is satisfied that infringement has been Perpetual
committed, and that there is a probability that it will be j^^^^twi
repeated, an injunction will usually be granted. In such a ' *" *™
case the plaintiff has primd facie established his right to an
injunction, and the Court will require exceptional circum-
stances to be shown to induce it to refuse this relief (z).
There must, however, be a probability that the infringe-
ment is going to be repeated. An injunction is a remedy
against future injury, and the Court will not make tha order
if satisfied that no such injury is likely to occur. It is not
because a man has done a wrong that an injunction will be
granted against him. The Court most be satislled of the
probability of the continuance of the wrw.'rfal act (a).
(0 FarbenftUirilcn vorm Bager
Co. V. Bowhtr, 8 E. P. C. 138.
(«) EdiKM-BM T. Hough, 11
R.P.C.aW; Ltomhardty.KalU.n
I!, r. C. .'i34, •eeE. 8. C. Order W,
r. 1, A.
(') Xhclfer V. Cilij nf Loii'lon
Klertrp- Co., (1895) 1 Ch. 310, 311 ;
•"A Jj. J. Ch. 216, 226.
{>/) Spaul v. McmopoU Cgck Co.,
"!Hie) 23 B. p. C. p. ft48. The
Court wnnetime* requires the
pUntia to tak» the defendant's
undertaking instead of granting an
injunction, see Dover Co. y. AVic
Tiurnenil Cycle Co., (1904) 2 1 E. P. C.
135; Uaditche Ar.ilin und Smla-
Fabrikj. Spivey, ( 1 905) 22 B. P. C. 66.
(j) Frearton v. Loe, 9 C. D. p. 66 ;
Shoe Machintnf Oo. v. Catlan, 12
B. P. C. 367 ; Wtmer Motor Co. v.
Oamage * Co., (1904) 1 Ch. pp. 267,
268 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 268.
(a) Lea/iy v. Ulover, 10 R. P. 0.
141 ; Srolt V. //„« steam Fith-
«V Co., U B. P. C. 143;
850
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Clnp. VII. Where there is no future threatened danger to the plaintiff's
_ rights, un injunction will generally be refused (6). Though
When refoMd. j^j^^ infringeniMit usually implies an intention to infringe in
future, yet if the person who infrinpes undertakes not to
repeat his infringement, or if there is reason a) suppose on any
other ground that the defendant will not infringe in future, the
Court will not usually make ar order for injunction {<■.).
When damages
There are, however, cas. s in which damages may be
onnjuDcUor' awarded instead of an injum .ion. In any instance in which
a case for injunction has been made out, it the plaintiff by
his acts or lachoH has disentitled himself to an injunction,
the Court may award damages in its place (d).
Delay or acquiescence, which would be fatal to an applica-
tion for an interlocutory injunction, may not debar a plaintiff
from obtaining a perpetual injunction at the trial (e), and,
quare, whether mere delay to enforce a legal right is a bar
to » claim for an injunction unless the delay* is euch as to cause
a statutory bar to the action (/).
It is a good working rule that (1) if the injury to the plain-
tiff's rights is dmall, (2) and is one wWch is capable of being
( stimatcd in money, (3) and is one which can be adequately
compensated by a small money payment, (4) and the cafle is
one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant
an injunction, then damages may be given instead. There
may also be cases in which, though the four above-mentioned
requirements exist, the defendant by his ccmduct has dis-
entitled himself from asking that damages may be assessed
in substitution for an injunction {g).
tor V. liaijle;/' ^- P- ; 59 143 (damages awarded).
L.jr. Ch. 12; Wemrr Motor Co. \. {<rj Shel/er v. Cit;/ of L<m.lmi
aama9$ and Co., tiipra; Burberryi Electric Li>ildin<i Co., (18!io) 1 Ch.
y. WaikinmM (1906), 23 B. P. C. p. 321 ; 64 L. J. Ch. p. 22!).
p. 142; Spatd^.MiMopoUCtfehCo., («) Proctor v. Jimnii, 36 C. D.
(1906) 23 K. P. C. p. 848 ; BriH$h p. 758 ; 57 L. J. Ch. p. 11.
CniteJ 0>. V. C, Vier, (1909) 26 (/) Three Toums Hanking Ob. t.
E.P. C. p. 3.39; (1910 27 E. P.O. 567. Maihlever, 27 C. D. 523; 63 L.J.
(i) I'roctor V. Ilayley, 42 C. J). Ch. 998 ; and see Fulhrooil v. Full-
39<); 59 Ti. J. Ch. 12; Lyim v. wn«K 9 C. I). 176; 47 L. J. Ch.
Narrastle Corporatim, 11 E. P. C, (.■>!) ; Rowlanii v. Mitchell. 75 L. T.
218 ; nurlierryt v. WatkiHum, Biqira. 65 ; Jamifsi'ti v. .himiefm, \:> E. P. C.
(c) ProOor V. Bojflty, lupra; Scott p. 179.
r.Hua^mmFiMitgGo^l^VLV.O. (a) Shttfer r. City of Lotukm,
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
As stated above, an injunction will not be granted unless
there is a probability of future inj ury. IJut past infringement
of a recent date is primd facie evidence of an intention to
repeat the wrong (h).
Wl -re a plaintiff is entitled to several patents for the pro
ductiou of a particular article, and it is not certiiin which
lialcnt has hvm infringed, an injunction will be granted for
the period covered by the oldest of the patents (i).
As a rule an injunction will only be granttxl for the period
covered by the life of the patent. When the patent has run
out, or is upset on some ground of invalidity, tiie injunction
ceases to operate (A).
When an injunction was granted with an inquiry as to
damages, and pending the inquiry the defendants obtained an
order revoking the plaintiff's patent, it was held that on the
inquiry a8 to damages the defendants were estopped from
denying the validity of the patent (I).
An injunction granted on proof of one form of infringe ment
binds the defendant as to that and all other possible forms of
infringement of the same patent. Where, therefore, there is
a new form of infringement after injunction grant<"d, the
proper course is not to commence a new action, but to move
to attach the defendant for contempt for breach of the in-
junction (m).
An injunction will not be granted if the patent has expired
before the hearing («) ; and as a rule the Court will refuse to
grant an mjunction where the patent is about to expire, for
R. P. C. 169 ; San /iarin CorporatUM
V. Jaelettm, (1803) 20 H. P. C. 6il.
(0 FouUoH V. Adjtutaik Ccmr
and IMler Co., (1908) 3 Ck. 430:
77 L. J. Ch. 780.
(«) Thompion v. Moore, 6 B. P. C.
448, Mid see l.amathire Eiplotirea
Co. V. Hob It rite Co., VA ]{, P. C. 429 •
Davidtm v. Sun Fan Co., (1906) 23
B. P. C. 493.
(n) Saccharin Corporatim y.
Q-tinre:/, (!9(10) 2 Ch. 348 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 630; JCm* md PttUtm r.
Seyk <t (M., W E. p. 0. 324.
851
Chap. VII.
Swjt. 6.
Where soveral
li.-itfnl« anil
iiiiccrtaiut;
which u
iiifriiigeil.
For what period
injanetion
gnntad.
Injunction
and inquiry M
t<> damages ;
patent anbM-
qnmtly moM.
Bxpiiatiaa et
patent befora
hearing.
.tr., (1895) 1 Ch. p. 321 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
I). 229 ; Jenkins v. (1896) 1 Ch.
27,S ; 65 L. J. Ch. 249 ; Scott v. J/ull
Sttnin FhhiiKj Co., 14 B. P. C. 143.
(A) I'roiU^ V. Bayltg, 42 C. D.
p. 398 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 12.
(•') aaeeharm C«rporatien Daw-
»oB,(190a)19B.P.0. 169; Saccharin
Corporation v. Jactuon, (1903) 20
1!. 1". C. 611; Saccharin Corporation
V. .Mark * Co., (1906) 23 R. 1'. C. 25.
(A) l>aw V. Eley, 3 Kq. 496 ; :}6
L. J. Ch. 482; and m« tiaeekarin
CorporaUoH r. Daumm, (I9W) 19
352
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Cbap. VII.
8M!t. 5.
Injunction not
gnuitcd against
third iMiiin.
Defendant
conaenting to
ii^aBeUon bf
mntak*.
Form of
injanctioB.
Amendment ol
■peciftoatian
after injonstion
granted.
in such case damages will usually bo a sufficient remedy (o).
But where a quantity of infringing goods had been manu-
factured just before tho cxpimtion of the patent, with the
objci i>f throwing such gi>o(ls on tho inarkot as soon as the
patent was at an end, a porpetuiul injunction was granted to
restrain the sale of suoh goods both before and after the
expiration of the patonf term (p).
An injunction will not be granted against third par;ios,
though thoy may bo ordered to puy costs. Where a. plaintiff
finds, pending the action, that he has a diroct claim against
a third iwirty, ho ought to apply to amend by adding him as
co-defendant ; but this cannot be done after trial and for the
purposes of an appeal (q).
Where iho secrotary of the defendant company had taken
no part in the acts of infringement, but was lade a defendant
and appeared and put the fact of infringement in issue, an
injunction was granted again<«t him with costs, but no
damages (r).
A defendant who by surprise or mistake has consented to an
injunction will be allowed to withdraw such consent ; but the
subscquont discovery of facts on which he could found a
defence is not a sufficient ground for withdrawal (s).
The injunction uBually; restrains the defendcmt, hia ser-
vants, agents and workmen from making, selling, using,
ofiering for sale, or otherwise wrongfully dealing with goods
made in infringement of tiie plaintiffs patent; suoh being
the case, the injunction maj be useful though tiw defenduit
be a foreigner (<)•
If a patentee amends his specification after he has been
granted an injunction, the injunction no longer holds good(«).
(o) Hefts V. aallau, 10 Eq. 392 ;
%\'elib<Kh Incawittcent, ifec, Co. v.
Sew Incandetcntt Co., (1900) 1 Ch.
843 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 313.
(//) ''romle;/ v. Beverley, 1 R. AM.
166, II ; Crosshy v. Derby (las
Lii/H 1 R. & M. 166; 4 L. J.
Ch. j-
(j) ArfMon V. HMawl, 41 C. D.
38,32; Wlv^,0b.fta4.
(r) Weltbarh Incandescent Co. v.
Daylight Co., 16 E. P. 0. 344.
(«) EUat T. WWiamt, 54 L. J. Oh.
336 ; 62 L. T. 39.
(() Baditeht Anilin, Jtcr. Jekiuoit,
(1896) 1 Ch. 2S.
(«) Dudgeon v. Thcmp»m, 3 A. C.
,",4 ; =A« /k rr Kcnrifk tint! Je/ferum't
Patent, (1912) 29 E. P. C. 26.
Chap. Vn.
Se«t. fi.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
A patentee's remedy for breach of an injunction is amotion
for committal and in tlie case of a corporation, for the seques .
ration of ite property and the committal of its directors (x) ^'i'":^?'
li not absolutely necessary that the order should havTbei '
served but knowledge that the injunction has been granted
must be brought home to the defendant. If there is a breach
1'. foro there is time to serve the order, the Court will inquire
"hetJier the defendant knew of it. and he will not be allowed
o escape by any subterfuge. If he was in Court, he will not
be allowed to say he did not hear it ; if just outside the Court,
he will not be heard to say he did not know of it (,y). But if
the plamtiff by his long delay in getting the order drn wn up or
otherwise gives the defendant reason to think that he does
nof^ intend to enforce the injunction, that is an answer to a
motion to commit (z). «» ■« »
Committal will net be ordered lightly; the case must be
strictly made out on the affidants (a) ; and the Court will not
encourage motions to commit where no real case for committal
can be made out, and all the plaintiff want« is ao apology and
Defendants who disobey an injunction render themselree
.able to committal, and in the case of a company to sequestra-
f.*''!'; P"?*'^' though they act in the bond fide
el.ef that they arenot guilty of any infringement; but where
^ey are clearly mnocent the Court usually directs that the
writ should issue but not be enforced if the defendants deliver
np the mfnngmg articles and pay costs (c).
D- p. 786; «3 L. J. Ch.
858
(x) Speneer v. Ancoatt Vale
Rohher Co., 6 E. P. C. 46 ; OUUtte
Sa/il,/ Razor Co. v. Gamwje <fc Co..
(19"T) 24 B. P. 0. p. 6; Fox t.
Aitrachm Oo^ (1910) 27 B. P.
769.
(y) United Tei^iAoM Co. v. DaU
2S C. D. 784, 78S ; 83 L. J. Ch. 295 ;
D. v. A. A Co., (1900) 1 Ch. p. 487 ;
69 L. J. Ch. p. 383 ; Re Launder]
(ltK)S) 98 L. T. 534 : W. N. 49
■.'•■■•■eituking-).
(i) United Tdtphont Co. v. Ddl*,
K.I.
2f C.
p. 297.
(a) Dick V. Haalam, 8 E P
196.
(A) Platiug Co. v. Farouhanon,
17 a D.49; SOL. J. Ch. 406.
(c) Li/oii V. Omldart/, 1 1 E. P. C.
115; seo Meier a Co. v. MetropaUm
Oat Ueten Co., (1907) 24 E. P. 0.
Sll; aUhtte Sa/tty Baxor Cb. t.
Oamagt i Co., (1907) 24 R. P, P.
p. «; Fo(g T. Attrathm Co., (1910)
2711. P. a 7». '
S8
854
LNFIUNGEMENT OF PATENTS.
Where dafea- If the defendant offers to submit to an injunction, or
* prorjises no longer to infringe, it will depend upon eircum
stances whether he will be ordered to pay the costs incurred
subsequently to his submission. The real point is whethor
the plaintiff must go on with his proc('o<iings, or whctQier he is
already sufficiently protected by the surrender of hia oppo-
nent (d). The plaintiff is gmerally entitled to go on, if there
be any doubt, at any rate until ho has obtainedhis injunction,
or if the defendant offers unreasonable conditions, as that
the order should not be advertised (e), but the Court will
use its discretion on the facts of each case (/).
Where the plaintiff comes to enforce a legal right, and tJiere
has been no misconduct on his part, the Court will not deprive
the plaintiff of his costs (g). But this does not mean that
every innocent purchaser of a small quantity of infringing
goods incurs a liability to pay the costs of an action to restrain
the infringement of the patent (h). The case is, howerer,
different where the quantity of goods purchased is large, that
is, large enough to justify the plaintiffs in suspecting that the
goods were intended for distribution and not for personal
use (t)'
NotiMof As a general rule a plaintiff is entitled to issue his writ
without notice to the derendant, and after that the only, offer
which the defradant can properly make is to sabmit to an
injanction and to pay the costs (A;). At the same time a plain-
(d) Uptnann\.Elkan,TCh.iaOi Q/) Cooper t. WkittingiMm, 13
41 L. J. Ch. 246 ; Proctor v. C. D. 501 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 782 ;
Jlai/te;/, 42 C. I). 390 ; 59 L. J. Ch. I'imann y. Ftyresicr, 24 C. I). 231 ;
12 ; Werner Motors Co. v. damaije 52 L. J. Ch. 946; but see Walter
A Co., (1904) 1 Ch. pp. 267, 268; v. Steinkopfl, (1892) SCh. p. MO;
73 L. J. Ch. 268 ; see GUI v. Philips, 61 L. J. Ch. 521 .
(1912) 29 H. P. C. 397. (h) American Tohacn, Co. v.
(e) Henry Clog v. Godfrey Guest, (1892) 1 Ch. 630 ; 61 L. J.
PAtMtfM, (1910) 27 B. P. C. SOS. Ch. 242; Leahy r. Olmer, 10
(/) Colham V. Simm, 2 Ha. E. P. C. 141 ; Burberry* T.
643 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 38(1 ; 62 B. B. Watkintm, (1906) 23 B. P. 0. 141.
225: Nunn v. n'.Hhiinueri/iie, (i) I'ptno.nn y, A'nr?«<?r, 24 C. D.
Bmt. 695 ; fenkiru v. flope, (1896) 231 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 946.
1 Ch. 280 ; 64: L. J. Ch. 34». {k) Withmtnn v. OppenMrn, 27
■ction.
Oh»p. VII.
Sect. ft.
INFBINGEMENT OF PATENTS.
tiff must not act unreasonably, and if he refuses a reasonable
offer, although an injunction is granted, no costs may be
giren (0- Thua, where the defendant innocently sold the
plaintiff's articles as being of his own manufacture, but only
did so on one occasion, and the piaintiff commoncefl proceed-
ings for an injunction without giving the defendant warning
01 asking for an undertaking not to repeat the act, the motion
for un injimction was dismissed, no order being made as to
costs (vi). And, where the defendant did not dispute the offer b,
plaintiff's patent, and had never used the machine (which he ''•''•»^'-
had purchased and which infringed the plaintiff's patent), and
did not intend to use it, and undertook not to use it, and the
plaintiff would not accept this or any other undertaking, on the
undertaking being given to the Court, tiie motion for an
injunction was dismissed with costs (n). So also, where the
defendant before the motion for an injunction, offered the
plaintiff an unconditional undertaking not to infringe, and
that tJic motion should be treated as the trial of the action, and
the plaintiff refused Uxe defendant's offer, the motion was
dismissed with ooBte (o).
Stay of Execution.
The C3ourt has a discretion to stay proceedings pending an
appeal, but the general rule is that in the case of an injunctiim
a stay will not be granted (p). But each case depends largely
upon its own special circumstances. If a stay is granted as
to the mjunction, fite defendant will generally be put on terms
to keep an account and to appeal promptly (q). In a recent
C. I). 2G.), 26S ; 54 L. J. Ch. oii ; (190(i) 23 R. P. C. 647 ; see OiU v.
8S6
but .see J'lirherri/s v. IVatk-iiiion,
(I'.Km) 23 R. P. C. 141, as to giving
notice.
(/) Nuan T. D'AlbuqimqM, 34
Beav. 596 ; Burbenyt v. Watkinton,
tipra.
(m) Burberryi v. Watkinson, tiipra.
(n) Lyon V. Netirastlt Cvrjiora-
tlon, n R. P. U. 218; and see
Je^ikin, V, !{:.}.(, (1896) 1 Ol 280 ; 23";
65 L. J. Ch. 249.
(") SiKud V. MmupvU Cgek Co.,
Philipf, (1912) 29 R. P. C. 397.
(p) Otto V. Steel, 3 E. P. C. p. 121 ;
Pneter r. Barnit, 4 B. P. C. p. 363 ;
Ltmetuhin Explotivet Co. r.
Rohuritt Etijplotivti Co., 12 R. P. C.
p. 483; PUHngtm v. Yeatley
Vofuum Hammer Co., 18 R. P. C.
459.
(y) Kaye y. Chubb, 4 R. P. C.
!^atioitai Oiiuiilt Syndicate v.
CmUUe Syndirate, 13 E. P. C.
p. 6M; North BHUik £mM«- Co.
856
INFRINGEMENT OP PATENTS.
case (r) in lieu of a stay, the defendants were allowed to carry
on busiiMM taking a lieeaoe from the plaintifffl, iritiioat pre-
jiidicp to their appoal, tho pinintiffs undortflking to return
the royalties if the defendants' appeal was suco jsful. If
the defendant is engaged in executing ordera for the article
complained of, and the question of infringement is one of
difficulty and douht, the Court is more disposed to stay the
injunction pending appeal (s). But where defendants, after
warning that Uiey were infringing, accepted orders and pro-
ceeded to execute them, with their eyea ojien, the Court refused
a stay although the orders were for public authorities, and
it would have been a convenience to the public to grant a
stay {t). An injunction has, however, been suspended <m
the ground of public convenience (u).
T. OormuUif, <fcr. Co., 14 E. P. C. {>) HwlHtt v. Whitehead, 12 B.
282, 302 (payment into Court); P. C. p. 191; and see Lyon t.
Lee>li Ftirife Co. v. Dtyihton'i Flue ({uddard, 10 B. P. C. 136.
('«., 18 E. P. C. p. '.MO ; Otram (t) I.yon v. (lo,ldard, 10 R. P. C.
f.aiiij) U'orksy. " a.'' Klfdrle Lamp .'i48.
r,,., (1912) 28 B. P. (". 402. (u) Ilopkituoa T. St. Jama
(r) Jawirs Arc Lamp Co. v. Arc Elertric Light Cu., 10 B. P. C.
Lamp Co., (1906) 22 E. P. C. 298. p. 62.
CHAPTEB Vni.
INJUNOnOMS TO BIBTBAIK TBI PAHIVa 0W9 Kt k lUM OT BIS
GOODS AS THB 00008 Or ANOTBIB, AHO TBI PIBAOT OF
TRADE MARKS AND NAMRS.
Thk jurisdiction of the Court in restraining by interlocutory ch*p. viii.
injunction the pagaing off by one man of his own goods as JarUiicu»D.
Iiciiig the goods of another, and the piracy of trade marks and
triidp names, is in aid of the legal right and is founded on the
equity of protecting property from irreparable damage. The
principles npmi which the Court interferes in soeh casei are
the same as those upon which it acts in other cases in pro-
tecting legal rights to property from violation (o).
The law relating to the passii.^ off by a man of his goods as p.„ing off.
the goods of another was stated by Kay, L.J., in Powell v.
Birmingham Brewery Co. (6) in the following ten propow-
tions :—
" (1) It is unlawful for a trader to pass off his goods as the
goods of another (c).
(2) Even if this be done innocently it will be restrained :
MiUington t. Wok (d).
(3) A fortiori, if done designedly, for that is a fraud,
(o) Leather Cloth Co. v. American Niecolli, (J911) A. C. 693 ; 80 L. J.
Ch. 744 ; Dentat Manu/aetmriHg Oo.
T. Trtg, (1912) 3 K. B. pp. 84, »7;
81 L. J. E. B. lira; Ltvtr Bro$. t.
Maibro' BqmkMe Hontn Society,
(1912) 106 L. T. 476 ; 28 T. L. B.
294; JT. <fc O. /)« Crot t. OM.
(1913) 29T. L. E. 117.
(</) 3 My. 4 Or. 338 ; and see
Cellular Clothing Co. v. MaxUm,
(1899) A. C. p. 334 ; 68 L. J. P. 0.
72; Bowring t. awa» amd Mdgttr,
(IMS) I Oh, a», 217; 72 L. J. CSi.
188; Weingarten v. Bat/er, (1905)
«aL.T.«ll, S14; 19T. L.B.604;
Warwick T^re Co. v. A'etv Motor
Rvhher Co., (1910) 1 Ch. 246; 79
L. J. 0. 177; (kmn m ?. A»fh- ,
<Uh Co., 4 De O. J. & S. 137 ; 33
L. J. « \ 199; McAndrew v. Jia$-
nett, i Do a J. ft S. 384 ; 33 L. J
C%. Ml. A> to ptope rty is a trade
mark, mo Bwrhwr^t t. Cording <t
Co. (1909), 100 L. T. 985; 25
T. L. B. 576; Warwick Tyrt Co. v.
Xew Motvr and Qeneral Riibbtr Co.,
(1910) 1 Ch. pp. 253, 236; 79 L. J.
Ch. 177.
(/') (1896) 2 Ch. pp. 79. 8C;S. C,
(Ksy;) A. C. 710.
(c) See Btddaway t. AmAom,
(1896) A. 0. IW; 88 L. J. Q. B.
381 ; BurUrry't v. Ceritftg * Co.
Warwick Tgr* Co. r. M*w Muhr and
'Jtittral JiaUtr On., §ufra; Big* t.
8S8
TRADE If ABK8 AND TRADE NAMES.
(*) Although the first purchaser is not deceived, neverthe-
less ir tho article in m delivered to him ae to be csloolsted to
dcicivo a i)urcliaBer frwn hij;', that is illegal: Sifket t.
Si/kea (e).
(6) One apparent exception is that where a man has been
de.scril)ing his goods by his own mime, another man having
the same name cannot be prevented from using it, though this
may have the effect of deceiving purchasers: Burgess v. Bur-
gess (/) ; Turton v. Turlon (g).
(6) Hut this exception does not go far. A man may so
use his own name as to infringe the rule of law. " It is a ques-
tion of evidence in each case wheUier there is false representa-
tion or not": per Turner, L.J., in Burgess v. Burgess (/).
So he may be restrained if he associates another man with
him 80 that under their joint names he may pass off goods as
the goods of another person : Croft v. Dag (h) ; Clayton v.
Dug (i) ; Melacluino v. Melachrino Egyptian Cigarette
Co. {k).
(7) Another apparent exeepti<m is where a man has under
a patent had u monopoly for fourteen years and has given the
article a descriptive name he cannot when the patent has
expired prevent anotiier from selling it under that nalne:
Young v. Macrae (I) ; linoleum Manufaeturing Co. t.
Nairn (wi).
(8) I am not sure this would be so if the name so used were
the name of the patentee, or even a purely fanciful name not
descriptive.
(9) Certainly where there has not been a patent and an
article has been made and sold under a fanciful name not de-
scriptive so that the article as made by one person has acquired
Ftreij/n, etf., Co., (1911) 28 B. P. C. (1912} 29 B. P. C. 3N.
74 : Lever Maibrc' EquUahte (g) 430. D. 128 ; w* /<mi<««oii ▼.
Pionerr* Soctefy. (1912) 106 L. T. ./amiuon, 10 B. P. C. 169 ; Chivtrt
474 ; 28 T. L. B. 294 ; Tetttvum y. y. Chivere, 17 B. P. C. 420.
SombergfT, (1913) 107 L. T. 742. {h) 7 Iteav. 84.
(f) 3 B. & C. 541 ; 3 L. J. (O. S.) (i) 26 S. J. 343.
K. B. 46. (k) 4 H. P. C. 215.
(/) 3 De a. M. & O. 896 ; 22 {/) 9 Jur. N. 8. 322.
L. J. Ch. 675. i^ep Ar1ien,,'!rlhrhan (m) 7 C. 1) 834.
, Hommtl't Haematogen v. Hummel,
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
858
I t'putittion under tlmt nuino, aiiothir tiuder will not be ik i- CiMy. VUI.
mittcMi to use the name for a similar article made by him :
lUiihum V. liuxlanl (n) ; Cuckniiii' v. Mncnisk (o).
(10) To UuH luHt pi-oiK>NitioM tlu'io is ugaiu a liiniUtion.
If the first makei haa slept upon his rights and allowed the
niim" to l)e uHod by othorH until it has become pMici jurit,
tlic Court will not ititcrforc."
A defoiidanl will also be restrained from passing off one
class of the plaintiff's goods as and for a saperior class of
goods dealt in by tlie plaintiff (p).
In order to uubntuntiutH u case of " pamsing off " the plain-
tiff must i»roTe that the name (aniess there is express repre-
sentation by the defendant), or the get-up by wliieh the defen-
dant seeks to describe the incriminated goods <8 the proper and
accepted description of the plaintiff'8 goods, or of a definite
article or class of i.rticles of the plaintiffs for iriiich the
incriminated article or class of articles is passed off (q).
A registrable trade mark is defined by the Trade Marks Trade n«rk.
Act, 1906, as a mark ased or {wotposed to be osed apon or
ill connection wiLh goods (r) for the purpose of indicating
that they are the goods of the proprietor of such trade mark
by virtue of manufacture, selection (»), oertifloation, dealing
with, or offering for sale ; " mark " inclodes a device, brand,
ht'tuling, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter (t)^
numeral, or any combination thereof.
Where such a mark, brand or symbol comes by use to be
(/i) 1 H. & M. 447. mark may be registered in connec-
(n) (1896) A. 0. 225. tion with natural products of the
(/.) Trwher v. Le-y, (190<i) 2.'i earth {•'liaml IfoM Co. of Caletlonia
U. P. C. 117; Si»'l<iin<i y. <lamai/e Sj^nns v. fVilsim, (1904) A. C.
.(■ r,,., (19i;i) 29 T. I/. R. 541.
(</) /Iitnt Jioope V. Ehrmann,
llroa., (1910) 2 Ch. 198 ; 79 L. J.
I'h. 533. As to " txap-ordeta," gee
fair V. Criip, (1902) 19 B. P. 0.
497, 501 ; Bipley v. Griffitht,
19 B. P. C, 697 ; Truefitt v. Edmy,
(HI03) 20 E. P. C. 321 ; Lever Bros.
V. Maabro' Equitable Ptoneers Soriety,
[ iiili') lot) L. T. 472 : 2»T. L. E. m4.
(r) 6 Edw. 7, c. 13, 8. 3. A trade
p. 110; 73 L. J. P. C. 1 ; Majin-
llroa. V. Franklin, (1908) 1 K. B.
712; 77 L. J. K B. eOl).
(«) A saleranan on oommiMOD
may be pnqprietoar of a trade mark
in connection with the poods he
sells on commission [Major Urot. v.
Franklin, an pro).
(<) As to rej^istmtion of initial
letters, see E. Yv'. ac G. Du Cros.,
(1913) A. C. 624 ; 29 T. L. B. 772.
mtut bo fur
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
" *"«ni8ed in trade m the mark of the gooda of a partieabr
trudw HO l.mt ih. rt hv jHnsonH purchiwing gixxiH of that
description know tht iii to bo hia, it becomes to that extant the
axoluBive property of that particnUr trader, and no other
tnidrr ban Uie right to brand the aaine or a similar mark on
goods of the sutiie dt'«Tii>f ion. liy doing ho he would b.. sub
■lantinlly representiiif,' tho goo<U to be Uiose of the trader
who ha<l previously adopted the mark or iiraod in qaeation,
and 80 would or might deprive him of the profit ho might have
made by the sale of the goods which the purchaser intende,] to
buy. The law considers this to be a wrong towards the person
whose murk is thus a>sum(Ki for which he has a ri^t of
action («).^ The right, however, to the exclusive use of a
m.ui b» lor " limited to its use in connection with particular
i«rtteabr ip»d*. g«)ds Or classes of goods (x). Apart from the partieolar oae
or application there is no right to the use of the symbol. The
uso of the same mark or symbol in connection with goods of a
totally different character is not an infringement of the
SSg^'iu "^''^ ^'l^- "'^^ '■'8^1' ^ ti-aJ" 'n'^rk be severed from
MM«itionwith the article indicated by it (a), nor from the goodwill of the
«^'"*- business in which it has bean used (a).
S.tetiw.™ u ^ ^ ''•«^"***«* any action am be
action for in*
orougnt to prevent or to recover diimagea for its infringe-
{^Z.ught'*" ""^^P* ^^^^ the mark was in use before the 18th
August, 1875, and it has been refused registration under the
Trade Marks Act, 1905 (h).
(") Lralher Cloth Vu. v. Amninn («) CUfon t. OUlwd, 44 L. J Oi
'•loth r„., 11 H. L. C. 438; sa 90; MUndrtwr. B<u^,4J)«0 J
L. J. Ch. M; Ohnny t. Smith, 2 ft 8. 384 ; .1,3 L. J. Ch. 866, and
Dr. *8in.47«; fiWroT. iVr)m«Kf«, wa TrtAe Marks Act, 1905, 88.
1 Ch. 192; Somerville v. SihemM, 3, 8, 22, 39. '
12 A. C. 454 ; 86 L. J. P. C. 16 ; (,.') See Re^ v. Lecouturier, (1908)
Wnn.jarh,, v. Unuer, (1908)92 L.T. 2 Ch. p. 733 ; 78 L. J. Ch n. 190-
412 : 22 K. V. c. 341. (,9,0) A. C. p. 270; 79 L J S'
(*) See Ti»de Ifarkt Aot, 19M, p. 400 ; Vllmann r. LmAa, (i ■ ')
" , A. C. p. 446; 78 L, J. P. :.. ..
(.'/) l.u,ti,.r('loth<:,.y.Afmriam ib Jb*iM<m>* JVa* Mark, (1909)
run, Co.. 4 De O.J. 4 8. 137; 33 2* K. P. 0. 195- 1M» Ibifa
L. J. Ch. 199 ; SomtrvHU y. Aot. 1908, b. 22.
Sffemirt, wyw; Hm< v. Cttlty, {l.) Trade Maifa Aot laos
44C.D. 193 : 59L. J.Ch.3M. s. 42. '
TRADE MARKS AND TUADE NAMES. sfll
The owner of an unrpgistered tra.h' inui k may, howover, be o t.i.p vttt-
entitled to relief in an action for passing off, sect. 45 of the H.mei, .,f
Tnulr Miiiks Act, 19<J5, providing that "nothing to Ifcia Act .
Hlittll be deemed to affect i ,ghta of uction against any porson
for paRBing off goods em th*..,. of noiher i„ rson or the
remedies in reBp«>ct thorwf."
The registration of a person asfMpri. of a t „|e mark, K.r.,a .,f
if valid, gives such peison Uj« ^ratasire n^t to the usi' of "f'trat'o"
such trade mark npoo or m eonneetion with the gocxin in
n-ii c'cl iif which it M r«g^H-ed(c).
And in all legal pnwMiiingB relating to a n^'i'. . ,,<! trado /v.W/**-
mark the fact thata pw^^n is r^gistored as proprietor of such S;"'^
trade mark is prinut f^de evidence of the validity of the
original registration of such trado mark ud of all sabseqaent
assignments of the same (d), and in all jtroceedinp relating
to registered trada m»k, rv^lading a^to^ans for the
n'i tification r.f fho rtvgister i , original registration (rf
-sutl. trado mark is, after the expjru..on of seren years f .(xn the <-.««tad« »h«
date of Bueh original registration, to be taken to be valid in all
i' s,)rds. iinl. ss such c.rifjuial rr^ristn^ was obtaiiMd by
fraud, or tlu' trade mark offends the provisions of s-'ct. 11
of the Act by h, ing calculated to deceive, or by being contrary
lo law or morality (/).
Where the alleged infringement confusts of using not the
exact thing upon the register, but something similar to it, the
Court mofit in eonsiderii^ THwther or not tliere has been an
infringement proceed on the old principle that a mao mast
not pass off his goods as the goods of another (g).
Hy sect. 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905. a registrable B^i^
1 le mark must contain or cimsist of at least one of
following e- «-ntial piirfieulars : —
(Ij The name of a company, individual, or firm repre-
sented in a speeial w particular mamier ;
(•2) The signature of the aj^ieant for registoatiaB or some
predecessor in his business ;
(c) Sect 99. (j) Jie Edu-avh' Trcule Afark, 30
'i) 40. C. D. y. 471 ; oo L. J. f h. ,2o ; He
(«) ^ 34. Lyndm, 32 C. D. 109 ; 85 L. J. Ch,
(/) Seofe 41. iM; JWm t. Swan «md Bifur,
862
TBADE MABE8 AND TRADE NAMES.
(3) An invented word or invented words (h) ;
(4) A word or wonLs liaviiig no direct rofennco to the
c'iiaracter or quality of tlio goods (i) and not being according
to its ordinary signification a geographical name or a sur-
name (k) ;
(5) Any other distinctive mark (I), but a name, signature,
or word or words, other than such aa fail within the descrip-
tions in the above paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), shall not,
except by order of the Board of Trade or the Goart, be deotoed
a distinctive mark (m).
Any special or distinctive word or words, letter, numeral,
or combinati<Hi of letters or numerals used as a trade mark
by the applicant or his predecessors in business before
August, 1875, which has continued to be used (either in its
original form or with additions or alterations not substantially
affecting the identity of the same), down to the date of the
application for registration, is registrable under the Act.
For the purposes of the section " distinctive " means
adapted to distingui^ the goods of the proprietor of ^e trade
mark from those of other persons.
(1903) 1 CSt. p. 223.
(A) See Eadman Pl.otograpliir Co.
V. Cimii,troller-aeneral. (1898) A. C.
S71 ; 67 L. J. Ch. C:'« 'Solio); lie
l.imitijjx Cumjiany'a 7Va''e Mark,
(1900) 2 Ch. 238 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 625
(Tachytype) ; He Vneeda Trade
Mark, (1902) 1 Ch. 783 ; 71 li. J. Ch.
343; Kodak Co. v. London Steno-
KopU Co., (1903) 20 E. P. C. 337 ;
19 T. L. R. 297 ; ChrMi/ v. Tipper,
(1904) 1 Ch. f 96 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 212 ;
(1906) 1 Ch. 1 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 63
(AbBorbine) ; I'hilijipart v. William
Whiteuy. (1908) 2 Ch. 274; 77
L. J. Ch. 650 (Diabolo); Re (W.
K-oola. (1909) 2a T. L. B. Bt
SocitU Lt FtrmeiU, (1912) 81 L. J.
Ch. 724 ; 29 B. P. 0. 497 (LMstofaooU-
line).
(•') lie Cimifiaynie ilei Pelrutet,
(1907) 2 Ch. 436; 76 L. J. Ch. 646 ;
Be Colgate, (1913) 29 T. L. R. 326.
(A ) He Lea, (1913) 1 Ch. 446; 82
L. J. Ch. 240 ; Jle Ilentz, (1913) 108
L. T. 589 : but a geograpfaiual name
or a surname may be registered
under (6). See Jie National Starch
Co., (1908) 2 Ch. 608 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
34 ; Se Califontian Fig Syrup Co.,
(1910) 1 Ch. 130; 79 J. Ch. 211 ;
Re Teo/ani, (1913) 82 L. J. Ch. 480 ;
2 Ch. 545 ; and Bee 8. 44.
(/) .See J!e Xatiomil Starvli Co.,
(1908) 2 Ch. 698 ; 78 li. J. Ch. 34 ;
Re m,itjiihl'« /;e./s<ea(/«, (1909) 2 Ch.
373 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 677 ; Re Joxph
CronJleU, (1910) 1 Ch. 130, 141 ; 79
L. J. Ch. 211 ; Be OramophoM Co.,
(1010) 2 Ch. 423; 79L. J.Ch.6Mi
Be CatmUa * Co., (1910) 2 Ch. 240 ;
79 L. J. Ch. 529.
(m) All ordinary laudatory epi-
thet such as "Perfection" caunot
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES. 868
In determining whether a trade mark is so adapted, the ciu>p. vm.
tribunal ^^y, in the case of a trade mark in actual use, take
into consideration the extent to which such user (n) has
rendered such trade mark in fact distinctive for the goods with
respect to which it is registered or proposed to be registered.
Except by order of the Court, or in the case of trade marks lUrtrieUon on
in use before the 13th of August, 1875, no trade mark con be '^•*'»«"-
registered in respect of any goods or description of goods
which is identical with one belonging to a different proprietor
which is already on the register with respect to such goods or
description of goods, or so nearly resembling such a trade
mark as to be calculated to deceive (o). Nor is it lawful to
register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any matter
the use of which would by reason of its being calculated to
deceive (p) or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a Court
of Justice or woold be contrary to law or morality (q).
In case of honest concurrent user or of other special cir- Concurrent
cumstances, the Court may permit the registration of the S^^^JJI;^
same trade mark, or of nearly identical trade marks for the
same goods or description of goods by more than one pro-
prietor (r),
A trade mark must be registered in respect of particular Tred« mark
goods or claaaee of goods (•), and it is restricted to the goods t"'^
in connection with which it is going to be used (t). Begistra- pwds.
t>e registered aa • trade mark. See BMtt Co., (18W) 3 C*. 10; 78
St JoM^ Qro^/Ud, (1910) 1 Ch. L. J. Ch. 437.
^ H3; 79 L. J. Ch. 211. As to (p) See Be Vompagnie Jndustrielle
when words of dead languages can de$ Pftrole* ; He Albert Baker <t
be registered as trade marks, see Co., tuiira ; He McQhnnon, (1908)
Ite AhtUhoUvjet HJ„rth. (1910) 2 Ch. 28 R. P. C. 797 ; Jie Qutta I'ervha
ti4; 79 L. J. Ch. 4-18 ("rrimut "). and India Ruhher Co., siqn-a ; Re
(/i) Le., as a trade mark, Re Oeorg Sehicht Aetim OetUKhaft,
i!ramoi>hone Co., (1910) 2 Oi. p. (1912) 28 T. L. B. 376 ; jBtraHd*r
133; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 663. Utuw, (1912) 1 Oh. 40; Antlrew ».
(o) Trade Marin Act, 190S, a. 19. Kwharide, (1913) 29 T. L. B. 771.
See fciw T. Dunn, 18 A. C. p. 3«7 ; (?) Trade Marks Act, 1908, a. 11,
Re napnOoid Co., (1906) 23 B. P. C. (r) Ih., s. 21.
782 ; Re Compoifnie Indiistrielle de» («) lb., s. 8.
PetroUi, (1907) 2 Ch. 435 ; 76 L. J. («) Re EdwanU Trade Mark,
Ch. 646; Re AllieH Baker it Co.. 30C. B. p. 470; 55 L, J. Ph. 125-
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 107; 77 L. J. Ch! Hargrtavet v. Freeman, (1891) 3
p. 477; AONMaAreAaoMiiiMtti (%. »; 81 L. J. Ol 3^
864
TRADE MABK8 AND TBADE NAMES.
VIIL
BMtiaMtion id
Trade marks
registered
onltr oU Acts.
Nan*.
tion cannot be made in respect of goods in which tha applicant
does not deal or int«id to deal (u).
The Court may also on the application of any persm
aggrieved by the non-insertion in or omission from the
register of any entry, or by any «itry made in the r^ter
without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining
on the register, or by any error or defect in any entry in the
register, make such order for making, expunging, or varying
such entry as the Court thinks fit (x). But no trade mark
which is upon the register at the commencement of the Trade
Marks Act, 19U5, and which under the Act is a registrable
trade mark shall be ranoved from the register on the ground
that it was not registrable under the Acts in force at the date
of its registrii*-on (y).
The ;■ t inciple ivhich applies to the case of a man selling his
goods as the goods of another applies to the case of a man
using the name of another for the purpose of reaping tJie
benefit of the reputation which that other has already acquired
in the market. A man has a rif^t, so long as he acts honesfly,
to sell goods under his own name, although another may have
been long selling the same class of goods under the same
name, and although the goods, as associated with his name,
may have acquired a reputation in the market (0). So also
a man who has carried on a business in his own name and
acquired a reputation and a goodwill on his own account under
that name, may, by selling the goodwill of his businen to a
company, confer upon the company the right to use his name
as incidental to the goodwill (a), but a man who has not been
carrying on business on his own account and who transfers
(tt) BM V. Dunnelt, (1899) A. C.
428 ; 68 L. J. t'h. 537.
{x) Trade MiirkB Act, 1905, s. 35.
(v) B. 3fl. Sco lie Oestetn.r,
(1908) 1 Ch. 613; 77 L. J. Ch.
299.
(«) Turtm V. I'lirtun, 42 C. D.
128; fi8 L. J. Ch. 677 ; Chivmr.
Ckiver*, 17 B. P. C. 490; Ihadof
PneumoHc Tjfn Oa. v. Du»lap Meier
Cb., (1B07) A. 0. 480; A€Hm
Oaelltcha/t f/ommel Haematoi/en v.
Hummel, (1912) 29 R. P. C. 378 ; .Vi
S. J. 39!» ; Kimidim, MilUr <f- Co. v.
Tliomas Kiniintmi ■£• ro , (1912) 1 Ch.
575, SMI; '.'8 T L. II. 246; John
Jirinamnnl ,i- Sana v. Stanley //rtM>
mead, (1913) 29 I. L. B. 237.
(a) Kimgtkm, JTOfor « Cta. v.
Thomai Kin^ « Oi. , (191S} I Oh.
p. 681 : as T. ti. B. 346.
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES. 86S
no business and goodwill cannot give a company the right Ch^ym.
to use his name as part of their title, if the use of his name
is calculated to mislead the public wad injure another person
carrying on business under the same name (6). The mere
usei- by a man of his own name is of itself no efideoce of
fraud, but there may be other elements in the ease showing
tlmt the name has been fruidulently used for the purpose of
leading Ihe public to believe that they are buying goods manu-
factured by another man, and so reaping the benefit of the
reputation which another has already aeqaired. It is in eaoh
case a matter of evidence whether or not the user of the name
has been fraudulent (c). If a man manufactures and sells
an article under a name that is not his own, but is the name
under which another person sells the same article, or if he
changes his name and assumes another and sets up business
in the neighboorhood of a penm wb has long carried on the
same business under the name which he has aasomed, framl
will be, as a general rule, presumed (d).
Where a personal name has become so identified by use in Uwof
a well-known bosinem witii a particolsr trade as to be neees- ^ '
Piirily deceptive when used without qualiflcatioo by any one
else in the same trade, another trader of the same name will
be restrained from using the name in the same trade without
taking reasonable iHrsoMtiwis to prevent his goods bsii^ eon-
(A) fine fvtton Sj,inners Aasocia-
tum V. Harwood, i 'ath d- Co., (1907)
2Cb. p. 190; 76 L. J. Ch. 670.
(< ) Rodger* v. Xowill, 6 Hare, 32A ;
77 B. B. m ; HoOouiay r. Hottoway
13Beav.2O0;8SB.B.4«3; Burgtu
r. Burgtm, 3 De O. IC. ft O. 896 ; 22
L. J. Ch. 675 ; Churton v. Duuglas,
John. 174; 28 L. J. Ch. 811 ; 123
U. R 6fi ; TiiHon v. Turton, 42 C. D.
1 28 ; 5H L. J. Oh. 677 ; Joseph Rodgtrt
tl Sum V. Josfjih Jlodgera Simpton,
(1906) 23 E. P. C. 297; Akxandtr
l>iekmm Jb Bmu r.JUimdtr Didk-
Km, (1900) 1 L B. m.
(d) Surym v. Burqtu, 3 De Q. H.
& 0. 890 ; n L. i.Q^W, Mntam
V. Thmky's Cattle Food Co., 14 C. D.
"48; 28 W. E. 96«; Fulwood v.
Fulwood, (1873) W. N. 99, IM:
Beddawag v. Bankam, (1896) A. 0.
p. au, 212 ; 6« L. J. a B. p. 387 ;
PintI a Cie v. MaUon Louis Pinet,
(1898) 1 Ch. 181 ; 67 L. J. Ch. p. 44;
Valentine Meat Juice Co. v. Valenline
Extract Co., 83 L. T. 259 ; 16
T.L.B. 622; Rigdenv. Tu,,r -igosj
22 B. P. C. 417: JM^h At, :y«r. *
Si/nsj.JotepkBodger*8impKm,{190e)
S3 B. P. a »7; Joieph BodgertA
Co. V. ntmmehaw, (1906) 23 B. P. 0.
349 ; Ash r. Tnvieta Manufacturing
Co., (1911) 28 B. P. 0, pp. 264. 607 j
(m«Md ea theftott, f. m).
866
TBAD£ MABE8 AND TBADE NAMES.
Chap. VIII. foonded with the other persoa's (ifoods whioh have become
identified with the name («).
to«Mk°' Apart from a business of somo kind, no exclusive right can
be acquired in the name of a house, any more than in the
name of a person; and no right of action arises from the
annoyance occasioned by a person re-naming his residence
after the neighbouring residence of another houaeholder (/).
Nam of iww»- Nor is there in law any monopoly in the name of a news-
paper. To entitle the owner of a newspaper to an injunetioD
restraining the publication of another newspaper with a
similar name the plaintiff must show that the use of the name
is ealcalated to lead the pablie to beliere that the defeiulant's
paper is the plaintiff's, and that the use of such name is
injurious to the plaintiff (g).
Trade name or The Same principles which apply to the right to ute a name
^^"^'■^ are also applicable to the use of a trade name or partnership
firm or style. If the use of a partnership firm or style be hond
fide, the Court will not interpose ; but if tliere be evidence to
show that Hie name has been taken for the purpose of having
the benefit of the reputation which another has acquired in
the market, there is a case of fraud (h).
Where a man has established a tiade and carries it on under
a givMi name, tiure is fraod if another trader asBomes tin
same name or the same name with a slight variation in such a
way as to induce persons to deal with him in the belief that
they are dealing with the person who has given tb« reputa-
tion to the name (i). But a man is not debarred from using
(f) Cath V. C'cuh, (1902) W. N. 32 ; (" Magazine of Fiction ").
86L.T. 211. (A) Oro/t v. Day, 7 Bmt. 84;
(/) Day T. Broumrigg, 10 C. D. M*laehrino v. MeheMno KgypHan
394 ; 48 L. J. Oh. 173; Stmt v. Cigarette CV>.,4B.P.C. 21S; Jim^
UniiM Bank of Spaim awl En^ami, Bodytrt ^ Son» v. Jottph Rodger*
30 C. D. 156 ; 6fi L. J. Ch. 31. Simpton, (1906) 23 B. P. C. 297.
{g) (hitram v. Lomtm Evening (•') Lee v. I/alfi/, 5 Ch. p. 161 ; 39
Nrir,i,aiKrs To.. (1911) 27 T. L. R. L. J. Ch. 284 ; flolii/ v. (Irosvenor
2:tl ; 5-> S. J. 255 ; tii'li/inay v. Amal- Lilirary, 28 W. R. 386 ; lloulnois v.
i/amnteil I'rets, (1912) 28 T. K R. Leake, 13 C. I). 613, n. ; Pinet et
149 (" Everybody's Magazine," CU v. Maii(m Louis IHwt, (1898) 1
" Everybody's Weekly ") ; WiUiam Ch. 179 ; 67 L. i. Oh. 41 ; VakM»*
Stetme A- Co. v. Cattea * Co., (1913) Mmt Jwiee Co. v. FoMine A«rM<
29 T. L. R. STa; 30 B. P. 0. IW Co., 17 B. P. 0. 673; 88L. T. SM.
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES. 867
as a trade name a style which is descriptive of his business, Ckiv. Ym.
so long as he does not assume the name for the purpose of
passing off his goods as being the goods of another man, and
there is no strong probability of deception (k). A man, for
instance, who sold coals at a guinea a ton was held entitled
to call his shop a guinea coal company, although another
li iulpr had ior some time previously used that name m the
designation of his business, so long as he did not use the name
with the intention of deceiving the public (/).
A company is entitled to an mjunetion to restrain the regis- -mme „.m. of .
tiation of an intended company, intended to carry on a similar """V^J
business under a name so like its own as to be calculated
to deeeive the public (m) ; and if such a company has been
registered, to restrain it from carrying on business under sadi
name (n).
On an application by a company registered under the Com-
panies Acta to restrain the registration of a new company
with a name so nearly resembling that of the old company as
to be calculated to deceive, the Court will ascertain what busi-
ness has hem or is intended to be earned on by the old com-
pany, and what is intended to be earriad on by the new com-
{k) Let V. Hahy, i Ch. 135 ; 39
L. J. Ch. 284 ; CMi Service Supply
Auociation v. Dean, V,i C. D. 512;
and see Horthirick- v. Erening Post,
■A'l C. D. 449 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 406 ;
liitlijiray v. A malyamated PreM Co.,
(1912) 28 T. h. E. 149 ; 29 R P. C.
130 ; Xugget folith Co. v. Harboro'
Ruh^ r Co.. {mi) » B. P. C. 133.
({} Lee T. H9^, 5 Oh. 16S : 39
L. J. CL m.
(m) Companiw (Consolidation)
Act, 1908,8.8; Tiumnd'^. Tiiisawl,
44 C. D. 678 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 631 ;
Fine Cotton Sjiinnefs Associatirm v.
Ilarirovd, (1907) 2 Oh. p. UK); 76
J. Ch. 670 ; and see Hendridct
V. Montagu, 17 0. D. 688 ; 60 L. J.
Ch. 466, when as onngutarad oom-
puiy WW gtanted sn injimotkm.
(*) JroNeMw Avwtry v. SoHk
Cheshire, <f-c, Co., (1S98) 1 Ch. 539 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 361 ; (1899) A. C. 83 ;
68 L. J. Ch. 74 ; I'anhard et l.evaaaor
Co. V. Panhard Motor Co., (1901) 9!
fh. 613; 70 L. J. Ch. 738; Fiiu
Cotton Spinnert AaeodatioH v. Har-
wood, Caih <t Co., (1907) 2 Ch. p. 190 j
76 L. J. Ch. 670; Standard Bank
<lf South Africa v. Standard Banh
(1909) 26 E, P. C. 310 ; 25 T. L. K.
426 ; Ouvak Ceylon hstates Co. v. Vi a
Ceylon liubber Co., (1910) 103 L. T.
416, 417 ; 27 T. L. E. 24 ; Lloyda
Bankr. Lloydt Investment C'e.,(1912)
28 T. L. R 379; Kingstm. Miller &
( 'o. V. Thnmat Kingttm4 Co., (1912)
1 Ch. 678 ; 28 T. L. B. 246 ; Lhyd't
and AwwoN Broi. v. Lloyds SmUh-
amften, (1912) 28 T. L. R 338 ; .56
S.J.S61 ; Facsimile Letter Printing
Co. v. Fattimik Tjomnritiitg Cu.,
868
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
( hap. VIU.
Bcferenee by
cz-emplojce
to former
•apl«ymMit.
pany, and what sort of ii&m.. has b^en adopted by the old com-
pany (o). A oompany cao^iut mereN by regisliering aa its
title a word in oommon use at the date of registration and
which represents an article of commerce, claim a monopoly
of the word so as to prevent another company taking the word
as part of its name (p).
The question is whether the name adopted by the new com-
pany for a business of the same kind is so like tho name of
the old company, which they have for some time used as a
trade name, as in fact to enable the new company to appro-
priate a material part of the business of tho old company (9).
It must however be shown that there is a reasonable pro-
bability of damage to the old oonpany's basiness ; mtn simi-
larity of name is not alone sufBcient (r).
In deciding the question, the principles to be applied by
the Court are analogous to those which govern the Court in
ordinary cases of passing off («).
A man who has been in the employment of a firm of reputa-
tion and who sets up a business of a similar character, is
entitled, unless he has contracted not to do so, to inform tiie
public that he has been in such employment ; but in so doing
he must take care that it be not done in such a way as to lead
to the belief that he is oarrying on the basiness or a branch
of the business of his late employer (t). A trader will be
(1912) 29 E. P. C. 557 ; and see Co., 80 L. J. Ch. 263 ; Aect-
drntat Intitrmee Co. t. Arddtntal
Dium, Ae., Ok, M L. J. Ch. 104 ;
Elliett {Trade Exttntiott Co.) v.
Exparuim of Trade, Ltd., (1910)
27 B. P. C. 54.
(r) Qeneral Herersionary tmi JW-
vestment Co. v. Qtneral Bevertionary
Co., 1 Meg. 65. See Electromobile
Co. V. BritUh EUctrohile Co., (1907)
98 L. T. 258 ; 24 T. Ti. B. 192 ; RoftU
Insnrma Co. t. Jiidlaitd Immmci
Co., (1900) 36 B. P. CM.
(«) BrOiih Vaeuvm Cleaner Go. v.
yetv Vaeitum CUaner fn., (1907) 2
Ch. 320; 76 L. J. Ch. 511.
(0 'Jknny v. Smith, 2 Br. & Sm.
470; 13 Ju V. 11; Haotham j.
Tomer. Merchant Service Ouild, Ld.,
(1008) 25 E. P. C. 474 (plaintifii u
nninoorpoTated aodety).
(o) Aerators, Ltd. y. Toim, (1902)
2 Ch. 319 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 727. See
Scottish Union and Nati nal Insur-
ance Co. V, Scottish National Insur-
ance Co., (190S) S. C. 318, where
an injunction was refused, the
pluntifb oarrying on general
inKuranoe bnnneaa, and the defen-
dants marine inmuanoe.
(p) Aerator§,Ltd.r. ToHitt,eHpra,
(7) Hendrike v. Monlaipi, 17 C. D.
r,4.S ; 50 L. J. Ch. ioit ; Uunrtliaa
Fire and Life Insurance Co. t.
GtiofdittB mm! 0hmniI Hu^enuut
TRADK MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
restrained from falsely holding himsplf nnt i« ■ • u .
nMfl wifJ. a^^k * J ^ nimself out as boing m bus - Cb«,.. viii.
nees with antrther trader, or from issuing circulars tending i^^ti^
to lead the public to .uppo«, that another tr«Ier has retir^ '^P^
from busmess and that he has succeeded to the b«,«e«i ^-S
or rom falsely representing that he is an .gent for a mana-
facturer (*). ^ — uu
Where a name or word was oriffinallv or hiu tw»A». .1 _
jcriptive of anarticle.it cannot b^T'o^TasTt^rTamt -^^^
a person who invents a process for making a new article
ent. at tlie same time a new name for deecribing such
article and the article comes to be known in the market by
that name only, the right to the use of the word or name is
pubba jun, (y). Where, for example, the inventor of a
new substance has givon it a name and. having taken out a
patent for the invention, has during the continuance of the
patent alone made and sold the substance by that name he is
not entitled to the exduaiTe use of the name after the paten
has expired (z),
In a recent case (a) the Court held that the term " inoor- U>a„^
I'utfage, 8 Ch. 94 ; 21 W. B. 47;
' 'indei/ V. LerwiU, (1908) 99 L. T.
-'73; JMT,L.B.«84.
(m) ffarper r. Pmrion, 3 L. T.
M7; Scott V. Scott, 16 L, T. U3;
•VoMam V. ThorUy'i Foo,l for Cattle
''".,Ue. D. 748; 28 W. R 966;
r>c»ce V. Mason, 41 L. T. 573;
Mflachrino v. M., 4 E. P. C. 21'i;
' Oppen <i Co. V. Lecmard Van
Oi'im, (1903) 20 a P. 0. 817.
(i) WhtOtr and Wilton Mann-
racturing Co. r. Shdittptar, 39 L. J
Ch. 37.
(») See CtUular Clothing Co. v.
ildrton and Murray, (1899'* A C
326; 68 L. J. P. C. 72; Society of
■ iccinnUanta and Auditors v. Oood-
" (1907)1 Ch. pp. 497, 498: 76
L. J. Ch. p. 387.
[z) Linohnm Manufiteh,ri„g Co.
V. ifaim, 7 C. D. 884; 47 L. J. Ch.
<30; Be JMlpA, su 0. D. IM; 83
I«. J. Ch. 188 ; Jle Leonard and
Trade Mark, 26 C. D. p. 303 •
S3 L. J. Ch. 602 ; Natit, Quano Co'.
V. Sewaye Manure Cto., 8 E. P C
12a ; Ptma T. Birmingham Vi^
Brtumn Co., (1896) 2 Ch. p. 80;
M L. J. (3l. S63 ; (1S97) A. c'
717; 86 L. J. Ch. -63; He Oes'-
tetnert Trade Mark, (1908) 2 Ch
513; 77 L..T.Ch.299;IieHoud^n'e
Trade Mark; (1909) 26 B. P. C. 209 •
E<l</e V. NiccolU, (1911) C n.'
702; SOL. J. Ch. 745.
(a) Society of AccounianU and
Auditor* T. OooduH^ and Lotulon
Aetociation of AtcomUanU, (1907) 1
Ck48»; 76L.J. Ck 384, foUow-
Wgr SodMy of AecountanU in
Bdinbtirghv. Corporation of Accouii-
t^nt,, (l8e;j)S. C. 750, where defen.
danto wt,re rostraiiwd Ccom wjac
the initials C. A.
24
870
THAUK MAIiKS AND ' UADK NAMES.
Cbi>|>. Mil.
So4'iet,v of
ArcbiUcU,
M.&A.
Trmle nAtiie
Ubociatcd with
giiwU of pirti-
eaUu- penon.
porated accouDtant " w.ut a fancy aad not a descriptive term
and that it had ecHue to dmote membership of {riaiirtiff
society, and that the unauthorised use of the term WM an
injuiy to the plaintiff society, and an injunction was aooord-
ingly granted restraining a mem>>er of the defendant asso-
ciati(m from using the term in oooneetoi with his boai-
nese of accountant, and the defendant association from
holding out or representing that ita members were entitled
to use the term. In a later oass, however (fr) , the Court refused
to restrain an architect who was not a member of the jitkia-
tiff society of architects from oaiog for professioQal purpoaea
the letters M.S.A.
A trade name may be so appropriated bj user as to oome
to mejin the goods of a particular person, though it is not
and never was impressed on the goods or the packages in
which they are obtained so as to be a trade mark pn^ly
so called or within the Statute. Where it is established tiiat
such a trade name bears that meaning, the use of that name
or of one so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive as
applicable to goods, not the plaintiff's, may be the means of
passing oS those goods as and for the plaintiff's just as much
as the use of a trade mark (c). But where a name or word
was originally or has beonne deaeriptire of the artiele to
which it is attached, so that while indicating what the article
is, it does not connect that article with any particular manu-
facturer, and there has been no such appropriation by usw
or reputation as to cause that word to mean in the market tiie
goods of any particular manufacturer, the word eannot be
protected as a trade name (d).
{bj SiH-iety of Architictt v. Ken-
drick, (1910) 102 L. T. S9B; W, N.
113.
(c) Singer Manu/artiiriiit/ (^o. v.
Loog, 8 A. C. 32 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 481 ;
Seddaway v. Banham, (1896) A. C.
199 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 381 ; Birmiitg-
ham Vir»»gar Brewery Co, t. Potv^l,
(1897) A. C. 711 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 763 ;
Fuulder t. Rmh, (1903) 19 T. L. R.
m ; Bigdm t. Jmm, (190ft} 'ii
E. P. C. 417 ; lirockit Co.'s " Crystal
Palace" Fireworkt Co. v. Jamu
PaindiSoM, (1912) 105 L. T. 976.
(d) Schwt V. ikhminkt, 33 C. D.
647 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 892 ; Borthwick
T. Evtning Pbtl, SI 0. D. 449 ; 67
L. J. Oi. 406; Oeod/tUow j. niket,
35 C. D. 19; 66 L. J. CL 645 ;
Fch V. Eedlcy, (1903) 21 B. V. C.
91 : 80 T. L. R. 69 ; Burberry'i v.
OorU^ A (kK, (1900) S8 B. P. C.
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMBB.
m
An injanotion will be granted to restrain a person without cimp. Vlli.
the aatheritjr <rf Hi* Majesty fran luing in oonneotioa with Un.au,ori»d
his trada, business, calling, or frnfiwimi tfia Bt^tl Am 7!^
(or arms so closely resembling the same aa to be nalmihtad
to deceive) in such manner as to be •^^M ri to kad the
publie to htiian tiiat be is duly aatlMrised so to aae tha
Hoyal Anns; or without the authority of His Ifaaeaty
or of a member of the Royal Family uaing in connection
wiUi his trade, buinees, calling or profession any device, em-
blem or title ir' auch manner aa to be fafinlatod to lead to the
belief that he is employed by or supplies goods to His Majesty
or such member of the Royal FamUy («). Proceedings may
be taken by any {Mrson wbe is aathorised to use aueh arms
or such device, emblem, or title, or who is authorned by tbe
Lord Chamberlain to take the proceedings (e).
A trade mark cannot be assigned or devolve in gross ; an Amig^tot
assignment therefore is inoperative if tbe nfi gmrr hat no *^**^
goodwill to assign (/). Upon the sale of a business the right
to both trade marks and trade names used in tbe business
passes vidt the goodwill of tiM bosinese to tiie soeosssors of
the firm that originally established them, without any express
mention being made of them in the deed of aaa;g»»^ | (^)^
unless a eootrary intentioa appears (h).
A trade mark, when registered, eaa be assigned and tnu-
ferred only in connection with the goodwill of the business
concerned in the particular goods or olaases of goods for whi«A
it has been registered, and is determinable with that good-
will (i). If tbe trade mark wbieh baa been assigned be in
p. 701 ; norm T. terfow * (M,,
(1912) 29 B. P. C. 440.
(e) Trade Marks Act, 190a, a. 68.
See itoyal Wammt HoUtn Amaeim-
tion V. Slad€. (IMS) tt B. P. 0.
245; Aiyai Wm-rant HMtn Aim-
ewWod ». Ste;, (1909) 26 B. P. 0.
1S7 ; Mtjfol Warrant Holden J01O-
ciation v. Deane, Seal tt Co., (1912)
1 Ch. 10 ; HI L. J. Ch. 67 (where
tbe fonn of wdar is diMOiMd). As
to tiw mmifliatiarf m of tbe
emblam of the Bai OtMB, SM 1 ft 3
Om. s, o. aa
(/) 8m OrMM* SSmdi Mmk. 17
B. P. 0.40; Uttnum*Co.r.Letim,
(10W)A. C.p.446 ; 78L.J. P. C.
41.
(g) Burg V. Bedford, 4 De a. J.
A 8. 872 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 463; Ship-
aright V. CI mmi tt , 19 W. B. M9.
(A) Jtogmf IMt IM, M B.
P. C. 149.
(<) XMfe MHks A«t. 1S0«, •. as.
84~a
871
TRADE MABKS AND TRADE NAMES.
ciutp. Yin, respeot of an entire oUm of ortiolM but the artiolea dealt with
in tiie bwine^ wbieb has been Mwigned form pert only of tiie
olass, the eMignee is not entitled to the exclusive uBer of the
trade mark, bat only to the user of it for the particular clan
<tf wtieles in oonoeetion witti wfaidi it has been aetoallj
used (k).
Wghi to tn<l« ^ "^^^ haa usaigned the goodwill of a businoHS may,
iBHit aT ■Md" ^^^^^ precluded by covenant, set up the same business in the
win of Mmm. immediate ne^bomrbood, and may pobUsh or advertise tiie
fact of hia having done so, but he may not trade under the
old name, or solicit his old oustCMnerii (I), even although they
have of their own aeecHd oootinned to deal with him (m) ; and
he has no right to use the trade marks whioh were the marks
of that business (n), or by the use of the name or title of the
firm to represent himself as carrying on the business which
he has sold (o).
So if the trustee in bankruptcy of a trader sells the goodwill
and trade marks of the bankrupt's business, the bankrupt has
no ri^t to continue to use the marks (p) or to represent fbtii
he is still carrying on the business, but he is not a grantor so
as to be bound by the rule not to sdidt evutUmm as laid
down in Trego v. Hunt (g).
The poicfaaser of a hosineia iboa^ he is mtitled, in the
abaoaee of any apedd omkaet in tba dead ot aaaignmant^ to
8m Be r«feaine'« Trade Mark, 32 ton, 22 C. D. 604 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 663}.
C. D. 213; M L. J. Oh. 643 ; Bey (m) Curl Brce. v. Wtbittr, (1904)
V. £«eoK<tir/er, (1«M)3 Oh.p.7SS; I Oh. au ; 78 L. J. Oh. MO.
78 Tj. J. Oh. p. 190 ; (1910) A. 0. («) Bury r. Btiftii, 4 De O. J.
p. 270 ; 79 L. J. Oh. p. 400. ft 8. 373 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 466 ; Shif-
(i) Rt EdwanTe Trade Mark, 30 wrii/ht y. Clements, 19 W. B. 699.
C. D. 465 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 128. See {«) Churton v. IkntgUu, John.
Re Hart* Trade Mark, 174; 28 L. J. Ch. 841 ; Hiidtony.
621 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 869. Othnme, 39 L. J. Ch. 79 ; Pomeroy
{I) Venum y. Hallam, 34 C. D. v. ScaU, (1907) 33 T. L. B. 170; M
748 : 66 L. J. Ch. 116 ; Trtgo v. B. P. C. 186.
Htmt, (1898) A. 0. 7: 8»L. J. Ch. (j>) Huditm v. (Motm, 89 L. J.
1 ; J m a Um g i T. Jemtinge, (1898) 1 Ch. 78; Smmmmd r. Bnmlmr, 9
Oh.378; 77L.T.788; GUIMi^Umi B. P. 0. 801.
v. Beddow. (1900) 2 Ch. 342 ; 89 (y) Walka- v. MBttram, 19 C. D
L. J. Oh. 637. An expeUad pwt- 366 ; 61 L. J. Oh. 108.
nw nay Hlkit {Dawton t. Mm-
878
TRADE MASKS AND TRADE NAMES.
the use of the trade name of the business (r), must not use _
it in loflh • way as to lead ordinary persons to believe tliat
tiM Tendor is stUl carrying on 11m btuinesa (t) or so aa to
expose the TsndfM- to liability (t).
Upon the formation of a partnership flrm, a trade mark, to ta^ttitHmm
whieh on* of tha partMra may ba antitled, beoomes, in the "^"^
ahsonce of any stipulation to the contrary, part of the partaier-
ship property (tt). So also where a new partner comes into
the partnership flrm, amongst other rights which he pur-
ehases by coming into the etnn h 1h» ri|^ to as« the trade
name or trade marks belonging to the firm (x).
On the dissolution of a partnership, in the absence of on .ii,«,iution
special agraMnant, the trade marks of tiie flrm are part of Jj^l^'jl'''
its assets and are saleable as such with the goodwill (y). smttmmm.
Where there is no sale it seems that each of the partners is
at liberty to make use of the trade name of the flrm and of its
tnule marks, provided he oan and does do ao in sndi a way
as to avoid deceiving the public or mating any risk or Uability
upon his late partners («).
A pablishar or aathor has in the titia of Ms book or in the Bight of .n
application of his name to the book, or in the particular marks nUitHrtC'*'
which designate it, a species of property similar to that which *t ^ •»*.
a trader has in his trade mark, and may like a trader claim the
(r) Levy y. II'a/*w, 10 C. D. 448 ;
L. J. Ch. 273 ; He DaM amd
Matihew$, (1899) 1 Ch. p. 384; 87
L. J. Ch. lU; AMnrey r. Beali,
(1907}33T.L.B.m; MB.P.C.
lU.
(») flattens v. ftaacton, 56 L. T.
177; Towruend y. Jarmau, (1900)
2 I'h. 698 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 8SS. 8m
I'winroy v -, ,'4, tupro.
(«) Thi, SAoi«,4« O.D.«77;
5(' L. J. Ch. 609; Towiutmd r.
■I'lrman, (WOO) S (%. CM ; 69 L. J.
Ch 823.
(«) Bwr^ T. Btdfiiri, 4 De O.
J. & a 374 : 33 L. J. Ch. 465.
(■<) fHni/er 'ianu/aelHriHg Co. y.
2 C. D.4M; « L. J.Oh.
491.
Cr) HtB Antmm, 4 De O. J.
* & IM : as L J. Ch. 204 ; /;n<j^ V.
Walhir, 10 C. D. 4.16; 48 L. J. Ch.
2''3 ; navi.1 y. MaUheiri, (1899) 1
(.li. p. 382 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 185 ; HiU
y. Fearu, (1905) 1 Ch. 466 ; 74
L. J. Ch. 237. 8m AU.-OtK
Boden, (1912) 1 K. B. p. H.
L. J. K. B. p. 709.
(z) Hookhom T. rtt t ayt, 8 Ok 91 ;
21 W. B. 47; Th^ t. Bkmie, 4S
0. D. 877; 89 L. J. Ch. 809;
AurcMi T. WUde, (1900) 1 Ch. 681;
89 L. J. Ch. 314. As to the appor-
tjonment of tmJe luarks on the
diwolutioD of a partnemhip, see
TxmU Muks AM, 1908, •. 18.
TRADE MARK8 AND TRADE NAVES.
protection of the Court againat such a um or imitatiun ot
ihm xmmu, marb, or dwign«tiDB, m » lOu/tj in tb« oyiaioo
of tho Court to mifllead th« pablia mi mw(i damage to him
ill roHiiect of that property ; kut M • fntrai rate tbw* ia oe
copyright in aueh titlea (a).
nttfupmm, A publidMr or newspapMr pcopriptor who oMMa la 4m
Court for an i junction to r«»tr»in iv other pers< n from
iitking the HttOK) nam« oi- title for ,ny utuuiar puhlieation must
Ih> able to aalabNaii a^atealorily hj Mstin^* evManaa that
Huch niinie or title has come by general acceptun x- and repnta-
< .11. in Uie market to denote «>v ugivcly the book or men-
• iiiier puHishad by him, so thu^ pur-chasers when they boy
the publioatiwi under that niu ■« or ti' o Ix-tieve Hmy an
l'iiyi:'i? th«' plaintiff's publication (6). , ,id that the assump
tion oi the n..me is oaksulated to deceive the public, and that
th4>re is a prababHity <rf tiia friaintiff bmng tn)arad ilierat^ (c;
Kightiof »a A in 1' i.as a full right to pi.''-' sh a similar work under thr
author or |>ali- ■ . i. ^ . i •
lubtr IB tka samts tiuo as thai at aooiaar, il im title is a mera hacknayet
litbafkiawwk. p}u^ goomm use ((#), or if he repmsmta hta w«rk
as distinct aoi original ; but he may no' without autiHirity
advertise his own wor.L us the coittinuafet^ of
being in eennection wiui another (e).
A mm oaraot by a^rartiriag bis intaaligB ol p«bMrfiiii|f a
periodi«y a eerti^ naae ud loateig piiiiyBiiiliBiiiin ftr
{afSllptmiumH V. fUrht, 3 Ph. Evmimf lfm^tftr« imt) t7
IM: 78 B. & M: Chan>eU t. T. L. S. SSI : St } f.C.Sm.
Dttndmm, « De G. M. ft O. 1 ; 114 (r i(^»tr« 4 t •mdag /W, 91
B. E. I; Mar^ftt t. Hogg, 2 Ch. C.D.44- ' L J. ?>b»^
307; 36 L. J. Hi. 433; Didct v. t. /^stor rtp-,,,, v _
18 r. n. 76, W; M L. J.
Ch. W)9; fV.'frA (1909) ') /
Sia J.4H: /(r.mw<v. . vrr, (1913) •'><l L. v »>
29 T L. B. 14!» (pla- ; aud tee v. A„ luu, i .
Copyright Act, 1911, ' *9 Ow. S, T. L. i: 49; 8tt«e> S
0. 46, M. 1 (I). (2). Co^ (la: J) 29 T. L. 3*.
(&) ^te, IS c. D. w : o>r^t Act, 1911, 1 « ... B
1»h.J. Wl ; Bdiamv. artuWIt, 0.46,8.1 \ (2).
33 a D. 64S; U T J. M; (•) Boy Krty, D Ve*. 31S ;
L iituml T wfunitt n' -sutpapar Co. ? B. S. 3^ 3;^Tfkwirk Ert-nir:;;
T. Bm»k»m, 3S < I). 13», » /M,3T < '. i 448; STL. J.Ch. 406.
TAAOe MAliKH AKD TRAJ". NAMES.
875
iabuiiig il itaqair- » rigat to the axolutiive lue of tue nan», (an*- viH-
the p«rio£«sl not haviog k^'"*'*'' l^ow th« bringing of
tlie aetioQ (f).
Tbo I. .itte of the sditor is not a neo< msary part of the title
of • ur: '! in tiM abeeoM of any sj oia< oontraot to .lat
ofl '. Court artll not restrain the own«n of • joomal
fmm j' hlih .ing it without thf name of the editor (g).
Th- ghl <> a trade mu k may be ioit b; abandonment, but
to Gonx' itate *n lUw rn fe mn ant an wtratio. lo abandHi most *"
»ho« n of a trade mark is not soileiMit to
stilt !' a. -iti ••QBi u ih).
sec al tap ^-ade Harks Act, 190S trade mark Nw.*
III. on '■lioai : to th« Court of any pe. n aggriered,
he I ker iff r*» n r< ct of any gooi, r which it
1° rei and t it was registered without
a- nd ftB« iT^' t to OH MBw in eoDseoti<m with
Bill H<i. nd thei i haa in t bfl«>n no bond fd* uor of
thf ^ io i,_ onneotion therewith, or on the ground that
iiM beeu no bond fidt user of such trad mark in mb-
with such goods during the five years iiMBediately
ci ng the application, unleLS in either eh non-user
hown U) be due to speoial circumstanc trade and
* to any intentiee not to ose or to abandei ' trade mark
•sppctof ^uch goods (l).
he oatiff must be owner of the trado i (sab- WWanf n*
•ct to oimrrwt ri^ts, if any) must prove f ' is en-
' 1 to its exclusive us" (fc). An action to restrain the
iii' Mngement of a trade mark with the usual claim for account
of jnroflts or damages being an action brought in respect of
injury to the imqmrty <rf tiie owner (rf tiie trade nwrk, it may
( / ! .Vaar««K V. J?iw. fW; Peoffa, (1904; 21 B. V i '. 261;
* L. J. Ch. 433. Philipparl t. If%«M«y, (1908) 2 Ch.
Is) Onakmr. nrifw, « Jar. N.a pp. SM. 886 ; 77 L. J. Ch. eiM:
M» BmaOmU Trmd$ Mm*. {Httt}
(A) JfoNMMi T. JMlta, M O. D. W.N.St; »B.P.O. IW.
398 ; 03 L. J. Oh. Ml (». Jb (ft) BoHmoH y. FMay, 9 C. D.
RaXph, 25 C. D. IM ; 83 L. 3. Ch. 487. See Waru-iek Tyre Co. t. Kt»
IS^; DanU! t. Whiiihoiue, (1898) Mtiur U, (1910) I C& 8W; W
1 Ch. 685 ; 67 J.. J. Ch. 262. L. J. Ch. 177.
(i) Sm An^awim JN» Co. t.
876
TRADE MABK8 AND THADE NAMES.
Faniga auuia-
ttebuv.
'**'^^"- be continued after his death by hfs personal rei»esenta-
tives (I).
It has been held that when a trado mark has been pro-
perly registered, the assignee of the registered proprietor can
bring an action to prevent infringement without having regis -
tered the assignment (m). But this decision seems to oim-
flict with d later case (n).
Tanantoia Where two or more persons are tenants in common in a
trade mark, each of them has a right to sue alone in respect
of the wrong done to himself (o), and several plaintiffs so
entitled may join in one action, although their interests are
distinct and separate (p).
A foreign manufacturer may bring an action to restrain the
illegal user in this country of his trade mark and also for
dama^ or an account q). An action may also be brouf^t
in this country to restrain the export to a foreign port of goods
fraudulently impressed with the plaintiff's mark (r). The
Registration Acts make the registration of a trade mark by a
foreigner a condition precedent to his right to sue (•).
Importera. A mere importer cannot sue for infringement of the trade
marks of the consignor or producer (t). Nor can the pur-
E«ciu,ire agmu chascr of a trader's goods with the exclusive ririit of esle
for sale. • i j. .
in a particular district, sue for the infringement of the trader's
marks (u). But exclusive agents for sale who sell the goods
of their manufacturer under their own get-up, can maintain
an action to restrain the imitation of their get-up (»).
(i) 00% V. DuUm. U C. D. 700 ; 801 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 233.
61 L. T. 18. (r) JohnMon T. Orr-Ewiny, 7
(m) Ihim V. HtMhmw, 31 0. D. A. C. 219 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 787.
333 ; M L. J. Ch. 273. (,) aomtfellow y. Prince, 38 C. 1).
(») Magnolia Cv. v. Atlas Co., 14 9 ; 36 L. J. Ch. S46, See Trmde
B. P. C. 389 ; and see s. 42 of the Marks Act, 1905, 8. 42, and Fkitenta
Trade Marks Act, 1905. and Designs Act, 1907, a. 91.
(0) D»U V. T-./r/.tB, 2 J. 4 H. 139 ; («) Hinch r. Jmut, 3 C. D. M4 ;
L. J. t'h. 495; Arfly HiU, \ M L. J. Ch. 364.
U. & M. 270. («) iifeAord* v. ArfeA«r, 7 B. P. C.
(p) Magneiia Co. t. AUm Co., M 288, 291 ; tee Dmua Manu/aetw-
B.P. C.389; Cmm$itiet 0/ Oxford iiiy Co. y. De Trey <t Co., (1912)
and Oarnhndfit y. Gill, (1H9») 1 (^b. 3 K. B. 7«, 86 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1162.
55; 68 1,. J. Ch. ii4. (j) DtnUii .Vanitjactmrinf Vo. t.
(7) Sieyert v. FimHater, 7 C. D. IJe Trey <t Co., «iy»ro.
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
An action for an injunction may be brought against an
agent (y) or against a person employed in effecting only a
j«rt of the transaction, such as a person employed to engrave
or print spurious labels or marks (z),or against an innocent
person, such as s carrier (a), a shipowner (6), or a wharfinger
who may have temporary possession of the artielea impressed
with a spurioup trade mark (c). A man who at the desire
of another affixes to goods a trade mark which belongs
to a third party may be made a party to the action along with
his principal (d).
An action for an injunction may also be brought against
a master fm an infringement of a trade mark by his ser-
vant (e), and notwithstanding that the sarvant aoted ocm-
trary to his master's orders (/). But the Court has refused
to grant an injunction against an innocent defendant in
respect of an isolated eaae of infringemmt or of passing off
by an over-zealous or careless mmat (g).
The interference of the Court to restrain the piracy of a
trade mark boing founded on equitable principles (A), a
trader will not be protected if he is osiiig a deeqitiTe trade
mark or if he is using his mark far the purposes of a fraudu-
lent trade (»). A trader who falsely leads purchasers to
believe ttiat they are buying something differoit frtHD that
(v) Cpmann v. Elkan, 7 C!h,
p. 132; 41 L. J. Ch. 246.
(-.) (hiinnfts v. I'lmer, 10 L. T,
877
Chap. VIII.
Who im; b(
■iMd.
Marter liabh
for serrant'i
infringMMBt.
Relief not
granted wim
mark naed
teadnlratl;
bjr plaiatUr.
• >. !S. 12" ; Jamietun v. Johtuton, 18
]{. P. e. 259 ; IM Kufptt v. Btim.
2(» B. P. C. 581.
(a) Upnuum j. Him, 7 Ch. 130 ;
41 L. J. Ch. 946.
(ft) Apollinarit Co. v. WiUon, 31
('. D. 633 ; 55 L. J. ( I ti66.
(<•) Afoet V. I'irkering, 8 C. D. 372;
47 L. J. Ch. 327.
(rf) (Wini V. Heevei, 28 L. J. Ch.
56 ; ;i3 L. T. 101 ; CUmm V. Wwa»,
7 W. E. 222.
(f) Ilaeana Jigar Co. T, Tiftm
(I0«3), 2«H. P. 0. p. m-, Leeer
l>roi. V. JTmW MftdkM$ Pitimn
{/) Munro V. Mmlmr (1904). SI
B. P. C. 296.
(v) Knight <L- Sunt v. Ori*p S Co.
(1904), 21 B. P. C. 670 ; Mmtgomtrk
*Oo.r. TMmgt, (IMH) 21 B. P. 0.
m; KMt Co. T. OrtHvilU (1908),
SS B. P. C. 419; Amulrong Oiler
Co. V. Patent AxUbor, ,l~r. Co.,
(1910) 27 R. P. C. p. 376; Lever
Urot. V. Afatbro' Equitable Pitmmn
.Wtrty(i912), 106 L. T. 472.
(A) Maxwell v. Jliyy, 2 Ch. 307 ;
36 L. J. Oh. 433; £<«T. HaUg, 6
Ch. 161 ; 8» L. J. Ch. M4.
(0 LmMmr Otth Cb. v. Amtriean
CM* Co., 4 Da O. J. ft 8. 137; 33
L. J. Ch. 199; liile J)eu„ r„. v.
Danideen, (1903) 22 K. P. C. 653 ;
(1906) tt B. P. a 7W: Mb,
878
TRADB lOBKS AMD TfiAD£ NAMES.
O^. VU L^ which in fact he is selling, or is guilty of any misrepreEenta-
tion wiih reepeot to his goods m to amount to a fraud upon
the public, disentitles himself as against a rival trader to
that relief which he would have otherwise obtained (A:). If a
trade mark reinresents an article as protected by a patent,
when in fact it is not so protected, such a statement amounts
primd facie to a misrepresentation of an important fact, which
would disentitle the owner of the mark to relief against any
man who pirated it ({). In the ease of Bdehtai r. Vidt (m),
Lord Hatherley doubted whether the rule would be the same
if there had been originally a patent, and the statement in the
trade mark being true iHien first introduced, had been con-
tinued after it had ceased to be true. But there can be no dis-
Cw*f the word tinction between the cases. If the word " patent " be not so
used as to indicate the existing protection of a patent, but
merely as part of the designation of an article ttirown into the
market, nobody is meant to be deceived, and nobody is de-
ceived (n). A patent may have expired and be known to have
expired fifty years ago, and yet tite name of patent may hare
become attached to the article, and be used in the trade as
designating it (o). But if the trade mark represents the
article as protected by a patent, when in fact it is not so pro-
tected, there is no cUfferenee whether the pnrteetion never
existed or has ceased to exist. If the true effect of the trade
mark or label be to mislead the public, that is sufficimit to
BobtrU ^ Co. V. Wa^lmid S Co., L. J. Ob. U: Fhtvd t. Emnimm,
(1900) 26 R. P. 0. p. 207 ; and Me 10 Ha. 4«7; 82 L. J. Ot. 868 ; 90
B. 11, Trade MatkB Act, 1905. R. B. 430 ; Morgan v. U'Adam, 36
(*) Pidiiin, V. HoiB, 8 Sim. 477 ; L. J. Ch. 228 ; Lrather Cloth Co. v.
6 L. J. Ch. N. 8. 345 ; 42 H. R. Lomont, 9 Eq. p. 352 ; 39 L. J. Ch.
231 ; I'erry v. Truefitt, 6 Beav. "6 ; 86 ; Ilo-ike, IlobeHsd: Co. v. fVayland
63 H. R. 11 ; Leother Cloth Co. v. <t f'o., (19<«t) 26 R. P. C. p. 257; cf.
Ameriran Clvih Co., 11 11. L. C. 523; Perry d- Co. v. Httnn^Co. (19ia},66
35 L. J. Ch. 53 ; Lee v. IMfy, 5 Ch. 8. J. 176, S72 ; 29 & P. 0. 101, M9>
100 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 284 ; Ntwman v. (m) 1 1 Ha. p. 87.
Kii<o,A7L.T.31;(18a7)W.N.ll»; (») 11 H. L. C. p. 544.
Cropprr Minrrva Machini Co. v. (o) Jfor<Aa/< Aoh, 8 Bq. SSI ; 98
Cropper, (1906) 23 B. P. C. p. 394. L.J. Oh. 236. On Chtavim r. Wti-
r.fatr„-r ri„tr, C... v. ,4«Ki iVa<. C. D.p,8S3; 46L. J.C^68&
CMIi Co., 11 H. L. C. p. 543; 35
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
879
debar the plaintiff from relief (p). But the use of the word Cb«p. via.
patent is not to be takein, as misleading where either it is shown ~
that the market name of tiie goods eomprisea Am word or
where the goods are made according to an ezpired patent, and
the word is so used as to be understood to refer to this, or
where frwn the nature of tiie ease it is unlikely to mislead (q).
The principle that a misstatement in a trade mark will n»« of firm
deprive a man of his rij^t to apply to the Court for relief, ^'^f"^
does not apply to the ease of the use of the name of a firm by
successors in business of the original partams. fbe aaaie of
a firm may be used long after all the original partners have
died, or have ceased to have any interest in Hm oonoezn. By
the usage of trade the name of a firm is ondwstbod not to be
confined to those who first adopted it, but to extend to and
include persons who have been afterwards introduced as
partners, or persons to whom the original partners hare trans-
ferred their business. The use, thereon, of lite M trade
name of a firm by the new partners or their successors is no
fraud upon the public, but is merely a statement that they
are carrying on the same business as was fdnnerly carried
on by the person or persons whose name ooostitatsd Him tnda
mark (r).
The ease, howerer, is different if a trade mark be so com-
pletely personal in its nature as neeeasarilj t» indicate ttiat
the goods to which it is aflSxed are the manufacture of a
particular person. If a person has acquired by his personal
skii! and aUlHy a rqratetioa wiatb gires hb goods in the
market a higher value than those of others, there is an im-
position on the public, if a man, to whom he has transferred
his business, uses his name or trade mark. A man may
isi'ign his business to another, bat he cannot gira him the
(/') Ltatker €^Co.y.AmeriecM (g) Cochrane v. Macnith, (1896)
lUh Co.. U H. L. C. p. 544 ; 3fi A. C. 225; 66 L. J. P. C. 20. See
L. J. Ch. 63 ; Chai-in v. Walker, 5
C. D. 830 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 686 ; and see
ll'iake, RohtrU <t Co. v. Wayland i(-
(■•'., (1909) 26 E. P. 0. p. 253. C'f.
if,;,,rnrd V. Le/i/, ,Vi I,. T. 419; Itrry
•i- 1 0. V. Htuin <t Co., (l»12) 66 8. J.
m.vni »B.p.o.tei,M0.
Perry d: Co. v. Hetnn <fc Co., supra.
(r) Leather Cloth Co. v. Amtritm
Cloth Co., 11 H. L. C. p. 642; U
L. J. Ch. 53. See aimstr Mmm-
/■iHunnij Co. v. Loog,%h. Cp. SS;
U i. Ch. 4SL
880
TBADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
Cfcq>-Vni. right to rue his name or mark, if the effect of the statement
be neeessarily to indieate that the gooda to whidi it is affixed
are the goods of the person whose name and mark they bear,
and the value uf the goods be materially affected by the state-
ment («). If, however, a trade mark be a mark idiidi refers
more closely to the place of manufticture or to the particular
business than to the firm of the manufacturer, although it
may originally have denoted the person by whom the goods
were manufactured, or if it has beccmie a sign of qwlity,
and ceased to denote that a particular person carries on the
business, the assignee of the business and buaineea premises
is not guilty of a misrepresentation to the public in making
use of the mark (<)• In many cases the name of the first
maker of an article is accepted in the market either as a brand
of quality or it bec(»ne8 the dmomination of the article itself,
and is no longer a representation that the article is the manu-
facturo of any particular person (m).
ColUtenl Bi*. A misrepresentation which is merely collateral must be dis-
rapnmtatHm. ^inguished from false representation in the trade mark or
fraud in the trade itself. Though thf Court will not interfere
by injunction to restrain the imitation of a trade mark, if there
is false representation in the tjrade mark or if the trade itself
is fraudulent, a ecdlateral nusre{Hreeenf(»ti<m by the owner
of the trade mark will not necessarily disentitle him to relief
either at law or in equity (x). Where, accordingly, the plain-
tiff, whose trade mark was "Ford's Eureka Shirts," had
falsely represe.ntrd in his invoices and in a few advertisements
that he was " patentee " of the shirt, it was held that such
false representation was not sufficient to prevent him from
sustaining an action at hiw ; and that his ri^t at har bong
(«) Leather CUdh Oe. r. Ammiean (h) HtU t. Bmtoiw, 4 De O. J
Cttth Co., 4 De O. J. ft S. 137, 143 ; & S. 159 ; S3 L. J. Ch. 304.
33 L. J. Ch. 199 ; Bury v. Bfrf/cn?, [x) Ford r. Fo$ter, 7 Ch. 611 ; 41
4 Pc O. J. & a. 352, :i69 ; 33 L. J. L. J. Ch. 082 ; PTry d: Co. v. Ileitin
Ch. 405. See Cropper Minerea <{• <'o., (1912) 56 S. J. 176; 29
Miirhine Co. v. Cropper, f}90t>) i3 B. P. C. 101 ; aflBnned on appeal on
H. P. C. pp. S9?, 394. other gftound*, 66 a J. 672; 29
(0 lliri/ V. Ihdforil, 4 De O. J. B. P. 0. SOB.
& S. 332, 308; 33 L. J. Ch. 199.
881
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
clear, ho was entitled to an injunction (y) . A misrepresenta-
tion whidi has been corrected and abandoned before the
action (z), or one made after tiie oommenoemeDt <a the
action (a), will not necessarily disentitle the plaintiff to relief.
It is impossible to lay down any general rule as to what Wh«d6g«.rf
degree of resemUanea ia necessary to omutitate a fraudulent '«*"!'>'»"e»
or colourable imitation of a trade mark. Each case must be Suient'
dealt with as it arises, the question being whether there is l^^ZH.
such a resemblance as tiiat a person of ordinary intelligence
with proper eyesight and ezerdsing (Hrdinary oantHKi is likely
to be deceived ( ' ),
The owner of a trade mark who seeks the aid of the Conrt M«,Md
for tile proteetiim of his mark must use due diligence in
making the application. Acquiescence or delay may dvpme
a man of his right to the protection of the Court (c).
Mwe delay after knowledge of the infringement to take d«Uj at the
proceedings, not sufficient to eall tiie Statute of Limiiati<m8
into operation, or where the infringement continues, is not.
It seems, a bar to the right to an injunction at the trial (d).
Lapse of time tinaeeompanied by anything else is, it seems,
(v) Ford V. Fo$ler, lupra; of.
Xeirman JHtUo, 57 L. T. 31,
W.N. (1887) 119.
fz) Benedidui v. Sullivan, 12 B.
P. C. 26.
(0) aitgtrt r. FMuOalir, 1 0.J).
808 ; 47 L. J. Ch. SSS; iWAr S
Oo. T. Ihuhtm A Ch., (IMS) SO
B. P. C. p. 489.
(1) See Payton <fc Co. v. Sntlhng
ftCo., (!901)A. C.p.310; 70 L.J
Ch. p. 64*i; Boumt v. Swan and
Edgar, (1903) 1 Ch. p. 223 ; 72 L. J.
Ch. p. 173; Singtr Manufaetmin§
Co. v. Britiik £mp<r« jr<Mi(/iiAirt«y
'K (190S) 90 B. P. 0. pp. 818. 319 ;
Schweppa V. CHbbent, (1908) 22
fi- P. C. p. 607; National Cath
Segitttr Co. v. Theeman, (1907) 24
B- P. 0. pp. 216, 217; Ihmlop
J^i'umatie Tyre Co. v. Dunlop Motor
Co.,(1907)A.O. p. 488; 7« L. J.
P O-MOt; ^■■ni..,|,„i T,
(1909), 26 E. P. C. 663; Ctaudiu*
Aih A Co. T. Invieta Co., (1911)
28 B. P. C. p. 610; (19U) »
E. P. 0. 476.
(e) Cht^ptUy. Sheard, 2 K. 4 J,
117; Siteottrt v. Eitcourt Hop
Emnee Co., 10 Ch. p. 280 ; 44 L. J.
Ch. 223 ; Inuuton v. Thompton, 41
L. J. Ch. 101 ; National Starch Co.
V. Munn'f Co., (1894) A. C. 276 ; 63
L. J. P. C. 112; rod Typtwritm-
Co. T. Typewriter Exehangt Co.,
(1903) 19 B. P. 0.432; Van Oppm
* (h. w.Ltemard Tm Oppm, (1908)
90 B. P. 0. 617; Boyal Warrant
ffoldtn Attoeiation v. Sladt <fc Co.,
(1908) 26 E. P. C. 245.
((/) FuUwood V. Fullwood, 9 C. D.
p. 178; 47 L. J. Ch. 469. A» to
right to dsmttges being lost by
deUy, lee OltdhiU ?. Brituh Ptr-
fiirattd f^ftr Co., (18U) 38 B. P. tt
4*1.
882
TRADE MAKES AKD TBADE NAMBS.
.vm.
JhUjam motion
bri^MMtioD.
•Bt.
JStpmrU
iajiiMtiM.
lajunetiaii not-
withtUnilinK
promise not to
uM the Bwrk.
no BK»re a bsr lo a nut for an injon^on in aid of Hie legal
right than it is to an action of deceit (e).
But delay may cause the Court to refuse an interlocutory
injunction, especially if the defendant has built up a trade in
wbkk im ium — i a »i>iM ly UB%d tiio mark (/).
Delay, moreover, may prevent conduct whicli would at first
be an infringement from httia^ calculated to deceive {g), and
w hew ^ infriiiymtt are nnaeroas and notorious, may
amount to abandonment of the tr i4e mark (h). But delay is
not a bar where it can b« i plained away, where for instance
it takes piace in order that the plaintiff may obtain evidence
no B dwai y to eateMish his caae (<)•
In a plain and urgent c&se the motion for an injunction is
oft«B made ex parte. Where the defendant is eammittiBg
a deliberate fraud it is important to obtain an ex parte ovder
before giving tiie defendant a notice which may lead to the
disposal of any sparioas goods which he is about to pot upon
the market (;).
Tim owner of a kad« mark, whose mark iua been illegalty
taken by another, is not bound to rely upon his assurance or
promise not to repeat the illegal appropriation of the mark,
bat is entitled to the protection of the Court by injunction (Ac).
Near is it necessary that any actual infringement should have
occurred if it is proved that the defendant contemplates eom-
(e) Fullipooil V. Fnlhrond, iiijtra; (H. L.).
see Three Toumi Banking Co. v.
Mad,hvtr, 27 C. D. p. 632 ; 63 L. J.
Ch. 998.
(/) Yat Tjfpewrittr Cft v. Tjfpt-
wrikr Sxchange Co., (1903) 19
B. P. 0. 433; Boyal Warrant
EMeri Auoeiatim y. Slade, (1908)
25 R. P. 0. 246, 247.
{g) Londonderry v. Kustelt, 3
T. L. B. 360.
(A) National Starch Co. r. Mmm't
Starch Co., (1894) A. C. S»«; 69
L. J. P. C. 113.
(0 Lte T. BtO^, ft Oh. 9. IWt
W L. J. (ft. 9W.
B. p. a p. SM; n L. X. *u
(*) MilUngton v. F«, 3 M. A C.
338; 46B.B.271; (?«iryv. jRgrta,
1 De a. ft Sm. 9; 70 S. B. 1;
WtUk v. JTimM, 4 K. * J. 74T ; lift
B. £. ft39i AMKM v. IMUMm, 1
Dn 0. J. ft S. 180 ; merican Tobacco
Co. T. ChMit, (1892) 1 Ch. p. 632;
61 L. J. Ch. 242; Slaunger v.
Spalding, (1910) 1 Ch. 261; 7»
L. J. Ch. 1 22. Where intriagement
is accidental, the plaintiff may b«
required to accept the defendant's
oadaitekiiig in liau tA aa iafane-
tiim: AN*, w. Mm t r t '
abU Pioneer SoeMy, (1911) 100 L. T.
p. 901, a£BniMd0B •ffml (Mil),
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES.
r.88
milting one, and it is sufficient evidence of this that he is in Ch.^ vm.
possession of a ccmsidaraUe quantity of spurious goods (l),
( vcn though they are only in his possession as a fonnutling
agent (m). "The life of a trade mark depends upon the Pi.i,„iff„„i
promptitude with which it is vindicated," and therefore the
plaintiff is not bound to give the defendant notice ; j MhrXl,
issuing the writ and serving the defendant with n ,f°'"'*"
motion for an injunction to restrain him from parting v.^a
the goods (n).
The plaintiff is as a general rule entitled to an injunction n.intiff-.nii.
although the defendant may have used the tnule mu-k in '"•'"'^ *"
Ignorance of the right of the plaintiff (o). thoagh infrinc*.
But where a defendant hu infringed innocently, the STi^ni:'*
Court will not order an account of profits or an inquiry as to tn^^^Tr^Zu.
damages unless the defendant continues to infringe after
noticeofihopbintirs rights (p). The register of trademarks ^ttt"p^bu,
IS not notice to the paUk of the «xiBt«Ma <rf a regietered tmde jJJS?*^
mark (g).
A man, who has innocently advanced money upon dock Right of in...
warrants for goods to wiutik a flwtain trade laark has be«\ ^'"oS*"^****
h .iudulently affixed may, upon offering to remove the mark,
have an injunction dissolved which was granted to reatnin the
wharfinger fwan parting with the goods (r).
The precise terms of an injunction must depend upon the Form of
particular facts of the case («). The order usually restraint "•i"-*'"-
(0 Upmamt ». Amt*r. » 0. D. (1910) 1 Ch. 237 ; 79 L. J. Ch. »22 ;
CattertOH v. Anglo-Forriyn Manu-
JaetuHng Co., (1911) 28 B. P. C. 74 ;
see Teatman v. ffomberger <t Co.
(1912), SOS. J. 614. vliend^ntet
before action oflinil aa oatetek-
ing bat took ao alifa to
{p) JMafalM V. SdeUten, 1 De O.
J. ft S. IM ; SItnmgtr v. Spalding,
(1910) 1 Ch. 237 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 122.
(?) SUramger Spalding, tupra.
(r) Pontardin y. Ptto, tg Wtm.
, S3 L. J. Oh. a7l.
(•) Montgonmii Tkm^fiam,
(IWl) A. 0. II. «» i tt J.Ck.
^ Mfc vw^KM flf iajoiMtiM
231 ; 32 Ti. 3. Ch. M6
(m) Vfunaim Kllmm, 12 £q.
140; 40 L. J. Oh. 47fi ; 7 Ok UO;
41 L. J. Ch. 246.
(n) (h-r-Ev ing v. Johnttm tt Co.,
1.1 0. D. p. 464 ; 7 A. C. p. 229;
l'l>mann v. Forrtter, 24 C. D. 231 ;
52 L. J. Ch. 946 ; Upmatm v. BlktM,
7 Ch. p. m ; 41 L. J. M8; ir«<ii.
gartmr. Bagtr, (19M}0SL.T.p.««;
22 R. P. 0. p. SiO. ButiM AiM« Cb.
T. Laidlaw, (1909) 26 B. P. C. 211.
(n) (Tpmnnn v. Fara^i-r, tupra i
^^inger Manu/acturins Co. v. Wilton,
'■i A. C. 392; /hu> v. Hart,
(l!«»o) 1 K. B. p. 600 ; 74 L. J.
K. B. p. 344 i ,iHMM9fr r. ^mUmg.
884
TRADE 1IABK8 AND TRADE NAMEa
vm - the use by the defeodant, hie serrante and agents, of the plain-
tiff's trade marks or of marks ouiy colourably differing from
them in oonneotioa with goods of the kind for which they are
registered by selling or otherwise disposing of the defendant's
goods marked with meh marks. The practice of the Court is to
specify the particular user which the Court has found to be a
violation of the plaintiff's right, and also to restrain violation
generally (t).
The Court will not insert in the order any qualifying words
which will leave it open to the defendant to say that the Court
has in anticipation laid down a course which he may pur-
sue («).
The operation of an injunction may be limited to UMr by
the defendant in a particular place (x).
A man -wboae trade mark has been infringed is as a general
rule entitled not only to an injunction, but also to an account
of profits " or " an inquiry as to damages in respect of the
illegal user of the mark (y), and to have his mark erased from
the articles upon irfaich it has beien wroogfuUy impreaud
and delivery up of the articles far such purpose (z). The
account is limited to sales and profits acquired for six years
mubi DUDM, and pMwig off, aee Llogth jSaNMoMytat, Ld., (1918) 89
UmiM
iqjanetioB.
Accotmt.
Inquiry as to
damagefl.
Delivery up.
SUuengerr. FMum,9tL.T. C.63S;
Johnitoa T. Orr-Ewing, 7 A. C. 2X9 ;
?! L. J. Ch. 797 ; Montgomery v.
Thompton, (1891) A. 0. p. 220;
Reddaway v. Banham, (1896) A. C.
pp. 221, 222 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 381 ;
Pinet et Cie. v. Maiton Louit Pinet,
(1898) 1 Ch. 179; 67 L. J. Ch. 41 ;
Oath T. Cba. (19M) 88 L. T. Sll ;
19 B. P. 0. 181 ; DamOar Mttar Co.
T. London /Mm'" Co. (1907), 24
R. P. C. 380 ; Iron Ox Remedy C. v.
Co-nperative Wholeiale Scciety, (1907)
24 K. P. C. 434 ; Inm-Ox Remeily
Co.v. Lndt Iiiditririal Soriety, (1907)
24 E. P. C. 438 ; Reg. v. Lecouturier,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 733 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
181 ; iTwAwt Oeoptr, (1808) 86
B. P. C. 508 ; AowuM 0^ Co. t.
Tiffin, (1909) 28 B. P. 0. p. 480 ;
27 a. P. C. 602 : Muralo t. Taylor,
(191U) 27 B. P. C. 261 : Lloyd$ t.
B P. C. 439.
(<) See caae* cited note («) $upra,
and Royal Warrant Holilrr$ At»o-
ciation v. Deane and Beale. (1912)
1 Ch. p. 22; 81 L. J. Ch. p. 73.
(») Ker/o(4 y. Cooper, (1908) i6
B. P. C. 608.
(z) See i!^ AUry. <i Ch. 168;
89 L. J. Ch. 884: Orr-Ewing
Johnston, 13 0. D. pi 464 ; 7 A. C.
p. 227 ; Barber r. Monico, 10 B. P. C.
93 ; Re La Socieli Anonyme de
Verreries de V£toile, (1894) 1 Ch. 81 ;
63 L. J. C h. 66 ; (1894) 8 Ch. 88;
63 L. J, Cb 381.
(.v) C<i». - V. CarlitU, 31 Bear.
292 ; Edtitten t. EdekUn, 1 De O.
J.*S.p.l99; Wiingartm t. Bagtr.
(1906)93 L.T. p. 61S; S8S.P.a
p. 361.
(«) Edeletm t. EddOen, 1 De G.
J. ft a 186; Dmt v. Tu/rpki, 3
TRADE MAKK8 AND TRADE NAMEa sgS
before the oommencoment of the .«,tion (a). But where a <W YIH.
mark is innoo«ntly infringed, no acoount of proflta or inquiry ^
as to damage, will be orders «ale« th. defLdant conS
to infringe after notice of the plaintiff's right, (b)
In taking the account, a man will not have to account far
ejy -p^rfe. Of p«,flt n«de during the previous si, yeax^ Z
only for so much a. is properly attribaf bl. to the «er o Se
Zonlt Z '^'^'^ "^^^ '^'^ - pX
but on the other hand, he cannot charge the plaintiff with th
t of manufacturing the good, in respect of which the bad ^ .
debts have oeen incurred (d).
Where there is no trade mark, but the defendant has sold
goods m packet, bo resembling those in which the plaintiff
wraps his goods as to be calculated to deoeire. the iwJant wfll'
be of all profits made in selling the goods in the form in whTch
r J" ^though retaU
may not have been deceived, the account will not be limited'
by excluding from it goods which the retail dealers mayT^e
sold to person, who bought them as goods of the itZ
granted il the eyidence of sales under the objectionable mark liS^L'-w
IS not sufficient to make it worth whne(/). trtn.^
The owner of a trade mark thoueh pntifW «^ • •
'™ n., b, hi. eonduc. depri Jh£ jTtt? "h
J. 4 H. 139; 30 L. J. Ch. 493;
' innann r. Elkan, 12 Eq. 140; 4(»
T'. J. Ch. 475.
(«) .'••orrf V. /"Mier. 7 Ch. p. 633 ;
11 L. J. Uh. p. 692.
CO .Voet V. CmuUm, 33 Bmt.
^•H; 10 L. T. 386; SUumutr t
^I^ding, (1910) 1 Ci. »1. 79
L. J. Oh. IM.
P m'^'***" ^"^^
(■/) T. JUMm. 10 L. T.
K.l.
780.
{«) £€w«r T. OacdieM, 8« C. D 1 •
36W.B.m; SoMnfTv. A«l
Oo., (18OT) 1 Ok an; W
L- J. Oh. 533.
(/) Board V. IfutldaH, (1904) 89
L. T. 718 : 20T. L. B. 144 ; J«,-«k
^ 4^
(?) Harruon v. ra^ior, 13 L. T.
338; 11 Jur.N.a40e: Sfordr
Tmm, 13 Ifc T. 746 (Uohe«) ;
S5
886
trahe mabks and trade nambs.
The plaintiff must eleet between the aeoount and an inquiry
1^^ *^^ ^ as to damages ; he cannot have both (h). On an inquiry as
to what damage has accrued to u man from the unlawful
use by another of his trade mark, tiie onus lies on him to
prore apedal damags by low of eaatom or otherwiae, and it
will not be asaumed in the absence of evidence that the amount
of goods sold by the defendant under the fraudulent trade
murk would have been sold by the plaintiff but for the def«i-
dant's unlawful user of the mark (i).
IntorrogatoriM The defendant must, if required to do so for tlu' purposes of
ItrparpoM , i. • •
dicoHiBtMJ the account or the inquiry as to damages, disclose the names
inwuH** ** persons to whom he has sdd any goods with the murk
imposed on them. If he bo unable to do so, he may then be
required to disclose the names of all persons to whom he has
sold any goods which he will not swear positirely were not
stamped with the mark {k).
GMi. Subject to sect. 46 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905 (which
provides that the owner of a registered trade mark certified
to be valid, shall hare his full costs, charges and expenses
as between solicitor and client in any subsequent legal pro-
ceeding in which the validity of the trade mark comes in ques-
tion, unless the Court in such subsequent {noeeeding oertifies
that he ought not to have the same), the costs of an action far
infringement follow the event (l), subject however to the dis>
cretion of the Court, as in any other action.
A man whose trade mark or trade name has been taken 1^
another is as a general rule entitled to the costs of obtaioil^
V. Foiler, 7 Ch. p. 633 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 27 K. P. C. p. 191.
682 (laches and misrepresontation). {k) Leather Cloth Co. v. Hirtth-
{h) Edelttm V. Edttsteii, 1 Do O. fiM, 1 H. 4 M. 295 ; 11 W.E. 9:13;
J. & S. 183 ; NeUton IklU, L. G. Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar
5 II. li. 22 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 317 ; Dt Brewery Co., 14 B. P. C. 1 ; £kie-
n/rev. L.B.eH.Ij.SSl:43 ehann CorparaUon v. Ck»mM$ ft^,
L. J. Ch. 841 ; Wringurtm Jr.Sagtr, (1900) 3 Ch. AM ; OB L. J. Gk MQl
(1800) 92 L. T. p. «3; 2SB. P. C. (J) MiOmgUm r. Fox, 3 IL It C.
p. 3S\ ; Slazenger T. SpiMiHg. (1910) 338 ; 45 B. B. 271 ; Burytus v. Ria$,
I Ch. p. 261 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 122. 26 Beav. 244 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 356;
(t) Leather Cloth Co. v. HirKh- EdtUten v. Edeltten, 1 De O. J. A S.
field, 1 Eq. 295) ; Magnolia Co. v. 185, 204 ; PUtu v. rrunii, io
AUa$ Co., 14 B. P. C. 398, 403 ; L. J. Ch. 122 ; MtAndreui v. Battdt,
KinneUr. BaUmtime * aotu, {1910) i De O. J. ft a 380, 387 ; 10L.T.a5.
TTi\DB MARKS AND TRADE NAME8.
an injunction to restruiu a repetition of Uie wrongful act (w).
If th« d«fendMit on being aerred with the writ, does not coii
t.-t the plaintiff's ciuim, but offers him the rtUaf to wliidi b*
is entitled, the plaintiff should not bring the cause to a
hearing. If he proceeds with bis action and fails to obtain
more than he was offered, he will loM Ms right to the oottf
incM.rred after the .lefendiinfs offer (n), and may be ordered
to pay the defendant's costs (o). But if the defendant upon
notice of the plslntirs right and the fact of its violation,
instp.u' of submitting to the injunction with ecets. flontests
the plttintifl's right or refuses any of the terms to which the
plaintiff is entitled (;,), or insists on conditions to which he is
not entitlf.d, e.g., that the order be not adrertiMd (f ), the caaae
may he brought to a hearing and the plaintiff will have the cost
of the suit. A person having in his hands or under his control
goods bearing a forged trade mark is bound upon the fact
being brought to his knowledge at oooe to submit to do what-
ever he may be compelled to do on an action being brought
against him ; otherwise, however innocently the goods may
hav n come to him he will be liaUe for the ooets of an aetion
brought by the person whose right is infringed for the purpose
of obtaining relief (r). Where a defendant consents to the
(m) Omriim Fin md lift (1912)106L.T.472;28T.L.B.294.
887
/RnmmM Co. r. OmarUm ami
QenertU Intmra»rt Co., WL. J. Ch.
236; rpmann v. F'/rttttr, 24 C. D.
231 : 32 L. J. Ch. 946. See Burgoynt
<f- Cn V. Biirgm/ne, (fod/rry ,(■ Co.,
(liHKv 22 R. P. V. p. 171 : Hamf.
Btnn,:il V. Nmith, (ims) 1 Ch. p. AM;
74 L. J. Ch. ao4 (topyright).
(«) MiUinyloH v Fac, 3 IC ft C.
338 ; 46 B. E. 871; McAndnw r.
BamU. 4 De e. J. * a »7 ; 10
i'- T. OS ; MtH T. Cotuton, 33 lieav.
p. 881 ; 10 L. T. 395 ; Nvi.n v.
VAlbuquerquf, 34 Beav. 394;
Hudton V. BennHt, 14 L. T. 698; 14
W. R 911; FetUt T. WiUiavu,
(1008) 23 E. p. o. 611 (oosti ol
further conaidaration}; LenrBm.
(o) Ba$s V. Dawher, 19 L. T.
p. 628; Jan v 'frotman, 12 B. P. C.
337 (design) ; I'mwm t. /tuchaHan
Flour Co., (1906) 23 E. P. C. 17;
SUamger v. SpaUmg, (IMO) 1 Ch.
261; 79 L. J. Oh. Itt. Sw X«Nr
*«. T. MmM Wtmmh JSmmn
attUg, (1»U) IM L. T. 4Y4 ; It
T. L. B. SM.
(p) atary .Vorfwi, 1 De O. 4
8m. 9; 76 B. B. l ; Burgtu y.
HaUty, 26 Beav. 249 : Hipkini v.
Plant, 16 B. P. C. 294 ; U«t Manu-
facturer t Supply Co. y. AgiMl
(1906) 38 E. P. C. 41S.
(») ffmry Om/di Pkmk»,
(1810) 27 B. P. C. 608.
(r) UpmamtY. man, 12^.
ML. J. Ck 476 ; 7 Cfc. !»; 41
888
TRADE MARKS AND TRADE NAM: S.
TUl.
; !
Lin of ul ir-
fingcn fot
plaintift obtaining an order in chunben for the relief cittimed,
tit* plaintiff will not neeMaartly be allowed the extra ooet of
bringing the matter on in Court (»). Where the Court was of
opinion that both plaintiff and defendant wore daoeiriag tha
pablie, no ooats were given (0.
Though the case for an injunetloo may fail, the dinnieaal of
the action may be without coats, if the defendant has be«n
guilty of improper conduct («). But in order to be deprived
of his OMte ttie defendant* a improper eotdnot must hare been
in connection with the subject mutter of the action (:r). If a
trader imitates another's label or trade mark, even though
the c»»e may be one where the Court may refuse an injunc-
tion, it will not willingly give the defencbwt hit eoeta (y). In-
fancy will not protect u person from being otdered to paj
the costs of the action («).
In a ease whwe wharfingers were in {.lesession of goods
bearing a brand in spurious imitation of tHe brand of the
plaintiff, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to have
tiM brand ranoved, bat that bis lien on the goods for bis
costs, if it «tist, most be poa^xHtad to tiie vharib^sr^
c ts (a).
A county Court has no jurisdict!i«n xo entertain an action
fo ' ifringement (rf a registered toade marK 'b).
L. J. Ch. 130 ; Moet v. rirkerln,/,
8 C. D. 372 ; 47 L. J. Cb. 627.
(j) Slazruytr v. Piyotl, 12 B. P. C.
439 (extra costs dittuUowed); Uaiuly
Bell MaHH/aeturiny Co, v. FknaHg,
18 B. P. C. 37«; Begot Warrmt
Ilelden Amteiatim v. iTKMH, (1900)
M B. P. C. 167 (extM coats al-
lowed).
(0 Kstcoart V. Etbnurt Jfv/i
Ft*en,e Co., 10 Ch. 280 ; 44 L. J.
CS». 223; rhirneloe v. HUl 11
E. ?. C. «1.
(u) n,dyeri V. liodgeri, 23 W. B.
888; 31 L. T. 28«; BorOuiiA ^.
Tike Mveniny /W, 37 U. D. p. 4M ;
S7 L. J. Ch. 406; TAonMlMV. BiU,
(UM) t Ok f. STSi as L. X Ch-
331 ; U ./rtof) ,t v. HW«y,
(19(M) fi. p. c. -.SI (wnmgM
use of word "ngiatered"); Ek^f
V. «.V/arrf, (180S) a Ch. 7 ; 74 L. J.
Ch. 431 ; C1aw«M AiJk v. /iwMi
<Je.. (1911)SSB.F.O.a»7.
(z) King V. OiUard, (lOOft) t Ok
7; 74 L. J. Cb. 481.
(y) Hat* V. Daii l^, 19 L. T. 627.
(z) Chubb V. ilriffitht, 3« B«av.
127 ; Woolf V. (laS^ I Ck
343 ; 68 L. J. Uh. 82.
(a) Ui,mann v. Klkan, 12 Kf. 140;
40 L. J. Ch. 474 ; 7Ch.l«; 41
L. Oh. M«; Matt t. HAmitf,
8aD.S7S; 47 L. J. Ch. S37.
(») Bm Hmrt, (1805) 1 K. B.
Ml: ?4L.J.x.&a4L
CHAPTER IX.
vumtcnona to rkhtrain tub iNrsiNoniBrr or
8EC1ION 1.— COPTRIOHT.
Br the Copyright Act, 1911 (a), the Jaw of copyright is ch.p. ix.
amended and ooowiidated, the former enMtmenta relating i.
to copyright beinf?, with a few exceptions (b). repealed (c). copyright
<^'op; ght in all works, whether published or unpublished, ^"J^f" *■
now etiela only bf stMate. seet. 81 of the Act providing that
no iwrsor. shall be eotitled to copyright or any similar ri^
in any literary, dnunatie, musical, or artistic work, whether
published or unpublished, otherwise than under md in woord-
ance with the prorisions of the Aet, or of any other •tatalory
enactmont for the time bring in force, but that iMthing in the
section is to be construed as abrogating anj r^t or Jurfa-
dictioD to retfa«m • breach of trust or eonfldenee (d).
iiy seel. 1 (1) of the Act, copyright subsists throaghooi Osni^
the pertaof the King's dominions to which the Act extends (e),
for the t>m mentiored (/) in the Act, in every original (g)
{a) 1 & 2 Geo. >, Jfl,
(A) 2» i 26 Vi. : . •,' w». 7, 8,
the Fine Arts Oc; .nt
(penmlttM for fhta:<..'r' < .> .,
tiou Biid mIw) ; 9 K. . i,:
* « Edw. 7, 0. 86, M
ngh ' Acta, 1902, IiM6 {aKcvpt pro-
visiiin in latter Act as to rogiatra-
tinn. which i» abolished). As to
registratiuD, see Eimm t. MarrU,
("J13) W. N. 38.
Copyri-ht Act, IHl, ».
uiid ached. IX.
(rf) See Mertpumlktr v. *,^,;.v.
(1892) 2 C*. m-. 61 L. J. th.
304; txtmh v. Kvan§. (1893) 1 Ch.
218; 62 L. J. Ch. 404 ; R„hh v.
Ontn. (I89.j) 2 d li. SU ; (H L. J-
Q. B. 693; Louii v. Hmellir, 73
I.. T. 226 ; Ejcimnyt Teiryraph Co.
^ ''Vesory, (1896) 1 a B. 147 ; 65
L. J. a B. 263; fioeJWnw* TO*-
graph Co. r, CtmhtU Him Co.,
(18B7) 8 Ok 4t: ML. jr. Ch. 672;
Mm$Kn$ Bn4hti$ v. .V«a«»rn,
(1910) 1 Ch. p. 343 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 710 : LilMitt Co. rrn. .* itnd
Intuhton Ok, (in«} .so B. P. a
26«.
(«) As., tJutMgk. tb'
dominiona aateapt m .'o tlw nim-
nuuy KtaalSm uder Moti. 11—18,
which am Mah ioted to the United
Cagdea: r>j right V; i»n,
S8 (1). As to seH.f^Ternc
doatinions, see swts. 2a, 29.
(/) Sect. 3, term in funeral;
Hee sect. 16, joint authors ; sect 17,
posthumous works; sect. 18,
V. rnnient publicatioiM ; Met. IS,
mer' ininal instruBMBts ; seoi M.
phot^ ,ph«; Mot 38 (1), (B.^
intenwtional cqgn^t, itifra.
is) Bm^/H,^ 881.
i
890
INFBINOEMENT OF COPTBIOHT.
Qktf. IX.
, 1.
Uauinc of
oopjright.
literary (h), dramatic (i), musical (A), and artistic work (I) ;
.it-
In the case of a publiyhed (m) work, the work was first
published within such part of the King's dominions, and—
In the case of an unpublished (n) work, the author was at
the date of the making of the work a British subject or
resident (o) within such parts of the King's dominions, but
in no other works except so far as the piotection conferred
by the Act is extended by Orders in Council thereunder rdat-
ing to self-goreming dominions (p) to which the Act does not
extend (q) and to foreign countries (r).
For the purposes of the Act, copyright is defined (•) as
the sole right to produce or reproduce (() a work or any
substantial part thereof in any material form whatsoever, to
perform (»), or in the case of a lecture («), to deliver (y)
the work or any substantial part thereof in public; if the
work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial
part thereof ; and also includes the sole right —
(1) ti) produce, reproduce (z), perform, or publish any
translation of the work ;
(/() See «H/ra, p. 402. "Literary
work " is not defined by the Act,
but includes uiape, charts, plans,
tables, and compiladona : aect.'35,
anb-t. 1. See LAram t. Shaw
U'aHmr. (1913) 30 T. L. B. 22.
(0 Sae infra, p. 406 ; aa to what
" diBinatio work " includes, sect. 36,
«ub-a. 1.
(i-) See iii/ra, p. 406. The term
" muiiicnl work " is not defined by
the Act, but is defined by 2 Edw. T,
c. 15, B. 3, aa " any combination of
melody and harmony or either of
them printed, reduced to writing,
or otherwise graphically ptodsMd
w i*|»rudtto«d."
(0 " Artistu) work " includes
{inter alia) works of painting, draw-
ing, sculpture, and architectural
works uf art, engravings, and
photographs Copyright Aet, 1811,
s. 36 (1).
(to) As to meaning of " publica-
tion," see aeoto. 1 (3), 3S (8),
p. 391.
(n) See aeet 3A, anb-a. 4.
(o) See sect iS, aub-a. 5.
(p) See aeet SS, aab-s. 1.
(?) See secta. 2A. 26.
(r) See aeot 29.
(«) Sect. 1 (2).
(<) See Millar v. r.an;/ <t- Polalc,
(1908) 1 Oh. 43;J: 77 L. J. Ch.
241; II7(U«Am./v. :retf»iistoii,(l»ll)
64 8. J. 272.
(m) Aa to pOTtomMBM, see aeel.
36, aah-a. 1.
[r) Lecture includes address,
speech, and sermon : met. 36,
sub-A 1.
(y) Delivery in relation to lecture
includex delivery by means of my
mechanical instrument, ib.
(») See Frmt v. Olive Seriit I'lib-
liMns Co., (1906) 24 T. L. B.
INPMNGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
891
Chap. IX.
L
(2) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a
novel or other non-dramatic worit;
(3) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or
of an artistic work, to ctnrert it into a dramatic work,
by way of performance in pubh'e or otherwise ;
(4) in the case of a literary, dramatic, or musical work,
to make any record (a), perforated roll, cinematograph
film (b), or other contrivance by means of which the
work may be mechanically performed or delivwed ;
and to authorise any such acts.
For the purposes of the Act, publication, in relation to any PabUeatfaa.
work, menos "the issae of copies to the public," and does
not inclad« the performance in public of a dramatic or musical
work, the delivery in public of a lecture, the exhibition in
public of aa artistic work, or the construction of an architec-
tural work of art, Irat, for the purposes of this provision, the
issue of photographs nnd engravings of works of sculpture
and architectural works of art is not to be deemed to be
publieatiim c* each wwks (c).
To be entitled to copyright a work need uoi consist of new Orlgiaaitty.
matter, a mere compilation (rf) of old materials, or of
materials which are common to all men, and merely the result
of infoiry and industry, such as calendars («), eatalogaes {/),
dirrTtories (g), encyclopedias (A), gazetteers (»), law re-
fil8; n'hUel>e€ul\.n'elUn>jton,{m\) 603 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 771; Orace v.
55 S. ,T. 272. Xeivman, 19 Eq. 623 ; 44 L. J. Ch.
(n) As to the law before the Act, 298 ; Jfapfe t. Junior Armg and
-Vary aofw, 21 C. D. 388 ; M L. J.
Ch. 67; cm* T. CWor, 78 L. T.
613; OMtr. Marki,U L. J.
107 ; Cooper v. Stevetu, (1606) 1
Ch. 067 ; Marthall v. Butt, 86 It. T.
77 ; LitholiU Co. v. Travu and Imtt'
latort Co., (1913) 30 B. P. C. 286.
(S») Kelly V. .Horrid, 1 Eq. 687;
35 L. J. Ch. 423 ; Lamb r. Aant,
(1893) 10ILS16: ttL. J.Ck.«M.
(A) Mawmam t. Ligfe, I Buaa
385; »B.R. lis.
(») Levi* V. Fvtlartim, 2 Beat.
6: 8 L. J. (N, 8.) Ch. 291 ; ao E, R
8«.
t^ee Monekton v. Gramophone Co.,
(1912) 106 L. T. 84; W. N. 32.
(6) Hee M to tiM fentsr law,
A'dTM T. iVrfM Frhm, (1909) 100
L. T. 360 ; O^vitk y. Mig Pottf.
Kopt Co.. (1911) 27 T. L. B. AM.
((•) Sect. 1, 8ub.g. 3.
('') CompilatioMH bio now in-
rluiled in literary workH, n<>ct. 3S,
Mil)-K. I ; Hee Nubet V. Oolf Aijency,
{\m) 23 T. L. B. 370 (btognphioa
notes of gdlMi}.
(e) L trnt m a* v. WimtlMt», 16
Vea.269.
(/) ApMm v. AfUmr, 1 H. * M.
DantioB at
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYBIGHT.
*fcrtl r ^^^^ ^''^ ' °^ ^"""^ ' P'''<^« "heets ( w), telegraph
: — codes (h), time tables (o), ma; be the subject of copyriyht
if independent work gives an original result (p) . But a work
must be the composition of the person claiming ccqj^right
therei.i, and it must contain an element of literary value (q).
Accordingly, a mere list of names conveying no useful infor-
mation (r), a eardboard patt«m sliNnre containing direc-
«*» for measuring and cutting out ladies' sleeves (»),
and a list of horses selected as probable winners (<), a
common phraae for the tttle of a book or play (u), have
been held not to be the subject of copyright.
• The term for which copyright subsists is, except as other-
wise expressly provided by the Act (x), the life of the
author and a period of fifty yean after his death; bat
any time after the expiration of twenty-five years, or in the
oasa of a work in which copyright waf subsisting at
the passing of the Act, thirty years from the death of
the author of a published work, copyright in the work is not
rafringed by the reproduction of the work for sale, if fho
person reproducing the work proves that ho has giien ih^
premsribed notice in writing of his intention to reprodaee the
(i) T. Jfo-^, 11 Sim. (i09 ; U„r„co v. ,S7,«».. »-«//•«■ ,t Co.,
h T T T'- B. 22; /W/ V.
•TMHy, 18 li. J. Cb. 190; Nniirultrs Met/rr, {VJVi) 29 T I fi 148
y. S„m 3 M. * r -1, ; 7 L. j. (,) ^ Int^i„^
( h. iO, (marginal notes) ; Incorpo- Hortt Agency, supra,
rated S,^y of Law Reining v. (,) HMimraitv. Trutwttt fiaM)
(/) Umtherhy y. luttmaUtmal Libraco v. Shaw, Walker A Cb„
Jloru A;)enry and Exthtmgi Co., •«pr« (crd-index .Trtem)
(1910) 2 CL 297 : 7» L. J. Ch. 609. (0 VMUn. v. /V,«^, l^i„,,
(m) T. Btrniamin, (lime) (1895) 2 Ch. 29. 4.1; 43 W K l ie
Ch 491 : 76 L. J. Ch. 800. („) ,« e. V'^e^
, . ^"L rr/", : J- <"h. 809 ; Crotch r. AmoUL
;'w ;• , (l!»I0)54S.J.4H(book); BMy.
(o) I.edu\.io„n,j,(\m)\.C..W,. Meyer. (1913) 29T L. B. IM/^vV
ip) Copyright Act, 1911, H. 1, (^) /.e., in the cm. o# jSt
^ub-«. 1 ; and «^ Mck, v. rate,, IS author., wet. 16. aub-* 1 ; po^
Ml) neatherby r. /nfamafMrnii Ooverament publications, aeet 18-
«w*«nis» Co., BMchanioal inrtrumenta. aaot 19.
(1»10) 2 Ck p. aM ; 79 L. J. Ch. aulH.. i ; p|»»off«ph,. Uct 11.
INFBINOEliENT OF GOPntlGHT.
worit. Mid that he has paid the prescribed royalties in respect
of all copies of the work sold by him (y).
In the case of a work oi joint authorship, which is defined
by the Act (a) as a work produced by the collaboration of two
or more authors in whidi tiw eontributton of one «^r is
not distinct from the contribution of the other author or
authors, copyright subsists during the life of the author who
first dies and for a term" «rf fifty years after his death, or during
the life of tbs antiiMr who dies kwt, vhi^er pwied is tile
Icmger (a).
In the case of a literary, dramatic, or musical work, or an
engraving in which ooi^ht sobeists at tite date of tiie
death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint author-
ship, at or immediately before the date of the death of the
author who dies last, but which has not been published, nor,
in the case of a dramatic or musical work, been performed (*)
in public, nor, in the case of a lecture, been delivered in
public, before that date, copyright oubsists till publication,
or perfonuMiee or dehvery in public, whicherer first happens,
and for a term of fifty years thereafter (c).
Where any work has, whether before or after the com-
mencement of the Act (d), been prepared or published by or
under the direction or control of the Crown or any Govmi-
ment department, the copyright in the work, subject to any
agreement with the author, belongs to the Crown, and
continues for a period of fifty years from the date of the llrat
publication of the work (e).
In the case of records, perforated rolls, and other con-
trivances by means <rf which sounds may be mechanically
reproduced copyright subsists as if such ctmtrinmoss
musical works, the term of copyright being fif^ jmn
898
Clup. IX.
Duration of
oopjrrigbt in
vwkaof joiat
Duntion of
copyright in
poatbaiBoai
DoniioB of
oopjrigut in
DnntiMar
oopjiigklia
(v) Sect 3. Aa to notioM and
ToyaIti«i, nee the Oopytigkt Boyalty
Syitem Begaklioaa, 1912, St B.
* 0. No. SM ; and u to the grant
of compulsorv licence* to rapradaM
the work, nee sect. 4.
(:) Sect. Ui, Bub-B. 3.
(a) Sect. 16, Bub-i. 1.
(h) Beet 85, aub-a. 1.
(e) Sect. 17, sub-R. 1.
('/) In the United Kingdom
July Irt, 1912: sect. 37, sub-s. 2 (a).
(e) Sect. 18. The provirionH of
thu section are without pnjndioe
to any ri^ta or ftfifi^pM of tfw
Crown (ib.).
894
nO^OEMENT OF OOPYBiaBT.
Chap. IX.
8Mt.l.
DnntiaB of
Ownonbip of
Hcebukal
iMtnuawta.
Engravings and
tnm the mskiiig of the original plate (f) from whieh tite
COntrivunco was derived (g).
Where the record, perforated roll, or other mtichanical
eontrirance was made before the commencement of the Act,
copyright subsists therein as from the commencement of the
Act for tho like term as if the Act had been in force at the
date of the making of the original plate from which the con-
triranee was derived (h). But oopyrii^t is not eoaferred
by this provision of the Act in any such eontrirance if the
making thereof would have infringed copyright in some other
Bxteh contrivanee if this {wovit^ of the Act had been in
force at the time of the mskiag of tiw fint-mentioDed con*
trivance (•).
The term for which copyright subsists in photographs (*)
is fifty years from the making of the original negatire from
which the photograph was derived (I).
Subject to the provisions of the Act, the author of a work
is the first owner of the copyright therein (w).
In the case of photographs (n), the owner of the negatire
at the time when the negatire was made, is deemed to be the
author of the work (o).
In the case of records, perforated rolls. Mid meehanteal
contrivances, by means of which sounds are mochanicaJly
reproduced, the owner of the original plate (p), from which
the contrivance was derired at the time when such plate was
made is deemed to be the author of the work (q). Where
such record, perforated roll, or other mechanical contrivance
was made before the commencement of the Act, the person
who at the commencement of the Act was the oiraer of socb
original plate, is the first owner of the copyright (r).
Where in the case of an engraving, photograph, or por-
trait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other
M to
(/) See sect. ;J5, sub-g. 1
what is iDcluded in " pUte."
(g) Sect 18, mtb-a. 1.
(A) Sect 19, Mb-8. 8.
(i) Sect. 19, rob-8. 8 (ii.).
See sect. 35. eub-s. 1, as to
what " photograph " iiii'ludeH.
(0 Sect. 21.
(m) SMt 6, rab-a. 1.
(») Sm aeet SO, nib^ I.
(o) 8«et 21.
( p) See lect. 35, sub-s. 1.
(7) Sect. 19, Bub-8. 1.
(r) Sect 19, •ub-B. 8 (1).
INFRINGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
896
Chap. IZ.
person and was made for valuable consideration («) in pur-
suance of the order, the person by whom sneh plate or other
original was ordered is the first owner of the copyright, in the
absence of an agreement to the contrary (0-
Where the author was in the employment of some other or fi* by
person under a contract of serrice or apprenticeship, and the M^i"f°
work was made in the course of his employment by that •"p'^J*^*-
person, the employer is, in the absence of any agreement to
the contrary, the first owner of the copyright, but whwe tiie
work is an article or other ccmtribution to a newspaper,
magazine, or similar periodical, there is in the absence of
any agreement to the contrary, deemed to be reserved to the
uuthor a right to restrain the poblimtimi of the work, other-
wise than as part of a newspaper, magasine, itt rimilar
periodical (-u).
The ownership of an author's manuscript (x) after his pb uhu m
(loath, where such ownership is acquired under the author's
testamentary disposition, and the manuscript is of a work
which has not been published, nor performed, nor delivered
in public, is primd facie proof of the cq>yri^t being with the
owner of the manuscript (y).
The copyright in any work prepared or published by or OoTamaeni
under the direction or control of the Crown or any Ctovan-
inent department belongs to the Crown aalqeet to my agree-
ment with the author (z).
Persons who were immediately before the commencement Righu tniiati.
of the Act (a) entitled to rights or interests in any literary, JS'ght aJ»J iBfi,
dramatic, musical, or artistic work, are entitled to rights and f""" '^i't-
o ing at coin-
interests under the Act in substitution for their former rights.
Thus, a person who was mtitled to ocqiyright (&) in any
com-
mraceiarat of
Ael.
(<) See Bmkm t. OoiAt, (1908) 3
K. B. 827 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 741 ;
>S((iclb«nu»m t. Afon, (1906) 1 Ch.
774 ; 7S L. J. Ch. SQO.
(0 Sect. 8, Bub-i. 1 (a). See
Biiurns V. ' 'oiike, tiifira.
(») Sect. 5, sub-g. 1 (b). See
< lM„trei/ v. Deg, (1912)28 T.L.B.
4!H> (auditor's report).
(jc) See MaemataHf. /)eta,(19n7)
ICh. pp. 107. 110; 76L.J. C%.18».
(y) Sect. 17, sub-s. 2.
(z) Seol. 18.
(a) July let, 1912, in the United
Kingdom : sect. 37, aub'-e. 2 (a).
(b) Inolndingthe i^tat oaaoMa
law (if any) to reilnia tte piABta.
tioB or othw irnBa* with the
896
INFBINOBlfENT OF COFTBIOHT.
Terairfnihrt
tatod right.
all 1^ * *™"**'« or »niMioal work, is now mtitled
~ to copyright in the work under the Act (c).
A person who^was entitled to both copyright and perform-
ing ri^t (d) in any musical or dramatic work, is now entitled
to copyright in the work under the Act (c).
A person who was entitled to copyright, but not to per-
forming right, in any musical or dramatic work, is now
entitled to copyright in the work iindmr the Act, except the
sole right to perform the wwk or any sabetMitikl put thereof
in public (e).
A person who was entitled to performing right, but not
to copyright in a musical or dramatic work is now mtitled
under the Act to the sole right to perform the work in public,
but to none of the other rights comprised in copyright under
the Act (/).
The siibRtituted right subsists for the term for which it
would have subsisted if the Act had been in force at the date
when the work was made and the work had been one entitled
to copyright thereunder (g).
AMigammtof If the author (h) of a work in which any of the above men-
tioned former rights subsisted at the commencement of the
Act, before tiiat date, has assigned any each right or granted
any interest therein for the whole term of such right, then
at the date when, but for the passing of the Act, such right
would have expired, the substituted right conferred by the
Act, in the absence of express agreement, will pass to flie
•work: Mct. 24, sub-s. 1, and entitled under Beet. 18 of the Copy-
Sth. I. riffht Act, 1842.
(r) Sect. 24, Hub-s. 1, and Sch. I. (rf) Including the right at common
In the cane of an easay, article, or law (if any) to restrain the per-
portion foming part of, and fintt fonnanoe thereof in public : aeot. 24,
published in a review, magazine, or Bub-g. 1, Soh. L
other periodical, or work of a like (e) Sect 34, *tt,b-s. 1, ud Soh. I.
nature, the rij^t is subject to any (/) Sect 24, sub-e. 1, and
rii^t of puMislling tuo esxay, Sch. I.
article, or portion in a separate (a) Sect. 24, sub-g. 1.
form ti) which the author was (A) Including the legal personal
entitled at the commoiuoLnent <^t repreBentativen of a deceased
the Act, or would if the A 'jt hail autbor : saot 24, sub^. 2.
not been passed, have become
TNPRINGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
897
Chap- IX.
flMt.1.
author of the work, and any interest therein created before
the eommencement of the Act and then subsiatin^ will deter- ,
mine ; but the perwm who immediately before the &te at
which the right would so have expired, wae the owner of the
right or interest will be entitled at bia option either (1) in
giving the preaeribed notice, to an aasignment of the right
or the grant of a similar interest therein for the remainder
of the term of the right on payment of such consideration
as may be agreed, or determined by arbitration (i) ; or,
(2) without any such assignmrat or grant, to cmitinae to
reproduce or perform the work subject to payment if duly
demanded by the author of such royalties as may be agreed,
or determined by arbiteation, or where the work is incor-
porated in a collective work (k) and the owner of the right
or interest is the proprietor of such collective work, without
any saeh payment ({).
The owner of copyright in any work may assign the right AHignm«Bt«(
wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limita- "'f^*-
tions to the United Kingdom or any self-governing dominiw
or other part of the King's dominions to which the Act ex-
tends, and either for the whole teim of the copyright or for
any part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right
by licence, bat no such assignment or grant is valid unless
it is ir writing signed by the owner of the ri^t in respect
of which the assignment or gnmt is made, or by his duly
authorised agent (m).
Where there has h%ea a partial assignment of copyright, p-*iii bHih
the assignee, an respects the right so assigned, and the
assignor as respects the rights not assigned, are for the par-
poses of the Act the owner of the copyright (n).
Where the author of a work is the first owner of the copy- Re.tricUon. o..
right therein, no assignment of the copyright and no grant of |„*n{,*''
any interest therein made by him {otherwise than by will)
after the passing <rf ttie Act (o), it operative to Test in the
assignee or grantee any rif^ts with respect to the copjri^
(i) Sect. 24, sub-g. 1 (a) (i.). (i/i) Sect. 5, sub-g. 2.
(i) For meaning of "collective (n) Sect. S, 8u>> s. ,3.
work," gee gect. 36, aub-a. 1. (o) December IWh, 1911
(i}SMtS<.mb-e.t(ft)(ii).
898
INFBINOEIIEMT OF OOFTBIOHT.
Cbap. IX.
AniiBRMiit •(
mtnical works
before Decem-
ber 18th, 1911,
•BdrifbtiiB
mecliaaiokl
iMtrnmeati.
Agreement to
asaigu copyright
Agieement to
paUiehBotu
in the work beyond the expiration of twenty-flre years from
, tho death of the author, and the reversionary interest in the
copyright expectant on the termination of that period on
the death of the author devolves on hie legal personal repre-
sentative* notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary,
and any agreement entered into by him as to the disposition
of such reversionary interest is null and void; but this pro-
visioD of the Aet does not i^ply to the assignment of the
copyright in a collective work or a licence to publtdl a WOtk
or part of a work as part of a collective work (p).
Notwithstanding any assignment before the passing of the
Act of the copyright in a musical work, the rights conferred
by the Act in respect of the making, or authorising the
making, of contrivances by means of which the work
may be mechanically pwformed, belong to the author ot
his legal personal repi-esentatives and not to the assignee, and
tho royalties (9) are payable to the author of the work or hie
legal persmal representatives (r).
An agreement to assign the copyright in a work operates
as an equitable assignment («).
An agreement between publishers and an author to print
and publish a work at their own ride, on the terms of divkl-
ing equally with him the profits, and stipulating that if
another edition should be required the author should make
all neceesary additions and alterations, is not an assignmoit
of the copyright, but is an agreement of a personal nature
or joint adventure between the parties (t), which either is at
liberty to terminate upon notice after the publication of a
given edition, if at the date of such notice no fresh expMBse
{p) Sect «, rab-a. 2, ptoruo. (») Hard, Lock <£ Co. v. L<mg,
A» to mMning of "eoUective (1906) 2 Ch. 560 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 732.
(<) ftttvens V. fitnmng, 6 De O. M.
& O. 223 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 163 ; Reade
V. Benttty, 3 K. & J. 271 ; 27 L. J.
C h. :2 j4 ; 4 K. & J. 656 ; and see
Hole T. Briidhury, 12 C. D. 886 ; 48
L. J. Ch. 673; Lueat v. MMtr^f,
(190A) 21 T. L. B. on; Jb
Mtmeol Oo m tm m H t iu , (1907) I Oh.
Ml; 76L. J.CkSiS.
work," twe w>ct 35, mib-8. 1.
(9) Am to payment of royaltioH, nee
aect. 19, Hub-as. 3, 6, 7 (b), and the
Copyright Royalty SyHtem (Mecha-
nical Musical InstrumentM) Bcgula-
tionn, 1912, St. B. & O. No. 533 ;
Rubent V. I'athi Frittt Ptdhephont
Co., (1913)28T.L.B.m.
(r) 8«)t 19, mdy^ 7 (e).
Ubaik IX.
.1.
IMFRINGBlfENT OP OOPYMGHT.
has been incurred by the party to whom auch notice has been
given («). The pabliaher ia not entitled after the termins-
tion of the agreement by the author to rnstrain the publica-
tion by another publisher of a new edition before all the
copies of the former editioo published by himself have been
sold (x).
The benefit of such a publishing agreement is not assign-
able by the publisher without the consent of the author (y).
But where a licence in general terms was granted to a per>
son " to print, publish, and sell " a musical composition, it
was held that the licensee was not bound under the licence
to print and publish the work in his own name (z).
In the absence of special agreement to the contrary, the Bighu f
assignor of a copyright is entitled, after the assignment, to ^I^S^'^*?;
contbae selling copies of the work printed by him before the
assignment and remaining in his posseasiim (a).
So also where an author sells the copyright in a book to a Rigktoarr^
publisher for a certain specified time, the publisher has the ixpilitlSrrf
right after the exiHratkm of that period of selling copies of
tiie work he has printed before the expintrao of the tinM
limited (b).
899
SECTION 2.— TBI INriUNOIMBNT OF OOyTBIOHT.
Topyright in a work is infringed by any person who,
without the consent of the owner (c) of' the copyright, does rfiSriS?'
uything the sole ri^t to do whkh is by tiie Copyright Act,
1911, conferred on the owner of the copyright («f>, or who
sells, or lets for hire, or by way of trade exposes or offm
for sale (e), or hire; or
(u) .StevcMT. JtaeAw;
BtntUy, tupra.
(x) Wane t. BoiMidgi, 18 Eq.
497; 43 L. J. GSk 6M.
(y) QriJOk T. IWcr Piblithing
Vo., (1887) 1 Ch. 21 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
12; Litctu T. MotuTief, (19M) 21
T. L. B. 683 (tnwleeia kMknvtiv
uf publisher).
(z) Booth V. Ll^ (itio) W
T. L. B. 649.
(a) rflyto> T. mom, 1 Eq. ««.
(») MmmU T. Al^ 10 W. B.
981; eL.T.348.
(c) Copjrright Act, 1911, bs. 8,
8Ub-§«. 1 and 3 ; 16, sub-g. 2; 18,
19, sub-s. 1 ; 21, ante, pp. 394, 395.
(rf) Sect. 1, 8ub-8. 2, ante,
p. 390.
(<) See erUain t. Krnntdg, (1902)
1»T.I..B.1».
400
INPRXNOEMENT OF OOFTRIOHT.
*^ IX. distribntea either for the purpose of trHdi*. or to 8uch an
— ^± — extott u to affect pnjndieially ^ ownw of tfie oofqr.
right; ur
by way of trade exhibits in public ; ur
importo tat sale or hire into my part of tho King's
dunkicna > which the Act eztenda(/},
any worit which " to his knowledge " infringes copyright
or wonkl htfringe copyright if it had been made within the
part of the King h dominions in or into which tho Mia or
hiring, expaeur<>, offering for sale or hire, distribution, ex-
hibition, or imi)ortation took place {g).
Copyright is also infringed hy any person who for his
private profit permits u theatre or other place of »>nl« rtain-
ment to be used for the performance (h) in public of the
wwli without the eansent of the owner of the copyright',
unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for
suspecting that the performance wtmld be an infringemoit
of copyright (t).
Acunot But the following acts (i.)— (rii.) do not eonstitnfe -an
infnnguMiiU ...
at wf^iglit. ufringement of copyright :—
(i.) Any fair dealing with a work for the purposes of
private study, research, criticism, renew, or newspaper
summary ;
(ii.) Where the author of an artistic work (A) is not the
owner of the copyright therein, the use by the author of
any diouM, cast, siceteh, model, or study, made
by him for the purpose of the work, provided that he
does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of
that worii;
(iii.) The making or publishing of paintings, drawings,
engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or
artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situate in a public
place or building, or the making or publishing of paint*
ings, drawings, Migmvings, or photographs (which are
(/) *^ "ect. 25. works of painting, drawing, aculp-
(.v) Sect. 2, 8ub-8. 2. tore, artit>tic cra'tsmanship, archi-
(A) Se« sect. 35, sub-'s. !. teotural work* of art, engiavingi,
(t) Sect 2, «ub-B. 3. cud photognqplM, ib.. Met. 89.
(i) " Axtiitio work " inclutloa sub**. 1.
INTBINOBlfENT OF COPYRIGHT.
not in the nature of architectural drawiogi or pkua) of
•ay HdiitMtaral wmk of srt;
(iv.) The publication in a collection, mainly compoaad of
non-copyright matter, bond fide intended for the use
of MhoolB, Md 8o described in the title and in any
advertiHPments issued by the poUbhar, of ahort paaaagtia
from published literary works not themselves published
for the use ol schools in irhich copyright aubsiata: Pro-
vided that not mora than two of aooh paaaagaa Yrom
works by the same author are published by the aams
publisher within five years, and that the source frmn
which aadi paasages are taken is acknowledged ;
(v.) The publication in a newspaper of a rapwt of a
lecture delivered (0 in public, unless the report is
prohibited by conspicuous written or printed notice
affixed before and maintained daring the leetare at or
about the main entrance of the building in which the
lecture is given and, except whilst the building is being
need for pablie wonhip, in a poaitim near the lecturer.
This provision doea not affaot the provisiooa bi pan- Ammtk
graph (i.) as to newspaper summaries;
(vi.) The reading or recitation in public by one person of
a reasonable extract from a pablidied work (in) ;
(vii.) The publication in a newspaper of political ■paoohoa
delivered at public meetings (n).
Nor M it an infrmgenmit of copyright in any moaioal
work (o) for a person to make within the parts of the King'a
dominions to which the Act extends, records, perforated
rolls, or other contrivances by means of which the work may
'x' mechanically performed, if anch person prorea (1) that
such contrivances have previously hron made by, or with the
consent (p) or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright in
the work ; and (2) that he haa given the prescribed m^iea
of his intention to make the oontrivmcea, and haa paid to tha
401
Cluip. IX.
8w«.S.
(0 "I^eotue" iwdadM Mnm,
"peech, or sitaoB. "TMOrmj"
inclodw fldivtry by a meolHaiMd
instrument, Met. 9ft, ntb-e. 1.
K.I.
(m) Sect. 2, iub-g. 1 (i.)_(yi.).
(«) Sect. 20.
(o) See Met. 19, nib-s. 2 (ii.).
If) 8se sset 1^ mb-a. 6.
26
4102
INFBINQEMENT OF COFTBIOHT.
lit
Infringement of
litcrar; copy-
owner of the copyright in the work the necessary royalties in
respect of such contrivances (q). But no alterations in, or
omissions from, tho work reproduced, may be made, unless
contrivances reproducing the work subject to similar altera-
tions and omissions have been preriously made by, or with
the consent or acquiescence of, the owner of the copyright,
or unless such alterations or omissions are reasonably neces-
sary for the adaptation of the work to the contrivances in
question (r).
In the case of musical works published before the com-
mencement of the Act, the conditions as to the previous
making by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the owner
of the copyright, and the restrictions as to alterations in or
omissions from the work, do not apply, and there are different
provisions as to royalties (s).
There are two modes in which literary copyright may be
infringed, namely, either by piracy, or by what is termed
literary larceny. Where a publisher in this country publishes
an unauthorised edition of a work in iHiich copyright exists,
or where a man introduce!' to sell a foreign reprint of such a
work, this is open piracy. Where a man pretending to be
author of a book illegitimately appropriates the intits ol
another man's labour, this is literary larceny.
There is also another mode in which literary property can
be invaded which is wholly irrespective of copyright legisla-
ti(m, and that is where a man sells a work under the name
and title of another man or another man's work; that is not
an invasion of copyright, but a common law fraud which can
be redressed by common law remedies (t).
The author of a l)ook protected by cof)yright has the ex-
clusive right to produce and reproduce the book (u) subject to
any fair dealing therewith by another person for (he purposes
(() See wot 19, rab-i. 7 (•). (b).
(t) Dick$ T. Yatm, 18 0. D. 76,
90 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 809 ; see Crbtch
V. Arnold, (1910) 64 S. J. 49.
(m) See Copyright Act, 1911, s. 1,
cab-*. S.
(q) 8ect. 19, Rub-w. 2 (a), (b),
3, 6 ; and hh to notice and payment
of royalties, see the Copj-ri^^ht
Royalty Svhtem (Mechanical Muci-
cal In^iruinentK) Kef^lationH, St.
E. & O., 1(112, No. 533.
(r) Sect. 19, sub-s. 2 (i.).
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIOHT.
406
of criticigm, review, or newspaper summary (x). But if the
hook is not so used but so much of it is taken that the value .
of the original is sensibly diminishod, nr the labours of the
original matter are substantially and to an injurious extent
appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to
constitute a piracy (//). To be a piracy it is not nfcessary
that the later work should be a substitute for the original
work(?). All that is necessary is that so much should be
taken as to affect sensiljly the property of the original
writer (a). Whether the use which has been made of a prior
work is a fair and legitimate use or not, is a question not so
much of kind as of degree, and depends upon the circum-
stances of each particular case(/)). In many cases it is
extremely difificult to draw the line between what is a legiti-
mate and what is an unlawful and colourable use of a prior
work (c). The question in all cases is whether a material
and substantial part of the prior work has been taken (d).
The question of piracy turns most commonly upon the extent
or quantity of the materials taken, but it does not depend
solely upon the quantity, as regard must also be had to the
value of what is taken (e).
In determining whether an unfair use has been made of a
prior work, the nature of the two works, and the likelihood or
unlikelihood of their entering into competition with each
other is not only a relevant, but may be a determining factor
of the ease. But an unfair use may be made of one book in
(ft) Swmt V. Beaniitg, 16 C. B.
480 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 17fi ; Mofalt r.
Om, 60 W. B. £28.
CtaiklX.
SMt.2.
(x) Sect. 2, snb-s. 1 (I). Aa to
extracts for uge of schools, see
sect. 2, »ub-8. I (iv.).
(v) tf<ott v. Stanford, 3 Eq. "IR;
36 L. J. Ch. 729 ; .S;iit</i v. Chatto,
•a W. B. 2<J() ; (1871) W. N. 2:11 ;
Wmtlierhi/ v. Internatiumtl lliirw
Aflfiinj Co., (1910) 2 (.'h. p. 325;
7!t li. J. Ch. p. 613 ; Copj-right Act,
1911, 8. I, Bub-s. 2, •. 2, 8ub-8. 1.
(z) AAnv. Ba^tM, 10 Jar. 420 ; 77
B. B. 872. See Swttt v. Sham, 1 Jar.
917 ; 3 Jor. 217 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 216.
(n) firadhiri/ v. Hutten, L. B. 8
Ex. 1 ; -12 L. j. Ex. 28.
(0 lb.
[d) rimttertoii v. Caif, 3 A. C. 483 ;
47 L. J. C. P. .'54j. Soo Copyright
Act, 1911,8. I,. Sub-H. 2,8.2,8Ul.-8. 1.
(f) Spo Uriunirell v. Ihlritwb, 3
M. & C. p. 738 ; 45 R. E. 378 ;
Timtey Lacy, 1 H. 4 M. 747 ; 34
L. J. (%. S35 ; aeaU v. Sbmfiird,
3Eq. 718; 36 L. J. Oh. 720; Trwh
Auxiliary Co. r. MvldMonugh
Tradetmen't Aesoeiation, 40 0. D.
426; S8 L. J. Ch. 293.
36— a
401
INFRINGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
Chap. IX. the preparation of another, even if there is no likelihood of
competition between them (/).
BxtnMsti. In taking extracts or quotations from a book for the pur-
poses of criticism, review, or newspaper summary, consider-
able licence is allowed (g), for the selection of extracts for
such purposes, so far from being injurious, is often bene-
ficiul to the sale of the hooks from which they are talten (fc).
But there is a limit to the selection of passages even for the
purposes of criticism or review, though it is not easy to
define that limit (i). If the selection is made fairly for the
purpose of criticising or questioning the opinions expressed
therein, or of explaining the criticism, passages ol consider-
able length or of much value may be taken (fc), but a reviewer
may not, under the pretence of criticism, appropriate a large
or vital part of the nook of another. If the citations, though
purporting to be made with a view to criticism, go in part to
supersede the original work, and to substitute the review for
it, such a use is deemed in law a piracy (I). Thus, where a
man had published a book giving specimens of modem
English poetry, with an original essay and biographical
notices, and inserted extracts from a poem written by Gamp-
bell, an injunction was g^nted against the publication (m).
Uwtfporta. Where the proprietor of a Law Digest copied from the
Jurist the headnotes of the reported cases, it was held to be
an abuse of the right of extract (n). So, also, a defendant was
restrained from copying reports of law cases from a wmrk of
the plaintiff (o), and the publication of a series of repwta
(/) Weatherby v. International Camp. 94 ; 10 E. B. 642.
Hitrte Agtnry Co., (1910) 2 Ch. [1] Mairman v. Tagq, 2 Euss. p.
p. 305 ; 79 li. J. Ch. p. r.12. 393; 26 E. E. 112; Afarv ell v-
(j) Bmoorth v. Wilket, 1 Camp. Smnerton, 22 W. E. 313; (1874)
94; 10B.B. 642; H'/titUngham t. W. N. 19; BrnUh v. Cliatto, 23
)\-mler, 2 Sw. 428 ; and iwe Copy- W. U. 290; (1874) W. N. 231.
riRht .\ct, 1911. 8. 2, inb.«. 1 (i.), (m) Cam^eUf. Sntt, It «m.3\ ;
(vi.) ; as to extracts for the oaa of 11 L. J. Cb. 166.
Bchools, lb. H. 2, sub-s. 1 (iv.). («> Siowt v. Bmning, 16 C. B,
[h) Bell V. WMUhttd, 8 L. J. Ch. 459 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 176.
N. S. 141. (o) S'ceei v. Shau; 1 Jur. 917
(t) lb. 3 Jar. S17 ; 8 L. J. Oh. SIS.
<Jc) lb. Mee Bwaartk v. WiUce$, 1
INFRINOEMENT OF C0PYBI6HT.
405
containing reprints of cases or judgments from the Law Oh«p.IZ.
Reports was restrained as an infringement of copyright in
tho Laie Reports (p).
The most frequent form of piracy which comes before the ^^JJJJ^
Court is where the matter of a prior publication is adopted,
imitated or transferred, with more or less colourable alteratim
to disguise the piracy.
Dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, arithmetic, or other
school boo';s, encyclopedias, guide-books, and similar publi-
cations, are a class of works in which much of the
matter must be identical, and no great novelty is practi-
cable (g). In such works the recurrence of passages identi-
cally the same may be sufficient to be a conclusive proof of
piracy (r). Where the resemblance does not amount to an
identity of particular passages, the question becomes in sab-
stance whether there be such a conformity and similitude
between the two works that the writer of the one must have
copied or made an undue use of the other. What degree of
resemblance will authorise the inference that one book is a
copy or colourable imitation of another is often a question of
great nicety, and depends on the circumstances of each par-
ticular case (•).
A man is not debarred from consulting a prior work on the
same subject. He may examine it to see whether it contains
lunything which he has forgotten, or whether way reference is
{p) Intorponied OomneU of Law
Beportiug v. WiUiam Orten and
Simt, (1912) W. N. 2«.
(v) See JarroU v. Houhtone, 3
K.&J. 708; Aforrw V. 7 Eq.
:H ; 19 L. T. ju9 ; Mtlet. ,t Cu. v. The
(lol/Aijency, (1907) 23 T. L. B.370.
A» to whofll books, see Copyright
Act, 1911, 8. 2 (i.). (iv.).
(r) MatltewMm v. i^UxkiiaU, VI
Veij. 270 ; Mawma» v. Ttgy, 2 Bius.
38«; 26 B. B. 112; Jarrold r.
UonUbme, 3 K. * J. 7M; Hettm ▼.
ilWAwr.l H.AM. 603 ; 31L.J.Ch.
771 ; see Exthangt Teltyraph Co. v.
IIowaTd, etc. Prm Agtney, {1906)22
T. li. B. p. 378 ; Aitbet Jb Co. v.
Th» QoffAgmtey, (1907) 23 T. L. B.
370; SoU V. Pulart ThmOr* Co.,
(1911 ) 28 T. li. B. p. 72, Mto rimilw
pasiiages.
(«) Miiirman v. Teyg, 2 Buss.
394 ; 20 E. E. 112; Steteni v.
H'lWy, 19 r-. J. Ch. 190; JarrM
V. Houhtime, 3 K. & J. 708 ; IMen
V. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603 ; 32 L. J.
Ch. 771 ; Pikt t. Xichohu, o Ch.
252; 3» L. J. Ch. *U; see Kx-
rhmgt THigrapk Co. r. Howard, tie.
Pmt Agmteg, (1906) 22 T. L. B.
p. 378 ; Bobl v. Patact TImtn Co.,
(1911} 28 T. L. B. p. 73
406
Clwp.IX.
8wt.S.
Dramatic and
muaical copj-
right.
INFRINGEMENT. OP COPYRIGHT.
made there to some other v/ork bearing on the subject
and hu may if led by the oxumination to lefc- to older writers
use the same passages in the older writers which hare been
used in the prior work(M). The compiler of a dictionary
or guide-book containing information derived from sources
common to all, which must of necessity be identical in all
cases, if correctly given, is not howt ur entitled to spare him-
self the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting
and repuljlishing the information contained in previous works
on the same subject. He must obtain and work out the infor-
matioa independently for himself, and the only legitimate
use which ue can make of previous works is for the purpose
of verifying the correctnes . of his results (*).
To constitute an infringement of a dramatic (y) work, a
material and substantial part of the work must be taken.
Though an appreciable part be taken, it docs not follow as
a consequence of law that the plaintiff's right is invaded,
if Buch part be unimr''rtant and trifling in relatim to fhe
effect of the whole composition (2). A dramatic representa-
tion in which a substantial and material part of the music
of an opera has been performed constitutes an infringement
of the sole right of performing that music, even though the
operatic score may have been obtained by independent labour
(t) Jarrol'l v. HouUtone, 3 K. & " Dramutic work" includes any
J. 716; Kellij v. Morrit, lEq.6e"; piece for recitation, choreographic
35 Tj. J. C'h. 423. work, or entertainment in d\;mb
(h) rihe V. SMat, S Ch. 252 ;
39 U J. Ch. 435.
(i) Kttty r. Worm, 1 Eq. 087 ;
.35 L. J. Ch. 429; Morrit Athltt,
7 Eq. 40 ; 19 L. T. 550 ; Morris
IIV-V//i«, 6 Ch. p. 285 ; 18 W. E.
227 ; //w/v V. Hrvtt, 18 Eq. p. 457 ;
43 li. J. Ch. 70:). See Weutlitrhij A-
Sons V. InUmational Hunt Agtwy
Co., (1910) 2 Ch. 297 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
60!».
(») Copyright in the caKc of a
dramatic work includes the nole
right to oonvert it into a novel or
p^r Bon-diamatio work: Copy-
ri^t Act, 1911. s. 1. nib-a. 2 (b).
show, the scenic arrangement or
acting form of which is fixed in
• 'iting or otherwise, and any cine-
matograph produclion where the
arrangement or acting form » th«
combinatron of iucidenta repro-
sented gi^e the work an original
character: lb., s. 35, 8ub-s.» 1.
lender the fonner Acts, scenic
effects were not protected, see Tate
V. FMlrnok, (190S) 1 K. 15. 821 ; 77
L. J. K. B. 377.
(z) Chatterton v. Care, 3 A. C.
483 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 545 ; Jiobl T.
Palace Thmire Co., (1911) 28 T. L.
R.6e.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
407
bestowed upon an unprotected pianoforte arrangement (a). C!k»p.IX.
So also is there an infringement of the right to a musical L_
oomposition where a man appropriates s material part of the
music of an opera and so publishes it in the form of quadrilles
and waltzes that the appropriated music, though adapted to
a different purpose from that of the original, may still be
recognised by tiie ear. The adding of variations makes no
difference in the principle (6).
But the representation of a dramatic piece substsntially
similar to a piece previously produced, is not an infringement
of copyright in the earlier work if both works have been
produced from the common stock of dramatic ideas and their
similarity is a mere coincidence (c).
Where a photograph is ordered by a customer who pays Viu^avfkM.
for it in the ordinary way, the copyright in the photograph
is in the customer in the absence of any agreement to the con-
trary (d) , and the photographer will be restrained from selling
or exhibiting copies of it without the customer's consent (e).
Apart from copyright, the photographer might be restrained
on the ground of breach of the implied contract not to nse the
negative for such purposes and also on the ground that such
a sale or exhibition wouM be a breach of confidence (/).
Where the photographer asks a customer to sit for his
photograph free of charge, the copyright in the photograph
primd facie belongs to the photographer (g). The question,
therefore, is: Was the plate or other original taken for
or on behalf of the customer for valuable consideration?
(n) Fairlie v. Booiey, 4 A. C. "11 ;
48 L. J. Oh. 697.
(&) ffAlmaiM ▼. Boo$^. I Y. &
C. 288 : 4 L. .r. (N. &) Ex. SI : 41
B. B. 373 ; we Chapptll Shmtrd,
1 Jur. N. a 996.
((•) fwU V. Palace Theatre Co.,
(1911) 28 V. L. R. 69. See Ci<relli
V. '/rai/, (1913) 29 T. L. E. 570.
Under tLe Act, as under the former
law, no absolute monopoly is given
to an author, but merely the nega-
tive ri^t, M pNveot q^iibpriatimi
of his work: VoreUi\.(lray, tiijtra.
{d) Copyright Act, 1911, s. 5,
8ub-s. (1) (a). See Boucat t. Cooke,
(19M)2K.B.3a7: 79 L.J.K.B.
741.
(f) PoUard V. Phatograpkie Co.,
40 C. D. 345; 58 L. J. Ch. 261;
Steilall T. UoughUm, (1901) IS
T. L. R. 136; Btmau v. Ctolit>
supra.
(/) Pollard T. PhelogngtMe Co.,
tupra.
(9) See Bouau v. Oooki, (1908)
408 INFBINOEMENT OF G0PYBI6HT.
cui>. IX. If it was, the copyright is the customer's, if not, it is the
ph()tn(«riij)h('i 's (h). Whcio li phoiOfiraplicr whh iillowed to
take photographs of a scliool at his own risk, the school
proprietor being at liberty to buy copies or not he
thought fit, and some copies were subsequently purchased
by the school proprietor, it was held that the photographs
had been taken on behalf of the school proprietor for
valuable consideration, and that the c<^yright bel(mged to
him, and not to the photographer (t).
Bighu of the The receiver of a letter has a righ* he possession of it,
^^Tt^s and may take proceedings at law .oe recovery of it if
it be taken out of his possession (nj, but he has no right to
publish the letter without the consent of the writer. A man
by sending a letter to another gives him a right to read and
keep the letter, but does not give him the right to publish it.
The author of the lettar is the first owner of the cor '^it
therein, and accordingly has the sole right to public.. Ji«
letter (I), and his right descends to his legal perscmal repre-
sentatives (/n).
If the letters are returned to the writer by the receiver, tha
right of possession of them is then abandoned; and if the
receiver haa kept copies he cannot publish them without the
writer's consent (n). The receiver of a letter may however
publish it when it is necessary for the purposes oi joatien
publicly administered in the (urdinarymodeof proceeding, or
2K.B.pp.a35,S36; TaL. J.K.B. (1907) 1 Ch. p. 129; 78 L. J. C!h.
p, 744. J). 130 ; I'hiliit v. Ptnnett, C1807)
(A) lb. ; and see Copyriglrt Act, 2 Ch. 577. 586 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 663 ;
1911, «. 6, Bib-s. (I) (•). and *«« Copyright Act, 1911, b. 1,
(i) ataektnumn v. /Won, (1906) sub-iB. 1,2; 6, wib-s. 1.
1 Ch. 774 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 690. («) Thompim v. Stanhope, Amb.
(*) mitr v. 0/iier, 11 C. B. 737 ; Orawurd v. ZHuiiin, 1 B». ft
N. S. 139; 31 L. J. C. P. 4; Be. 207; 12 E. B. 18; MacmiOam
Thurston v. Charlt», (1905) 21 v. Dei.t, (1907) 1 Ch. p. 131 ; 76
T. L. B. 659. L. J. Ch. 136; I'hiliit v. J'enuell,
(Z) /V V. Ctrl, a Atk. 342 ; (Ice (1907) 2 Ch. p. 586 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
T. rritrliartl, 2 Sw. 402, 42o : 19 663; and see Oopiyrig^ Act, 1911,
B. B. n; Lf/ttoii V. Dere/i, 54 8.17.
L. J. Ch. 293 ; I'ollard v. J'huto- (n) Thomjison v. Stanhojie, Amb.
graphic Go., 40 C. D. p. 332 ; 6« 739; Oe* v. Pritehurd, 3 Sw.
Ifc J. Ch. 261 ; jrocmtUon t. DtiU, p. 418 ; 19 B. B. 97.
INFRINOEMENT OF GOPTRIOHT.
40»
to vindieate hi* dwraeter from an ■econtion publidy made
hy the writer (o).
The letter of an agent or u servant, for inut.tnce, written on
behalf at or by the direction of the principal or the matter, ia
the property of the principal or the master, and not of the
agent or servant : the latter has no such property in it as to
entitle him to prevent its publication, although he sirears it
was written in his private capacity ; and the rule is apparently
the same even when the letter has been only apparently
written on behalf of the principal or master (p).
The author of a lecture has copyright therein as in any Ueimm,
other literary work, and accordingly has the sole right to
deliver {q) it in public, or publish it (r) or any translation
of it («). But this right of the author is, as in the ease
of other works, subject to any fair dealing with the lecture
by other persons for the purposes of private study, research,
criticism, review, or newspaper summary (t), and, in the
case of a published lecture, is subject to the rights of other
persons to read or recite in public any reaaniable extraets
from it
A lecture delirered in public may also be reported in news-
papers, unless reports are prohibited by the leetorer in the
manner provided by the Act (x).
Whei- "' mm^ are admitted as pupils, or otherwise, to hear
lectut' : » n the implied confidence or contract that
they ' -<-. any means to injure or to take away the
rights of i... Ie.:lurer in his own lecture. Accordingly, if a
(o) Perctoal v. Pliipj,!, 2 V. 4 U. C. I). 97 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 609.
(9) Inclading delivwy by mecha-
njeal instnmieiita : Copyri|ftt Act,
1911, sect. 36, aub-B. 1.
(r) Delivery in public of a lec-
ture is not " publication" for the
purposes of the Copyright Act,
1911 : Hcct. 1, 8ub-8. 3.
(») Sect. 1, 8ub-8. 2 (a).
(t) Sect. 2, gub-8. 1 (i.).
(u) Sect 2. aub-B. 1 (vi).
(«) SMst 2, rab-a. 1 (v.).
p. 401.
Oiap. IZ.
Meet. 2.
p. 2S; 13 B. B. 1 : GMf.friiaarti,
2 Sw. 413; 19 B. B. 87 ; lyUoM v.
Daveg, M L. J. C!L 293; (1884)
W. N. 203 ; Ilopkinxm v. Biirghley,
•2 Ch. 447; 36 L. J. Ch. 504;
J.ahouchere V . Hen, "7 L. T. dS9;
I'hilit) V. Pennell, (1907) 2 Ch. pp.
.587. 588 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 663.
(/>) Howard v. Qunn, 32 Beav.
462 ; see, sa to the right of • soli-
citor to M^iM of lettan nktiBg to
hia di«st'a buatneaa, ite Thornton,
20 Bmv. MS; B» Whmtert^, •
410 INPRINOBMBNT OF COPYRIOHT.
CIm. IX. penon attending such leeturM either pabliebet then* or fur-
nishes another with the .neans of publishing them, the Court
will restrain the publication as a breach of the implied con-
fidence or contract (y).
BKCT. 3.— CIVIL BKMBUIBB VOB THB INrBISOBMMX Off
OOriBIOHT.
Civil r.m..ii.. Where copyright in any work hus been infringed, the owner
S^iriJlfcr"' of the copyright is, except as otherwise profided by the Copy-
right Act, 1911 (z), entitled to all iuch remedies bj way <rf
injunetion or interdict, damages, accounts, aftd otherwise
as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of
a right (a).
Be.trictionon Where the construction of a building or other structure
TH^M^ which infringes, or which, if completed, would infringe the
copyright in some other work, has ' een commenced, the owner
of the copyright is not entitled to obtain an injunction to
restrain the construction of such building or structure or
to order its demolition (6).
inuriocutory The jurisdiction of the Court in restraining by inter-
'^l""'**' locutory injunction the violation of copyright is in aid of
the legal right, and is founded upon the necessity of protecting
the property from serious damage pending the trial of the
right (c). The Court proceeds on the assumption that the
person who makes the application has the right which he
asserts, but needs the aid of the Court for the purpose of
protecting his property from damage pending the trial of
the right (d).
If tht! Court is satisfied that the plaintiff's title is good, and
(«) See Aliernethy v. Iliitrhinai'n, b. 9, sub-s. 1, infra.
3 l' J. (O. S. ) Ch. 209 ; 26 E. E. Til ; (a) Sect. 6, sub-s. 1 . As to sum-
Nicholi V. Pitman, 26 C. D. 374; mary remedies, see eect*. 11 13;
S3 L. J. Ch. 852 ; Caird v. Sime, 12 gs. 7 and 8 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68,
A. C. 326 ; 67 L. J. P. C. 2. As 2 Bdw. 7. o. 15, and 6 Edw. 7, c. 36.
to ri^t of a piqpil in a convey- (() Sect 8, sub-a. 1.
anoer's chambm to keep and uie (c) 8aundtr$ t. £lin«<A, 3 M. & C.
copies of the conveyancer's prece- p. 728 ; 7 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch. 237 ; 45
dents, see Lamb v. Evant, (1893) 1 R. E. 367.
Ch. p. 231 : 62 L. J. Ch. p. 409. {d) lb. See LitMU* Co. v. Trani
(z) See Copyright Act, 1911, and Iniulatcri, Lid., (1»IS) 80
B. 8, innocent infringer, poit, 416, R P. C. 266.
INFIONOEliENT OF COPTRIOHT.
411
that th«ra hM b«en a piney, it nuy interfere once, and <^>>*p i^-
ri'struin the piiiicy gim/tliciter hy injunction; but this courHe —
will not be adopted except where the title and the fact of its
vioiatim are clearly made out. If the plaintiff's title is not
clnar, or the fact of its violation is denied, the course of the
Court is either to grant the injunction pending the trial of
the legal right, or to direct the motion to stand over until the
hearing, on the terms of the defendant keeping an account.
Which of these alternatives shall be adopted depends on the
discretion of the Court, according to the case made out (e).
If irreparable damage would be canted to the property of the
plaintiff by the refusal of the Court to interfere, the injunc-
tion will be granted (/). If. on the other hand, an injunction
would be an extreme hard^iiip on the defendant us compared
with the inecmrenience to which the plaintiff would be put
by being required in the first instance to estahliHh his legal
right, the other alternative will be adopted (g). Where the
work is of a transit(M7 or ephemeral character, greater caution
is necessary in exercising the jurisdiction than what tiie
book is of a more permanent character (A).
Where the plaintiff's title is clear, an iojnnctioa may be
granted although there is only one instance of its infrin^-
ment by the defendant (t).
If there has been a complete legal assignment of the copy- Vutm.
right in a work, Hkt assignor should not be made a party to
jiroceedings for an infringement after the assignment (fc).
An assignment qualified by a contemporaneous undertaking
not to reproduce the work without the consent of tiie assignor,
is not a valid assignment so as to enable the assignee to sue
fur infringement witliout joining the assignor (I).
(«) Bramwell v. Halcomb, 3 M. & (A) Muthtwton v. Stvckdale, 12
('. p. 739 ; 45 B. B. 37S. Ves. 273 ; SjH,m»ivoode T. Oar? 3
(/) Sweet V. Shaw, 8 L. J. (N. S.) Ph. 164 ; 78 R. H. 03.
C'h. 216 ; Diekent v. Lte, 8 Jur. (<) Cooper y. IVhiiUHyham, IS
p. m. See LitholiU Co. y. 7raw« U. D. SOI ; 49 L. J. Ch. 762 ;
and /ttMidtart, (1913) 30B. P. C. 2fl6. Butkrwurtk t. JCttfy. 4 T. L. B. 490.
is) Saunden y. Smith, 3 M. ft C. (k) See Copyright Aot, 1911,s. 0,
737 ; 7 L. J. (N. 3.) Ch. 227 ; 4S gub.-M. 2 3, 6.
li. H. 367 ; Bramwell y. Huliumb, (/) Landtker and Brown r. H'tlf,
3 M. & C. p. 739 ; 45 B. B. 378. (1607) 52 8. J. 45.
11
419
n.
I.
H 'I
fnMmpttoa h
toplaiatil'*
••Mfriiipol
•oqaiMoeiiM.
; I
•1
INFBINOEMBMT OF OOPYUOHT.
Thv grantM of • toifl lieenoe to produce • ptoy for •
limited period cniinot sun in hi« own name to mtniin the
production of the piay (w»).
A mere agent for Mie of a work iiH not ■ueh Ml interMi
in the work u will mtitle him to raa for infringament of
copyright therein (n).
Unu action eumot be maintainetl uguinst several prwMW
for diatinot invaaiona of copyright (o).
In an action for infringement of copyright in a work, the
work is presumed to be one in which copyright gubsista,
and the plaintiff ia preaumed to he the owner of the eopynflbt,
unless the defendant pats in issue the existence of the copy-
right, or, as the case may be, the title of the plaintiff. Where
any such question is in issue, then —
(i.) if a name purporting to be that of the author of the
work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the
usual manner, the person whose name is so printed or
indicated ia, nnleas the contrary is prorad, preaamed to
be the author of the wo-k ;
(ii.) if no name is so printed or indicated, or if the name so
printed or indicated is not the author's true name or
the name by which he is commonly known, and a name
purporting to he that of the publisher or proprietor of
the work is printed or otherwise indicated thereon in the
uaaal manner, the persm whoae name ia so printed «r
indicated is, unless the contrary is proved, presumed
to be the owner of the copyright in the work for the pur-
poses of proceedings in respect of the infringement of
copyright therein (p).
A mp.n who seeks the aid of the Court for the protection of
his copyright from violation must show due diligence in
coming to the Court. Delay which may not deprire a jdaintiff
(m) NtiUon v. llorniman, (1909)
26 T. L. R. 18S.
(n) Sichol V. Stuckiah, 3 Sw.
087 ; and m* DiMki Mmu/aettmng
Co. V. Jh Trty * Co., (1813) 3 S. B.
76; 81 L. J. K. B. !!« (oaaa of
pasxing-off).
(o) rWlij V. Doiy, 2 Ves. 486;
•ee HutUon y. Maddittm, 12 Sim.
416; llL.J.Ch.U; S6B.B.91.
(l>) C«vyn«^t Aet. 1811, •. 6,
•ob-a. 9.
nomiNQEifBiiT or ooptriobt.
411
iZ.
s.
of hi* r^t to an injanfllion st tb* htiaring (f) will 1m f \UA
to the kpfdiMtioii for an interlocutory injunction unless il
cnn be Mtiifactnrily acoonnted for (r). Nor will relief be<MM|tl
grnnted if the plaintiff's own conduct has led to the state
of things that oc<»sions the application (•).
Tho intprferoncp of the Court by injunction bring founded
on pure equitable principles, a man who comes to the Court
must be able to show that hit own oondaet in the tranaartioB
has been conHintent with equity. A book accordingly which
is itself piratical cannot be piutected from invasion (()> nor
will the Court protect by injunction a work which is of an
immoral, indecent, seditiotm, or libellous nature («) or which
is fraudulent (j-).
If a case has been made out for an injunction, the Court has ixt«at of ik«
then to determine whether the injunction shall be against tiie ^
whole work or only against a part of it. The extent to which
the injunction ought to go must depend in each case upon the
extent of the piracy and the nature of the work (y). If the
pirated matter is considerable in amount, and is so inter-
mixed with the original matter that it cannot be separated,
the injunction will go against the whole work generally (z).
Notwithstanding that the effect may be to destroy altogether
the use and value of the original matter, the Court will not
(7) /Aw/ V. ScM, 19 Eq. 444;
18 L. J. ich. 705.
(r) Maurman v. 'J'eyg, 2 Ruse.
393 ; 26 B. B. 112; Baity t. Tag-
/or, 1 B. ft M. 7S; S L. J. Oh. M ;
32 B. B. 14« : L*wi» r. Oiafmm,
3 Bear. 133; Busttm r. Jamm, 6
Dp O. a 8m. 84; 90 P.. B. 15;
V. .sVfrf<, 18 Kq. 444 ; 43 L. J.
(Ti. 705 ; llV/./on v. IHrk; 10 C. I».
p. jna ; 48 Tj. J. Ch. 201 ; RM v.
Palnre Theatn do., (WU) 28
T. I.. R. 69.
{>) RundaU r. Mmrrag, Smo.
p. 316; 2SB.B.7S.
(t) CWy r. FadtH, 5 Yea. 34.
(«] StockdaU V. Onwhgn, 5 B. &
C. ITS; 4L. J.(0. S.) K B..123;
29 B. B. 207 ; HoiUhey v. Shirwood,
2 Mer. 435 ; Lau rence v. Smith, Jao.
471 ; 23 R. B. 123 ; Lord Byron r.
Z>M0iial(,lL.J.Ch.2-^i>: AmcMv
Lrnnim I ttm trt tti ^'n •imrd CS».,
(1900) 1 Oh. 7S; ML. • Ch. tt.
(x) Wright T. ToBit, 1 0. B. an :
14 L. J. 0. P. 283 ; 68 B. B. 832 ;
aiitigthy v. liratlford Patnd Truck
ro., (1906) W. N. 51.
(v) Lewit T. FuUaHoH, 2 Bear.
6 ; 8 L. J. (M. &) Ok 391 ; M
B. R. 84.
(») Maumnn v. T'gg, 2 BuH.
p. S97; 36 B. B. 112; Uu)i» t.
J'WIiHom KMf T. MmrU,
1 % 697 ; 36 L. J. Ck 433.
I
'1
414
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
C9u|i.ix. refrain from granting an injunction. "If," said Lord
Bwit.8. EJdon(a), "the paVts which have been copied cannot be
separated from those which are original without destroying
the use and value of the original matter, he who has made
an improper use of that which did not belong to him must
abide the consequence of so doing. If a man mixes up what
belongs to him with what belongs to another, and the mixture
bo forbidden by law, he must again separate them, and he
must bear all the mischief and loss which the separation may
occasion. If an individual chooses in any way to mix my
literary work with his own, he must be restrained from pub-
lishing the literary work which belongs to me ; and if the parts
of the work cannot be separated, and if by that means the
injunctir 1 which restrained the publication prevents also the
publication of his literary matter, he has only himself to
blame" (6).
AetioB lie. for An action will lie to restrain the infringemrat of copyright
w^'/Z p^f of even if no damage be shown (c) .
damage. If ^ however, the pirated matter is not considerable m quan-
win*not"C^''" *'*y Of 0* '° quality, and quite out of proportioa
vatti. to the mass of original matter, the Court will not always
grant an injunction, but may leave the plaintiff to his remedy
by damages (at) .
An injunctiou There may, however, bo cases where the pirated matter,
when granted, though small in quantity, id so material and of such value in
quality that the Court may feel bound to interfere by injunc-
tion (e). In a case where the pirated matter formed a very
Kinall portion of the plaintiff's work, but constituted the bulk
of the defendant's work, an injunction was granted (/).
(a) Mawmaii V. Teg;i, 2 Russ. 11'. //. ,S'miM, (190S) 1 Ch. 513, 528 ;
p. .-iPO; 23 R. R. 112. 74 L. J. Ch. MH.
{h) l.mv V. Ward, (i E(i. 416 ; ;J7 (f) Holm v. Itoyiie, 10 Jur. 420;
L. J. Ch. 841. 77 R. R. 872; Saumlert v. Smith,
(r) Weatherby T. MernatioHol 3 M. & 0. p. 737 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.)
Horte Agma/ and Exthange Co., Ch. 227 ; 45 R. R. 367 ; liramwHl
(1910)2Ch.p.30ft;79L.J. Oi-eOB. ». ffolfom*, 3 M. * C. 788 ; 46B.E.
{d) Mwiman v. Tegg, 2 Bu«. 378; BtUr. WUMmd, Sh. J. Ck.
p. 3114; 20 R. R. 112 ; Daily r. 141; ChcMtrUm y. Caet, 3 A. 0.
Taylor, 1 R. & M. 73 ; 8 I,. J. Ch. p^. 497, 498 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 84».
49 ; 82 B. B. 146; Utmftkmgl (/") KMn T. Hoiftr, 4 Jar. 21.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
416
CiMp. IX.
In a case where to grant an injunction against the whole
work would be a harsh step, the Court will not suspend the
publication altogether until the hearing of the cause (g).
If the pirated mattor can be separated from the original
matter, the injunction will issue only against that particular
part (h).
The Court will not grant an injunction against the whole innpection of
. , . 1 t • i- infringing work
of a book generally until it has ascertamed by inspection or b, dMContt.
otherwise the quantity of the pirated matter (i). In LewU
V. Fullarton (k) , a considerable quantity of matter having
been shown to have been pirated, Lord Langdale considered
himself justified in coming to the conclusion that other parts
also of the work had been pirated, and granted an injtmction
in general terms without ascertaining the whole amount of
the pirated matter. But in Jarrold v. Houlstone (l). Wood,
V.-C, said the Court should grudge no laboar in ascertaining
how far the injunction should extend. The Court may leave
it to the defendant to state in his affidavit exactly how much
and what parts he has copied. If there is no reason to sup-
pose a frandalent intent on bis part, this course may be
adopted (m).
As copyright is a right of limited duration, the order of the Form of iiynM-
Court does not restrain infringement generally, but "until"
the expiration of the plaintiff's copyright in the work (n).
A man whose copyright has been infringed is entitled to innocent
relief although there may have been no fraudulent intmtioD
on ttie part of the defendant (o). Bat where the defendant
((/) AinnmtrtK t. BenMcy, 14
W. E. 630.
(/() Jarrold r. floiilittme, 3 K. &
J. 708; 112 R. R. 357; Mnrrin v.
7 Eq. p. 41 : If I'- T. 560.
See a» to form of Order Smith v.
Chattn, 23 W. E. 290; Wame <S:
Co. V. Serhohm, 39 C. D. 73 J 87
L. J. Ch. 689.
(i) Mvomim t. Ttgg, S Bom.
p. 398 ; 26 B. B. 112.
(«•) 2 Bear. 6 • 8 L. J. (N. 8.)a».
291 ; SO B. B. M.
({) 3 K. ft J. 708 ; 112 B.B. 397.
(m) Mauman Tegg, 2 Bom.
pp. 395, 404 ; 36B.B. 112; JarrM
V. HoHlttimf, 3 B^ * J. 706; 119
R. R. 3S7.
(n) Savor;/ v. Oi/plirtm OU Ox,
(1904) 48 S. J. 573.
(o) Reade v. Conqmd. 11 C. B.
N. S. 479; 31 L. J. C. P. 167;
Swtt V. Slnmford, 3 Eq. 718; CS
L. J. Oh. 729 ; Weatherbi/ t. Inter-
MlMfHil Harm Agmeg Co., (1910) 2
Oh-p^aM; 7»L.J.(%.p.eiS.
416
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYMOHT.
Chap. IX.
aw(.s.
BriitaM* of
fnadtthat
Duaagn.
(Unuges.
pleads that he was not aware of the existence of the copyright
in the work, and proves that at the date of the infringement
he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for suspect-
ing that copyright subsisted In the work, the plaintiff is not
entitled to any remedy other than an injunction or interdict
in respect of the infringement (p).
Where a defendant denies that he has made any use of the
plaintiff's work, but the Court is of opinion, either from the
occurrence of the same blunders or misprints in both pub-
lications (5), or from other causes, that the statement is
false, the denial is evidence of a fraudulent intent, and an
injunction will issue in cases in which it might not have
gone had he admitted that he had made a fair use of, or
been under obligation to, the plaintiff's work (r).
A plaintiff whose copyright has been infringed is entitled
to recover damages for the invasion of his right («) without
having to prove that he has sustained any specific ^mage (<)•
But he cannot recover damages against a defendant who
pleads that he was not aware of the existence of the copyright
in the work, and proves that at the date of the infringement,
he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for saspeet-
ing that copyright subsisted in the work (m).
The principle of assessing damages in all cases of literary
piracy is that the defendant is to account fw every copy of
his book sold, as if it had been a copy of the plaintiffs, and
to pay to the plaintiff the profit which he would have received
from the sale of so many additional copies (x).
(p) Copyriglit Act, 1011, •. 8.
(7) Mauman v. Tagg, 9 Bwm.
p. 394 ; 26 R. R. 112; Sf>ier$ v.
Drown, 6 W. R. 352; IloUen v.
v<r<Ai«r,l H.*1L6(»; 38L.J.C91.
"73.
(r) SitifTs V. Brnn n, tiijira :
JarroU v. HoulOone, 3 K. & J.
p. 733; 113B.B.8fi7.
(«) Capyii^t Aet. 1911, s. 6,
(«) Sxehange Telegraph Co. v.
Cfngery <t Co.. (1886) 1 a B.
p. 163 ; 6fi li. J. a B. 262 ; Hau/-
iUmal V. W. H. SmUh, (1905) 1
Oh. 628; 74 L. J. C9i. 904; and
(«e Weatherhy r. Iti*»naHoMd
Ilorf Ageni-;/ anri Erehmgt Co.,
(iniO) 2 Ch. p. mo ; 79 L. J. Ch.
<i09.
(«) Copyright Act, 1911, s. S.
(.1) I'ike V. Nirliolnt, 5 Ch.
260 (n.); 38 L. J. Ch. 629; see
Muddocky. Blachvood,[im)\ Ch.
p. 64; «7L. J. Oh.e.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
417
When an injiinction is granted at the trial, the plaintiff Ch«p. IX.
is also entitled to an account of profits (^), "or" to an — '
inquiry m to damages (z). ^^^^^"^ »'
If the account is small, it is usually waived (a), but when
it is not waived, the Court grants it upon principles which
have been thus stated by Wigram, V.-C, in CMurn v.
Simmt (b). " The Court does not by an sccount accurately
measure the damage sustained by tho proprietor of an expen-
sive work from the invasion of his copyright by the publica-
tion of a cheaper book. It is impossible to know how many
copies of the dearer book are excluded from sale by the inter-
position of the cheaper one. The Court by the account,
as the nearest approximation which it can make to justice,
takes from the wrongdoer all the profits he has made by his
piracy, and gives them all to the party who has been injured.
In doing that the Court may give the injured party more
in fact than he is entitled to, for non eonttat that a single
additional copy of the more expensive work would have been
sold, if the injury by the sale of the cheaper work had not
been committed." The account is limited to the net profits
actually made and the monies actually received by the wrcmg-
doer (c).
The defendant must, if required to do so for the purposes of Ducorery.
the account or the inquiry as to damages, set out the number
of copies containing pirated matter which have been sold by
him (rf). The plaintiff is entitled to continue the suit until
the discovery be given (e).
in) Copyright Act, 1911, s. 6,
fub-s. 1.
(j) lb. See BttUy Taylor, 1
B. & M. p. 75 ; 8 L. J. Oh. 49; 33
S. B. 146: Hole Bradimrg, 18
C. D. p. 899 ; 48 L. 3. Ok. 673;
Mudilock T. Blarhuond, (1898) 1
Ch. p. 64 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 6 ; Bowden
V. Ainalijamated Pictorial) Co.,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 392 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 29,j ; Corelli T. Gray, (1M3) 29
X. L. It. 72.
(a) JfVwWte T. WtUmr, iJLtU.
K.I.
247 ; 34 E. E. 81.
(6) 2 Hare, p. 660; 13 L. J. Oh.
388 ; 62 R. B. 22fi.
(e) IW Dtlantotte, 3 K ft X
Ml ; 113 B. B. 293.
(({) St«vm$ T. Brett, 19 W. B.
S72.
(e) See Colburn v. Simma, 2 Hare,
S43; 12 L. J. Ch. 388; 62 B B.
228 ; Kellv v. Hooper, 1 Y. & C. C.
C. 197; llar/if if Co. v. Seelmhn, 39
C. D. pp. 82, 83 : 61 L. J. Ch. 689.
37
418 INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
ch.p. IX. All infringing copies (/) of any work in which copyright
8«et.8. subsists, or of any substantial part thereof, and all plates {g)
Delivery ap of ^ggj q, intended to be used for the production of such inf ring-
cop^^""' ing copies, become the property of the owner of the copyright,
who may take proceedings to recover possession of them or
in respect, of the conversion of them {h). But this provision
does not apply in the case of a building or other structure
which infringes, or which if completed would infringe the
copyright in some other work (i).
The Court hiis also power under its general jurisdiction in
an action for infringement to order delivery up to the plaintiff
of infringing copies of a work (A), or, when the defen-
dant's copies infringe in part only, and the infringing parts
can bo severed, to order delivery up of such infringing
parts (l).
Crti. The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of
the infringement of copyright are in the absolute discretion
of the Court (m).
A plaintiff whose copyright is invaded is prima facie entitled
to an injunctio > with costs (n), but as costs are in the dis-
cretion of the Court, the plaintiff may be deprived of his
costs if he has acted unreasonably (o). The plaintiff is not
bound, as a general rule, to give notice to the defendant
before serving him with the writ in thn action (p) ; and it
(/) /.«., all copies, including Booxy v. li'liviM (.Vo. 2), 81 L. T
any colourable imitation made or 265.
imported in contravention of the (m) Copj-ri; at Act, 1911, s. 6
provisions of the Copyright Act, Bub-s. 2.
1911: see sect. 35. suh-s. 1. {n) Cm/^ t. Whittingluim, V
(,/) See sect. 35, sub-s. 1. C. P. p. 507 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 82
(/i) Sect. 7. JVeatherbi/ ,t Sum v. IntematUmo
(i) Sort. 9, sub-3. 2. Hone Aijfnqi Co , (1910) 2 Ch
(/,) I'riiirc Alhirt v. Slrani/e, 2 p. 305 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 613.
De O. & Sin. 652, 707 ; 18 L. J. Ch. (») Oick v. Hrml f, 15 I). 41
120; 79E.B.307;^oif v. Bralbury, 49 L. J. Ch. 812 ; fVaUi-r v. Sfein
12 C. D. p. 903 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 673 ; kopff, (1892) 3 Ch. 489 ; 61 L. J
wee lUantell VaVeg Mnting Co., Ch. 621 ; Ha^f^atngl v. Smitl
(l!)n8) I Ch. p. 575; (1908) 2 Ch. (19<t5) 1 Ch. 528 ; 74 L. J. Ch. M
jti .^i:inii:g»>«v ; see Burherryi t. Wee
(/) \Vnr„> ,{• Co. V. Seebohn, 39 AiV.nn. (1906) 23 B. P. C. 141.
C. D. pp 82, 83 ; 6" L. J. Ch. 68 J ; if) Goo-lhart v. Hi/ett, 26 C. I
INFRINGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
419
Chap. IX.
Sect. 3.
is immaterial that the defendant may have inaocently in-
fringed the copyright (q). But an innocent infringer will
not necessarily be ordered to pay costs (r). If the defen-
dant do not, after injunction obtained, offer to pay the costs,
and to give the plaintiff all the other relief to vhich he is
entitled, the plaintiff may bring the suit to a hearing, and
will be entitled to the costs of the suit, although ut tihe hearing
he may waive his right to the other relief (,;\ But if the
defendant offers to submit to the injunction with costs, and
to give the plaintiff all the relief to which he is entitled, the
Court will not give the plaintiff his costs of the subsequent
prosecution of the suit to the hearing (t), and may order him
to pay the defendant's costs (it).
In a case where an action for infringement failed on the
ground of the indecency of the work, and the deft ndiut had
repeated the indecent passages in his own work, the action
was dismissed without costs (x).
An action in respect of the infringement of copyright LiniiUiliOB of
must be brought within three years of the infringement (;/).
The Copyright Act, 1911, which repeals the Copyright University
Act, 1775 (15 Geo. 3, c. 63), does not depriv* any of the '^^r^'^^
Universities and colleges mentioned in the latter Act of the
copyright they already possess under that Act, but their
remedies for infringement of any such copyright are under
the Copyright Act, 1911, and not under the old Act (z).
\8'2 ; Wittman v. Oppenheim, 27
C. D. 260, 2I>8 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 56 ;
«ee Burhtrry* v. WaHanmrn, »Hfra;
U'eiiigarUn v. Baytr, (1905) 92 L. T.
p. 513 ; 22 B. P. 0. p. 350.
(ij) IVittman v. Oppe»htim, 27
C. D. 260; M L. J. Ch. 66;
U'etitherbij <l Soiia v. International
Horse Ayency Co., (1910) 2 Ch. p.
•.m • 79 L. J. Ch. p. 613.
(r) American Tobacco Co. y. Ctuett,
(1H92) 1 Ch. 630; 61 L. J. Ch.
242 (trade mark) ; Hanfitamgl t.
flmm. (1965) 1 Ch. «aS : 74 L. J.
Ch. 304 ; Burberry* v. Watkinat'n,
(1906) 23 B. P. C. 141 (passing
(<) Ante, p. 387.
(t) lb.
(u) See Fettet y. iriHiam*, (1908;
25 E. r. C. 611; Slaze.if/er v.
.SpaldhKj, (1910) 1 Ch. 261; 79
L. J. Ch. 122.
{x) Baschet v. London lllutfrafed
Standard Co., (1900) 1 Oh. 73; 69
L. J. Ch. 38.
(y) Copyrigrht Act, 1911, s. 10.
(z) lb. S3.
i7— a
420
INFRINGEMENT OP COPYRIGHT.
Chi^.IX.
8Mt4. Sect. 4. — International Copyright.
Poww to extend By Part 11. of the Copj-right Act, 1911, Orders in Council
miftofonigo ^^^^ directing that the Act (except such parts, if
»<»riM. any, as may be spe.ified in the Order) shall "pply—
(1) to works first published in a foreign country to which
the Order relates, in like manner as if they were first pub-
lished within the parts of the King's dominions to whid)
the Act extends; (2) to literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works, the authons of which were at the time of the
making of the work subjects or citizens of the foreign country
to which the Order relates, in like manner as if they were
British subjects ; (3) in respect of residence in a foreign
country to which the Order relates, in like manner as if the
residence were residence in the parts of the dominions to
which the Act extends («).
The Order may provide (inter alia) that the term of copy-
right within the parts of the King's dominions to which the
Act extends shall not exceed that conferred by the law of
the country to which the Order relates (6), that the enjoy-
ment of the rights conferred by the Act shall be subject to
the accomplishment of such conditions and formalities (if
any) as may be prescribed by the Order (c), and that in
applying the provisions of the Act as to ownership of copy-
right, and as to existing works, the Order may make such
modifications as appear necessary (d).
Foreign country If a foreign Country does not give, or has not undertake-
BritUh'worki. to give, adequate protection to the works of British authors,
an Order may direct that such of the provisions of the Act
as confer copyright in works first published within the parts
of the King's dominions to which the Act extends, shall not
apply to works published after the date specified in the Order,
(a) Sfct. 29, siib-s. 1 (a), (h). (c) ; goveriunf; dominions may make
Sect .30, Kuh-ss. 1, 2, of the Act lik»> orders*,
provides that Part II. shall applv to {b) Sect. 29, Bub-B. 1 (ii.).
British poBsesMioux, except Helf- (r) lb. (iv.)
governing domiuions, and that the (rf) lb. (▼•), (vL).
OoTwnon in Council of wU-
the authors of which are suojects or citizene of such foreign Ok<»- IX.
country, and are not resident in the King's dominions (e). "***'
An English author seeking to prevent infringemoits of BMMdiM.
his copyright in foreign countries, must apply to the f(nretpi
and not to the English Courts (/).
An author suing in England to prermt infringement of
his foreign copyright, must show thut he is entitled to pro-
tection in the country of origin of his work (9).
Sects.
Sbot. 6.— Coptbiobt in Dbbiomb.
The Copyright Act, 1911, does not apply io designs capable
of being registered under the Patents and Designs Act,
1907 {h), except designs which, though capable of being so
registered, are not used or intended to be used as models
or patterns to be multiplied by any industrial process (»).
When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the Dumtion ol
design has, subject to the provisions of the Act, copyright in
the design daring five years from the date of rrgistration.
This term can be extended for a further period of five years,
and may be extended by the Comptroller for a third period
of fire years (k).
"Design" for the purposes of the Patents and Designs Dnipi,
Act, 1907, means any design (not being a design for a sculp- °"
ture or other thing within the protection of the Sculpture
Copyright Act, 1814 (Z)), applicable to any article of manu-
facture and any substance, artificial or natural, or partly arti-
ficial and partly natural, whether th« design is applicable
for ^he pattern, or for the shape or ccmflguraticm, or for til*
(e) Sect. 23 ; ud we noi 3D,
8ub-B. 1 (i.)
(/) Uorccca Bound v. Harrit,
(1895) 1 Ch. 635 ; 64 L. J.Ch. 400.
{g) Baieha r. Loudon Itttutraled
Standard Co., (IBM) 1 Ch. 7S; 69
L. J. Ch. 35.
(/)) 7 E4w. 7. c. 29. Part II.
(i) Copyright Act, 1911, i. 22,
•ub-«. 1; Kol sM tba Designs
Rules, 1913, St B. 4k 0. 1913,
No. 661.
(A) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, b. 53; and
see Deeigna Bules, 1908, rr. 37—42,
M to mctmiHOii and paymmt of
fee*.
(<) 54 Gm. 3, c S6. Thi* Act
ia repealed by the Copyright Aot,
1911, ■.36. SeeSohed.IL
.1
m INJUNCTIONS TO BE8TBAIN TBS
ch»i>. IX. ornament thereof, or for any two or more of such purposes,
and Iiy whatever means it is applicable, whether by printing,
liaiiiting, embroidering, weaving, sewing, modelling, casting,
embossing, engraving, staining, or any other means whatever,
manual, iiu'i'lianioal, or chemical, soi>aratc or combined (m).
Copyright. ('oi)yriglit means the exclusive right to apply u design to
any such article in any class in which the design is regis-
tered («)•
BcgtetmUon. The proprietor of any new and original design (o), not pre-
viously published in the United Kingdom, may have bis design
registered (p), and is on r^istration entitled to have a certifi-
cate of registration ((/).
A design tuU A. design to be registrable under the Act, must be some
registerwi mu»t conception Or suggestion as to shape, configuration, pattern
b« new or °° . .
original. or Ornament, and not a conception or suggestion as to a
mode or principle of construction of an article (r). A design
must also be substantially new " or " substantially original,
having regard to the nature of the subject to which it ia to
1)0 applied. A design is not a proper subject for registration
unless there is a clearly marked and defined difference in-
volving substantia] novelty between that whicsb is to be regis-
tered as a new design and that which has gone before.
However useless a design may be, it is within the meaning
of the Act if it is novel and original (•). The words "new
or original" in the section (t), involve the idea of novelty
(m) 7 E<lw. 7, c. 29, g. 93.
(n) lb. Ab to classification of
goods, gee Designs Bulee, 1908,
r. 6, and Sched. III.
(o) As to who is the proprietor,
•ee 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, s. 93.
(;») 11). S9. 49, 52. As to can-
cellation of the registration of
(lp^ign» used wholly or mainly
abroad, see gect. 58, and Designs
Eules, 1908, rr. 70—76.
(g) lb. 8. 51.
(r) Be Bayer'i Design, (1906) 24
B. P. C. 66 ; afBrmed on appeal,
2« B. P. C. S6; Pugh J. RU«g
Cycle Co., (1912) 1 Ch. pp. 619, 620 ;
81 L. J. Ch. p. 479.
(«) Le Ma;i v. ir,7c/i, 28 C. D. 24 ;
64 L. J. Ch. 279; Ileda Fotimlry
Co. v. HWAer, 14 A. C. pp. 686,
667 ; 69 li. J. P. 0. 46 (8c); Be
Mortiin't De$ign, 17 B. P. 0. p. 121 ;
Hutehiton * Co. v. St. Mungo Co.,
(1907) 24 R. P. C. 264, 271 (.■^c);
Oramophime Co. v. Magazine Holder
Co., (1911) 104 L. T. 269; 38
E. P. C. 221.
(«) 7 Edw. 7, 0. 39, •. «,
■ub-i. 1.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
428
either in the pattern, shape, or ornament itself, or in the cuap. IX.
wuy in which an old pattern, shape or ornament is to be
applied to some special subject matter («). Novelty in the
iilt'ii of the design itself is not necessary; it is sufficient if
there is novelty in the application of the design to some
article of manufacture to which it has not been applied
before (x). The mere comhinatioii of old materials in an
old manner may be registered, if there be a new design.
Ikit to be a new design, the combinati(m of old materials
must constitute one design and must not be a mere mutti-
plieily of o' . designs (y).
No person is entitled to the benefit of the statute unless the J[J*^;JJ^^
design has been registered before publication. If there has Mon pab-
heen publication of tho design in the United Kingdom, it
cannot be afterwards registered (2). But the registration of
a design in one class of goods and its publication in con-
nection with such goods, will not prevent or invalidate its
registration in some other class oF goods (a).
Nor is disclosure of a design by the proprietor to another
person in such circunutanees as would make it contrary to
gnod faith for the other person to use or publish it, or tho
disclosure of a design in breach of good faith by a person,
or the acceptance of a first and confidential order for goods
bearing a new and original textile design intende<l for regis-
liiition, a publication of the design sufficient to invalidate
til. copyright therein if registration is subsequently ob-
tained (b).
Nnr will the exhibition of a design at an industrial or
inteinational exhibition certified as such by the Board of
III) Dover V. Stirubtrgtr Crllu-
Ivi.liniren l aM, (1910)2Ch.p.29;
Tit L. J. Ch. p. 028.
(,r) Siiuiiilfr) V. H'lVf, (1893) 1
Q. B. 470; fi2 L. J. Q. B. 341 ; Pe
Vhrhe't Design, (1896) 3 Ch. p. 45 ;
66 L. J. Ch. 629 ; Dover A Co. t.
^Y^rnberg«r CtUuloidieartn Fabrik,
(1910) 2 Ch. 25 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 625.
(y} mdtworth U'Crta, L. B.
2U. L. 380; 36 L. J. Q. B. 297;
Lazaru* v. Charlet, 16 Eq. 117 ; 43
L. J. Ch. 607 ; v. Gr«m*Aow,
UR. P. C. 341.
(z) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29. s. 49 ; BrUuh
IntulaUd Cable Co. v. London
Electrical Wire Co., (1913) 30
E. P. C. 621.
(o) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29. b. 50.
(&} lb. a. 55 ; Britith Intulattd
OtUe Or. t. London Ehttrital Wire
Co.,i
434
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN THE
Ckv. IX.
8«t 5.
Patent and
(leoign may in
certain caNflB
cO'Cxiit.
Markinf.
Trade prevent or invalidate registration, provided certain
ditiona required by the Act are complied with (o).
In most essea it is diffieuU for a patent ri^ in an k
and the right to a design for (he same article to co-e
for if a patent is granted first and tlie patented artic
published to the wwld, a design of the article could
afterwards be held to be novel so aa to be registered,
the two rights may in certain circumstances co-oxist
Thus, where a person applied for a patent, and registei
design between tiiedate of his provisional specification i
wmtained no drawings, and the date of his complete sp
cation with a drawing identical with his registered de
and subsequently the patent was granted bearing tiie
of his application, it was held that the validity of the r
tration of the design was not affected by the grant
patent of earlier date (e).
Before delivery on sale of any articles to which a regis
desigt. has been applied, the proprietor of the design
(»use each article to be marked with the prescribed mai
with the prescribed vords, or figures denoting that the d
is registered; and if he fails to do so, he will not be en
to recover any penalty or damages in respect of any infr
ment of his copyright in the design, unless he shows
he took all proper steps to ensure the marking of the ai
or unless he shows that i infringement took place
the infringer krew or had received notice of the exis
of the copyright in the design (/).
But the proprietor is not deprived of protection be
he places on the articles, besides the registered nui
other numbers which ought not to be there (g).
(c) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, g. 59 ; »nd
Me DeHigns Bules, 1908, r. 76.
((/) WalK^r <£ Co. v. Falkirk Iron
Co., 4 B. P. 0. 390; Wtmer Motor*
Co. T. Oamagt <fc Co., (19M) 2 Ch.
p. 388 ; 73 L. J. Ck. 770.
(f) llVrner MoUr$Ce.r. Qamagt
<t Co., tupra.
(/) 7 Edw. 7. 0. », 64.
8ub-8. 1 (b) ; and sec Dcsigtie
1908, r. 68. See If»«mc
Opptnheim, 27 C. D. 260 ; 54 L
66. As to the power of the
of Trade to modify or diapeni
th« requirements of the Ao
marking, see sect. 64, sub-si
(ff) Harper v. Wright, (1
Ch. 148 ; 66 L. J. Uh. 161.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. 4tS
By sect. 60, sub-sect. 1, clause ''a), of the Patenta and c»•^
Designs Act, 1907, it is provided, that during the esisteace "*^'
of eopyright in any design, no penon may for the purposes ^'^H^'d^ip*'"
of Pile apply or cause to be applied to any article in any
class of goods in \'hich the design is registered, the design
or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with
the licence or written consent of the registered pro|Mri«tor,
or do anything with a view to enable the design to bo so
applied (h) ; or, (clause (b)), knowing that the design or any
fraudulent or obvious imitatim thereof haa been apfdied to
an article without the consent of the registered proprietor,
publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for
sale the article.
('laiisc (a) deals with the manufacturer oi producer of
goods, and clause (b) with the retail seller (»). Under
clause (a) it is not necessary as under clause (b) for the
proprietor of a registered design to prove that the infringer
knew of the registration of the design (k). It is an offence
within sect. 60 (1) (a^ to do anything in the United Kingdom
with a view to enable the design to be applied in the manner
described in clause (a) without the consent of the registered
proprietor, although the application of the design is only to
take place out of the United Kingdom ({)•
The registered propriety of a design may either bring an B«a«diw af
action for the recovery of damages and an injunction for "^^ISSSr,
acts in contravention of th« section, "or" he may recover
for every contravention a sum not exceeding fifty pounds
as a simple contract debt(m).
The right of action is given to the registered proprietor (n) Who may
exclusively. A person, therefore, who has merely a lioenoe '"fri'ngomMt.
(/i) Se-!, as to the Bub-section, (m) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, a. 60,
iladdon V. Bannerman, (1012) 2 Ch. sub-8. 2 ; Saundert ¥. Wid, 9
607 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 766. B. P. C. 469. DamagM and penal-
(t) limufUad v. DemjMter, (1906) tit* oannot both be daimed. The
25 B. P. C. p. 124 (Sc.). total aain reoonmbla as a nnple
{k) lb.; see wet. 64, rob. -a. oontraot debt is limited by the anb-
1 (b), (tnie, note (/). section to £100.
{!) Haddon v. Bannerman, (1912) (n) The registered proprietor
2 Ch. 607 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 768. nay be (L) the pmi» f« whom a
426
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN THE
Otep. IZ.
lairiRIMMBi
to mU articles Moordiog to tbt de«igD, euinot raa tot in-
fringement (o).
TIm Btatate proteota the registered deeign m • wMb, It
is not therefore un infringement to copy part of a design ho
long as the resulting design u not •ubatantially identical
with the registered design (p).
In considering vhether an article is* u copy or a fraudulent
or obvious iinitution of a ret^iHtcrcd design, the eye alon*
is the judge of the identity of the two things {q).
When the piaintiff ia sning for damage* for the infringe-
ment of his registered design, ho i» entitled to interrogiito
the (li f( iiilunt us to tho acta of infringement (r), but not when
he is proceeding for penaltiea under sect. 60, sub-sect. 3,
of the Act (f*).
When an interlocutory injunction is applied for, the Court
considers the balance of convenience and inconvenience of
tiie parties (i) in deciding iriwther to grant an injunction
or not ; where there is a considerable doubt as to the pluiiitiff'a
rights (it), or he has been guilty of delay (x), the applica-
tion will generally be ordered to stand to the hearing, the
defendant being ordered to keep an account.
ileaign is maiio for good considera-
tion, (ii.) the persuii who acquires
a AvAgQ or the rijiht to " applj "
the design, tu w uticie (iii.) in any
other case the author of the design;
mid (iv.) the person in whoni the
proiierty in or right to apply the
design hus devi Ivcd from the ori-
giiiul proprietor. !H)e sects. 60,
71,93.
(o) UM^Iley V. Ilronil, (1S9'2) 1
Q. 15. 806 ; 01 L. J. Q. 13. 259.
{p) Sackett v. Clozenberg, (1910)
37 B. P. 0. 106 ; Oram^hont Co.
r. Magazine Holdtr Co., (t»ll) 104
L. T. 259 ; 28 B. P. C. 231 ; see
sect. 60, ante, note (A).
(?) mdtu-orth V. Jtf'Orra, L. B.
2 li. L., p. 388 ; IMa Foundry Co.
T. IToUyr; 14 A. C. p. 667; 6
B. F, C. p.660; JbA^slMy".
(1907) -24 ]{. r. C. p. 77 ; Ltalhtritt
Co. V. /.i/ctt ;;<i(W/f Co., (1909) 26
E. P. 0. p. 171 ; Ihnr Co. v. A'«rn-
btrger CilMoiilwartn Fabrik, (1910)
3 Ch. p. 36 ; 7» L. J. Ch. p. 631 ;
Pugh BiU$ Cyd* Co., (1913) 1
Ch. p. 624 ; 81 L. J. Ch. ^ 479.
(r) See B. 8. C. Order XXXI.
(») Saundtrt v. Wiel, (1892) 3
Q. B. 321 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 337 ;
Titiit Aide Ltd. v. .Manefield,
(1906) 22 B. P. C. 356 (where an
injunction also was claimed).
(«) Qnt/tm V. Watton, 61 L. T,
141; nUdetheimer t. Dann, 64
L. T. 452—466 ; anU, pp. 26—38.
(«) MitehtU T. JSTmry, 16 C. D.
p. 196.
(i) Baily r. Taylor, 1 B. & M.,
p. 76 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 66 ; 32 B. B.
146; and m* ante, pp. 34. 36.
IMFBINOEliENT OF COPYBIOBT.
4S7
Where the plaintiff establishes at the trial that his regis- <»»9- iX-
terod design has been infringed, be is jirinki /octe entitled to ****•
ail injunction (y) ; he ia also •ntitUd to an ontar for dallTery
up of the infringing articles (s). But where the defendant
has undertaken nut to repeat the wrongful acts, and there
is no ground for uppreheuding that he will commit any
further infringements, it is not the prMtioe at the Court to
grant un injunction (a).
The costs of un action for the infringement of a roistered Cmu.
(Ii ^i),'n follow tha event, subject however to the disoretian of
ihu Court aa in other actions (ft). Where a plaintiff hM ch-
tiiinod a certiftcuto of the validity of the copyright in his
design, in any subsequent action for infringement in whieh
ho obtains judgment he will be entitled to his fall eosli.
I'luirges unci expenses as between SoUoitiV snd cUmt, QdIsm
the Court otherwitie directs (c).
(y) I'roctor t. BayUj/, i'i C. 1).
1>. sesCpatmt): Wtri-r Makn Co.
V. (iamage * Co., (1S04) 1 C3t pp.
267, 2B8.
Inyraw v. Eihvardi, (1904) 31
U. 1'. f. p. m ; ATOM V. ifeU*-
xcorth, 3 De O. * 8m. p. MO.
(o) Proctor y. Bat/lty, 42 C. D.
p. 401; Wtrner ilotur$ Co. v.
OouMVt * Co., (1904) 1 Ch. pp. 367,
369.
(b) Se« ante, pp. 386, 387.
(r) 7 £dw. 7,c. 29, M. 3A, 61.
CHAPTEB X.
INJtWOTiONS TO BBSTBAIN TBB BBIACH Ot CONTRACT.
Chtp. X.
Sect. 1.
Jurisdiction.
1 ,
1
i
I
Shot. 1.— Injunctioms aoaikst Bbeaob or Govbnant
OB AoBBBHBttT.
The jurisdiction .of the Court by inteilocutory injunction
against breach of covenant or agi-eement is in aid of the legal
right. The jurisdiction is exercised either by way of injunc-
tion or by way of specific performance. The consideration
and principles upon which the Court acts in restraining by
injunction breaches of covenant differ in a material respect
from those upon which it acts in decreeing specific »>er-
formance. It is not the practice of the Court to decree
specific performance of part of an agreement, where there are
other parts which it cannot carry out. Unless the whole
agreement can be specifically enforced, and complete jusUca
be done between the parties, the Court will, as a general
rule, decline to interfere (o). The Court will not interpose
partially, except in cases in which the parts of the agree-
ment, which cannot be specifically enforced, are indepen-
dent of those which may be specifically performed (5), or
are subordinate provisions (c).
(f' atrmi$Y. Edirarth, 2 Pr. &
War. 80 ; 69 B. B. 647 ; South
WtUt* Co. T. Wi/thM, 6 De O. M. &
a. 880 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 87; 104 B. B.
327; Phipft T. Jaek$m, 06 L. 3.
Ch. 650 ; Xerehanti Trading Co. v.
Banner, !2 Eq. p. 23; 10 L. J. Ch.
515. But see Jonet v. Tanktrvitle
{Earl), (1909) 2 Ch. 443, 444 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 674.
(t) aUton T. CMdtmid, 6 D« O.
M, & O. 757 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 279 ; 104
B. E. 265 ; ()<jiien v. /'o««V 4 De
a. F. & 3. 426; 32 L. J. Ch. 73 ;
Friih T. Frith, (1906) A. C. p. 261 ;
76 L. J. P. C. 60. See Meawrtt
Bros. V. Mnuurn, (1910) 2 Ch. y.
262 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 707, as to stipu-
lations in contracts being construed
as dependent and interdependent.
(c) hUukett T. Bata, 2 H. ft M.
270; S4L. J. C^61S.
GOVENANT OB AGBEEMBMT.
In all cases where specific performance can be deereed, tbe ^
jurisdiction by injunction will attach as a matter of course,
but it is nut confined to such cases, but will be exercised in ^"^X
all cases where it can operate to bind men's consciences to » vbtm»a»».
true and literal performance of their ugreements. The Court
will not 3uffer men to depart from their agreements at their
pleasure, leaving the party with whom they hare contracted
to the mere chance of damages which a jury may give (d).
Thus, where the plaintiffs hnd entered into a contract with
the defendant for the purchase of certain timber growing on
his estate, with the right to enter upon the estate to saw and
remove the timber, and Uie defendant subsequently repudiated
the contract and forcibly ousted the plaintiffs from the estate,
the Court granted an injunction restraining the defendant
from revoking the licence to enter upon the land and pre-
venting the plaintiffs carrying oul the contract, although it
might not have been able to compe' the plaintiffs to cut the
timber if they had refused to do so (e). Nor will tbe Court
refrain from granting an injunction only because there are
other covenants to be performed which may be possibly
broken hereafter (/).
The jurisdiction of the Court by way of interlocutory in- Priiieiplaim
junction against breach of covenant or contract being in ]![iri^i^B te
aid of the legal right, and having for its object the protection ****^^
of the property from irreparable damage pending the trial
of the right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be
able to show a good primd facie legal title to the right which
he asserts (g). If the at law under the covenant is
clear or fairly made out, and the breach of it is dear or
(<J) Lumley v. Wagner, 1 DetG. uay Co., 15 L. J. Ch. p. 271 ; S. C.
M. & 0. 619 ; 21 L. J. Ch. S98 ; 91 on appeal 2 Ph. 44 ; 78 E. E. 12 ;
H. E. 193 ; De Mattoa v. Oibson, 4 and see Waring v. Mancheiter, Shef-
Dfa G. & J. 282. See Moort v. field and Lincolnthire Bailway Co.,
rikoati Mining Co., (1908) 1 Ch. 7 Hare, 482 ; 18 L. J. CSt. 4M; 9i
pp. 585, 686 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 282 ; E. E. 196.
Jones V. Tankerville {Earl), (1909) (g) Cape$ \. Hutton, 2 VLubs. 3iT i
2 Ch. 440 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 674. 26 E. B. 102; Sainttr Ai^umm,
(«) J<mt* T. Ttmkmmt (IM), 1 Mm. * G. p. 388 ; 1» L. J. Oh.
sujrra. 170, onfc, pp. 18—80.
(/) Rigby t. Ornt Wmtem Bail-
480
INJUNCTIONS AQAIN8T BBEAGH OF
Chap. X.
Suet. 1.
Threatened
breach o(
eoreiuuit.
In what cases
injuaction will
fairly made out, and serious injury is likely to arise from
the breach, it is the duty of the Court to interfere before
the hearing to restrain the breach. But if the right at law
under the covenant is not clear, or is not fairly made out,
or the breach of it is doul)tful ;md no serious injury can
arise to the plaintiS, pending tlie trial of the right, the case
resolves itself into a question of comparative injury, whether
the defendant will be more damnified by the injunction be-
ing granted or the plaintiff by its being withheld (h).
It is not necessary that the breach in respect of which the
iuterference of the Court is sought should have been actually
committed: it is enough that the defendant claims -ind insists
on his right to do the act complained of, althougli lie may
not have actually done it (i). But the Court will not inter-
fere unless it is clear that a breach is intended. The Court
will not assume that a man means to violate his agree-
ment (k).
The circumstance that a lesser has the right of re-entry
for breach of a covenant does not preclude him from coming
to the Court to restrain the breach (I).
But to warrant the interference of the Court, it is not
enough that the i ight at law under the covenant or contract
be clear and the breach be clear. It is in all cases neces-
sary that the covenant or contract should be of such a nature
that it can consistently with the rules and principles of the
Ci urt be enfo cad. IT the covenant or contract is from its
nature such that the Court cannot enforce specifically its
performance, or if, from tlu> nature of the act to be done or
refrained from, the remed^' s peculiarly, at law, and a full
and adequate compensation can bo had there, the Coui-t will
not interfere (m). In a casb in which A., as agent for B.
(A) Waicinion v. Rosen, 2 De 0.
J. ft S. 62, 69; Oarntt v. Baiuttad
and Eptom Itailway Co., 4 De O. J.
&S. 467; ant , pp. 25—28.
(>) Tipping V. EckertUy, 2 K. &
J. 264 ; no B. B. 316 ; aiilt, fp. 17.
18.
(k) F»$ltr V. Birmlngkmit, Welvtr-
hanrytoH, ix., Bailie^ Co., 2 AV. B.
378. TForxh.,' T. Swan, 61 L. J. Ch.
576. <5ee Pattixm v. Oil/onl, 18
E.;. 25!); 43 L. J. Ch. 524.
(/) J'lrker v. W/ii/tf, 1 H. & M.
167; 32 L. J. Ch. 520.
(t.) Collin* V. Plamh, 16 Vw.
4M; 10 S. S. 214; IMmm v.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
481
and C. (C. being an infant), agreed to grant a lease to D., Ch»p. X.
and D. brought an action for specific i)<>rforinance and
claimed an injunction to restrain B, and C. until the trial
from granting a lease to anyone else, it was held that as
specific i)erformance could not be granted in respect of the
entirety it ought not to be granted in respect of the share
of the adult defendant alone, and that accordingly an injunc-
tion should not issue against either defendant (»z).
The Court will not decree specific perfornianco of a con
tract for a loan, whetlier the loan is to be on security or
not (o) ; but specific performance will be decreed of a oon-
tracl to subscribe foi- dobciitures in a company (;>). Nor will
the Court generally entertain jurisdiction in respect of con- Contracu for
tracts for btiilding or other work (q). But this rule is not otli'er'wor°k.
without exceptions. Where, for instance, a railway com-
])any has taken lands from a landowner on the terms that
tlioy will carry out certain works, the Court will compel
them to carry out such works (r). A plaintiff in order to
bring himself within the exception must establish (1) that
the building work of which he seeks to enforce performance
is clearly defined by the contract, (2) that the plaintiff has
a substantial interest in having the contract performed which
Contnoti
of toMl.
Eattrrii Cnnntin Uaihcaii Co., 3 K.
& J. 675; 112 R. R. 339; Munro
V. ]\'iienhne, .f-f., liailivay Co., 4
I)e O. J. & S. p. 733 ; 13 W. E.
880 ; Catt v. Tourle, 4 Ch. pp. 657,
658; 38 L. J. Ch. 665; and sea
Frith V. Frith, (1906) A. C. 2M,
261 ; 75 L. J. P. C. 50. Cf. Jonet
V. Tankervilt* {Earl), {1900) 2 Ch.
1 10 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 74.
(d) Liimley v. liavtiucro/t, (1895)
1 Q. B. 683; M L. J. Q. B.
■141.
(()) Hni/ert) v. ChalHn, 27 Beiv.
175; 2!) L. J. Ch. MO; fyestern
W'wu/nn Co. V. IVesf. (1892) 1 Ch.
p. 275 ; 61 L. J. Ca. 244 ; South
AfriecM TwHtorUt *To. t. Watting-
<on, (ISM) A. C. i<O0: «7 L. X
a B. 470. 8m atarimn t. Barttm,
(1909) ICh. p. 280; 78 L. J. Ch.
129.
(;>) Compatiies (Consolidation)
Act, 1908, 9. 105, ro-enacting sect. 16
of the Companies .Vet, 1907.
(j) South Wala RailuHty Co. t.
WyOm, 1 K. ft J. 188; 6 De O. H.
ft G. 880; 103 B. B. 38 ; Oarrta v.
BantttOfi, 4tt., RaUway Cb., 4 De G.
J. 4 a 462 ; 13 W. R. 878 ; Wch er-
hampton Corporation v. Emmons,
(1901) 1 K. B. 515; 70 L J. K. B.
429; Alt. -Gen. v. Staforrlshire
Comity Counril,{l90o) 1 (. h. p. 342 ;
"4 L. J. Ch. p. 153; Riitlibrooke v.
O'Snllivan, (1908) 1 Ir. 232.
(r) Fortttcue t. Lo$twithid and
Femtjt BaOwag Co., (18M) 3 Ck
pp.<80,««O; «4L. J.C9t.S7.
488
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
am. I.
Contneti for
{wnonalMnice*.
U'lcertainty,
illegality
of covenants.
Condnet of tbe
puty who make*
the »iiplir«tion
will In taken into
eoniidmtion.
eannot be adequately compensated for by damages, and
(semble) (3) that the defendant has hy the contract obtained
possession of the land on which the buildings are to be
erected (•).
Nor will the Court entertain jurisdiction in the case of
covenants or agreements for personal services (t), or involving
duties of a personal and confidential character (u), or involv-
ing supervision which the Court could not undertake (:r). Nor
will the Court enforce a covenant which is vague, indefinite,
or uncertain in its terms {y), or which is against public
policy as being likely to provoke a breach Of the peace (•).
The conduct of the party who seeks the aid of the Court
will be taken into consideration upon the application for an
injunction. A man who comes to the Court to restrain the
breach of a covenant or contract must be able to show that he
comes with clean hands (a). He cannot invoke the aid of the
(») Wolrerhampton Corporation v.
Emmms. (1901) 1 Q. B. p. 825;
70 L. J. K. B. 429 ; Molynmx v.
Richard*, (1906) 1 Ch. pp. 40, 43 ;
76 L. J. Ch. 39; Rutlibrooke v.
CySiUlivan. (1908) I Ir. 232.
(() Johnnon T. Shrtwibury and
Birmingham Raihvay Co., 3 De O.
M. & Q. 914 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 921 ;
n'hitwood Chemical Co. v. H'irdman,
(1891) 2 Ch. p. 421 ; 60 L. J. Ch.
428; Davit v. Forman, (1894) 3
Ch. 654 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 187 ; Frith
V. Frith, (1906) A. C. 254 ; 65 L. J.
P. 0. oO ; Kirchner v. Oriiban,
(1909) 1 Ch. p. 421 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
117.
(m) Pickering v. Bithop of Ely,
2 Y. * C. C. C. 249 ; 12 L. J. Oh.
271 ; 60 R. R. 132.
{r) Powi-ll Duffryn Steam Coal
Co. V. Taff rale Railway Ck, 9 Ch.
331; 43 L. J. Ch. 575; Ryan v.
Mut-ial, Tontine, &c., Co., (1893) 1
Ch. 116; 62 L. J. Ch. 252 : Keith,
Prowt A Co. V. National Tdqihone
Co., (1894) 2 Ch. p. 153 ; e3 L. J.
Ch. 373. See irdrerlianititon Cor-
poration V. Emmons, (1901) 1 Q. B
p. 523 ; 70 li. J. K. B. 429 ; Phipp*
v. Jackion, 56 L. J. Ch. 660 ; Ruih-
brooke v. O'SuUivan, (1908) 1 Ir.
232 ; Dominion Coal Co. v. DomiHum
Iron Co., (1909) A. 0. 293 ; 78
L. J. P. C. 116.
(v) Kemhle v. Keen, 6 Sim. 333 ;
38 R. E. 125 ; Mann v. Stephens,
15 Sim. 379 ; 74 E. E. 101 ; Low v.
Innes, 4 De O. J. & S. 288 ; Daviei
V. Davies, 36 C. D. 359 ; 56 L. J.
Ch. 962; Murray v. Dunn, (1907)
A. C. 283 ; 97 L T. 112; Duugbu
v. Bayne*. (1908) A. 0. 477, 486 ;
78 L. J. P. 0. 13. Cf. Sanderton
v. Coekermouth Railway Co., 11
Beav. 497 ; 19 I.. J. Ch. 503 ; 83
E. E. 237 ; see Warin;/ nnti (liVow
▼. Thmnfttim, (l!»l;j) 29 T. L. H. 154.
(j) Wooihririi V. Baiter sea ('orpo-
ratiou, (1911) 104 L. T. 51 ; 27
T. L. R. 196 (anti-vivisection in-
scription).
(a) £((«/ V. CoMtU, 2 Jur. N. S.
848; 106B. B. 943; JTaytAoriM t.
COVENANT OB AGREEMENT.
488
Court, if the covenant wbich he seeks the aid of tiie Coari to
enforce is in any way tainted with illegality (b). Nor can he
have relief, unless it appear that he has actually carried out,
as far as in him lies, his own part of the agreement (c),
and unless he can show that he has ased due diligence in
making the application.
Delay or acquiescence may disentitle a plaintiff toiMtj,
relief (d). If a covenantee suffer the long and continuous {HJJ^
(e.g., twenty-four years) user of the property by the cove-
nantor in a manner wholly inconsistent with the tenor and
purpose of a restrictive covoiant subject to vrhieh the pro-
pi rty was conveyed, this is tantamount to a waiver and release
of such covenant (e). A covenantee who seeing a covenantor
spend monies upon property in doing acts which are incon-
sistent with the terms of the covenant, but upon the faith
that no obstacle will be afterwards thrown in the way of
his enjoyment, stands by and makes no objection while the
monies are being expended (/), or whose own acts have been
inconsistent with the covenant, or who has acquiesced in the
doing of acts which are inconsistent with it, cannot come to a
Court of equity to have the covenant or contract enforced (g).
Chap. X.
atet. 1.
Palmer, 11 Jup. N. S. 230; anle,
p. 20.
[h] Davia v. Makiimi, 29 C. D.
59G ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1 148 ; Wuodivard
V. Jlattertea CorporuUnn, (1911) 104
L. T. 51 ; 27 T. L. E. 19C.
(' ) De Mattot v. Oilmm, 4 De Q.
& J. 276; 28L. J. C!h.49«; Petor.
Brighton, Uckfidd tmd TofAridg*
Bailway Co., 1 H. ft M. 468;
t'echter t. MoiUgomtnf, 33 Bear. 22 ;
Ttltijrtiph Dupatch Co. v. IS' Lean,
S ( h. 658 ; Mtaturtt Brother$ v.
M'Miires, (1910) 2 Ch. 264, 259 ;
Ty L. J. Ch. 707.
(</) Pollard V. Clayton, 1 K. & J.
I'W ; 103 E. E. 187 ; Maythome v.
Palmer, 11 Jur. N. S. 230; OoMh
T. ButU, 13 0. D. 834; aaW. B.
6&i; Knight v. Bimmm, (1896) S
Ch. 297 ; 62 L. J. Cb. W3.
(«) OUnon X. Doeg, 2 H. ft N.
616 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 37 ; Ilefmorth v.
Picklet, (1900) 1 Ch. 108 ; 69 L. J.
Ch. 65 ; Worcester College v. Oxford
Canal Navigation, (1912) 81 I. J.
Ch. 1 ; 105 L. T. 501.
(/) Johnstone v. hall, 2 K. & J.
424 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 466; 110 E. R.
296; Eaawood y. Lever, 4 De G. J.
ft S. 114 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 335; (TatMn
V. Balls, 13 C. D. 324 ; 28 W. B.
552 ; ante, pp. 21, 22.
(ff) Child V. Dmiglas, 5 Do G. M.
& G. 739 ; 104 E. E. 262 ; H'A.(<-
head y. Bennett, 9 W. E. 626 ; Sayert
V. Collyer, 28 C. D. 103 ; 54 L. J.
Ch. 1 ; Kelaey v. Dodd, 52 L. J. Ch.
34; Craig v. Qmr, (1889) 1 Ir.
m; (Mom* T. Bradleg. (1908) S
ai.4«l— 4M; 78 L. J. cat. 49.
28
434
INJl NCTIONS AGAINST BllEACII OF
Chkp. Z.
Scot. 1.
Bnilding
Acqaictcanee
mmI wuTtr.
Thus, where the leases of an estate contained covenanta by
the lessees which wei intended to be for the general benefit
of tL^m all: e.g., a covenant to build on a oniform plan,
and the landlord released some of his tenants from the ob-
ligations of the covenants, the Court would not interfere
to prevent a similar infringement by others of tliet«utnt8(/i).
Nor will the Court specifically enforce against a covenantor
rest ictive covenants entered into under a building scheme
for the benefit of an estate, when either by permission or
acquiescence, the property has been either entirely or so
substuntially changed, that the whole character of the neigh-
bourhood has been altered, so that the object for which the
covenant was originally entered into must be considered to
be at an end (i).
Nor will relief be given where there has been for a con-
siderable time a violation of the agreement in respect of
which relief is sought both by defendant and plaintiff (k).
But the case is different if the covenant, though entered
into by the landlord with all his tenants, is only a covenant
for the benefit of each tenant, and not one for the ben^t
of all the other tenants (l), or if it is left to the landlord
himself to determine what tenants ahall be released from
the obligations of the covenant (m). Nor is the equity of a
(A) y?oji<T V. ]Villiam$, T. & E.
18 ; 23 E. E. 169 ; Peek v. Malthewt,
3 Eq. 616 ; IS W. E. G89.
(») Duke of Ik'l/onl v. Trustees
of Briiith Museum, 2 M. & K 562 ;
2 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch. 139 ; 38 B. E.
288 ; German ▼. Chapman, t C. D.
p. 279 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 250 ; Ellitton
V. Ilea, her, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 393 ; 77
L. J. Ch. 617 ; afiBnned on appeal on
other grounds, (1908) 2 Ch. 6tir, ; 78
L. J. Ch. 617 ; Hufiei/ v. Sainslntrit,
(l!tl3)2Ch. 513; I'ulleynev. Fraure,
(1913) 57 S. J. 173. As to building
■ohemes, see Ellitton v. Benfuer,
tupra, and Beid v. BkkerOaiff, (190d)
SCIlSOS; 7SL. J.Ch. 763; WaU
V. St. John, (1910) 1 Ch. 88, 326 ;
79 L. J. Ch. 239.
(A-) «/,<a;./ V. Wehh, 2 \V. B. 343.
(?) I'atrliinij v. Dubbins, Kay, 1 ;
23 L. J. Ch. 45 ; 101 E. B. 491.
(m) Scarisbrick v. Tunhridgt, 3
£q. Bep. 243; Kemp t. Scher, 1
Sim. N. 8. 617 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 602 •
69 B. B. 169. Asto reMmtt '
a vendor of property suh, . to
restrictions of power to make future
sales free from restiictions, eeo
Siiliiry V. Clurksuii , Zo lUiMV . 118;
(hhorw V. Ilruillnj, (1903) 2 Ch.
pp. 454, 455 73 L. J. Ch. 49;
EUiston V. L. icher, (1908) 2 Ch.
pp. 386, 387 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
617.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
486
cestui que trust to require the due performance of a ooreDaiit
neceraarily displaced by a breach of duty on the part of the — ^H^lL —
trustees (n). Nor will the principle as to acquiescence be
carried so far as to hold a man who has permitted one
infringement of a covenant bound to permit another (o). Nor
will a hmdlord be held to have waived his rmtrictiTe 00Te>
nants over an extensive estate by merely permitting some
tenant or other who lives at a distance to do something
which was prohibited by his covenant (p). Nor will passive
acquiescence in a breach of covenant attended with no
damage, or at least with trifling damage, preclude a man
from complaining of a breach whereby his enjoyment is
directly and substantially affected (q). Nor will relief be
refused merely because in a few instances the oovMUiatB have
not been enforced (r).
Nor is it every breach of a covenant apm his part which Coadaetof
prevents a man from coming to the Court to have a cove- P^'j'*''"r^T
nant enforced. There must be some such material and
substantial bieach as will enable the Court to say that his
conduct has beoi sadi tiiat it ought not to interfere.
Thus, a husband is not debarred from enforcing a deed
of separation and from obtaining an order restraining his
wife from commencing an action for restitntion of conjugal
rights by reason of trifling breaches of covenant on hie
part («). Nor is a man {arecluded from obtaining an injone'
(n) Eastimed v. £«««>, 4De O. J.
& S. 114.
(0) Lloyd V. London, Chatham
and Oovtr Sailw^f Co., 2 D« O. J.
& S. 0«8; OOem* r. Bndks,
(lfi03) 2 Oh. p. «7; 73L. J. Ol
49.
( v) Qerman v. Chnpman, 7 C. D.
271 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 250; Kniyht v.
Simmondt, (1896) 2 Ch. pp. 294,
299; 65 L. J. Ch. 683; Tubb$ v.
Eiier, (1910) 26 T. L. E. 146.
(1) Wetlci-n T. M'Dermott, 2 Ch.
72; 36 L. J. 76: Bkharit v.
&*f«,7 CD. nt; i1 L. J.CL
472 ; Meredith v. Wilaon, (1893) 69
L. T. 336; Knight v. Sinmimdt,
utpra; (Mornt Bradhn, (1909)
3 Oi. p. 467 ; 73 L. J. Cb. 49;
WhUi T. IVllard, (1908) 62 & J.
748 ; Tulht v. Etier, tujira.
(r) Meredith v. Wilson, iiipra;
Kniyht v. Simmondt, (1896) 2 Oh.
294 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 583 ; and se«
Tuhbs V. Euer, note (p), supra.
(») Betant v. Wood, 12 C. D. 606 ;
40 L. T. 445; see Kennedy
KoMtdy, (1007) F. 03; 76 L. J. P.
84.
28—3
486
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
CUp. X.
8MI.1.
Bighta of oth«r
partic* taken
into •ensidcn-
CjarttMtioa
olavTtDMla.
tioa to reetrain a breach of covenant by which his property
is materially affected by the fact that he himself may, in
building his house, have deviated in a trifling degree from
the letter of the covenant {<), or by the fact that he himself
may have broken another covenant when the covenants arq
essentially different from each other and the oorenant ^lieh'
he has broken is of much slighter importance than the cove-
nant which he seeks to enforce (u). Nor will the mere delay
of fourteen months by a plaintiff in taking steps to pre-
rent the continuance of a breach of a reatrictive covenant
amount to such aoqaieseence as to disentitle him to «ui in-
junction (x).
The jurisdiction to grant an injonetion being discre-
tionary, the Court in exercising it will have regard to the
way in which the granting relief will affect the rights of
other persons (y).
The construction of a covenant or a contract is a pure
question of law. There is no equitable construction of a
covenant or contract as distinct from its legal construction.
To construe is nothing more than to arrive at the meaning of
the parties to the instrument (z). The intention of the par-
ties is to be collected from the language of the instrument,
explained by reference to the circumstances under which it
was made (a), the nature of the transaction (6), and the
matters to which it relates (c). The words of the instrument
are to be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense and
(I) Joelbon T. Wini/rith, 47 L. T. 3 De O. 4 J. p. 360.
243.
(u) Wetttm itDermott, 2 Ch.
72 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 76 ; Chitty v.
Bray, 48 L. T. 862 ; W. N. (1883)
98; HMper v. Bromet, (1903) 89
L. T. 37; (1904) 90 L. T. 234.
(r) Northumberland {DtUc$) T.
Bowman, 66 L. T. 773.
(y) Hope V. OloiicesUr d^rjiora-
tion, 1 Jut. N. 8. 320 ; Maythome
T. Palmer, 11 Jur. N. 8. 230;
TiM* T. Efir, (1910) 26 T. L. B-
146.
(«) Beau T. Livtrpool Coi^teralion,
(a) Tunur r. Et<in$, 2 £. & B.
M2; 22 L. J. a B. 412; Cannm
T. VUlan, 8 0. D. p. 419 ; 47 L. J.
Ch. 697 ; PerU v. Saal/M, (1893)
2 Ch. 1S8 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 409. See
Willi V. Adams, (1909) 28 T. L. B.
85 ; Cav* v. Ilorsell, (1913) 3 K. B.
541 ; 28 T. L. H. 543.
(6) Macintyre y. Belcher, 14 C. B.
N. S. p. 663 ; 32 L. .1. C. P. 254.
(c) See WilU V. Adamt. (1909)
2S I. L. B. 85 ; CatUrmotU t.
Jartd, (1900) 63 & J. S44.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
4tT
meaning, unless from the context of the instrumait and the
intention of the parties to be collected from it they appear -
to have been used in a different sense, or unless in their
strict sense they are incapable of being carried into eftect,
Mubject however to this, that the meaning of a particular
word may be shown by parol evidenoe to be different in
some particular trade, place, or bosinflBS from its proper
and ordinary signidcation (d).
In construing a contract or a eovenant the whole of the
instrument is to be taken together, so as, if possible, to
give effect to every part (e), and so that one of the provisions
shall not be repugnant to another (/). The recitals may
be made use of to explain the operatire part (g). Where the
words in the operative part are clear and unambiguous, they
cannot be controlled by the recitals or other parts of the
instrument. But if the words of the operative part are of
doubtful meaning, the recitals and other parts of the in-
strument may be used as a test to discover the intention
of the parties and to fix the meaning of those words (h).
A raet must receive such a construction as will make it
law . operative (ft), reasonable (I), and capable of being
Chap. Z.
1.
(rf) Jifallan v. Jf ty, 13 M. A W.
pp. 511, 517; 14 L. J. Ex. 48;
63 R. B. 708 ; Taylor v. Corporation
of SI. Helen's, 6 0. D. v. 270 ; 46
L. J. Ch. 8S7.
(«) fiicklemore v. Thiuleton, 6 M.
4 S. 9; 18 E. R. 280; Bigby v.
Oreat WtOtrn BaUway Co., 14 M.
ft W. 811 ; 1< L. Ex. 00 ; 69
H. B. 836 ; Ormnriey v. Barnard, 18
E<i. 522 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 6fi6.
(./') Broirning v. ]Vrii/lit, 2 Bog.
& P. 13 ; 6 E. E. 621 ; Jlriijgi v.
Earl oj Oxford, 6 De (}. & 8. 172 ;
21 L. J. Ch. 829; 91 E. E. 117.
(y) Paijlrr v. Uomeriham, 4 M. &
8. 423 ; 16 B. B. 616 ; Lampm r.
Corke, 5 B. ft Aid. 606 ; 94 B. B.
488; Cnmeh v. Orouek, (1913) 1
E. B. p. 380; 81 L. J. K. B. 27«.
(A) IPoM V. Trtomtiom, 15 Q. B.
p. 751 ; 19 L. J. a B. 468 ; 81
B. E. 775 ; Leggott v. Barrett, 15
C. D. p. 311 ; Dawf v. TrtdneV,
18 C. D. pp. ;W8, 359 ; 29 W. B.
793 ; Ex parte Dawtt, 17 Q. B. D.
286 ; Crouch v. Crouch, lupra.
(«•) Sterrg v. CT</to»i, 9 0. B. 110;
19 L. J. 0. P. 237 ; 82 B. B. 319;
Avtrtf Lemg^rd, K«y, 663 ; 23
L. J. Ch. 837 : 101 B. B. 800.
(A) Broom v. Satehelor, 1 H. ft
N. 255 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 299 ; 108
R. E. 555; Oriental Stennuhip Co.
V. Tyler, (1893) 2 Q. B. p. 527 ; 63
L. J. Q. B. 128 ; Hclford v. Acton
Urhin Council, (1898) 2 Ch. p. 246;
67L. J.Ch.636: Forierand DidoM
V. Haitingt Corporation, (1903) 87
L. T. 736 ; Sprayne v. BmKA, (1909)
A.C.p. 680; 78 L. J. P.O. p. 165.
(0 Avwji Ltm^itrd, Kay, 663 >
488
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
Ob«p. Z.
.1.
CoiiHtrurti'in of
coveiiaiita
mtricting
OMrollaad.
Implication of
cotcnaiita.
carried into effect, if it can be done without doing violence to
itstwnu. Bot the language of Aocmtnot cannot be penrertcd
in order to make it lawful (m). Thus, where by an agree-
ment a person waa restrained from carrying on any trade
within a particular area, the Court refused to give effect to
the covenant by construing it as limited to the carrying
on of n triido similar to that of the covonantw (n). Nor can
an unreasonable stipulation be rejected if it was clearly the
intention of the parties that it should form part of the con-
tnict (o).
Covenants by which the user of property is restricted, are
construed strictly, and not so as to create a wider obligation
than the actual words (p). Thus, a covenant by a lessor
with his lessee not to let the adjoining (q) premises for thn
purpose of a trade similar to that of the lessee, does not
prevent the lessor «arrying on the trade in the adjoining jae-
raises, or selling such premises to a p'lrchaser carrying on
a similar trade (r). And a covenant not to erect other than
detached or semi-detached houses on land which is described
in the particulars of sale as being sold for the erection of
private residences, is not broken by the houses being sub-
sequently used other than as private residences («).
Conditicms not exfn-essed will not be imported into an
agreement, unless there is something in the agreement which
shows that tlie parties must have intended sueh conditions.
I,. J. Ch. 837 ; 101 R. R. 800 ;
I'erh V. Saal/M. (1892) 2 Ch. HO ;
ei L. J. Ch. 409; Itrmm^iein v.
Aecxdental Denth Insiiranre Co., 1
B. & S. 782; 31 L. J. Q. B. IT;
12( B. B. 749 ; Jonei ▼. Oibhoiu, 8
Exch. p. 922 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 347 ;
Caitermoul v. Jareit, (190?)) 53
S. J. 244.
(m) Noririeh Curjiorntion v. Xnr-
fulJc Bailiroi/ Co., 4 K. & B. 397;
24 L. J. Q. B. lOo; y/rti-.r v.
Ur,h,i-n,k, 39 C. T). ft20; a7 Ti. J.
Ch. 889; PtrU v. Saalfrld, (1892)
2 Ch. 1S3, IM ; ei L. J. Ch. 40B.
(a) Baker v. Hedgeock, $»pra;
see niso Perli v. Saal/eld, iiipra.
{<>) StiiilhaTd V. Lft, 3 B. ft 8.
3t>4 : 32 L. J. Q. B. 75.
( t>) Kemp V. Bird, 5 C. T>. 974 ;
46 L. J. Ch. 828 ; Brigg v. Thomtom,
(1904) 1 Oh. 388, 395 : 73 L. J. Ch.
301.
('/) As to meaning of " adjoin-
iiifr," soo Care v. Horsell, (1912) 3
K. B. 533 ; 28 T. L. R. 543 ; Derby
Motor Cah Co. v. CrompUn, (191-3)
29 T. L. R. 673.
(r) Itriaq v. Thornton, (1904) 1
Ch. .395; 73 L. J. Ch. 301.
(«) Wright v. Berry, (1908)
18 T. L. R. 3W.
id! i
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
4W
There most be words in the inatrament capable o( aoatain-
ing the raeai ing wliich is sought to be implied from thorn (/). .
If tho Court is nble to collect from the language of the whole
instrument taken together an agreement between the partiea
that a certain thing ahail be done, there is sufficient to enable
tlic Court to say that n covenant is created (w). It is not
toinpetent for the Court to import a covenant which does
not arise by necessary implicatimi from the language of tiie
instrument («). When a man covenants to do a certain
tiling, it is necessarily implied that Jve will not wilfully in-
capacitate himself from doing it (»/). I£ he enters into an
arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance
of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an im-
plied engagement on his [wvrt that he shall do nothing of
his own motion to put an end to the state of circamstanoes,
under which alone the angomcnt can ho operative (r).
A covenant by a purchaser of land that he will before the
commencement of any building, submit plans for the approval
of the vendor, involves the negative w enant that no building
(() church irard v. T}f;i., L. E. 1
U. B. 195, '.Ml ; MiiUiind Railwmi
I'd. v. Lmdnn nnd N<rth W'mtirn
Railway Co., L. B- 'i K<1- •'-^ J '>>
L. T. 201 ; Hol/ord v. Actim I'rUu,
rH$trKt CouneO, (1898) 2 Ch. 240;
67 L. 3. Ch. 6S6.
(m) Ri^ T. Oreat We*Urn Rail.
n-a<i Co., 14 M. & W. p. 818; 16
I,. J. Ex. 60 ; 69 R. E. H.iti ; Jnnm
V. Ciirhrine, 7 Exeh. 17l», 177 ; 21
L. J. Ex. i Vl ; 86 R. R. 600;
Ureal Sorthtrn Railira;/ Co. v.
Harrison, 12 C. B. 670, 609; 22
L. J. C. P. 49; Brookt v. Jenningt,
L. E. 1 0. P. 476 ; Hbrnlyn v. WooH,
(1S91) 2 Q. B. p. 494 ; 80 L. J.
Q. B. 734; Dousl<- Baynti,
(1908) A. C. p. 482 ; 78 L. J. P. 0.
I.'!.
(x) Kemp V. IIM. 5 C. D. 974;
16 L. J. Ch. 828 ; MViy/.* v. Herrij,
(190.3) 19 T. T,. E. 259 : Rn'./v v.
Thornton, , >04) 1 Ch. 386, 397 ;
Chkp. X.
iMt. 1.
73 L. J. Ch. 101 ; AU^'Otik. V.
nMin Simm . ket Co., (1909) 25
T. li. E. 697 (II. L.); Laznrui v.
Cairn Sleamihiji Co., (1912) 106
I>. T. 378 ; 28 T. L. R. 244.
(j) U'lntyn v. BeUher, 14 C. B.
N. 8. 6M; 32 L. J. 0. P. 394;
ManehtOtr Ship Canal v. Manehitt*r
Race Coune Co., (1901) 2 Ch. S7;
70 L. J. Ch. 468.
(j) Siirling v. Mailland, 6 B. ft 8.
840 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; and see
MftroixMan Fleclric Siipiih/ Co. v.
Gindrr, (1901) 2 Ch. 799 ; 70 L. J.
Ch. 862; Ogdent y. Xelaon, (1904)
2 K. B. 418 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 865 ;
afinaed on appeal, (1905) A. C.
109; 74 L. J. K. B. 433; DevotuUd
T. RotuT, (1906) 2 K. B. 728, 732;
75 L. J. K. B. 688 ; Att.-Otn. t.
Dublin Steam Packet Co., (1909) 25
T. li. R. 697 ; Lazarut v. Cairn
Stearwhip 0>., (1912) 106 L. X.
378 ; 28 T. L. B. 244.
440
INJUNCTIONS AGAINRT BREACH OP
iMt. 1.
Ini|ili«i| MU
■Miou im
•Mrtoeto.
Cortnaiita,
•IBmuUiT* or
MfMiT*.
Iiijutii'tion
rtmedjr for
breach of
■ball b« commenced until plans have been submitted to and
. approved by the vendor
A wvenant hy a Ics.sco in a brcwor'H Iminf of a tied lioiiso
not to sell on the deiniaed premiseb any liquors other than
such as shall have been purchased from the lesser imports
an implied covenant by the lessor to supply liquors of reason-
ably good quality and at reasonable prices (b).
Implied obligations in a contract are governed by the com-
mon intention of the contracting parties. When their com-
mon intention has been ascertained, the f'oiirt holds them
to all that is implied in tlieir common int«>ntion. Thus,
where a printing company let the upper floors of their pre-
mises to a hotel company to be used as iulditional bi drooms
to their hotel, and it was agreed tliat the printing machinery
should continue to be worked on the ground floor, both parties
believing that the noise would not ir>.erfere with the comfort
of the rooms, the Court refused to restrain the working of
the machinery although considerable inconvenience was
caused to persons using the hotel, there being no evidence that
the machinery was being improperly worked (c).
Covenants are either o.' an affirmative or negative nature.
Where a man cov«nant« that something has been done or
shall be done hereafter, the covenant is affir iiative. VthiTe
a man covenants that a thing has not been done or shall
not be done hereafter, tiie covenant is a negative one. In
cases where the covenant is affirmative, the remedy in ^uity
is by way of specific performance. If the covenant is a
negative <Hie, the remedy is by way of injunction.
In restraining by injunction the breach of a negative cove-
nant, Ur' interference of the Court is in ( ffect an order for
specific performance. "An agi-eement," said Lord St.
Leonards in Lumley v. Wagner (d), "may bo as effectually
(n) PoiitU V. Hemiley, (1909) 1
rh. 687, 688 ; 78 L. J. CJh. 837 ;
affirmed on appeal, (1900) 2 Ch. 262 ;
78 L. J. Ch. 7«.
(6) Courage <fc Co. v. Carpenter,
(1910) 1 Ch. 262 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 184.
(f) LytUltm Timet Co. v. War-
rttu, (1907) A. C. 476 ; 76 L. J.
P. 0. 100.
(<l) 1 I>e 0. J£. i G. p. 615 ; 2i
L. J. Ch. 8M ; 91 B. B. IBS.
COVRNANT OR AGREEMENT.
441
performed in this way as by an order for the performance ^p-
of the thing to be done." "If there b a negfttire eore-
iiant," (he Court has no diHcretion to exercise. If parties
for valuable conHidoration, with their eyes open, contract
that a particular thing shall not be done, all that a Court
of equity has to do is to say by way of injunction that the
tiling shall not be done. In such a case the injunction does
nothing more than give the sanction of the process of the
Court to that which already in the contract befr»»een the
iwrtiis. It is not then a question of the balance of con-
venience or inconvenience or of the amount of damage or
injury, it is the specific performance by the Court of that
negative borgain which the parties have made with their eycn
npon between themselves (e), unless the covenantee has by
his conduct or omissions, put himself in such on altered
relaticHt to the covenantor as to make it manifestly unjost
fur him to ask the Court to enforce the covenant by injniui-
I ion (/) . The usual covenant by an assignee of a lease to CoT«wnt by
" perform and observe the covenants and conditions emtained i!i!^'yr"'p«r-
in the leose " is not of itself a negative covenant within the JjJJJ'^*^?,
strict rule which binds the Court to grant the assignor an
injuncti(m where a negative covenimt in the lease has been ******
broken by the assignee (,)).
Persons accordingly who had entered into a covenant injunetioB* to
not to ring church bells at stated periods and hi. 1 accepted ^^^"1-?**
the benefits of the covenuit wwe restrained from vioktiag its
('■;' Ihhertij v. AUmiw, A A. C.
ji. TJO. Soe MrEachnrn v. CoWm,
VM\2, A. C. 104, 107; 71 L. J.
r. C. 20; Bitkmort v. Dimmtr,
(1903) 1 Ch. p. 168; 72 L. J. Ch.
9« ; (hhoTHt V. Bntdlty, (1903) 2
Ch. pp. 480, 461 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 49;
Formhy v. Ihirhrr, (1903) 2 Ch. p.
534 ; -2 h. J. t'h. 716 ; Harris v.
/W» rath Chemut Co., (19041 2
t h. 383, 384 ; 73 J. Cb. 708 ;
KUisUm V. Rtacher, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 395 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617 , Att.-Qtn.
V. IValllmnwI.uv I'rliaii Couhril,
(1910) 1 Ch. p. 351 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 269.
(/) 8aj/er$ v. CW/yw, 28 C. D.
p. 108; ML. J. Oh. 1 ; Oraigr. Qntr,
(1899) 1 Ir. 258 ; OAornt Jlrmf-
Uy, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 451 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 49. See Meaturen Urotheri v.
Meattirts, (1910) 2 Ch. 248; 79
L. J. Ch. 707.
{g) Harrit v. BooU Cash Cltemi$t
Co., (1904) 3 (%. 88S: W L. J.
Oh. 708.
442
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
Ch»p. X. obligations (/i). So also an author who on the sale of a
work had covenanted with the purchaser not to publish a
work of the like nature, or do anj^thing which might be detri-
mental to the sale or publication of that work, was restrained
from publishing a rival work on the same subject (/). So
also an agreement between a publisher and an author that the
latter should write a tale for the former and should not
during the continuance of fho agreement write for any other
publication, was enforced by injunction, so far as regards
the negative part of the stipulation (k). So also a man who
had covenanted not to perform or write for any other than
a particular theatre, was restrained according to the terms
of the covenant (/). So also a public body (m) was restrained
from erecting buildings on a plot of land, opposite a club-
house, contrary to agreement (n). So also the lessee of a
mine who had covenanted not to remove machinery from a
mine was restrained according to the terms of the tsove-
nant(o). So also a railway comjiany which had bought land
from a man, and had covenanted with him in the purchase
deed not to erect any building upon it to a greater height than
eighteen feet within the distance of ei(jhty feet from certain
other property of his, was restrained according to the terms
of the covenant (p). So also a railway company was re-
strained from removing from the railway carriages placards
and advertisements of the plaintiff, and from removing from
the stations the book-stalls of the plaintiff, contrary io the
covenant (q). So also the lesnce of a coal mine who had
covenanted not to remove pillars of coal in working the mine.
(h) Martin v. Nuihin, 2 P. W.
266.
(«•) BarJUM V- NichoUnn, 2 Sim. &
St I; 2L. J.Ch. 90; 2SR. R. 144;
Ingrxtmy. Stiff, 6 Jur. N. S. 947;
lis R B. 1033 ; Ainnaertk B$iU-
ley. 14 W. S. 630 ; W. N. (1866)
117.
{!() Stif V. CafteH, 2 Jur. N. 8.
348 ; 106 R B. 943.
{T) Sforris v. Calmaa, 18 V«s.
437; 11 E. R 230.
(m) The Conuninionen of Wood*
and Forests.
(«) Rankin r. Hutkium, 4 Sm.
13 ; 33 R R 86.
(o) Hamilton v. Dmu/ord, 6 Ir.
Ch. 412.
(;)) Lloi/d V. London, Chatham
and Dm rr Rnihray Co., 2 Do O. 3.
& S. 868 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 401.
(f) lloimm V, Kaiifrn Cimntia
COVENANT OR AOBEEMENT.
448
Chap. X.
Stet. 1.
was restrained ftCCMMrding to the terms of his coTMiant (r) .
So also a lessee was restrained from permitting any part
of the demised premises to be occupied by tenants carrying
on a businees which would render an ir rr<}a8ed premiam pay-
iihle for the insurance of the pr« <"MM ..^^ tiii^!; '^ro contrary
to his covenant (s). So also the p rch iser of a plui jf ground CoTen»nu
under covenant not to build mo. i t'oan one dvr* iling-house of'pro^rty?'*'
thereon was restrained from erei .l.'g .. Mock cf residential
flats (t) or a building divided into two tenements on different
floors without any internal communication, common stair-
ease, or front door. But a covenant not to erect more than
n certain number (m) of houses on a lot was held not to have
been broken by the erection of a building containing a series
of flats (x). A covenant not to " erect " anything but private
dwelling-houses does not prevent the subsequent conversion
of such dwelling-houses into shops (//), and a covenant by
n lessor with his lessee not to let " the adjoining (a) premises
for a trade similar to that carried on by the lessee," does not
prevent the lessor carrying on any trade he choses in the
adjoining premises or selling them, and the purchaser carry-
ing on a similar trade therein (a). So also a person under
covenant to use a house as a " private residence only," will
lie restrained from using it as a block of flats (b), or as a
boarding-house for scholars attending a neighbouring
school (c). So also the lessee of a hooae who had covenanted
not to cturry on any business or trade on the demised premise*,
l.'.tihra;, Cto., S K » J.«76; 112
R. B. 339.
(r) Tartar ▼. JTottyn, 23 0. D. S84.
(<) Chapmm t. JTimoii, (1910) 103
L. T. 390.
[t) Rojers V. Hovgnod, (1900) 9
( h ;i88 ; 09 L. J. Ch. 652.
{>i] Iirord Park Estate* Co. v.
.T„nM, (1903) 2 Ch. 622; 72 L. J.
t h. C)()9.
[x) Kimber v. Jdarnn, (1900) 1
Ch. 412; e9L. J. Ch. 296.
{n) Hol/ordr. Acbm Urh<m Conn-
cU, (1888) 3 Ch. Ml^ 2M : 87 L. J.
Ch. 636; Seid v. nickeritaff, (1909)
2 Ch. p. 309 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 753.
(j) Ai to meaning of "adjoin-
ing," m Ind, Ci jmA Co. v. ffamt^-
fom (1901) 84L. T. 168; Caw
HemO. (1912) 3 K. B. 883; M
T. L. B. 543 ; Derby Motor Cah Co-
y. CromplMt, (1913) 29 T. L. B.
(i73.
(a) Uriggt v. Thornton, (1904) 1
Ch. 386, 395 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 301.
(i) liogert v. Hotegoad, (1900) 2
Ch. 388 ; 69 L. J. Oh. 663.
(«) JMmi TtUM. (1888) 1
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
was restrained from setting up a school (d), from carrying
- on tlie trade or business of a baker, confectioner, beershop
keeper (e), hairdresser (/), or auctioneer (<;), from convert-
ing the premises into a hospital and receiving patimts who
mudo small paymentn according to their means (h), from set-
ting up a charitable institution where the inmates were re-
ceived upon payment of a small sum for board and lodging
from which no profit was derived (i), and from letting the
external walls of the demised premises to a bill-posii.ig firm
for advertising (k). So also a lessee who had covenanted
not to make any alteration in the external appearance of
the demised premises was restrained from letting part of
the walls for bill-posting (I), but the erection of a large clock
affixed to the external wall of a house was held not to be a
breach of a covenant "not to make any alteration to the
premises," the covenant being held to be limited to altera-
tions which would affect the form or structure of the build-
ing (m). So also where a lessee entered into a covenant not
"to affix or permit any outward mark or show of business to
be affixed " on the demised premises, ht was restrained from
putting up window blinds and on the railings a plate
with his fittn's name inscribed thereon (»). So also, where
Oh. 424 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 205. An to
mwning of "private dwelling-
hottae"in qwcial Acts, see Quam
Anne BeMenUal Mantion* Co.,
(1901) 46 8. J. "0; JIT .Voir v.
liaker, (1904) 1 K. B. 208; 73
L. J. K. B. 126 ; Bristol Quardiant
V. IlrUtol Wattrworkt Co., (1912) 1
Ch. 846.
(d) Krmp V. Sober, 1 Sim. N. S.
628 ; 20 L. J. Vh. 602 ; on appeal,
19 L. T. 0. S. 308 ; 89 E. B. 189 ;
Jokrutont v. HaU, 2 K. ft J. p. 423 ;
3S L. J. Ch. 463 ; no B. R. 296 ;
Wiekendtn r. Webtter, 6 E. & B.
387 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 264; 106 E. E.
638 ; Oerman r. Chapman, 7 C. D.
271 : 47 L, J. Ch. 250.
(t) HodMt Oofpard, 89 Bmt. 4.
(/) ClemenU WOlm, 1 Eq.
200.
{g) Parhr v. »F*.v«e, 1 H. & M.
167. Bt» Mom r. Taylor, nVf.^.
81. Cf. V. Cattell, 24 W. E.
485.
{h) Ilramivelt v. I.aey. 10 C. D.
691 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 339.
(i) RolU V. MiUer, 27 C. D. 71 ;
53 L. J. Ch. 682.
(k) Tubbi y. Emr, (1910) 26
T. L. B. 146.
(0 Hmrd r. Stuart, (1907) 24
T. L. R. 104.
(w) Bukmore v. Dimmer, (1903)
1 Uh. 168; 72 L. J. Ch. 96. See
Hope Brother* v. Cotpon, (1013)
2Ch. p. 317.
(tt) Bvcm T. i>a«jt, 10 0. O.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
445
a man had covenanted it to carry on a retail business aa Ch«p X.
a chemist, drugc it, and soda water manufacturer, he was
restraiued from selling single bottles (o). So also, where a ^'tj^i"^
lessee of a pablic-hoase coTeitanted not to purchase or sril cm **»^
the demised premises any liquors ^her than such as should
have been purchased of the leasors, he was restrained from
purchasing elsewhere, the increased prices demanded by the
lessors being at the time reasonable, the injunction being
granted so long as the lessors should be ready and willing
to supply liquors of reasonable quality and at a reasonable
price (p) .
So also a lessee who had covenanted not to suffer any- covenanu
thing to be done on the premises to the "annoyance" of
the lessor or flie adjoining occupiers, was restrained from *'^««.
using the premises as a place of public entertainment (q).
So also, where a purchaser had covenanted not to erect
any building for the carrying on of any "offensive trade,"
a mandatory injunction was grantjed for the removal of a
large hoarding which he had erected and covered with adrer-
tisements (r).
A covenuit by a purchaser of building land not to do or
suffer anything to be dono in the premises which should
be a "nuisance " to the owners of other lots, is not broken
by establishing a national school («), but carrying on a boys'
747; 48L. J.Ch.223; 8ee^«.-0en. 603; 59 L. J. Ch. 477; White v.
V. /'/oyAoM* Co., (1903) 19 T. L. E. SoiUhend Hotel Co., (1897) 1 Ch.
767 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 387 ; Manchutir
(o) Treaehtr t. 3V*ae»«r, W. N. Brewery Co. t. Coombt, (1901) 9
( 1 4- Ch. 608 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 814.
ip) Couraye <fc Co. v. CoTft^ttr, (g) CWf in* v. Siwfe, 28 W. B. 199 ;
(1910) 1 Ch. 262 ; 79 L. J. Oh. 184. (1874) W. N. 205.
At to meaning of "fiur current (r) i\utsey v. Provincial BiU Poit-
market prices " in a covenant by ing Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 734; 78 L. J.
lessee of licensed promises to buy Ch. 639 (Fletcher Moulton, L.J.,
liiiuors from the loHsor, see Verrett diss.).
V. li,i.l/oni, (1901) 17 T. L. K. 301 ; (.) Harriton v. Oood, U Eq. 338;
<'l,nrrington,t Co. V. Wooder.W.'S. 40L. J. Ch. 294. As to " nuisance,"
(1913) 369 (II. L.) ; and aa to the aee Tod-UeaUey t. Benham, 40
burden of a lessee's covenant to C. D. p. 93; 68 L. J. Ch. 83;
purchase beer ruiuting with Um Aiiam t. XJinM, (1918) 1 p.
land, lee Cl(w F(mA, 44 0. D. 871; 8t L. J. Oh. p. 188.
446 INJUNCTIONS AQAINST BBEAGH OF
ch»p. X. school would be a breach of a covenant not to carry on any
^' trade, business or occupation whereby any " injurious or dis-
agreeable noise or nuisance " should be occasioned {t).
A covenant against carry' -ig on an "offensive trade" is
not broken by keeping a luiiatic asylum (w), or carrying on
the trade of a coachmaker (x), or laundryman (y), nor is the
carrying on of the business of a slaughter-house per se a
broach of a covenant not to carry on a "noisome or offensive
trade or business ''(z). But carrying on the business of a fried
fish shop has been held to be a breach of a covenant against
carrying on "an offensive trade " (a) and against doing any
act which might be an "annoyance or inconvenience to the
Annoyance or occupiers of the adjoining property " (6). The opening of a
meonTraiwtt. ^qj^ ^ ^ public-house IS not a breach of a covenant not
to carry on a trade or business that might be "offensive
or an annoyance, or disturbance " to any of the tenants of
the lessor or any part of the neighbourhood (c), but the e&tab-
lishment of a hospital is a breach of a covenant against
doin^ any act to the " annoyance, nuisance, grievance, or
damage " of the covenantee (d), and the erection by a lessee
on his {H-emises of a large and sabstantial trellis screen is a
breach of a covenant not to do any act which migitt be an
" annoyance " to the tenants of the lessor (e).
Csrenftnto A Covenant not to use a building as a " pablic-house for
SIdeS.""* the sale of beer, wine, malt liquor, or spirits," is not broken
by the sale of beer by retail under a licence not to be drunk
(«) n'auton V. Coppartl, (1899) 1
Ch. 92 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 8.
(m) Doe d. Wetherdl v. Biril, 2
A. & E. 161 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 5:;. See
Ma»e$ V. Taylor, 11 W. B. 81.
(x) BonnM y. Sadler, 14 Ye*.
S26; DB. S.S4t.
(y)See fn^Atv. Simmtmds, (1896)
1 Ch. p. 661 ; affirmed on appeal on
other grounds, (1896) 2 Ch. 294;
66 L. J. Ch. 683.
(i) Cleavtr v. Jiacim, 4 X. L. E.
27; Jtcytiey v. Bmart, 10 T. L. B.
17-»; \V. N. (1894) 2.
(a) Devomhire (Duk$) v. Bnok-
ahaw, 81 L. T. 83.
(A) KrringUm v. Birt, (1811) 106
L. T. 373.
(c) Jtmm T. TAonw, 1 E & 3. 716 ;
1 L. 3. (0. S.)K B. 200 ; 26 B. B.
646. See Oordm Smart, 1 Sim.
* St. 66 ; 1 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 36.
(rf) Tod-lleatley v. Benham, 40
C. D. 80, 96; 58 L. J. Ch. 83.
(«) Wvod T. Cooper, (IBM) 3 Ch.
671; 69 L. J. Ch. »<«.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
447
on the premises (/). Nor is a eoTenant not to use a house
as a " public-house, tavern or beerhouse " broken by open- .
ing a grocer's shop there at which beer is sold to be drunk
off the {H-emises as ancillary to the grocer's business (g).
Xor is a covenant not to use iwemises as a "public-house or
beerhouse " broken by user as a hotel where liquors are sup-
plied only to quests and travellers staying in the house {h).
But a lovenant not to use a house as a "beer-shop" is
broken by tpking out a licence to sell beer not to be drunk
on the premises and selling it there (i). A covenant not to
use a shop " for the sale of spirituous liquors " is brokea
liy the sale of spirituous liquors in bottle, but is not broken
by the sale of wines in bottle (k).
A covenant not to use premises as " a coffee-house " is
broken by the sale of cups of tea and coffee, and light refresh-
ments to be consumed on the premises (/). A covenant not
to carry on the business of a fishmonger is not broken by
carrying on the business of a fried fish shop (m). But a
covenant not to use premises otherwise than as " a res-
luurant " is broken by carrying on the business of a fried fish
shop (n). A covenant not to carry on or be interested in the
business of a " provision merchant " is not broken by the
manufacture and sale of margarine (o). A covenant not to
carry on the business of a wholesale or retail confectioner is
not broken by the sale by a grocer and tea dealer of a parti-
cular kind of sweetmeat in which a confectioner may happen
to deal (/>) . A covenant not to carry on the business of a horse-
Okapi Z.
(/•) Ftam T. CoaU, 2 Bq. 688;
14 L. T. 886; London and North
^Veatern liailwaii Co. v. Oarmtt, 9
Kq. 26 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 25.
(;/) Unit A- Co. V. ('o«yw,ieO.D.
718; SO L. J. Ch. 311.
(/<) Dn<on»Mrt t. Simmotu, 11
T. L. R. 62.
(i) Biihop of St. AVitmt y.
BatterOg, 3 a B. D. 3W; 47 L. J.
land Oe. r. FiM, IS 0. D. 6M;
SOL. J.Cai.M9.
(») FMden V. Slater, 7 E.]. 523 ;
38 L. J. LTi. 379; Richanhon y.
Muri>hy, (1899) 1 Ir. 248.
(/) FUz V. llet, (1893) 1 Ch. 77 ;
62 L. J. Ch. 238.
(m) Erringtm y. Birt, (19in 106
L. T. 373.
(«) lb.
(o) Loitll and Otrulmai y. WaU,
(mi) 104L.T. 86;a7T.L. B.
2S6.
{p) Lumlei/ V. MetroptUkm BlM-
uay Co., 34 L. T. 774.
ssSSt.
448
INJUNCTIONS .'AGAINST BREACH OF
Cbtp. Z.
Reet. 1.
Sc|>aration
deetli.
Pnblieation o(
jadgiMBt dtbt.
hair manufacturer is not broken by merely dealing in horse-
. hair (</). A covenant not to carry on the business of a ladies
outfitter is not broken by carrying on a business of hosiers
and drapers and seUing some of Ihe articles dealt in by
ladies outfitters (r). A covenant not to carry on "the busi-
ness of a draper " or "allow the premises to be used for the
sale of or dealing in drapery goods " is not broken by letting
the premises to an auctioneer for the sale of fur-lined
goods (s). A covenant by a lessee to keep licensed premises
open in a due and proper course of business as an " inn or
licensed victualling house" was held broken by exhibiting
notices restricting the sale of refreshments on Sundays, and
the amount of liquor to be sold to customers (<).
M'here a man had covenanted in a separation deed not
to molest his wife, he was restrained according to the terms
of his covenant (u). So also an injunction was granted to
restrain a wife in accordance with the covenants in a separa-
tion deed from molesting her husband and taking any
action or other proceeding for the purpose of compelling
him to cohabit with her {z}. So also an injunction was
granted to restrain a man in accordance with his cove-
nant from coming within a certain radius of the house
of a husband and his wife while they should be residing
there (y).
So also an injunction was granted to restrain the publica-
tion of the recovery of a judgment debt against a man con-
trary to agreement, where the threat to sell the judgment
(j) Harris v. Farioni, 32 Beav.
m
(r) StuaH v. IHi^, 43 C. D.
343; S9L. J. Ch. 143.
[>) WilU V. Adanu, (*909) 26
T. I. B. 86.
(() Darlj'vrd Ilreiiery Cu. v. Till,
(1907) 9o L. T. «:jU ; 22 T. L. K.
792.
(u) Sandar$ v. llodway, Iti Beav.
211. See Hunt v. H>mt, 4 De 0. F.
ft J. 321 ; 31 L. J. Ch. ISl; Uar-
auMr.Manhattti'k D.10; CUsrk
V. Clark, 10 P. D. 188 ; 64 L. J. P.
67 ; Ktmudy v. KttuMiy, (1807) P.
p. 61 ; 76 L. J. F. 34. Aa to wliat
amounts to moIestatioD, aee Ftaron
V. Aykt/cnJ, 14 Q. B. D. 792 ; 54
L. J. Q. B. 33; Hunt v. JJunt,
(1897) 2 a B. 647; 67 L. J.
Q. B. 18.
(x) Besaiitv. IIW, 12 C. 0.606;
48 L. J. Ch. 497.
{y) Cpton V. Henderson, {1912)
106 L. I. 839 ; 28 I. L. B. 398.
COVENANT OB AGBBEMBNT.
449
debt by auction was not bond fide bat for the parpoee of ciMip.Z.
getting better terms (2). 1-
So also the Court will enforce by injiuictioa a covenant in ^•"•»«»
a lease not to assign without the lessor's ccmsent. Such a mvot*'^
covenant runs with the land, and is broken even where an
assignee of the leatie assigns to the original lessee, and an
injunction will lie to ret train such assignments (a). But a
mere licence to tise the premises is not a breach of sueh a
covenant (h). VVliere a, lesspp lias covenanted not to assign
or underlet without the lessor's consent, such consent not
to be unraasmably withheld, the lessee cannot maintain an
action for an injunction to restrain the lessor from unreason-
ably withholding his consent, but can assign or underlet
in spite of such refusal (c). But the lessee cannot justify
the omission to apply for the lessor's consent (rf).
Covenants restricting the letting and user of property are Coremui**
construed strictly, and not so as to create a wider obliea- '^''>«»'"8
. —••gui gf property
tioQ than IS imported by the actual words (e). construed
A class of negative covenants which the Court will enforce |^"eMnu
injunction are covenants in partial restraint of trade, '"'^'^^
where the limitation is reasonable. Covenants in total °
restraint of trade are absolutely void upon grounds of public
policy (/), But covenants in partial restraint of trade, that is,
;.) Jamtionv. Teagve,3JnT.'S.S. Il'inkiny Co., (1872) 20 W. B.
1 W. N. 68 : Hates y.Donal ' m,, supra ;
(ii) MrKarharn v. Colton. (1902 Re S/iark; (1905) 1 Ch. 456; 74
A. I 104 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 20. L. J. Ch. 318 ; Premier Bink, ('o. y.
[I') Ihilji V. h'diranU, 83 I,. T. 548. Amahjamateil Cintmatogroph Co.,
(0 Sear v. Iloime Projierty Society, (1912) W. N. 157 ; 688.3. 636. Ai
Iti r. I). 387 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 77 ; Tre- to the right to Mngn to a corpora-
loar V. Bigyt, L. B. 9 Ex. 151 ; 43 tion m * " iMponrible person," see
L.J.Kx.96. SeefierfMT.ANMUmt, iri7/nio« v. London Road Car Co,
(1896) 2 Q. B. 241 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. (1910) 2 Ch. 625 ; 8C L. J. Ch. 1.
.")78 ; )'oun;i v. Aihlri/ Hardens (rf) Harrow v. /»aaM, (1891) 1 Q. B.
rro,wrtits, (1903) 2 Ch. 112; 72 417; 60 L. J. Q. B. 179; Eastern
^ 3 -V^x.biQ; Andrew \. Rridifman, Teleiiraph Co. v. Deut, (1899) 1
(1908) 1 K. U. p. 698 : 77 L. J. K. B. Q. B. 835 ; 68 L. J. a B. 664 ;
272; Emus v. Levy, (I9I0) 1 ('h. I.etois ,1- MletAf V. Ptggt, (IMS)
p. 4S7 ; 79 \,. 3. Ch. 383 ; H'ert v. W. N. 367.
- (IHn)S( h. 1; 80L.J.0h. (e) Brigg v. Thoruim, (1904) 1
S8. A» to what ii m> n M eMo n » b le Ck. StS, SM; 73 L. J. C? 301.
refusRl, lee Shtj^i r. Hmtg Kong (/) M%kh*n Seynoldt, 1 p.
89
460
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
CDup. X.
8«et. 1.
subject to some qualiflcation either as to time or spaee, M
valid if the lostraint is reasonably required for the protection
of tiio covenantee {(/), in his biLsiness {h), and will be en-
forced against the covenantor though he entered into the con-
tract while an infant if it was as a wholn for his benefit (i).
Covenants in partial restraitit of trade are upliehl, not because
they are advantageous to the individual with whom the con-
tract is made, and a sacrifice pro tnnfo of the rights of the
comminiity, but because it is for llie ben'^'tit of the public at
large that they should be enforce<l. Such restraints upon
trade, so far from being injurious to trade, are in many cases
necessary for the protection of those engaged in it ; instead
of cramping, they encoinage the employment of capital, and
tlie promotion of industry (A:).
Wms. 181; Mallan V. .Wa//, 11 M.
&W.p.66d; 12 L. J. Ex. 376; 63
R. B. "08 ; Ihiviet v. Davie*, 36 C. D.
359 : 56 Ij. J. Ch. 982 ; Nonien/elt v.
Maxim- Xor<lrn/elt Gun Co., (1894)
A. C. i>. .ifiS; 63 L. J. Ch. WH;
Do>,-<hn V. !'<■<*. (ISXM) 1 K. H. p.
53 ; 73 I;. J. K. H. .is : HtiKsell v.
Aiimlijiimateil S,rietii nf Ctir/imters,
(1910) 1 l\. H. p. 520. (V21 ; 79 L.J.
K. B. o07 ; Mi.rris v. Wy/e, (1910) 103
L. T. p. 547 ; 'Jd T. L. I!. 678 ; Sorth-
Wutrm Salt Co. v. Klertriiliiiir Alkali
Co., (1912) 107 L.T. p. 444.
{g) Hitrheork Coker, 6 A. & E.
438; 6 L. J. Ex. 266; Avtiy
r.„mjf,/rd, Kay, 663 ; 23 L. J. Ch.
K:i7 ; liailurhe Aniliii Fahrik Cu. v.
.s-.7,o^^, (1892) :t <'h. 451 ; 61 !,. J.
Ch. ('>9S ; Snnh'iifrlf V. Majriin-
%tr<itiif<U diDi Co., n.ijirn ; fmlrr-
wood V. HaHer, (1S99) 1 t'h. p. .m ;
68li. J. f'h. 201 ; v. /V«.i-,
lupra; Ltetham y.Johnitonf-Whitf,
(1907) 1 Ch. pp. 326, 327 ; 76 L. J.
Ch. ;i04 ; Leng v. Andrtwt, (1909)
1 Ch. pp. 766, 76" ; 78 L. J. Ch. 80;
Hn.'jel! V. Amitlnnn'ttfil Sorittu of
Cnrptvtirn ; Morrit v. Ri/le. mi pro ;
J'e,irks\: Cilhn, (1912) 2S T L. E.
371 ; ,Va»OT V. J'roviilent flothing
ami Sui-i'ln Co., (1913) A. C. 724;
29 T. h. B. 72".
(*) Homer r. firaves, 7 Bing. 735 ;
9 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 192; 33 B. B.
62,1 : and see LrHham v. JohiatotM-
Wliitr, mipra: Bromlry v. Smith,
(1909) 2 K. B. 240, 241 ; 78 L. J.
K. B. 745; Sorth-Wenirrn Salt Co.
V. HIertrohilic Alkali Co., (1912)
107 li. T. 439.
(i) nromleii v. Smith, (UK)9) 2
K. B. p. 242; 7H L. J. K. B. 745;
I.niqv. Amlrfun, (1909) 1 Ch. 763;
7S L. J. Ch. 80 ; Oarld v. Thomfimii.
(1911) 1 K. B. 304 ; 80 L. J. K. B.
272.
(/,) MalUn T. May, 11 M. ft W.
pp. 665, 666 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 376 ; 68
R. R. 608; Mum ford v. Oething, 7
C. B. N. S. p. 319 ; 29 L. J. C. P.
105 ; 121 R. B. 501 ; Lrather Cloth
Cn. V. Lortont, 9 Eq. p. 354; ;19
li. J. Ch. 908 ; .Vot lenfrit v.
Maxim- Sordfn felt dun 'o,, (1894)
A. C. p. 548; (a L. . Ch. 86;
and see Dottridge Crook, (1607)
23 T. L. E. 644; Att.-Oen. /or
.Uutralia v. Adelaide Sttamthip Co.,
(1913) A. C. p. 794, •« to the policy
of the law in enforcing coT«Bant>
in restraint o( tiade.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
451
In deciding whether a covenant in restraint of trade is rea- Ckup. x.
somililo or not, the |)oints to wliich the aftoution of tho Court S*"*-
is specially dire'-ted arc the limits of time and space, and the
protection requin d for the trade of the covenantee, the latter
point involving iin c.xiiniiimlion of tho nature and extent of
(ho trade (/). The evidcnee of i)eisons in (hi^ tiinle hh to its
nature, and as to wliat restrictions are tustoniary in it, is ad-
missible, but not their views as to the reasonableness of the
piii tieiilar restraint (m).
The reasonableness or unreasonahleness of a restraint is a Rea»onaiiienf«i
question of law for the judge, and not a question of fact for °uert'„™'^,' J,,
t he j ury ( n) . for the jmlf*.
A covenant by which the covenantor is prevented from en-
gaging not merely in a business similar to the one in which he
is employed, but also in other businesses of a different lature
which do not compete with the covenantee's business, is un-
reasonable and void (o). So also is a covenant by which the
covenantee is made the sole judge as to whether a business in
which the covcnaritor intends to engage is or is not the same
as that of the covenantee (/)). The fact that a contract pro-
vides for a servant's employment being terminated by his
master on short notice does not in itself make a restraint on
the servant's right to trade unreiusonable (7).
(/) Hailitrlie .Inilin Falirik Co. v. K. H. 45; ".'( L. J. K. B. .'iS ; /.»•//(/
SrI.ntt. (189'J) a rii. M7, 431; 61 v. Audrfwa, (1!«»9) 1 (,'h. pp. 770.
I.. J. <'h. 6!»H; llon/ier and .tsli/ 772; 7H I.. J. Ch. 80; and see
V. II i7/w. (1905) 21 T. L. R. <i91 I niM S)„« Marli ineri/ Co. v.
/.en.) V. .Iiiilreir^, (1909) 1 Ch. 767, Ilruuet, (1909) A. C. p. 341 ; "8
770 ; 78 L. J. t'h. 80 ; Itromley v. L. J. p. C. 101 ; J/a«on v. ProvidtlU
SmUh,{mt9) 2 K. B. p. 241; 78 Clothing and Supply Co., lupra.
T;. J. K. B. 746; Coder. Daly, („) Khrrmm v. BaHht^vrntw,
(1910) 1 Ir. 319 ; Motor, v. Providtnt (1898) 1 Ch. «:i ; 67 L. J. Ch. 319 ;
Clothing ondSttj^y Co., (1913) A.C. Ltatham v. Johnttone-Whik, (1907)
724 ; 29 T. L. R. 727. 1 Ch. Wll ; 76 L. J. Ch. 304 ; I.emj
(»i) HaynM y. Doman, (1899) 2 v. Andrews (1909) 1 Ch. p. 767 ;
< h. 13, 24 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 419. See 78 L. J. Ch. 419 ; linmiley v. Smith,
r.emi V. AnilrevM, .niprn : I.,»-oll v. (1909) 2 K. H. 235 ; 78 L. J. K. B.
''An«?ma»an-nrn//(1910), 103L.T. U5 ; Morris v. Ryh, (1910) 103
•)88 ; 27 T. I,. R. 9,j ; Miimn v. I'rovi- L. T. S45 ; 26 T. L. B. 678.
:r..t riolhif,., .I,,.,- s,<,,r!!i C..., (1913) ( p) PerU T, Satd/dd, (1892)2Ch.
A. U. p. 732 ; 29 T. L. R. p. 728. 149 ; 61 L. J. Ot. 400.
(n) Doadtn T. Pook, (1904) 1 (j) Hayiu* v. Doman, (1899) 2
29—2
It \ y
46i
CiMp. X.
Sect 1.
ItelraH of
eoTMMBt ia
mtnindrf
tnda.
Corenant in
restraint of
tra.li- when
reasonable.
Snrgootifl,
jikjtkitaM.
I
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
ProrittonR in a contract of Mrvice restricting the right of «
servant to trude on tho trrininiition of his rniployntont nre
avoided by hiw wrongful dismiHsiil hy the covontintee (r), or
by the covenantee'H non-perfomwnce and inability to per-
form the obligations on liis jwrt which were the consideration
for liis servant's covenant in restraint of trade (»).
The rctiftonabienesH or unreusonableness of the restriction
in respect of space depends in a great measure on the nature
of the business and the mode in wliich it is usually carried
on (t). No certain and pn ciso boundiiry can be laid down
within which the restraint would be reasonable, and beyond
which it would be cxeossivo. Sonio trades and professions
require u limit of a much larger range than others. An area
of exclusion which would be unreasonable in one trade or pro-
fession is in another necessary for its protection. Businesses,
such as those of attorneys, bankers, publishers, fcc, tc,
which can be curried on by agents and correspondence, fill
up and occa " much wider district than th<»e which depend
for their s. ss and proper management upon personal
superintendence (u).
Thus, in the case of a surgeon or physician, the borough of
Thetford and ten miles round (t), a district comprising the
town of Maccle«fteld and seven miles round (y), Walsall and
Ch. p. 30 ; 68 L. J i. 419. And Smith, (1909) 2 K. B. pp. 240, 241 ;
78 li. J. K. B. 745 ; Morrii v. Bgl*,
(1910) 103 L. T. 545 ; Maton v.
I'roviiknt ('tuthin;/ ami Siipjijy Co.,
(1913) A. C. 724 ; ^9 T. L. R. 727.
(») Mnllan v. Mm/, 11 M. & W.
G53; 12 ^J. J. Kx. 37fi; 63 H. B.
708 ; Deiiihj v. Henderson, 11 Exch.
194 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 324 ; Talli* y.
TaVU, 1 E. * B. 391 ; 83 L. J.
Q. B. 185 : RmmlUm r. Btmtittem,
14 C. I), p. 366 ; 49 L. J. (%. 33t;
Sordenfelty. Maxim-Nordn)ftttOu»
Co.. (1894) A. C. pp. 647, 648; 63
L. J. Ch. 908.
{x) Ihu-U V. Maum, 5 T. R. 118;
2 R. R. 562 (fourteen years).
(y) Sainter Ferguton, 7 C. B.
716; 18 L. J. CP. 217.
If'
Hpo Hiillarliiiliii!i le QiinrrirK Co.
V. <lraiit, (1!M)3) .i S. 0. 1105.
(r) (leneral Itillimtinii Co. v.
AtUimm, (liK)8) 1 Ch. .)37 ; 77
L. J. Oh. 411 ; (1009) A. ('. 118;
78 L. J. Ch. 77 ; Meatures Brathert
V. MtMurti, (1910) 2 Ch. 266, 266 ;
79 L. J. Ch. 707.
(«) MeaiuraBnikwy.Uta»urt§,
sujirn.
(t) mirhcock V. Ci4ttr, 6 A. & B.
439; 6 L. J. Ex. 266; 45 R. R.
622 ; A vtrif v. Latii/ford, Kny, 663 ;
23 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 101 R. R. 800 ;
I.amton Pneumatic Tvlie Co. v.
J'hillipH, (1904) W. N. 134 ; 91 1.. T.
363 ; Leag v. Andrewt, (1909) 1 Ch.
p 767 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 80; Brcml^ y.
144
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
458
five miles round (z), nnd u district cotnpriaing a radius of ten C^P-
iiiik's from XcvMown (n), wvio lidd icusotmlilc litiiitH. Hut ^^'.'l
in the case of u physiciuri emplojed in putliologicul research I'iithoiogUt.
a radius of ten miles from his emi^loyer'a latxniktories
was held nnrcasonublc (ua). In the case of a chemist, Cbcalrt.
Taunton and three miles round {b) was held a reascmable
limit. In the case of a dentist the city of Chester or the DmUit.
counties of ChoHter, Flint or Denbigh and Hixteen miles
round (c) ; and London (</>, were held to lie reiisoniil)lc limits ;
but York and 100 miles round was held to be an unreasonable
limit (<>). in the case of ii solicitor five miles from Brent- Sulicitor.
ford Town Hull (f), seven miles from Walsall (,;), ll!<ostone or
any place within ten miles thereof (h), twenty-one miles from
Torquay (i), fifty miles from Weymouth (k), London and 150
miles round (/j London, Middlesex and Kssex (w), fifteen
nnles from Maslmm Market Cross (.•/), (iruut Hritain (.)),
V. f.iinymire, 15
(z) Evtrion
T. L. B. 356.
('0 /'aimer v. .Vii/letl, (', 1 1.
111. Sue iilso 'iilea V. I/art, 5 Jur.
X. S. lasi ; 8 \V. It. 74(Kve milen) ;
Cariiet v. Aesbitt, 7 U. & X. 77« ;
•il h. J. E.<. 27.1 (five iniles} ;
nrarely v. llarnard, 18 Eq. 521;
L. J. Ch. 059 (ten miles).
(aa) Eadi* r. /?«m, (1814) 136
L. T. Joonwl, 252 (Cozens-Hardy
M.R. and Buckley I. .J., SwiTaVu-
Iviily L.J. diss.).
(/-) // heiH-k V. Cuker, <i A. A: K.
438 ; 6 L. J. K.\. 2()(i.
('■) llullin V. Tene, (1S^>^1 W. X.
I'Jii.
(J) Mallan v. May, 11 M. & W.
C53; 12L.J.£x.a7e; 63B.B.706.
As to meaning of "Lcmdon," see
Mattttn May, 13 M. ft W. 511 ; 14
Ii. J. Ex. 707; 67 E.G. 707; Wallace
V. Atl..Gen., 33 L. J. Ch. 314 ; I'alace
ThtatreCo. v. Cleuty, (1909) 26T. I,.
II. 28 ; and see I'ruriilent Clotliimj
Supply Aatociation v. MatoH, (1913)
1 K. B. 65 ; 29 T. L. E. 47, wImm
it was heU tiiat eviileBce wu ad-
miHsible to explain the meaninf,' of
the word(rev( rwMlon other jfnmiuls,
(1!)13) A. V. 724 ; 2'.» T. L. 11. 727). Ah
to the ineaninp of " neighbourhood, '
nee Stri<lf V. .l/<jr<»«, 77 L. T. 000.
(f) lli'rncr v. Uravu, 7 Bing.
735; 9 L. J. (O. 8.) C. P. 192; 33
B. B. 635.
(/) Wtxxtbirulgev. /iei/amy, (1911}
1 Ch. p. 333 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 266.
(?) liiiiytan y. Walitr, 28 L. J.
Ch. 867.
(A) CWlfoT. rA«r/>«, (1900) W.N.
.S3.
(•) /leiiily V. //enilerivn, II Exch.
194 ; 24 J. Ex. 324.
(A) Uoimrd v. ll'eedw<unl, 34
L. J. Ch. 47; 13W.K.182.
(/) Bttnn T. Ouff, 4 East, 190 ; 7
R. R. 500.
(m) Mail V. (t'Nrill, 44 Ii. J. ( h.
(itM).
()() KdmiuiJuiH V. ItriiJir, (1904)
90 L. T. 814; S. C. (1905) 2 Cb.
320 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 58.V
[o) fi'li'ttaker v. J/owe, 3 Ueav.
383 ; 52 B. B. 162 (twenty year*).
But see Nordenftlt y, iiaxim-
INJUNCnONS AGAINST DUEACll OF
Htict. 1.
Stack broker.
ArcbiUet ami
Mrrcjor.
laaanuwt agiiit.
lluiMtr'a
Iiieiclialit.
Pufumer.
Horwluiir
■laaafactarar.
T*Ut>r.
Glove
111 iiiut'ucturer.
Milkiiiiin.
wi'Vf held ifiittoimhle liuiita; and u rovcimul ii solicitor's
i-li'i k not to iict for iiiiy i)('r:-oMs who nIiuiiKI I)o cliontu o( his
fiiiljlojt'i'b lirm at till! tiiiu) wlicii hiti ongugpuicnt tenninuted,
or within five years before that time, was held reasonable (p).
Ill tlif v.isv of a stoi'liliioKc-i , Caidiff and fifty miles round was
lu'ld roahoiialik' {q). Jii the cast) of uit uichittct and survi-yor,
ten miles from Cardiff Town Hall (r), ten miles from Broms-
grove Town Jiall wore held ifiisonablo limits. In the
caso of an af^ont to an inHuruncn company, fifty miles from
tlio compuiiy's hiudquarters (I) was held a reasonable limit.
In the case of a builder's merchant, thirty miles from Uoume-
iiioiitli, or till' Margate at Soiitliainptoii, was held iinrea-
sonuble («). In the case of a perfumer and iiair merchant,
London and Westminster was held a -easonable, but London
and Westminster and 6(J() miles round was held an unreason-
able limit (x). In the case of u horsehair munufucturer,
Hirmingham and 200 miles round was held a reasonable
limit (.v). In the case of a tailor, ten miles round a circuit
from Charing ("ross {:), and twenty miles from a certain
house in Cornhill were held reasoualile limits (a). Hut Wey-
bridge or the City of Londm or at any of the employer's
addresses in the future was held unreasonable (/i). In the
case of a glove manufacturer, Woodstock and its neighbour
hood was held a reasonable limit (c). In the case of a milk-
man, five miles from Northampton Square, in the County of
A. C,
Ihtrnfunl, (1907)
S^nhnfili Cm r,,.. (1S>)|)
1). .Vi:. ; ti.! L. J. I'h. 11. t»l.{.
( /,) /.( » M V.
T. I.. K. 04.
(./) I.H-hlon V. Thmnax, (IWH) 17
T L. B. 460 (twenty yeaw).
(r) Ilvbertton v. WUlmott, (1B09)
W. N. 15a ; 23 T. L. B. 681 (five
years).
(.i) llivhl v. 'J'Ikhiij'hoii, (1911) 1
K. It. :hi4: m I,. ' K. «. -Hi
(ten yeiiix) (ciivoiiai ttii iiifim*,.
(() lleneral Airi'tmt Imnrniiie
(■„. V. .V.W. (IHO'J) 1 K. 1«. :t77; 71
I.. J. K. H. aau (line year).
(m) Houptr V. Willis, (1805) W
L.T. «-Jt; •-••JT. I,. 1!. 4 )1.
(j-) I'lii, V. (llffH. ]>> .M. & W.
34*!; 1(1 J. Kx. ; 7.1 If. K. oi'tt.
(//) llarinr v./'(ir«'/i <, 112 Heiiv.Ii'iS
(:) Sin.ll \. Ilrtn. M L. T <15!t.
(u) IMftM. hoi/e, 13 Sim. ss ; 74
B. B. 2S ; leealso Neurllufi v. DMl,
38 L, J. Ch. Ill ; (18«8) W. N.
269; Wolmtrihautm v. CComior,
(1H77) W. N. 113; 36 L. T. 921;
Dakfr V. Hed,tiock, 39 C. D. 620.
(/.) Ileetham v. Fratr, (1904) 21
T. I., n. N.
((■) l)a<i<iftt V. lii/iiKin, 16 W. B.
MYi ; (IHUS) AV. X. a.
COVKNANT OU A(iUKEMENT.
Mi(l(llt'M(!X {il}, throf iiiilus from Churlcs Strrut, (iiosvenor
.SijUiirt- (i-;, und (uur mileM frmn the umpluyer'n bu>»ine»H {f),
were held resaonable limito, and lo was a corenant not to retail
milk in the " neiglibuurhuod " of u cortiiiii iihiii- (</) In tl
CKHe of u wine und spirit iiioi'i'lmnt, u limit curnpriHiti^ the
tlireo counties of Carniii vuii, AiigleHey, und AMerioiaelh {h}, and
Burton and fifty milea round (•), were held rea80a«bl« Uaa^.
Ill till' ciwe of II iiiiuiufuctuicr of l)r<'wiii(» iimti'i lain oarryiiig
on buHinesu in England und other c(nintrit}!4, u l-uv«biiM by a
manager unlimited in area, but limited to a period of five
jiMirs, was held reasonable {k). On the other Imn . lOVch mt
by a manager to a cider merchant not lu carry m\ butiineHs
anywhere as a cider merchant for the term of five years after
leaving his employer's Herviec was ht-ld unreasonable, the
urea being unlimited, while 'b^ employer's husiness whs siil.
stantiully carried on in one locality (/). lu the caMe of '
merchant's agent, a radius of eight mites from the Post .
in London was held reosonable (m ). In t he case of th. trudi of
a general merchant in a country district, a limit eouiprising
a considerable section of Cornwall was held reasonable (n).
In the case of publishers, London and 150 miles from the
Post Office, Dublin, Edinlmr^'h, or any other town in wliich
the covenantees might have hud an establiMlimeut within six
months previous to the date of the covenant (o), and the City
of London or within twenty railoa thereof (ji), wen held
tiMt 1.
■Mulketsriir of
■■tirlilii.
ml BierolHMit'a
* >i.'mnii
iiienilMM.
PuUUiar.
(<0 Prottor T. Sargni, 3 Mm. *
Or. at ; 10 L. J. C. P. 34 ; a« B. B.
■Wl ; unil see M mvl 'vhiU r. Spktr,
;is7!l) W. N. 7^.
(.) lUniiell V. Ihu», 24 B«BT.
.iOT : -Hi I.. J. L'h. 6K;1.
(,/ ) Iteere v. Jeiii,iiit/», (1910) 2
K. a ii-2; 79 L. J. K. H. 1137
(three tm) : ou appeal to the
l><.vi<u>'.> 1 eourt the aetion faiM,
the agreemeat not being in writing
aa required bythe Statutaof Frauds.
Stri-lt V. Martin, 77 T.- T.
iMi; ;;„,=„„. o,;i v. ''".^i/iicT;, (iS'Jo)
1 U a 47H: 06 L. J. a. U. 397.
(A) Tamer v. A'raM, 3 De O. M.
ft O. 740; 22 L. J. Q. B. 412; »5
B. B. 312.
(i) I'arion* v. VMrtU, 5« L. T.
839 (traveller).
(^) H 'I'tuHftkin.t Hull l\nita;ft
V. Il l/- .. (1907) Si T. I,. K. mj.
(/) / 'Id, V. I'utk, (1!«M) 1
K li. 46; 73 1,. J. K. U. M.
'm) Miililleton v. Urim'U, 47 L. J.
Ch. 4U; 38 L. T. 334.
(») Avtrpr. Lattsfurd, Kty. 66S ;
23 L. J. Cb. 837 ; 1(H B. B. 800.
(o) TaUi* V. Ttdli$, 1 E. ft B.
3yi ; L'i: I.. J. Q. B. 185.
{p) WtltUad V. Uailky, (1904) 21
T. L.B. !8S(ten]reM*).
456
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
Ch»p. x.
Sect. 1.
CoMhing
CarrMr.
BatclMr.
liest importer'!
Buuuger.
Gm meter
manafoetarer.
Clerks of
munufacturen
of hollow-ware
aad bardvaie.
Bakar'i
reasonable limits. But in the case of a newspaper boameaa,
a covenant restraining a junior re|)orter from being connected
on his own account or in partnership with any other person as
proprietor, employee or otherwise, with any other newspaper
business in Sheffie ld or within twenty miles thereof was hM
unreasonable (q). In the case of a coaching business, a coro-
nant not to run any coach from Reading to London was en-
forced by injunction (r). In the case of a carrier, a covenant
not to carry goods between London and numerous towns in
Norfolk («), and an agreement by a carrier's clerk not to carry
on or be engaged in business as a carrier in London, Liverpool
and New York, or within fifty miles of such cities (<). were
held reasonable. In the case of a butcher,' a limit of five miles
was held reasonable (u). But in the case of a manager of a
meat importer's business, a covenant not to be engaged in such
a business in the Tnited Kingdom for a year was held un-
reasonable (uu). In the case of a gas meter manufactarcrt
twenty miles from Westminster (x), in the case of a clerk to a
manufacturer of enamelled hollow ware, 150 miles from
Wolverhampton (^) , in the case of a clerk to a,manuf acturer of
hardware, twenty -five miles from Dudley (z), in the case of an
assistant to a baker or confectioner ten miles of Qreat
Clacton (a), in the case of a dressmaker, ten miles of Milden-
hall (b), in the case of a music hall artist, twenty miles of
In the case of
Dramaker.
H<uiebaiiartbt Manchester (c), were held reasonable limits
Pneumatic lube
anil iniliarubber
goodi
mulabetaTtn.
a comfwny supplying pneumatic tubes for conveying cash
and bills to and from the cashier's desk in shops, a covenant
(>/) Lrttg Amirtun, (1909) 1
Cb. 76S ; 78 L. J. Ch. 8ft.
(r) UWiamt \. ITtfftdmd, 2 8w.
2.W. See f.eii/lilon v. Wa/en, :i
M. & W. 545 (London and Croydon).
(«) Aniier v. Mnnh, 6 A. * E.
95»; ») L. J. K. U. 244.
(/) hiirie» V. /.nirm, (i4 Jj. T. 635.
(«) /■.Vivo V. t'roft, 1(» C. 1!. 241 ;
19 I.. J. ('. P. ;W5; 84 B. H. 55.3.
(uu) Xevanat <t Co. v. Walker,
(1913) W. N. 316; (1914) 138 L. T.
Joanial, 263.
(.() Vlwkmm V. EJyt, 33 Biwv.
227 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 443.
(y) AttiMm T. Htrritr, (IMS) 2
Ch. 431; e7L. J.Ch.644.
(z) /fai/i:e» v. Uomau, (1899) 2
Ch. 13 : «8 J. Ch. 419.
(«) Itromlei/ v. r-milli, (1909) 2
K. B. 235, 241 : 78 L. J. K. IJ. 745
(three yearn).
(/») Utilet V. KrcleaUme, (1903) 1
K. U. 644 ; 72 L. J. K. B. SSe
(period unlimited).
(c) TiwaU, Manehmkr v. CW%,
(1904) M T. L. B. 431; 60 W. B.
633.
COVENANT OB AGREEMENT.
487
Ckf. X.
1.
by tiie tnanafing dtreetw not to be engaged in any Bimilar
liiisiness in the Eastern Hemisph ' for a period of five
years (d), and in the case of manufacturers of indiarubber
goods a covenant by their traveller not to deal in such goods c«iir»Mer und
in the United Kingdom (tU), were held reasonable. But in the <=»"«='•'••
case of a clothing company a covenant by their canvasser OTmjlI^.
not to enter the employment of any person carrying on a
similar business within twenty-five miles of L(md(», in the
county of Middlesex (e), was held unreasonable. In the
case of provision merchants, a covenant by their shop shop
assistant not to carry on or be engaged in, or interested in a
business similar to that of his employers within two miles of
any of their shops for the time being at which he had been
employed within twelve months of leaving their employ was
held unreasonable having regard to the nature of his em|rioy-
inent (/). In the case of the business of an advertising agent, Adverti»i«f
a covenant by an employee not to carry on or be engaged
directly or indirectly in any similar business in the United
Kingdom was held unreasonable (</).
When the restraint is limited in point of space, the dis-
tance in question is to be measured in a straight line upon a
horizontal plane, unless it is expressly, or by necessary im-
plication, directed to be measured by the most practicable
mode of access (h). Where under an agreement business
was restrained from being carried on at " Ilkestone or within
ten miles thereof," it was held that the area sliould be taken
from the borough boundary (i). And where business was
prohibited within twenty-five miles of " London in the county
(i/) AaflMOM P t mnmH e Tuh$ Co.
V. /'/,///<;«, (1904) 91 L. T. 383;
W. N. 134.
{ilil) I'imiintiilal Tyre ami Ruhbtr
Co. V. Heath, (1913)29 T. I.. 11. 308.
(e) Maum v. I'rovitleut Clothini/
Xiipply Co., (1913) A. f. 724; 28
T. L. K. 727.
(/) Fearkt v. ChZ/m, (1913) 2H
T. L. S. 371. the wnployee'a duty
being mwdy to wm* at tk*
counter.
(y) Stuart v. Haktmif, (1911) 55
S. J. 398.
(A) Leiiil, V. Hinil,9 B. & ('. 774 ;
7 L. J. (6. S.) K. It. 313 : 33 R. 1{.
323 ; AtkyiiK v. Kinnear, 4 Ex. 77(i ;
19 L. J. Ex. 132; 80 B. E. 767;
Huigtum v. WaUttr, Jolui. 448 ; 28
L. J. Ch. 867; 133 B. B. 1S8;
Mmijklv. Ceb, L. B. Six. 32; 48
L. 3. Bx. 8«
(<) CMie V. Thmr*. (IMO) W. K.
S3.
468
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BBEACH OP
CInpi X.
Se<!t. 1.
Cuveimiit on
ilii4soliiiiuii uf
l>artlieriilii|i.
l'oT«nant by
vendor of
CoTdttnt by
liouueeof
Agreement
Moong triulera
to keep up
of Middlesex," evidence was admitted to explain the exact i
inteiiJed by the parties (k).
A covenant on the dissolution of a partnejrship that tlie re-
tiring partner shall not, if he set up a similar business, hold
himself out to hiive been or seek to induce others to believe
him to httve been formerly connectwi in business as purtneu-,
manager, or servant with the plaintiff, is not too wide, and
will bo enforced by injunction ({).
Nor is a covenant by a vendor of a business and the goodwill
thereof that he will not carry on the business of a manufac-
turer for a term of years under a particular style or name vmd,
as being a covenant in restraint of trade, notwitiiatandtng
that it may be unlimited in point of space {m).
A covenant by the licensee of a parent not to make or sell
any of the articles, which are t! e subjC' i of the patent, with-
out the invention applied to them, is not void as. being in
restraint of trade (n).
An agreement between traders not to sell their goods
belca- a certain prir" for the purjwse of protecting their local
trade is not necei'sarily invalid as being in restraint of trade,
and will be enforced by injunction if the limits of time and
space are reasonable (o). So also where a purchaser of a
manufacturer's goods agreed not to sell them below ascertain
price, and that when he resold them to the trade he would pro-
cure a similar signed agreement frmn the retailers, the con-
tract was held valid (/>). So also a covenant by a lessee of
Ch. p. (U7: 62 L. J. Ch. p. 286;
Jir»iieA«U r. Cubm, (190T) S4 R. P. C.
p. 201.
(») Cwh T. Daly, ( 19 1 0) 1 Ir. 306 ;
and see Mogul Sltanuliiii Co, v.
Mcllrtynr, (1892) A. C. pp. 23, 36;
lil L. J. U. U. 29.-.; Att.-(ln,.o/
Aualraliav. Adrlaule tHeamaliif) Co.,
(19i:i) A. (\ 794. Ill I rmaton v.
iVhiteleufi, 63 L. T. 455, the Court
refused to enforce an agreement by
tnUers not to sell aerated waters
below a oettain price for tra jeaM
without limit of epace.
(/<) Kllimanv.Carritiijtott, {190\)
[k) Proviiltnt Clathiny ami Supply
Co. T. JTotott, (1913) 1 K. B. 65 ; 29
T. I.k B. 57 (overruled on other
grounds, (1913) A. C. 724; 29
T. R. 727).
(/) Wolineraliaiiseii v. O'Coiiimr,
3ti I,. T. 921.
{m) llalhiiii V. Vmioii, 34 C D.
748; of) I,. J. Ch. 11,). SeeMasoH
V. I'roviiltnt < 'IvIIUny and Supply < 'o. ,
(1913) A. C. pp. 731, 787, 73«; 39
T. L. B. 727.
(») Jonu V. Ltt$, 1 H. * N. 188;
26L.J. Kx.9. See Marim-S'onltH-
ftU (luu Co. T. NorJenftU, (1893) 1
COVENANT OR AOREEMENT.
459
machines not to use the lessor's machines in conjunction
with the machinery of other firms in the manufacture of cer-
tain goods was held not void as being in restraint of trade (q).
Where a contract is illegal, the Court will not enforce it,
though the defendant may not hare raised in his defence the
(juostion of illpgulity (r).
Where the plaintiff, a brewer, sold a piece of land to the
trustees of a freehold land society, who covenanted with him
that he should hare the exclusive right of supplying beer to
any public-house erected on the land, it was held that the
covenant was a reasonable one and might be enforced against
a member of the soeiety, a brewer, who had acquired part of
the land with notice of the covenant, and having erected
thereon a public-house was supplying the same with his own
beer (s) ; and where a lessee of a public-house corenanted
with his lessors that he and his assigns would not during the
tt'i ni sell on the demised premises any malt liquors other than
such as should have been purchased of the lessors, and owing
to increased licence duties the lessors raised the price of their
iit'i r, an injunction was granted restraining an assignee of the
lease during the remainder of the term from purchasing his
malt liquors from other brewers at the old prices, the duration
of the injunction being limited to so long as the lessors should
be ready and willing to supply the assignees of the lease with
malt liquors of reasonable quality and at reasonable prices (t).
An agreement in restraint of trade may be divisible. Where
an agreement of the sort contains a stipulation which is
CMpablc of being construed divisihly, and one part is void, as
CUp. X.
8m«. 1.
Illegal contract
iwt •ufonwd
thongh ilefen-
tlant has not
raifltn) qiiCHtion
of illegality.
Covenant by
purcbaaer
to take bear
from vendor.
Coreaant by
laana to bay
h- ' fmiu leaaor.
Divisiliility e(
cuvenant.
rh. 1!75; TO L. J. Ch. 577 ;
huiiliiji I'litiitnatir I'l/re 'o. v.
s,l/ri<l:ie Co., (lilia) 29 T. L. B.
•J70.
('/} VuiUd Hhtie Company of
iViiMii/a v. Brtmet, (1800) A. C. 3S0 ;
78 L. J. P. C. 101.
(r) XoHh-Wnlem Salt Co. v.
l U.trohfti,- Alkali (1912) 107
1.. T. 4:i9, -no.
<\-,ti V. rv'th. 4 Ch. <;04 ; 3M
].. J. Cb. 66A. As to form ut order,
nee ' mirai/f <t Cti. v. Carfienter,
(1910) 1 Ch. •2&2, 269 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
184. Hee also Luker v. Otnnit, 1
C. D. 227 ; 47 L. i. Ch. 174 , Itan-
iitry T. CWy, 58 L. T. lU ; White
V. SoMmtd H<Ad Co., (1897) 1 Ch.
767 : 68 L. J. Ch. 387 ; Mamhtater
Vrtwtry Co. t. Cornnbt, (1901) 2 Ch.
<i08 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 814 ; ifLwj v.
Ihoiy, (1911) 2 I. H. pp. 45a, 455.
(f } Cottrage A 0». C^trgtaiit,
tupra.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
being unreasoniililc, while (he oilier is not, the hitter will bo
upheld, und the contruct will not be held void altogether («).
But the Court cannot create or carve out a new coTenant for
the sake of making a stipuiution valid which would otherwise
be void (x). Thus where a tailor's cutter covenanted that he
would not enter into any engagement or be concerned in curry-
ing on any business within a certain period of time and area,
the Court refused to construe the covenant as one merely not
to carry on the business of a tailor, and held the covenant void
as being in general restraint of trade (y),
A covenant by a partner to retire from the business " so
far as the law allows " (z), and a covenant by a servant " not
to enter into any business engagement in competition with
or that will in any way interfere with the business of his
master " (a), have been held too vague for the Courts to en-
force.
of According to the mrUer cases a covenant in restraint of
trade was void, unless the consideration was adequate to the
restriction ; but, since Hitchcock v. Coker (ft), it may be con-
sidered as settled at law that the adequacy of the considera-
tion will not be inquired into, und that if there he a le^al
consideration of value the contract will be upheld without
reference to the amount of value (c). A Court pf equity
(u) MmUan Jfay, 11 M. ft W. f'aribmnm < 'o. t. £e Cemk, (1913)
684 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 376 ; 63 B. B. 108 L. T. »85 ; Ntwinu A Co. v.
708 ; Prict T. Oiwi, 13 M. ft W. WMer, (1913) W. N. 373; (19U)
696: 16 M. & W. 340; 16 L. J. Ex. 13(i L. T. Journal, 282.
lOM; 73 B. R. 522; Siilwlh v. ( >) H(der \. IMgtroek, 39 0.1).
Stretlon, 10 H 11. 346 ; 74 U. U. o20; :>1 L. J. Ch. 889; Perh v.
320 ; JIainety. nnir;/, .'i5 C. II. 154 ; .'•'imZ/W./, ( 1 892) 2 Ch. 149 ; 61 L. J.
46 L. J. Ch. 935 ; Jtogert v. Mwt- Ch. 409; ct. IfiKxl v. ./one; 81 L.T.
iluek», (1892) 3 Ch. 346 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 169 ; Barr v. ( 'rai-ei,, ( 1903) 89 L. T.
219 ; />«i<«csii V. Oohhlein, (1896) 1 574 ; 20 T. L. 11. 61.
Q. B. 478; 6S L. J. U. B. 397; Uaynu (») Baktr v. Hedyenxk, 38 C. D.
T. AiimM,(18S8) 2 Ch. 13, M ; 68 L. J. 620 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 888.
Oh. 419 : Hooper Wittit, (1005) 94 (z) Davie* v. Ztavte, 36 0. D. SW;
L. T. «!M ; 22 T. L. B. 481 ; Lrny 56 L. J. Uh. 962.
V. AiiUreiut, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 767 ; 7.S (a) Bettham r. Fraitr, (1104) fl
L. J. Ch. 80; IhtimUij v. Smith, T. L. E. 8.
(1909) 2 K. U. 235 ; 78 I.. J. K. It. (/.) 6 A. & K. 4.J8 ; 6 L. J. Bx.
746 ; Vutifiiimlul Tyrt unii JlnhUr 266 ; 45 H. B. 622.
Co. T./'«rt«,(1813)29T.I..B.306: (r) Pitkmfkm v. SaiU, 15 If. ft
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
461
may, however, at its discretion, decline to interfere where the <^i»p- X.
disproportion between the restriction and the consideration is ^'
so great as to satisfy the Court that the one party has taken
an unfair advantage of the other (d) . The consideration need
not bo stated in nxpross terms in the instrument. It is enough
if it can be inferred (c).
There is not any implied covenant or promise on the part No impHad
of the vendor or assignor of the goodwill of a business not T«mior"!f''go«»d-
to set up the same trade in opposition to the purchaser in *°
the neighbourhood of the spot where the business is carried
on (/) , although he may not solicit his old customers (g), even Ma; not solicit
when they have of their own accord come to him (h). But *"'<""•"•
although the sale of a goodwill does not imply a contract on
the part of the vendor not to set up again in a similar bosmess,
ho is not at liberty to hold out to the public that he is continu-
ing the same business by using the name of the old firm if it
is an adopted name(t), but he cannot be restrained tnm
carrying on business in his own name, if he takes proper pre-
cautions to prevent the public from being deceived (k).
Where the lease of a house and goodwill of a trade had been
sold and assigned upon a verbal und^-standing tiiat the venAtr
should not set up the same trade in the same street, he was
restrained by injunction from infringing the oral contract (I).
Contraets in restraint of trade are construed with reference conatmctioBaiHi
to the subject-matter, like other contracts, and btiriy, wi&ont ^*5jJ °*
a^v bias on one side or the other (m). Where a iMt>viBioil is
\V. f>.i7 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 329 ; 71 B. E. (i;) Trego v. Hunt, $Hfmt.
TNI; Grarelfi V. Barnard, 18 Eq. {li)Curl Bruther»\.Web»ter,tujira.
521: 43 L. J. Ch. 069; Daviet v. (i) r/mWon v. /)««tf/a», John. 174 ;
Ii'u iet, ;)6 C. D. 359 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 28 I,. J. Ch. 841 ; 123 K. R. 56.
962; Collint v. Locke, 4 A. C. {k) Turton v. Turton, 42 C. D.
p. 686 : M L. J. P. 0. «8. 128 ; S8 L. J. Ch. 677 ; Cash v. Ca$h,
(d) Mid^HMr. Sroim,47 L. J. (1902)86L.T.3U: W.N.32:/(Mto
H). 411. A-AiMMMidtSoiuT. StaNliyArAM-
M (iravdg V. Bamard, 18 Kq. «MMi. (1913) WT.Ti.S. 237. 706.
iii : 43 L. 3. Ch. 659. (0 narriton v. Oardner, 2 ICadd-
( /•) Cridtwrllv. /,.v^l7Ve8.346; 198; 17 E. H. 207.
11 R. E. 98; VVfy/o V. //«.<«, (1896) {m) Milh v. Dunham, (1891)
A. ('. 7 ; (iJ L. J. Ch. 1 ; Curl 1 Ch. 576 ; 60 I.. J. Ch. 362 ;
brotl^i y. Webtttr, (1904) 1 Oh. VatHnnota T. Jarred, (1909) 63
685 ; 73 L. J. Ch.ua S.J. 944.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
ambiguous, a construction which will make it valid ic pra-
fencd to one which will make it void (n). Wh«re the Tondnr
of a public-house business and premises had covonanted not
to exercise, carry on, or be concerned in any " house " for the
sale of ezciseable liqnors within a certain area daring the
purchnser's occupuncy of the promises, the word " house "
was construed as meaning public or licensed house, and not
as any premises upon which the sale of liquors might be
carried on (o).
A man who has covenanted not to carry on business in his
own name, or for his own benefit, or in the name of or for the
benefit of any other person within a certain district, is not
prevented from soliciting orders within the district for a third
person who is carrying on business beyond the district (p),
but he may not solicit orders for his own benefit within the
prescribed limits, though he hius no residence, shop, or place
of business within them (q), or send goods to places within
the prescribed limits from a place beyond them, where he is
carrying on business (r). So also a covenant by the Tender
on the sale of a medical practice not to solicit any patients
within a certain radius, or otherwise directly or indirectly
to enter into competition with the purchaser, is broken by
the vendor coming into the defined area and attending
patients although at their express request (s). So also
a covenant by a solicitor " not to do any work or act
usually done by solicitors " within a certain radius is
broken by writing a solicitor's letter outside the area to
persons residing within (<), or by preparing the will of a
person residing within the area on instructions received with-
(n) Ibid.; see Ma*tm w. Provident see Woodbridye v. Bellrtmy, (1911)
Clothin;/ and Supply Co., (1913) 1 Ch. p. 337 ; 80 h. J. Ch. 265.
A. C. p. 745. (r) Brampton Btddoa, 13 C. 6.
(o) CaUtrmml Jttrr*d, (t9W) N. S. S38 ; 11 W. B. M8.
83 8. J. S44. («) Btym t. Drwrg, S7 L. J. Ch.
{/)) Ctar/e V. WatJcint, 9 Jur. 504.
N. S. 1 J2. (0 K'lmiindami v. Render, (1906)
((/) Turner v. AVain, 2 K. & H. 2 Vh. 320: 74 L. J. Ch. 685; toe
612; 2 De O. M. & O. 740; 22 Il W/fcru/jre v. /ie//amy, (1911) 1 (».
L. J. Q. B. 412 ; 95 K. R. 312 ; p. 341 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 265.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
488
Cfakp. X.
out the radius (u). But a covenant by a solicitor not to carry
on within a certain radios "the profession «rf a solieitor " is
not broken by nieroly writing a solicitor's letter from his office
outside the radius on behalf of a client residing within the
radius to a parson also residing within the pn^ibited
iirca (x) , and an agreement by a solieitiM: not to practise or
act as a solicitor within a certain area was held not to be
broken by a single act of a solicitor within the area and the
writing of a few letters, the Court construing tiie agreement
as meaning " substantially acting as solicitor and not as re*
ferring to isolated acts " (y) .
A covenant not to carry on, or be concerned in carrying on, CsMtroetion
either directly or indirectly, a particular business, or sell any JitriftTTe"'
goods in any way connected with that business, is broken by «>»en»'>«fc
selling goods as a journeyman in the employment of a person
carrying on that business (z). So also an agreement by a
man not to carry on a particular business, directly or in-
directly, either alone or in partnership with or with the assis-
tance of any other peorson, is brokoi by his carrying it on as
manager to another person (a) , and a covenant by a manager
of a business " not to be concerned or interested in " a similar
business is broken by becoming a manager of a rival firm (h),
and a covenant by a buyer in a firm of haberdashers not to
" engage " in a similar business is broken by entering the ser-
vice of a rival firm in a similar capacity at a fixed salary (c),
and a covenant by a servant of a trader not to be engaged,
concerned or interested in or carry on a similar trade or busi-
ness {d) is broken by entering the employment of a rival
(») EdmiindtM V. Jbrnter, (1904)
m L. T. S14.
(r) Woodhriilge v. Bellamg, (1911)
1 Ch. 337 ; HO L. J. Ch. 26S.
(y) Frmman v. Fox, (1913) H
S. J. 6M.
{») .Tmet T. ffeavtni, 4 C. D.
•).'t6; 2jW. R. 460; mo Xeirltn,/
■7. iJohell, 38 L. J. Ch. 1 1 1 ; mil v.
Hill, 35 W. B. 137.
(a) Dtla V. Weabtr, 18 W. B. 993.
(6) Caivnituh v. Ttttrj/, (1908)
62 a. J. 728.
(e) Watt* V. Smith, 62 L. T.
463 : we I>mrk» v. Culkn, (1912)
28 T. L. B. p. 372.
(rf) At to tt« diflaieaoe between
a oovenant not to carry on " a
trndo " and a covenant not to carry
<m a huHinniw nr prnfnseion ; eee
Roherlton v. WillmoU, (1909) U
T. L. n. 681 ; W. N. IM.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BBEACH OF
trader as a servant (e). So also a covenant by u clerk not to
carry on business as a surgeon within certain iimits is broken
by his acting ii.s iiHsis*n.nt to a surgeon (/) . So also a covrnant
by u clerk not to iiractiHe as an architect or surveyor within a
certain radius is broken by acting as manager to another
architect at a flxcnl salary (7). A covenant not to become
interested in a similar business to that of the covenantee is
not broken by the covenantor entering such a business ae »
servant at a fixed salary (h). A covenant hj a traveller
not to intorft're with, prejudice, or affect the business or re-
putation of his master or solicit his customers, is not broken
by setting up a rival business, provided he does not solicit his
late master's customers (i), and an agreement by a man
not to carry on a particular trade either in his own name or in
that of any other person is not broken by his carrying it on as
clerk or assistant to another person at a fixed salary (k).
A covenant not to be engaged in a specified trade or " in
any way, matter, or thing whatsoever, in anywise relating
thereto," within a given district does not prevent the cove-
nantor from lending money to a person engaged in such trade
within the district, upon mortgage of his trade premises,
although he may know that the mortgagor has no means oi
paying the debt except out of the profits of the business, but
he may not retain any direct hold on the profits of the busi-
ness ({)•
A covenant not to carry on or be interested in the business
of a provision merchant is not broken by tiie nmnufaetnre and
sale of margarine (m).
The benefit of a covenant in restraint of trade passes to an
aseign either of the goodwill or of the beneficial interest in
if) Cade V. Ca{fe, (1906) 22 (*) AUm v. T«^, 39 L. J. Ch.
T. L. E. 243. 627 ; 19 W. K. M, 887.
(/) Palmtr v. MatUtt, 36 a D. (/) Bird v. Lakt, 1 H. & M. 338;
411 ; 57 T.. J. Ch. 226. see Smizh v. llancwk. (1894) 2 Ch.
(S) Robertson v. Wi'lmntt, (1909) p. 38.5; (i3 L. J. Ch. 477. and Cory
25 T. L. E. 681 ; W. X. 15.). v. Harnnon, (1906) A. C. 274 ; 73
(/i) Oophir Pinmonil (',:. v. IIW, L. J. Ch. 714.
(19»)2) 1 Ch. 9 jO ; 71 L. J. Ch. 600. (m) Lov^l ami Christmoi v. Wait,
[%) Beeve v. Manh, {\9f») i$ (190S)10tL.T.Sa; 27T. L. B. m
T. L. B. 25.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
m
t'lM|>. X.
1.
the business (n), and the agreement may be enforced by the
assign, although assigns are not expressly mentioned in the
covenant (o). Hut where ii covenant in restraint of trade in
in its nature and in iti true construction u personal one, it
cannot be assigned (p).
A sum of moiipy is Hoinetimes named in an instrument as Cntrnou wUli »
payable upon the breach of a covenant. In such cases the
Court has to determine whether the contract will be satisfied daiuagw.
l)y the payment of the sum named in the instoument, «
whether it will not : whether, in other wonis, the sum named
was inserted by way of penalty to secure the performance of
the agreement, or whether it was the intention of the parties
that the act might be done on the payment of the sum named
as an equivalent. If the covenant is an absolute one, and
the sum named as payable upon breach has been inserted by
way of penalty to secure the performance of the covenant,
the payment of the penalty does not oust the Court of its
jurisdiction to prevent the doing of the act stipulated not to
be done (q). " A penalty," said Lord Loughborough (r), " is ^
never considered in this Court as the price of doing a thing
which a man has expressly agreed not to do." But if the real
intent and meaning of the contract is that a man should have
the power, if he chooses, to do a particular act upon the pay-
ment of a certain specified sum, the power to do the act ujMJn
the payment of the sum agreed on is part of the express con-
(w) Jaroby T. Whit more, 49 L. T.
atS; 32 W. E. 18; TuwHteud v.
•larma,., (1900) 2 Oh. 69N ; 69
Ii. J. I'h. 823 ; IIW»<«a(/ v. HaiUry,
(1904) 21 T. L. R. 165 ; Lettham
V. ./oh ustune- White, (1907) 1 Ch.
p. ;t2" ; 76 L. J. Ch. p. 307 ; AuUh
moliUe Carriayt Huildert y. Sojftr*,
(1909) 101 L. T. 419; cf. SfWttc
Ht hxi of Languagtt T. Dmheae,
(1904) S. C. 181.
(o) Jatahy T. Whitmort, tuj ra ;
see WhiU v. Southend Hotel Co.,
fl8!l7} 1 Ch. 767 ; 66 L. J. CL. d-il.
{l>) Oaviet V. Daviet, 36 C. D.
359; 56 L. J. Ch. 962 ; see (I k-
K.I.
itead V. Hadlri/, (1904) 21 T. L. K.
166 ; and JMytr Y. HtrberttoH,
(1909) S. C. 2j6.
('/) Frehih v. Marale, 2 Dr. &
Wo:-. 269 ; 59 R. R. 675 ; CtJes v.
Simt, 6 De O. M. & O. 1 ; 23 L. J.
Ch. 258; Fox t. fkard, 33 Bear.
337; JmMY. Arav««, 4 C. D. 636 ;
SS W. B. 460 ; Lottdon and York-
tAir* Bankinii Co. v. Pritt, 56 L. J.
Ch. 0S7 , luid see f'urrett v. Merry
* Cunninyhame, (1909) A. C. 417 ;
101 L. T. 138; Mason v. Provulcnt
Ciothiag a;..i .Huppiy Co., (19i3)
A. C. p. 730.
(r) Hardy r. Martin, 1 Cox, 26.
80
166
Cb*|>. X.
H«c». 1.
I
S
INJUNCTIONS AGAINBT BREACH OF
tract between the parties; and the Court will neither compel
him to ttbisUiin from doing it nor relieve him, if he does do it,
from the pujinent of the sum agreed on as an equivalent (•).
The mere use of the terms " penalty," " forfeit " or " liqui
dated damages " in a covenant ia not conclusive as to the
meaning of the instrument, and docs not determine the uitan-
tion of the parties. Like any other question of constructiwi,
the intention is to be gatliered from the nature of the agree-
ment, and the language of the wlwle instrument taken to-
gether, regard being liad to i^l the eircumstancea of Uie oaae
at the time when the bargain was made (t). 1 f it appear from
the agreement, t«ken as a whole, that the sum specified was
not intended by the parties to be liquidated damages, it will
be treated as a penalty, although the words "liquidated
damages" may have been used (it). On the other hand, if
the sum is not a penal sum, it will not be treated as a penalty
merely because it is called so in the agreement (*). But
(«) Freiirh v. Mumk. 2 Dr. &
War. 269 ; 59 K. B. 676 ; Sainter
T. Ftrguim, 7 C. U. p. 728 ; 18
L. J. C. P. 217 ; 84 B. B. 67 ;
1 Mm. ft O. p. 289 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 170;
OtrrarH v. 3 Dr. ft Ww.
414 ; 61 B. B. 97 ; Ranger v. Ortat
M'fterii Railway Co., i H. L. C.
94 ; 1(11 R. K. 46 ; Yvuiiy v. Chulkhy,
16 L. T. 2H6.
it) litmech V. '<«■!<■'(, 12 Moo. P.
C. p. 229 ; 124 K. K. 26 ; Mercer v.
Jrviny, Ei. Bl. & El. 663 ; 27 L. J.
a B. 291 ; 113 B. B. 7M ; W allU
V. Smith, 21 C. D. 249 j 62 L. J. Ch.
148 ; WaUon t. Love, (1896) 1 d. B.
626 ; 64 L. J. as. 434; Clydebank
HhiphiMini/ f'o. v. Don Joii fa^a-
ne<la. (1905) A. C. 9 ; 74 L. J. P. f.
1; /•;/(> V. Uritish Aiittmohile Com-
mercial S;/„<ticate, (19(Hi) 1 K. II.
pp. 425, 4.U; 76 L. J. K. U. 270;
Dieital V. Sleventon, (1906) 2 K. H.
pp. 349. :m ; 76 li. J. K. U. 797 :
J>iiU*e Work* Va m m iM ioneri v. >/•/',
(1906) A. C. 374, 376 ; 74 L. J.
P. C. 0; 11 (Mer V. /loMmfMt, (1912)
A. C. 394 ; H\ L. J. P. ('. 205.
(h) llomiTit V. Womlwarii, 34
li. J. ( 'h. 47 ; Maiitt v. /.ore//, li. K.
9 CP. 114; 43 L. J. C. P. 131;
Ctydtbitnk HhiphuiUlinij < 'u. v. M"'
Jolt Ca$Um«da ; Pye v. BrUith A >do-
mobUe C o $ m mere ia l SgndkaU, luyra.
(r) Kemhk v. Farrtn, « Bing.
141; 7 L. J. C. P. 248; 31 B. B,
366; ./onfs v. '/rem, 3 Y. ft X
p. ;<04 ; (lerrar'l v. O'Reilly, 3 Dr. 4
■\Var. 430 ; 61 R. R. 97 ; Sainter v
Feriiumn, 7 C. U. p. 728; 18 L. i
V. V. 21 ; 78 R. R. 804 ; Rawjtr t
Qrtat Weitem Railwai/ Co.,o H. L
119; 101 It- R- •Ki; Cnrnei v
NitbM. 7 IL ft N. 778; Lea \
maaker, L. B. 8 0. P. 73; 2
I,. T. 676; Kli>huuton»y.MonMa*
Iron Co., 11 A. C. 345; i« I
While .fc .lr</.«r, 84 L. T. 894 ; 8
W. R. 81 ; Clydebank ShiiihuHdh
Cu. V. Don Jotf Cattaneila, (190;
A. C. p. 9 ; 74 L. J. P. C. 1 ; Die^
V. Steventon, (1906) 2 K. B. «(
360; 75 L. J. K. B. 797
• 1
I
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
487
1.
whatever the expression lued in the contract in deseribing ihe
payment, the quration must always bo whether the construe-
tion cwitended for renders the agreement unconscionable and
extravagant and ona which the Court ought not to enforce (y).
VVlie/e the payment of a smaller sum is secured by a \vi„ro .on.t.. a
larger (s), or where the damages to arise from tlie breach are " '
not uncertain, but are capable of being ascertained, as where
there is a particular sum to be paid which is less than the sum
named as payable upon breach, the prosiiraption is that the
last-named sum is a penalty (a). 80, also, wliere an agree-
ment contains several stipulations of various degrees of im-
portance, tlie brwich of all or any of which gives rise to an
amount of damage which may be accurately measured, and a
disproportionate sum is annexed as payable generally upon
breach of all or any of the stipulations, the presumption
is that the latter sum is a penalty and not liquidated
damages (6), and the fact that the sura payable upon breach
was deposited at the making of the contract does not compel
the Court to treat it as liquidated damages, although it is a
circumstance which must be taken into account in ascertain-
ing the intention of the pwrties (<?) . 80 also where me lump
sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occur-
(y) (lydtbatik EnginttHng Co. v.
l)<m Jttf OuUmtdti. (1906) A. C.
at p. 10 ; 74 L. J. P. C. p. 3 ; IWk
fVarki I'ammiMionen v. ffill, (l!t06)
AC. pp. 375, 370; 75 L. J. P. C.
pp. n, 72; ]rebtter v. Botamjutt,
(1912) A. C. p. 398 ; 81 L. J. P. C.
J05.
(;) .Utlei/ V. HW./on, 2 Bog. & V.
■iid ; 5 R. R. 618 ; Elphiiutone y.
Mmikland Iron 11 A. C. p. 347.
(a) ReynoUU y. Bridge, 6 £. & B.
Ml ; Elflmutcm* MoMand Inm
(-0., 11 A. C. p. 332 ; riy,hbank Kn-
Uinetring Co. y. Don Jate CatUmeda,
(1!«>5) A. C. p. 16; 75 L. J. 1'. C
1; I'ue y. Uritith Auinmoliile r,,i,.
iitmial Symiicate, (liKXi) 1 K. I!
425; 78 L. J. K. B. 270; D^'tUtl
y. atmmiM, (1906) 3 K. & p. 3S0;
7a L. J. K. B, 797.
(ft) KenMt y. Farrtn, 6 Biiig.
HI; 7 L. J. V. P. 258; 31 R. R.
366; Ilorntr v. Flintoff, 9 M. & W.
p. OHO; 11 L. J. Ex. 276; GO R. R.
866 ; Htynoldt v. Bridgr, 6 B. & R.
541 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 10« it. V„
"02; IHmech y. Curktt, 12 Moo.
P. C. 220 ; 124 B. B. 26; Magm y.
LmtU, L. B. 9 C. P. Ill ; 43 L. J.
C. p. 131 ; ^kintlone y. Mnnkland
' -> ' )., 11 A. C. 342, 345 ; Willmn
y. Loct. (1896) 1 Q. B. p. 631 ; iSr,
L. T. Q. B. 434 ; Clydebank Knyiwtr-
.' .</ Co. V. Don Jute Castaneda, [IW>5)
A. C. p. 15 ; 74 L. J. P. t". 1 ; Pye
V. UritUli AiitomobiU Cmamereial
'■o..(1906) 1 K. B. 424, 429 ; 75
L. J. K. B. 270.
80—3
468
fNTt NCnONR AGAINST BBRACH OP
cb»p. X. lenceof oiu -f sevoral eviintii »oin«' of which inuy oci-iuiion
MrioiM and otht trffling dsnmft, prmaiii|)tkm » that
the |i I lies iiitciidvd tilt' sum to bp pfiwl dl).
Wbmroiuirw.1 Where, howevwr, the payinenta stipulated are miidfi pro-
M»q»kliiw.i portionafe to the pxten* to which th« eontraetora may MI to
fulfil their oblij; ms, and they i f to 'icitr interest fromtte
dat* of t'lKi failiiv. jji ..ii'nts idju- .'d with referunco to
the actual dainagi ire / imd Jane liquidated damt^en (e).
So also if a euiitrH> t eon-tistinK of om or nore stipulati<vns
jirovidi's for ti. |m f nl a Hfiocified sum by way of ■ m-
pensation in cas( of v.-<- fion-peif 'rmaZH'e of all or of i . of
the things stipuiated tu be tknw, and the daawfe* 'n
of non-i»erfoiiii.ince are in flmir ruiturp altogethci ind. iiite
and uncertiiin, the sun, name if i . unable, will be regrtrded
as liquidated damageti, and not hh a punalty (/).
hpriMil nr- The faet that a awn naated ii a leans u payiMe a^n
breach of the coveiiunls therei iitaimHi, may greatly exceed
the actual damage, dotu not i . iider the »vm so reaerred a
penalty. It may be an iaeraasad niA apraed apea tetimn
the parties to In- paid durintJ the ' • >t of the terni. I'luisi wh» re
the agreement was that tlie defendant should l oi ploogb up
any part of the luid, and that if d'u i4eagh up any part oi
it ho should ptiy at t! >> rut« of 30.'.. fwr acre p«r annum, the
Court hold that the parties had fixed a price fot i^ie ploughing,
and refused an injunction (g).
So also where a certain sum was reserved, and tlie les-iop
covenanted that, in case any pt. of tlie land which had b.
in tillage for the last twenty yeur^^ iuntul be broken up, .
would pay thf further stao of 62. per annum for every aera so
broken up over the rent reserved and upo- the same d; of
payment, the Court held this a cose oI li |uidated damages
(c) pye T. BrUM Aa lomutO i MS; ft2 T J. Cb. 14»; Lan, v
Commercial Co.. ntfim. M m Uikk I. ,t l Board, (tmOi IQ.B
(d) KlphiiuloM r. Mrmihmd Itm 127 ; M L. J. Q. B- I"2 ; ClyOthmk
Co. : WiUton v. /.<» ' Difttal v. Kuqineerihii <'•>. v. /<< Joit < ■ 40-
Stetento,^ : ClyiUbaiii. KmiturrrUij iifii, (l»e A. 0. ji 11; 74 L. J.
Co. Jktn Jo»f ('(ulaiiKlu, tiiTin P C. i !1 eltster v. Hotanquet,
(e) Etpbinttmif v. MonUand Iron (1912) A p. 3»T 81 L, J . P. <
tV„ 11 A. C. p. y.Vl. ML.
(/) See Woitt* V. SmOh. 31 U. i>. (s) H -- 'fjrfM, % V«ffc
(dVhNANT OK XGIIh KMl T.
iixwl and ng! . ' upon l^-twepn the p«rtiiw ^«;. ho alw the
r«tt«4^ti(Mi of -1 additioRal Htm of BUi. for pvery acre of
iiiend .w land «rhjeh shoiili «• pk>u»?!»ed up or ( onvt-rted ioto
tillage wu lu ld to be h jiudaUV i. -). So aI^o in ti
pftup where th»»r« wsa ii cnai ii. -i ereciitig a weir under
'iouble the yearly rent fhereiaaft«>r re^rt^ed. to b« rMom«d
l y (li.M*r..sh. the sum -< ros. t' ■ ) i to he I lidutcd
liimugi ' •witdBJuiuuii^f t Was illt'ii peniilty n the in-
struaieni Thf p«i ww of d - oss rf <-"i hi
»tri»ng ev>d«'»icp mt th- im w
ik m n f OB (A).
'''' ^ AipricuJturul - folding-
nKtwirhstandi L'uny nvision .
ili(> teiMint of a hoi • i»)
other lit|uidat'<h imu^ .in
ck«^ Z.
I.
..J ■
a <• >nt
=n at
if
fuilUmeR! of n t«>>Hi & coadn
shall not nti ,.-fi ' ft-ovei
Slim in t quel uj
exemn of tti« daait. at i«|i
of I breach ■ non-f iffii i
applj to any f-fn >r eonditu i
iag U(- of |>. mi ni jiasi
or thi- f. Hiag itiim, l -t'-
latif E gi >e«tht'i .
Wijere a eovenani
^PTVM «8 pKJRhle BI
.Usd nc
n>- nt f
WHS iir
loient is
li<|UMkit0d
fvidea that A<ricuit<inti
• re' IT
c'h or .
• th*" contract, n landh 4
i or otlh i wise, any
:<reach ^ non-fulfllraent in
T<»red by him in consequence
111 but this section does rot
n a contract against the brnik-
tlie grubbing of underwoods,
or injarn^ ot trees, or regu-
na;
bu
«kiw
I'll
' /W. . 0.
,nd h'mifli ,/e, 2
* Wur. 11-,; W it. ii. 676;
'tiaatone v. Sfonklwtd Iren
1 ! V. C. p. 347.
fwTwa V. OimkM, 3 B. *
A WS.
continuing, a sum re- coT.i»nt of
will be regarded as a penalty ;.\™^'"""«
..i^ Thus where a lessee had
le demised premises, part of which
ider the penalty of 10/. per acre to
he reserved rent for erery acre so burned,
I. ^ fjorti St. Leonards from bu :n.j part
& (*) 'lerr :'./ v. d' Ihilhj, 3 Dr. 4
War. iU, 4.(0; 61 Ii. fi. 97.
[1) 8 Edw. 7. c. 28, s. 26.
(m) /.f., a tenancy Mtiwr wlMtily
agricultuiml or whtrfly paataxal, or
fe pait a^rieulturn} and in part
paitand, or in whole or in part
oattmM aa a aaiket garden, and
wIbA u not bt to Uw tammtdDriiig
470
INJUNCTIONS AGAIHST BREACH OP
Chap. X. of the premises (n). So also whert the covenant is an abeo-
^ ^- lute one and cannot be construed as meaning that a leasee
shall have jwwcr to do a certain act on payment of an addi-
tional rent, the lessee will be restrained from doing the parti-
cular act complained of (o).
Injunction, not Aftor a Court of law has determined that the word
H^iSlkU'"" " penalty " i'^ "in agreement not to do a certain act under a
daoufokre certain penalty means liquidated damages, a man cannot come
to the Court for an injunction to restrarm the further breach
of the agreement after obtaining damages at law: the fact
that owing to the bankruptcy of the defendant after judgment
in the action the plaintiff has not recorered the sum stipulated
by way of damages does not give him any equity to an injunc-
tion (p). So also where a man had commenced an action
to recover a penalty as and for liquidated damages for the
breach of an agreement on tiia part of the defendant not to
practise as a surgeon within a certain district, it was held
that he was not entitled to an injunction also to restrain him
from so practising (g). The plaintiff is bound in such a case
to elect between the two remedies (r). Rut where a defen-
dant covenantwl with the plaintiff not to come within a certain
radius of the plaintiff's house, and paid to trustees a sam of
money to be held upon trust for the plaintiff absolutely in
the event of a breach of the covenant, the plaintiff was held
entitled on the defendant's breach to receive the money and
to have an injunction restraining futare breaehee (•). If »
his continuance in any office, np- K. H. 377; 71 L. J. K. H. 236:
pointment. or employment held see .S<i7m v. KcdaUmf, (1903) 1
under the landlord, Ih. h. 48 (1). K. B. p. 54H ; 72 L. J. K. U. p. 257 ;
(n) Frtuch v. MacaU, i Dr. & cf. v. Ilrmlerton, (1912) lOti
War. 274 ; W K. B. 674 ; Wilimm v. L. T. 843.
Lwt, (1896) 1 a B. 626 ; 66 1* J. (v) Carntt v. NuhM, 7 H. ft N.
Q. B. 474. 778 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 373 ; 126 B. B^OS*.
(o) \\'e.itti II V. Mttrofxiitnu Atylam (r) OiMTal Artidtnt Aummm*
liidrirt, '.) Q. B. D. 4(H ; 31 L. J. Corporation v. Notl, (1902) 1 K. B.
(.1. H. liOit; HMlmry v. Cimrfy, 58 377 ; 71 I,. J. K. H. 2.16: Stile* y.
I,. T. l.Vi. KirMnue, (1<K)3) 1 K. B. p. 446;
{ji) Siniiter v. FenjiiMu, 1 Miio. 72 L. J. K. B. p. 257.
4 O. 286; 19 L. J. Ch. 170; 84 (») T^rfon v. Ilenilartou, (1912)
B. B. 57 ; atntnU AttnUid Ai»,i, - 106 L. T. S3».
tm* CorfonAiom r. Notl, (1902) 1
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
471
1.
man after obtaining an injanetimt lH*tngs an action for
damages, the defendant may c<mie to the Court and hare the
injunction dissolved (0-
The Court has jurisdiction on a proper case being made out AgreoMnt m
to restrain parties from violating an agreement not to apply imS^^
to Parliament. In exercising the jurisdiction, the Court, as
in other cases when it interposes by way of injunction, acts
merely upon the permn and does not in any way iAterfere
with the privileges of Parliament (w), it simply says that it is
not competent for a given party to apply to Parliament (x).
What is B proper case for the interference of the Court is a
question of much difficulty. The fact that the intended
application to Parliament will abrogate existing rights and
create new ones can give no right to an injunction, for every
man has a right to apply to Parliament for a special law to
supersede the rules of property by which he is bound (y).
Nor will the Court interfere, even when an agreement not to
apply to Parliament has b« »n entered into for the purpose of
protecting private interests, if the party who makes the
application to the legislature can urge it upon grounds of
public policy, for such questions are subjects for the discus-
sion of the legislature and are beyond the province of a Court
of equity (z). The only case in which the Court will interfere
is where the matter complained of is connected solely with
private property (a). But though the Court has, by rirtue of
its jurisdiction in personam, the power to restain an improper
application to Parliament for a private Act, it is difficult to
conceive a caae in which it would be right tm the Court to
(«) Fox v. Beard, 33 Beov. 32!t.
(«] Htatha^ T. Ni rth Stagord-
ihirt Rattway Oa,, 9 Mm. * O.
p. lOB; MB.B.3».
"•o.y Co. r. Xorfh IlVtimt RuHuny
' a. 2 K. & J. p. a04 ; 25 L. J. Ch.
223; llOR. B. 2:H.
(V) Ware v. ilratid Jiiiirtiim
I 'I mil <■„., 2 R. & M. JTO, J83;
IfrathcoaU v. AortA StafonUhire
n.,ilw3g Co., 2 Mut. * O. p. tag;
86 n. R. 25 ; StetU v. MttropetOmt
BaUway Co., 2 Ch. 237.
(z) Lamadrr ami (Mwfc /lati-
fevf Oa. T. yorth Wttkrm Bmtwag
Cj., 2 K. * J. p. 304 ; 25 L. J. Ch.
223; nOR. R. 2.34.
(«) Lnnm»((rr and Carlisle Rail-
way Co. T. Nr-th Wetttrn Railimij
Co., »w;.r(i ,• Tfl/iirJ v. JUelrvjiolUan
Itmnl f. H>/.», 13 Eq. SM ; 41
L. i. Ch. m.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
exercise its power (6). Accordingly Lord Cottenham refused
to restrain a railway company from appl>ing to Parliament
for leave to abandon a part of their railway in contravention
of an agreement entered info with the plaintiff, who had with-
drawn his opposition to a bill in a {Hrevious session of Pariia-
nionl in consideration of the company agreeing to carry the
railway in the direction which they proposed by their bill to
abandon (c). So also Lord Hatherley refused to restrain a
lailway company from applying to Parliament for powers to
make a new line in contravention of an agreement entered
into with the plaintiff company, on ihe faith of which the
plaintiff company had withdrawn all opposition to the bill
presented by the defendant compa ly in a previous session of
Parliament (</). So also where o.i a motion with reference
to a particular bridge, which was to be made over a road in a
way which was supposed to be injurious to the public, the
conijwny had undertaken that nothing should be done until
the hearing of the cause to interfere with the existing state <rf
things, and notwithstanding (ho undertaking the company had
taken the opportunity of inserting in a bill before Parliament
a clause to liberate them from that undertaking entirely, and
to enable them to do that which they had undertaken not to
do, Lord rott<>nhani, though he expressed liini-ii'lf in the
strongf st terms an to the conduct of the railway company, said
he saw very gr<»t difficulty in preventing an applioition to
Parliament, and that unless a strong authority were adduced
he should not assume that particular jurisdiction (e).
An injunction may be granted to prevent an impropw
application of funds, subject to any public or private trust, in
{h) sinlf w Scrih MetmimlHan 223 ; 110 B. R. 234 ; /n re tendon,
/litiliinii <•(,,, 'i ("h. 2;i7 ; 'M L. J. Chatham and Dootr Mailway
Ch. 540; /" rr /.-■nihrn, ('liathnm Arrnngeinmt Art, L. B. 4 Ch.
mill Dm IT /liiilii ni/ Arrnni/rmeiit p. 67S; 17 W. K. 946.
Art, S Ch. (171 ; 17 W. R. If) Att. 'Irn. v. Manrhatir and
(r) lleathci-ate v. Xcrth Slafforil- I.eriU nnihtay To., 1 Ra. Ta.
(Aire Aai{imyrU,SMsc.*0. 100; 53 R. R. 820; see Lancatttr and
8d R. B. 3S. CarlWt Aii7iray Co. v. Narfk
{d) Imradtr and CarliUe Kml- Weikfm Baihmf/ Co., » JL It J.
Trtiy t'n. V. Xofth W»tfm Betlt^if p. 304; SSTi. J. Cb. 839 ; t}OB.B.
Co., 2 K. ft J. 2»:i: a L. J. Ch. 234; and /a rt limAm, Chafhm
(X)VENANT OR AGREEMENT.
promoting or opposing a bill in Parliament (/) . A munteipal cUf. X.
corporation, however, will not be restrained from defraying
out of its funds the expense of resisting an attack made by a
bill in Parliament against its property, rights, or privi-
leges (g).
Whether a Court of equity will interfere to restrain parties) CorMMt not to
from violating a covenant not to oppose a Bill in Parliament is JKSSiiili!"
doubtful (h). But in a case where the Bill would, if passed
into an Act, have had the effect of depriving a minority of the
shareholders of a railway company of the protection of the
Wharncliffe order, the Court would not enforce a covenant not
to oppose it («').
The mode in whieh contracts or covenants, when affirmative
in form, are, as a geneml rule, enforced by Courts of equity
is by decree fw specific performance. But contracts and Importation at
covenants, though affirmative in form, may often involve a "^'^ffy '"t„ „
negative in substance. When the importation of a negative * ?™*""
quality mto an affirmative agreement is not against the
meaning of the agreement, the Court will import the negative
quality and restrain the doing of acts which are inconsistent
with the agreement (k). Thus where A. agrees to give B. a
first refusal of pn^rty, this involves a negative contract, and
A. will be restrained from parting with the property to any
iiiiil Ihver Raitaai/ ArramjementArt, s. 4, and 3 Edw. 7, c. 14, w. 1
'"lira. 7 (i.), aa to expenaM of pwoting
(/) Att.-<lrn. y. Norwich Cor- Kad oj^omag BWm.
(g) AU.-Otn. r, Brftm Corpora-
ttoH, 10 C. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
133 ; Alt.-Orn. v. Swarura Vorfnrm-
tion, (1898) 1 Ch. 606 ; 67 L.J. Ch.
356; we Att.-den. v. Thmuon,
(1913) A K. IJ. p.
(A) Parker v. Dunn Xafu/ation
Co., 1 De O. & Sm. 192.
(>') Maumelt t. Midkmd, Onat
Wttlem ifaOwoy Cb., 1 H. * M.
p. IK ; 32 L. J. Ch. 513.
(ft) Lumlrif y. W<igtur, 1 DeO. M.
fta.604 ; 21 L.J.Ch.8D8; 91 B. B.
193; DeMtMo»y.Gibioit,4l)eQ.&
J.m; a8L.jf. 0^408; I84B.B.
290.
pomtion, 16 Sim. 22A ; 21 L. J. Ch.
I3B ; 80 £. B. M ; Mt.-Oen, v.
Magor ^ Wifan, « De O. M. ft O.
«2; 23 L. J. Ch. 428; 104 R. B.
22 ; Leith Council y. Leith Harbour
nnrf Itoiht Commistioners, (1899)
A. C. 508, 516; h. J. V. C. 109;
Itri of.s, Jeiikitit v. Ton/iia;/ ('or/iom-
t«m, (1902) 1 K. B. p. 609; 71
L.J. K. B. 109; 866 Alt.-den. v.
JUkmaiumtrth C C, (1S02) 86
L.T. 021; IS r i :. 483; Ait.-
(im. y. i'ark '.R.) iNvcr*
linnril, ri90ft)6. .177; and the
MuiiM ipui Cui )n>ittIioim (Buruugh
t\miU} Acts, 3j & 36 Vict. c. 01,
474
Okkpi X.
8Mt 1.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
one else without giving to B. the " first refusal " at a reason-
able |jrice (I). So also where a person agreed to take the
whole of the electric energy required for his premises from »
company, it was held that there was an implied contract not
to take electric energy for his premiseH from any one else (m).
So also a covenant by a purchaser that he would, before com-
mencing to cr ct any building, submit plans thereof for the
approval of the vendor was held to involve a negative cove-
nant that no building should be commenced until plans had
been submitted to and approved by the vendor (n). In like
manner a man, who, in a demise of land, has entered into a
covenant for quiet enjoyment will be restrained from doing
acts in violation of his covenant (o). So also a man who has
covenanted to carry on a certain business will be restrained
from doing or co' s'ng anything to be done which would put
it out of his power to carry on the business (p). So also a
lessor who has entered into a direct, specific and express
covenant with a lessee to perform all the covenants in the
superior lease under which he holds, may not by any sur-
render of such lease derogate from the rights which his lessee
has acquired from him under the lease, and he will be re-
strained by injunction from acting in violation of the cove-
nants under which he became bound to such leasee (q). So
also where a vendor makes a representation that property is
subject to certain covenants affecting it permanently, and he
does so in order to induce a person to buy part of such pro-
(/) Manch'slir Slii/i Canal Co. v.
Manrhrt'er Rarfmiirsf Co., (1901)2
eh. aV; 70 L. J. Ch. 468. Cf.
Ryan v. Tlfma; (1911) 65 S. J.
364, where an agreement to give the
"fint option" of purchasing pro-
pwty WM held void for unoeitainty.
(m) Metrtypniitan Eltrlrit Hupply
Co.r. Wndrr, (19«I) t Clt. 799;
TO T,. J. Ch. 862.
(») I'onrll V. llniiley. (l!K)!t) 1
( h. (iWt ; 7H li. J. Ch. :W7 ; atBrmed
rm othnr pointH, (ISOB) 2 Ch.
78 L. J. Ch. 741.
(«) Tifiiing v. Kditntty, 2 K. Jfc
J. p. 270. A Biihstantiiil physical
interference with the employment
of the demised pvemiws is a breach
of the covenant. 7V'/6 v. Cart,
(19(H)) 1 Ch. M l ; 69 L. J. Ch. 282;
Brotrnt V. Fhrn tr, (1911) I Ch.219,
228 ; 80 L. J. Cli. 181. Ci Daim
V. Tnwn Proptrtiei Corpuraiitm,
(1903)1 Cb.p.80t; 73L.J.Cii.3W.
(;>) //o<7<rr v. Brodridi, 11 Sim.
47 ; 9 I,. J. Ch. .121 ; S4 R. R. 326.
See l.azarii» v. Cnimt Sitnmskip
fV... (1912) 1(W L. T. 278.
(f ) Piggott v. Stratum, 1 De O. F. &
J. a3;»ii.J.cii.i; mB.B.9as.
COVENANT OB AGREEMENT.
475
perty, and the person buys part of the property on the faith ch»p. x.
of such representation, the vendor will be restrained by in-
junction from doing anything to prevent the property front
continuing to be what he has represented it to be (r).
So also railway companies have been restrained from enter- TmpUeitiiw
ing into agreements which are in violation of or are inconsis-
tent with a Bubsistiug agreement (•). So ako a railway com-
pany which had gi nted to two persons the sole and exclusive
privilege of selling books at their stations was restrained by
injnnction from evicting them from the bookstalls at the
station-s (<). So also where the owners f a public building
had contracted with a man that he, renting a stall from them,
should have the exclusive right to exhibit and sell certain
specified olasses of goods, they wer« restrained by injonetkm
from permitting the exhibition and sale by other renters of
stalls within the building of goods so specified (u). So also a
railway company which had agreed to work the line of the
plaintiff railway company, and during the continuance of the
agreement to develop and accommodate the local and through
traffic thereon, and to carry over it certain traffic partieolariy
specified, was restrained by injunction from carrying over
other lines belonging to them traffic which ought to have
passed over the plbinti&s' line (x). So also where a sewage
company had entered into an agreemrat with a Local Board of
Health, and had covenanted to keep the outfall of the works
with the engines. Ice, in proper working order, so as to admit
of the free flow of the sewage through the sewsrs, they were
restrained trmn permitting the sewage to remain in the
sewers, so as to be a nuisance to the plaintiffs, and from
(r) Spicer T. Matiitf, 14 A. C. 12 ;
S8 li. J. Ch. 300. Cf. WkitelUmm
V. Hmgk, (1006) 1 Ch. 203 ; 7A
L. J. Oh. 156; affirmed, (1906) 2
C^. 283, 286 ; 7.^ L. ,1. Ch. 677.
[a] Shreiril.nri/ nnd ('/ie$ler Hall-
"■'11/ Co. V. SlireivsbitTy and Itirmiiig-
Imm Unilirai/ Cii., 1 Sim. N. S.
110; >n T., .1, Ph. .'174 : k<i r. k, H3 :
<ireat Weittrn Bailwag Co. v.
Birmingktm pmd Ot/M JmntUm
itailway Co., 2 697; 17 L. J.
Ch. 243; 78B B.9M.
(0 JMmm v. JMtm CkMntte
KaUtray Cb., 3 K. ft J. «7ft.
(ii) AHmnn v. ffoyol Afmmimm
Sc^irty, 3 V. I). 228.
(/•) Woli-trliampion and WaUall
Ua.tii'ay Vo. v. Ltmdtm and North
Wfstem IMlti'ati 0»., M B|.48a;
43 L. 3. Ch. 131.
lit
f !
'1
476
.1.
KegAtive i|iuUty
not iiiiporie<l
into an agree-
nMnt whieb
eannot from its
nature be
ftjMTifieally
eiifon^etl.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OP
damming up and heading back the uewage in the Hewers {y).
So also the Metropolitan Board of W<M*ks were rettrained from
promoting a schemo which wsia inconsistent with a stipula-
tion which they had entered into with the plaintiff. It was
1»M also that the phuntilTB right an4mr the stifmUttioa to
Boe in equity wuh not affected by the circumstance that the
seheme m order to become operative raast be sahmitted to
Psriiament (z). So also niierfl a plan 1Mb hMn approved
between partipH for the erection of a building, oae of them will
be restrained from afterwards intorfcring with t.jc mode of
building approved (a). So ako u Lotral Hoard was n strained
from •Bforctog a rate in viotatian of an agreement which they
had entered into with the plaintiff (/*). So also whore a
husband has stipulated by deed that u child shall be under
the sole care and protection of his wife, the Court will, if it
can be shown that the control of the father would be injurioos
to the child, restrain him from removing or prosecuting any
proceedings to obtain the child from the custody of his wife
or from interfering with her in the management, care and
protection of the child (c).
But if an agreement affirmative in form is of such a nature
that it cannot be specifically enforced, and the application for
an injunction is in effect and spirit an application for a decree
for specific performance, the Court will not import a negative
quality into the agreement, but will leave tiie plaintiff to his
remedy by damages (d). The Court will not enforce a cove-
(i/) Siniedtiiii /.mill lliHinl V.
(Inirrnl Seirai/e Co., 20 Kii. I'JT ; 14
L. J. Ch. 661.
(i) Telford V. MetroyolitfiH limrd
of Woriu, 13 Bq. 674 ; 41 L. J. Ch.
080.
(a) 8let T. Corporatiom of Brad-
ford, 4 Oi«. 282.
(A) Aihivnrth y. ffeMe», ■fr.,
Lomt lhar<l, 47 L. J. Ch. 195.
(r) Swift V. Sirift, .H Beav. 266 ;
4 I)c O. J. & 7KI ; ;14 L. J.
Ch. li'.ii ; HamilU.ii v. //rrf,,T. l.i
E.1. .511 ; fi Ch. 71)1 ; 40 L. J. ch.
61)2 ; cf. VaiiaUtart v. \'an»iHart,
2 Di 0. * J. 27 L. J. Ch.
2S!I; and Kee the Custcxly of In-
funtH Act, 187;{, M\ Vict. t-. 12, s. 2.
('/) Lmnleii v. Il'of/ner, 1 lie O. M.
& ( i. 622 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 808 ; v.
Hri;i/itoii, L'rkjielil, and Tunbridgt
Well) liaitn-ay Co., 1 II. & M. 468;
32 L. J. Ch. 6*7 ; MerehoHtt' Trad-
imj Co. V. BanHtT, 12 Gq. p. 23 ; 40
L. J. Ch. ftlfi; Warmr. SoatleJgt, 18
K<i. 497 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 004 ; Tf'Ail.
iriKHl Cliemiral Co. \. llanttmn,
(i»i9!)2<'h. 4!(;; J. CSi. 128;
Hiiaii V. Miilital Tontine W'ettiniiiittr
Chamlieri Auoriatioit, (1893) 1 Ch.
Ill
COVENANT OB A6BEEUENT.
477
nant where to do bo would require supervision which the Court
could not undertake. Thus the Court refused to enfmrce a
covenant by a landlord to appoint a resident porter to a build-
ing let in flats (e). 80 also where the defendant had agreed
to take notes of cases in Court, and compose reports for the
pluintiff, and had failed to do so, Lord Eldon refused to re-
strain him from making reports for other persons (/). So
also where a grant had been made to the plaintiff of an office
involving duties of a personal and confidential character, the
Court refused to restrain the defendant from emplojing any
other person than the plaintiff in the office, as the case was
one where, from its very nature, speeifle performance could
.lot he decreed (9). So also where the defendant had agreed
to devote all his activity to the sale of the plainti&'s goods for
a period of five years, the Court refused to restrain him from
entering into another firm's employment before the expira-
tion of the five years (A). So also where the plaintiff had
contracted with a railway company for a stipulated sum to
work ib» line of tiie railway, and to keep the engines and
rolling stock in repair, the Court, upon the ground that the
agreement was one which from its very nature could not be
specifleally enforced, reused to restrain the company from
employing any other person than the plaintiff in the duties
for which he had been engaged (1) . So also where a company
had engaged to employ the plaintiff as a broker for engaging
freighto, effecting charter-parties. Ice., and it was sttpolated
.1.
116; 62 li. J. Ch. 252; /Mt is v.
n>rfman, (1894) 3 Ch. 654 ; 64
F'. J. Ch. 18" ; Kirchnrr v, t/rubiin.
1 1 !«»9) 1 Ch. 4ia ; 7S L. J. Ch. 1 17 ;
( f. rriap v. Holden, (1910) 54 8. J.
784, where an intMiocatwy injnne-
tioB WM gtaat et nii>nii>lng tike
nuuitgm <rf a non- pro rided piditio
•iM&eotMy etAool from dtmiwing
their keedmuter.
(e) Ryan r. MtitatU Tontine Wett-
mintter Chambert Auoeialion, (1893)
t Ch. 116 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 252.
(/) C/arfe V. Price. 2 Wile.
C. 0. 167 ; 18 R. B. 16».
((/) Pickering v. Hithop of Ely, 2
Y. & C. C. C. 249 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 271 ;
CO R. R. 132 ; MiViran v. Sulliinn,
4 T. L. R. 204 ; Firth v. Jiiiilei/, 33
Beav. 516; Ogden v. Foieirk, 4 l)e
G. F. & J. 426 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 73 ;
Frith T. FritA, (IMM) A. 0. U4 ; 7«
L. J. P. C. M.
(A) JKrdkiMr Ontim, (1909) 1
Ck. 41S; 78 K J. Ck. 117.
(t) /oAiHflfi S k re ut hury and
Birmingham Raihvay Co., 3 De O.
M. & G. SH ; 22 L. J. Ch.
Ml.
478
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
oiMr.x.
1.
When an
injunction will
Mt b* (nattd.
that his came should appear jointly with that of tiie secre-
tary in all the adrertiaementa of the e<»npany, the Court would
not restrain the company from issuing any advertisement,
unless the name of the plaintiff was therein inserted (k).
So also the Court would not restrain tiie director^ of a
company from acting upon and enforcing the resignation of
an agent (/). So also where an indenture was held to consti-
tute the relation of master and servant and not that of partner,
Lord Truro dissolved an injunction which had been granted
restraining the d<!f<''ndiuit from excluding the plaintiff from
the management of the business ( m). So also the Court will
not as a rule restrain by injunction the breach of a contract
for the sale and delivery of chattels (n). Nor will the Court
enforce by mandatory injunction the performance of cove-
nants in a lease as to the cultivation of land (o), or the work-
ing of a mine (p). Nor will the Court enforce by mandatory
injunction the execution of repairs to a highway (q). Nor
will the Court restrain by injunction a threatened breach by a
tenant of a stipulation in a forming agreement requiring him
to keep on the farm a proper and sufficient stock of sheep,
horses and cattle (r). So also in a case where there was a
proviso in the lease of a mine ti^t the lessor mi^t at the end
of tiie term purdiase the machinery in the mine at a eertain
j r 1
(A) Brelt v. Kaat Imlia atid
London Shipping Co., 2 H. & M.
«M : 12 W. B. 096.
(I) Mttir V. HimaUtjfa Tea Co., 1
Eq. 411 ; 13 L. T. 586.
(m) Starker v. BrorlcUbaitk, 3
Mac. & O. p. 267 ; 20 L. J. Ch.
401 ; 87 E. E, 87.
(n) Fothtrijill v. Rnirlaml, n.Kq.
132 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 282 ; MetroinAitaH
Klectrif Su]i]>ly C'o.y. Hinder, (1901)
2 Ch. p. 808 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 862 ;
/>oin«iitoi» Voal Co, t. Lominim Iron
aMlSMO)., f:90e}A. C.393 ; 78
L. J. P. C. 110. But tee Jkiuull
v. Beniua, 22 C. D. 837 ; 52 L. J.
Ch. 414 ; and gee aim the Halo of
Goods Act, 1893, 66 ft 57 Vict.
c. 73, 8. 52.
(o) Mmgrave v. Uorntr, Sl^L. T.
638 : 23 W. B. 189. Aatofaraung
IwuM, M* the Agricultunl BM-
ingt Aet, 1908, 8 Edw. 7, o. 28,
88. 26, 46, 48(1).
(;<) WheatUy v." Ue»tmiruter
Bry , Coal Co., 9 E«t. 538 ; 39
L. J. Ch. 175; Moort y. Ullcoat'
Minimj Co., (1908) 1 (». p. aW;
n L. J. Ch. 282.
(g)Att.-Gen. v. StafarMttff
County GouneU, (IMd) 1 Ch. p. S42 :
74L. J. Ch. 103; MS ibyiwM* v.
B»m», (19W) 2 p. 37S : n
L. J. Ch. &t7.
(r) J'hippt V. Jarkton, 66 L, J.
Ch.560 ; 36 W. B.378.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
479
Oli*|>. X.
8«ct. 1.
valuation to be made by arbitrators, one of them to be
nominated by the lessee, the Goiurt would not reatmin the
lessee from removing the machinery at the end of tho term,
us it could not compel him to name an arbitrator (<). Nor,
vhere the stipulationfl sought to be enftvced are subsidiary tu
the whole agreement will a negative be iin])orted so as, to be
u foundation for an injunction, unless the whole agreement
is capable of being specifically enforced (t).
But though the agreement may be one which cannot from uegaUr, qiwiiiy
its very nature he specifically enforced as a whole, the Court '"'»»'**'
. , , , when some of
Will, where parts of the agreement are distinct and separable tha itipateUou
from the reat, import a negative and interfere by way of !IS|^^J2!Sfciir'
injunction (it). Where, therefore, a railway company had JJ^JJJJ^**
granted to certain lessees a licence to publish advertismnents
in the company's carriages, and the sole licence of selling
bo(^. Ice, at their stations, the Court restrained the company
from removing the advertisements and from evicting the
plaintiffs from their bookstalls, though there were other
parts of the agreement which the Court ooald not speeiAoi^y
enforce (x). So also where on the sale and purchase of land
the purchaser covenanted with the vendor, a brewer, that he
should have the exelnaive right of supplying all ale, beer and
porter which should be consumed in any building which should
be erected on this particular piece of land, the Court restrained
the defendant who took under the purchaser from acting in
contraventi(m of the covenant, in spate of tha faet that in
tho conveyance to the original purchaser the vendor did not
covenant to supply any ale, beer or porter (y).
(») Hamilton v. l)uu$foril, 6 Ir.
( h. 412, and tee Awity v. WMaktr,
4 Drew, l if,
(<} Parit ClfxcUUe Co. v. Crytlal
Palace Co., 3 Sm. & O. 119;
tieaUUk North Ukutem Jtaamtt Co.
V. Sffworf. 3 Mm^. 383 ; 7 W. B.
4M.
(h) Holme* T. EaMm* OmmMm
liailuiatf Co., 3 K. & J. 675 ; and
sec Offilen v. Foiaick, 4 I)e Q. F. &
J. 426 : 32 L. J. Ch. "3 : Frith v.
FrM, (190«) A. C. 2M ; 75 L. J.
P. C. 60, where ipecific performance
wa» reluaed, the two parts of th«
agreement buing itMyanUy oen-
nected.
(x) Nolmt* t. Eatlirm Oemntim
BidhMff Co., tupn.
(y) Om r. }Wfe, 4 Ch. 6M ; 38
L. J. Oh. 666. Aa to form of order,
■ee Vourage li Co. v. Carpenter,
(1910) 1 Cb. 262, 269 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
Itl4. The injunction will oontiniie
480
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST UIlEACIi UF
cWp. X. So also where the pluintifis hiul contracted to purchuso tlip
timber on tlie defendant's estates, with the exprens right to
oater upon the estates to cut and remore the timber, and the
defendant repudiated the curitruct and forcibly ejected the
plaintiff"., the Court rt'strained the (left'iidiint revoking the
licence to enter conferred upon the plaintiffs by the contract,
although the Court would not have compelled the pbintiffs to
cut and remove the timber if they liad refused to do so (r).
Negative qiulitj The contruct of charter pufty is, from the peculiar nature
iKriX' of the subject of the wmtract, an exception to the rule that a
negative quality will not be imported into an affirmative agree-
ment, unless the agreement is of Hueh a nature that a decree
for specific performance can be made. " I think," said Lord
Chelmsford, "that a vessel under a charter-party ought to
be regarded as a chattel of p«>culiar value to the charterer, and
that although a Court of equity cannot compel a specific per-
fonnane* of the eontoset iriiteh it contains, yet that it will
restrain the employment of the vessel in a different manner,
whether such employment is expressly or impliedly for
bidden according to the principle expressed in Lum-
Uy }7agntr{a). If • charter-party is bond fide entered
into between the owner of a vessel and the eharterer, either
party is entitled to an injunction to restrain lUe other from
doing anything inconsistent with the agreement (b),
HtiMinqaalit; If the agreement consists of two or more stipulations, and
iatoMiwfM- is one which cannot from its very nature be specifically en-
SrjjJty^ forced as a whole, the Court will not import a negative quality
nekt tiM aid oi jnto asreoment so u to be a foundation for an in janetioo,
fwfaratil^kb go Ion « as the brewer wipplieB beer Ch. 457 ; Mr—aijeriet Jm/ifrialft v.
•wBptrt t. reagonable quality and at a Hnintt, 11 W. R. 322; I/rriot
v.
reasonable price. AV//o/i;», 12 W. R. 844 ; /,e HIanrh
(z) ./onei A Co. v. TankerviUe Granyer, 36 lieav. 187 ; Htrrtf
(Karl), (1900) 3 C3l 440 ; 78 L. J. Bay Sttamhoat Co. v. /l,<ilon ( 1903)
Ch.674. 2 K. B. p. 682 ; 72 L. J. K. B.
(a) Da JToMm v. OUtrn, 4 De O. 879 ; and mm Bucknall Tmkm.
* J. 178, 298 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 498. (1900) 83 L. T. 121, whm
Sw thk eaae diaciiwri i» WMwood ehartmn had to Mtod m to 4»-
Vhtmiml Co. v. Hanlmmt, (1891) 2 entttie llisanelws to aa injaiW '
Ch. 416, 431 ; 80 L. J. 428. turn.
{h) fiMa V. Dml m im , » L. X
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
481
.1.
anlesB th« penon who icakes the appliestion has aetualiy
performed his own port ot the agreement (c). The mere
iissertion on his part that it is his intention to perform his
port of the agreement is not sufficient, unless the Court can
decree apecifle perfonnanee against him (d). Thus wher« an
iii,'r(>;'inent hiid hrpn entered into between a railway company
and u contractor, whereby the contrm-tor agreed to complete
the line of railway, and the company agreed to pay him in
shares and dfbnntiires as the woi s progressed, but the com-
pany repudiated the contract, the ( uiirt i < fused to restrain the
company from deahng with Iho debentures and shares in a
iiinnner inconsistent with the agreement, on the groaod tiiat
it was 1). vond tli.^ power of the Court to make him perform
his part of tho contract (c). So also where the manager of
8 London theatre engaged for a period of two years a pro-
vincial actor, who waa desurotu of appearing on a Ixnukm
stage. Though there was nothing express on the subjeot, the
Court implied an engagement on the part of the manager not
merely to pay the agreed sahiry bat to giTe the actor the oj^.
timiiy of appearing on tl ■ stiif^'o, and an mgagenirnt on the
part of the actor not to perform elsewhere. The manager
having delayed the appearance of the actor for fire months,
the Court considered that his conduct was in spirit a breach
I tho engagement, and would not restrain the aetor frmn
acting elsewhere (/).
Where an a£Srmatire covenant has a negative el«(m«nt in it, AgntoMni
or where a covenant is partly affirmative n-id parti v negative '^»**i'''n« iwth
,1 ^ , .,, . ■ r 6 aflirniatiTe
tJie U)urt will in a i»-oper case enforce the (legative portion of •»<' "^aw
{r)FtehUr V. Mimtgtmurji, S3 B. OekUmith, (1891) 1 Q. B. M4 : 60 '**"'*'**
L. J
22 ; Orinukm v. Cmingham, (18M)
1 Q. 6. p. 130. See Mtammi
fln.tl,ers v. MteuuTM, (1910) 2 Ck.
: 79 L. J. Ch. 707.
i''tn V. Ifrv/htm,, Ckjid,/,
arvl Ttiiihriilif,' H'el/t HaUii ai/ Co., I
11. A M. Itks ; ;{'2 L. J. Ch. 677.
//'. .Se« f.'i/iiff.'i V. Fn^irk, 4
!•'> O. P. & J. 4 )6.
(/) f'echter v. Montgomtrf, 33
Beav. 22. 8m dK> Twmr r.
K.I.
Ch. 247 (payment by oom-
miinion); DetHmalUv. Ii> t!fr, (liMMJ)
2 K. B. 728, 731, 732 ; 75 L. J.
K. B. 688 (payiiioiii liy pi<^'ework) ;
but see U'hitwiud c/ietniiat Cii. v.
Nartlman, (1891) 2 Ch. 416; 60
L. J. Ch. 728 ; OrimaUm v. CtmUtg-
ham, (lS0i) 1 a B. 12S; Tunm-w.
Siimbm, (1901) 9 K. B. 6S3 ; 70
L. J. K a WT.
81
4M
Cli»p. X
SmI. 1.
ISJUNCTICNS AGAINST BBEACH OP
II, covenant (p) ; and the Court may also enforce by injunc-
tion the n«^utiv< part of an agreement containing both
affirmatire and negntivo btipulationt, although the afUmiatlw
part of the agreement is of such a nature that it could not bo
fpeciflcally enforced. Thus where the defendant had entered
into an engagement with the plaintiff to sing at his tbeetre
and not to sing at any other theatre. Lord St. Leonards re
strained her from singing at any "thcr tlu-atre than the plain-
tifl'h. though it was beyond all doubt that he had not the powei
to decree specific performance of the afflrmatire part of th«
contract (A). So alw where a contract for the sale of chattali
MMltained 'in express negative stipulation not to sell to anj
other person, an injunction was granted to restrain the doin(
of the aet stipulated net to be done, although the contract wm
one of which specific performance would not have beei
granted (i). But the principle of Lumley v. Wagner wil
not be extended (*), and ought not to be affiled to an agree
ment which, though negatife in fwm, ie afflni»tiTe in aab
stance (T).
co„.mion. - to An agreement i y a p. chaser not to sell the vendor's good
.„ie oi goo.1. mna minimum price is ralid, and can be enforced by th
vendor against such pi .aser (m), but not against subfc
quent purchaseis even though they buy with notice of th
condition, for a vendw cannot impose emiditicms «i the «
sale of his goods so as to run with or attach to tiie goods (»]
(ff) Chqg T. Umi*. 44 C. D. 808 ;
89 L. J. Ch. 477.
(,'.) Lumlty r. IToyaw, 1 De
O. M. & O. 604 ; 2t L. J. Ch. tM;
91 B. R. 193.
(i) l><mneU v. Ilinneft, 'ii C. U.
837 ; 52 L. J- Ch. 4U ; -ee also
MetrofiolitiiH Electric Light ('". v.
Gindtr, (1901) 2 ("h. 7»!t ; 70 L. J.
Ch. 802 ; and nee the Sale of U'wda
Act, 1893. 56 ft 67 Vict. c. 73. s. 52.
(i'j Whittmoi Chmkai fb. r.
Hardman, (1«91) 2 Ok. p. 438; M
L. J. Ch. 428 ; Khrmamnr. BarUo-
lomue, {\m) I Ch. p. •71; 6"
L. J. Ch. 319 ; Kirchner v. Oruba
(1909) 1 Ch. p. 421 ; 78 L. J. Ch. n
{I) Davii n>remmt, (ISM)
Ch.M4 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 187 : Kirekt
y. Oriihan, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 418; '
L. J. Ch. 117.
(tn) KUiman * Co. v. Carringi
.f ro,, (1901) 2 Ch. 27.>: 70 L.
Ch. 577; Ciiitf ^'htje Machint
Co. of i'iiiiaila V. Itruuct, (19(
A. C. 3;«», 343; 78 L. J. V.
101 ; fhishp Pneumatic Tur» (
T. at{M^. {WIS) 29 T. L. B. 2(
W.N. 48.
(h) TaiUg*Oi>.r.SUrii>mJti
COVENANT Ofi AORESICEMT. 4»
But conditions can be attached by a patentee to his patented
articles so as to bind »ll purcbMers who Aoqaire the MrtiolM '***''•
witii knoirladfa irf the oonditions (o).
aeet. 88 of the Patenlo and Denigns Act, 1907 (p), however, r.unu<l
aroide, in contract* made after the passing of the Act (q),
eertain reetrictire oonditiona attached to the sale or le tte of
or licence to use or woik pttoitod artielM m being in re-
-itrnint of trade iind contrary t ^niblic policy, ami further
provides that any contract made before the passing of the Aet
conteining any nteh reetriet i ve eaodHkm may b« determined
hy throe months' noticp in writing on paying comprnRation.
Kxcept in cases between landlniti and tenant the obligation Knimtmnt
of a cmrenant reirtricting the employment of land (and not ^^i'l^^
amounting to an -vwement, or the grant of ii rent-«b»rge) does JJJJ^^J'^
not run with the i^id at law so as to bind an assignee although
assignees be expressly named in the corenant (r). 13ut such
a covenant, though not runr.ing wiHh the land at kaw so m to
give a legal remedy, and though not even purporting to bind
assigns, will be enfmrced in ejuity against all subsequent KmwUktk*
owner* ef ^ land Ml being bona fid* iMirdiasere tm nlue ^ *"
of the legu Astate without notice, Mtunl "instructive, of
the covenani («). A restrictive covenant ■ . flfore be
enforced against a purchaser who merely ^ . equit-
able ertate vli^Mr he had ootiee .or aot ^ d );^ainst •
(1904) 1 Ch. 384 ; 73 Ifc J. Ok Ml ,
M^Qruthtr v. Htclm, (ISM) 9 Ch.
306; 7S L. J. Ok Wa: JWteA*
Anilin und Soda FMHk v. Utr,
(1906) 1 Ch. p. 611; 7«L. J. Oil.
"49; NaiioHal Phonograph Co. of
Aiittralia v. Manek, (1011) A. C.
pp. 347-aM; ao L. J. P. 0.
{"] l}:iJi$eh* AmOin und Soda
F'tbrikv. filer, (1906) 1 Ch. 600;
To L. J. Ch. 411 ; 1906)a Ch. 44S;
~i L. J. Ch. 749 : mmtimuU Pkom-
urapk 0^ ^ Amtrtdia Mtmdl,
{p) 7B4W. 7.fc J».
(f } 1st UmtfT. MM.
oth«wisa mniwlj pro-
(r) Mmmh v. CowU»hav, 9 C. D.
p. IMi 8. r. on appeal 11 C. D.
866 ; 48L. J. Ch. 830; J uterberry
V. < ^mrtUioH of «tldh <■ i'» O. D.
750 : 33 L. J. Ch. « i.i
(») Tulkv. Mox'h.iy i th. 774;
78 B. B. 280 ; Haywood v. Brmnt-
wick BuMing Societtf, 8 Q. B. D.
40.i! 41 L. j. li. B. 73; Km^m
and B<mtk.W*»km AMiMwy 0> v.
Qomm, SO 0. D. y. MS; SI L. J.
Gb. in n l^Mtt and A<b*
Omtrmet, (1906) I Ok. p. m; 7$
L.J.CL 338.
(0 I m im and South- Wmtmt
81—3
484
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OP
Chap. X.
Swt. 1.
Porcliawr for
Taltie without
notie*.
person who has acquired a title to the land under the Statute
of Limitations against the owner and eorenantor («). The
benefit of a rMtrictive covenant is in the nature of » negative
easement (x) ; accordingly, when a restrictive oOTenant is
entered into with a covenantee not in respect of or concerning
any land belonging to tfie covenantee, or in which he is
interested, as where a vendor sells the whole of his estate
to the purchaser, subject to restrictive provisions, the Court
wiii not enforce by injunction the oorenant against ssstgnees
of the land of the covenantor, whether they had notice of the
covenant or not (y). In such a case the covenant will be
treated as purely personal to the covenantee (z).
The principle of TvUc v. Moxhay {a), that restrictive cove-
nants create an equitable burden on the land in the nature of
a negative easement, applies to persons taking any interest in
the land, whether as tenants for years, or from year to
year (6), or as mere occupiers (c).
In O'-der that covenants not running with the land at law
should be enforceable in equity, it is essential that the par-
chaser should not be able to set up the defence of purchase
for valunblc consideration without notice {d). Thus where
the owner in fee of a square garden in London and some
RaiUmy C«. v. Oomm, 20 0. P.
p. jS3; r,\ I.. J. Ch. .WO;
V. (1900) 2 Ch. p. 405;
(i9 Ti. J. Ch. <>o2 ; In re y-'M and
PutW C./M<rarf,(190.j) 1 Ch.pp. 397,
398 : 74 L. J. Ch. 310.
(m) h re Sithet and PnUt' Con-
tratt, (1906) I Ch. 3M ; 74 I* J.
Ch. 238.
(«) Ltmdon and BoHtk-Wttftm
nailtmitj Co. V. Oomm, lupra ;
Ho^rt V. HnHfiiofxi, (1900) 2 Ck.
405, 4C7; 69 L. J. Ch. fio2 ; In
rr SUhet and VotW Vvntruet,
(1906) 1 <'h. 406, 409 ; 76 L. J.
Ch. 23H.
(y) Formhti V. Itr.rher. (190:!) 2
Ch. 639, 654 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 716.
(i) Ibid.
(») 2Hi.774i 78B.B.M9.
(6) Wihon y. Hart, 1 Ch. 483;
13 W. R. 918; Mm.dtr v. Fobtt,
(1891) 2 Ch. p. 557; 61 L. J. Oh.
3; ^hillwrny, Ilmthert v. Hill,
(1902) 2 Ch. p. 616; "1 L. T. Ch.
818: 7Vn/>fT. />«iMf,(1906)92Ii.T.
319; 21 T. li. R. 271.
(f) Marnier v. Falrkr, (1891) 2
Ch. 434 ; 61 J. Ch. 3; In rt
SUM and PatW Contraci, (1906) 1
C3i.p.397: 74 L. J. Ch. 238.
((iy Lotidfm Ktd 8<mth-WMt*m
Raihi-ay Co. y. Oomm, 20 0. D.
583; 81 L. 3. Ch. 430; Tn rt Oat
awl Xrv'a Cor.tnict, (1891) 2 Ch.
109 ; t)4 I.. T. 733 ; In rr NisM
and I'oth' Coidraft, (1904) 1 Ch.
p. 398 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 310 ; (1910) 1
Ch.p.406 ; 76L. J.C&Sat.
COVENANT OB AOBEEMENT.
486
hotues in the square had conTeyed the garden to A. in fee, Chap. x.
and A. had oorenanted for himself and assigns not to nse the ^ ^-
open space for any other purpose than as a square garden,
it was held that a purchaser from A. with notice of the cove-
nant was bound by it in equity, whether or not hie was bound
at law, and an injunction was granted to restrain him from
building on the square garden (e).
So i^iere on the sale of a building estate there was a general
deed of covenant prohibiting the various purchacers frcHu
using or allowing their lota to be used for certain porposee,
l)er8ons claiming, through purchasers who had been parties
to the deed, having notioe of the covenant, were restrained
from using their lots for any of the prohibited purposes (/).
So also, where there was a covenant by purchasers of ad-
joining lots not to build on the garden spaces which were
specified on a general building plan, a person claiming
through one of the original covenantors having notice of the
covenant was restrained from throwing out a bay window into
the garden at the back of his house (g).
Mere constructive notice will be sufficient to preclude the CoMtneih*
defence of purchase for value without notice (A), Thus a "''*''**
yearly tenant witiiout express noUoe that his landlord was
hound by u covenant not to use the premises as a beershop
was restr!»ined from doing so upon the ground that though
(e) Tulk T. Mathajf, 2 Ph. 777 ; Markuid, 17 0. D. 863; «) L. J.
"8 B. B. m C3i. M2 ; we /n re Cox and Nme'$
{/) tfiafman v. Oii«wi, Sim. Couirart, (1891)2 Oh. 109 ; (Hh.l.
196; 7 L. J. (X. S.) Ch. 160; 47 ; IhJloway v. //i7/. '(19()2) 2
K.I!. 214. i^v Jay w RiehariitoH, Ch. p. 620 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 818;
liftiv. p. im 31 I,. J. Ch. 398 ; Hooper v. Unnmt, (19<W) 89 L. T.'
.\.,ltii„,l,am liriik- ami Tilt Co. v. 37 ; llowtll v. Hachell, (1903) 2 Ch.
IMI,,; Ifl (>. U. D. 778 ; 55 I,. J. 212, 221; 73 L. J. Uh. 20; Tt^
1!. 280; ««/fM V. Iloiegvol, \. Doutt, (IMS) M L. T. 319; 21
(1900) 2 Ch. p.3»7; 6»L. J. Ch. T. L. B. 271; /« re NMt ttni
^'^ PMW OoHhtui, (1906) 1 Ch. M6;
(») IVattrm v. McOirmM, iCk. 16 L. J. Oh. 238 ; Phijx^ v. Co/-
72; 36 L. J. Ch. 7«; Mmmtn l*g<»ri, (1910) M S. J. 635; Abbey
(lord) Y.Johnnm. 10. D. 673; 44 v. (hittert; (1911) 56 S. J. 864;
I.. J. Ch. 404. and see the Conveyancing Aot,
(M Il l's-"' V. /lart, 1 Ch. 463. 1882. e. 3, uiid th« CoDroyueiaf
4tiV, 13 W. B. 988; Putman v. Act, 1911, ». 11.
486
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
Cbap. X.
8wt. 1.
Fureluuer for
Tkloe without
notice can eon-
ytj fra* f ram
ratrietiou.
BattrietiTt
coTciunU uncUr
building scheme
righu of pur-
only a yearly tenant, he was as mach bound to inquire into
his landlord's titie as if he had been the purchaser of a larger
interest («). So also an underleesee was held to be bound
by covenants in the original leoBe of which he had no actual
notice, on the ground that he ought to hare aatiified himself
as to his lessor's title (fc). So also where a purchaser of the
fee simple entered into restrictive covenants as to the user
ot the land and afterwards granted a leaLe ^ich did not eon-
tain any aimilar ptNdiibitioa, the leesee, though he bad no
actual notice of the covenant, was restrained at the suit of
the original vendor from committing a breach {I).
fiut when once there has been a purchase of land bond fidt
for value without notice of restrictions on its user, a good
title can afterwards be made free from the restrictions even
to a purchaser who has notice of them (m).
So also where, on the sate <A land, part of a larger estate, the
i, vendor enters into restrictive covenants with the purchaser
with respect to the use and occupation of the land which he
retains, the Court will, as a Court of equity in faroor of the
saceessor in title of the purchaser, enforce the restrictive
covenants by injunction against the successor in title of the
ven^r having notice of the covenants («). So also where
lai^ is offered for sale in lots subject to restrictive conditions,
in accordance with a building scheme (o), the vendor, having
sold one lot, is under an obligation to the purchaser of such
(«■) Wilton V. Uarl, 1 Ch. 463; 13
W. R.
(*) Parker v. \yh;,te, 1 II. & M.
167 ; 32 I.. J. Ch. 620 ; Cltmtnt v.
WaU», 1 Eq. 200 ; 36 L. J. Ch.
286 : TtBjM T. D»Mf. (1906) BS L. T.
310: 31 T. L. B. 271; AwM ^
Engttmd Dairit$ Cto. V. Mbr, (1906)
2 Ch. p. 638; "6 L. J. Ch.p. 81;
Ahbey v. OuUtrtt, (1911) 66 8. J.
364.
(/) J-'eilileii V. Slater, " Kq. 323 ;
3H L. J. Ch. 379.
(tn) Lmvther v. CarlUm, 2 Atk.
34S; HaUini/ham Briiktmd Tilt Co.
T. BuOir, 16 Q. B. 1). p. T6T : U
L. J. B. 280 ; WiUstt v. Spomer,
(1911) 2 K. £. 487, 4M; ML.i.
K. B. 1107.
(n) McLean v. McKay, L. E. i
P. C. 327 ; 29 L. T. 362; NittAl t
/ 19 0. D. 3H; 61 Ii. a
166.
(«} A* to the MMntiaU of i
ImiMbig wihwiMi. ■■• StMrn f
Rmteher, (19M) S Ch. 374. 6M ; T
L. J. Ch. 017 ; IMd v. Bidunkfi
(1909) 2 Ch. 306 ; 78 L. J. Cb
753 ; WilU V. St. John, (1910) 1 Ch
84, 326; 79 L. J. Ch. 239; Sobii
V. Sainihunj, (1918) S €%. 818
in/ra, p. 490.
COVENANT OB AOBEEMENT.
487
lot to obsem the eonditions m to Hne lots remainiBg onsold
in hi.' hands, to the same extent as purchasers of the lots
would be, and in such a case the vendor will be restrained
from selling tae unsold lots free from the restrictive
covenants (p).
But if a man, on granting or demising land, takes a restric-
tive covenmt from the purchaser for his own benefit and then
grants or demises part of the land retained to other persons
without any notice of the covenant, the benefit of the cove-
nant does not enure to the subsequent grantee or lessee (9).
In a ease when A. sold part of an estate to B., who entered
into restrictive covenants for himself, his heirs, and assigns,
with A., his heirs, executors, and administrators, as to build-
ings on tue purchased property, but A. did not enter into any
covenants as to the land retained ; and A. afterwards sold to
other persons various parte of the lots retained, but nothing
appeared as to the contents of their conveyances, nor was
there any evidence that ihtj wore inf<Mined of the covenants
entered into by B. ; and A. afterwards bought back from B.
what hr had sold to him. It was held that the benefit of
B.'s covenants did not in equity pass to the sabseqaent pur-
chasers of other parts of the estate from A., and that A. after
the re-purchase, could make a title to the re-purchased land
discharged from the covenants (r).
80 also in RetuiU v. CowUihaw ((), the owners in fee of a
residential estate and adjoining land sold part of the adjoining
land to defendant's predecessors in title, who entered into
Chap. X.
{l>) Madcnuit v. ChUdtn, 43
C. O. 3« ; M L. J. Ch. 188; SoutU
SakheB, (1903) 3 p. 21» ; 73
J. Ch. 20.
(7) Mittrr V. Uaniard, 4 C. D.
71H: 46 L. J. Ch. ; m» fn re
lliriiiiiiijham ami llitlricl hin-l ('o.
V. Allday. ilHm) 1 Ch. :H2 ; «2
I.. J. Ch. tK); HiK/rro v. llcaeyooil,
(Ii>(X») 2 Ch. pp. •»()7-40f : 09 L. J.
Ch. «o2; Jleiil V. tikktrttaff, (IWW)
2 Ch. pp. 330-324; 78 L. J. Ch.
7d3.
I
(r) A'ea/M V. Lyt.n, 4 Ch. 218 ;
38 L. J. Ch. 357.
(«} 11 C. D. 880; 48 L. J. Ch.
830; mnAwM IfMinf^tmBriekamd
TiU Co. r. fiirflcr, 15 a B. D.
pp. 268-369 ; S. C. on uppeal, 16
U. U. D. 778 ; o6 L. J. U. li. 280 ;
Spirrr v. Martin, 14 A. C. p. 24;
M 1,. J. Ch. 3(m; Ri^nty. Ilott-
S<«W, (\Vm) 2 Ch. p. 408; 09 L. J.
Ch. 662; /.'ei./v. llnkfrdoff, (1909)
2 Ck 320, 32d ; 78 L. J. Ch.
7»3.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREAOH OF
covenants with the rendon, their heirs and assigns, restrict-
ing tlieir l ight to build on and use the purchased him. The
same vendors afterwards sold the residential estate to tlie
plaintiffs' predecessors in title. The conveyance contained no
reference to the reHtrictiv(? covenants, nor was there any am-
tract or representation that the purchasers were to have the
benefit of them : it was held that the plaintiffs were not en-
titled to restrain the defendants tnm building in cimtraToa-
tion of the rostrictive covenants entered into by their pre-
decessors in title. The principle deducible from the cases
is that where a vendor sells to several persons ploto at land
parts of a larger property and exacts from each of them cove-
nants inijx)siiig restrictions on the use of the plots sold, with-
out putting himself under any corresponding obligation, it
ici a questicMi of fact whether the restrictions are mer^y
matters of agreement l)etween the vendor and his purchasers,
imposed for his own benefit and protection, or are meant by
him and anderstood by the bayws to be f(»> the coramcm
benefit of the purdiasers. If Uie restrictive covenants ai-e
merely for the benefit of the vendor, purdiasers of other plots
of land from the vendor cannot claim to take advantage of
them. If they are meant for the common advantage of a set
of purchasers, such purchasers and their assigns may enforce
them inter se for their own benefit (t).
The fact that the several purchasers from the common
vendor were not aware at the date of their purchases of the
existence of any such covenants is strong if not conclusive
evidence at an intention that the covenants were not entered
into for the heiiefit of the purchasers imter le, but for the
advantage of the vendor himself (u).
(() Nottingham Brick and Tile Co.
V. IliiUer, 15 U. B. I), pp. 268-299 ;
Ki (i. li. II. p. 7«4 : 55 J. (i. I!.
•>m ; .S/,i,fr V. M'lrtiM, 14 A. 12,
24 ; oH I,. J. Ch. .m ; Mnchnnie v.
Chitderi, 43 C. I), pp. 276-279 ; 69
L. J. Ch. 188 ; /n n Birmingham
ami IHttnrt Land Co. r. AlUay,
(IMS) 1 C%. 3<2 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 90;
Othmne v. Jtnulhy, (1903) 2 Ch.
pp. 454-455; 73 I,. J. Ch. 49;
Kttuiim V. Heather, (1!H)8) 2 Ch.
p. 384 ; S. C. on apiwal, p. (i66 ; 77
L. J. Ch. 617 ; /ieiil v. ftukerttaff,
(1909) 2 ( ii. 320, 325 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
7S3.
(«) Keata T. IffOH. 4 Ch. 81S;
38 J. Ch. 357 ; Mailtr v. Ha»-
p
restrict-
(i. The
9 to tile
unedno
any eon-
lave the
not en-
DtravMi-
eir pre-
cases
of Iwai
cm cove-
Id, Titb-
ation, it
mer«ly
•chasers,
aeant by
common
ants are
lier )>lot8
ntnge of
■ of a set
y enforce
common
68 of tiie
snoiuBire
t entered
t for the
Ch. 49 ;
likktrttaff,
8 L. J. Ch.
« Ch. 818;
(wv. Hnm- i
COVENANT OB AGREEMENT.
489
The intention that such oovenauts sliall enure for the ci««p. X.
benefit of the vaiious purehasers imter »e may be either "***• ^'
express; as, for instajice, where, on the sale of a building KKforcment
estate in lots by the trustees of a buUding society each cfrnt^lb;
purchaser covenanted with the vendors to observe and per-
form certain building stipulations and the covenants were"
to enure to the benefit of the persons for the time being
entitled under conveyances to be thereafter made by the
covenantees, but the covenantees were to be deemed trustees
of the covenants for the benefit of the persons claiming under
any conveyances already made by the trustees, it was held
that every allottee and purehaser had an equity to enforce the
covenants (x); or the intention may be implied from the
suirounding circumstances, as, for instance, wlune land is
put up to aaetion in lots under conditions which define the
iTstrietions to be placed upon and tlie covenants to be entered
into by the various purchasers (^,) ; or where land is sold
either together or in lots to be built upon in accordance with a
general building scheme (z) ; or where a vendor selling part
of an estate covenants for himself and his assigns to place
restrictions on the use of the adjoining land which he
retains (a). The mere faet that the eommon vendor does not
bmd himself expre^-sly to enforce the coveoant whieh he takes
for the benefit of the purchasers is not material, if the inten- ■
xirJ, 4 C. D. 718 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
j05 ; Jietiali v. Cowlishaw, 11 C. D.
N66; 48 L. J. Ch. 830; i'lli^,m
v. JkaeAer, (1908) 2 Ch. pp. 384,
384; 8. C. on appeal, p. 665 ; 77
L. J. Ch. 617; I'lihbt Y. Eutr
(1910)MT. L.B. p. 140.
(r) Eatttroal v. T.ner, 4 De
<f- J. & y. 114 : 33 L. J. Ch. 365;
.liukium V. U'iiiui/rttli, 47L.T.243.
((/) S'Mingham llrick and Tiie
V. iluiler, 16Q.B. D. 778; 85
1- J. U. B. 280; Spim- v. MarHn,
14 A. C. p. 29; 58 L. J. Ch.
309; BlliitoH T. Jteacher, (1908)
• Oh. pp. 384, 386. 8. C. on sppeai,
II. Wo ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617 ; Jieid v.
Bitter^, (1909)2 (Si. 819. S90:
78 L. J. Ch. 768.
{z) Spirtr V. Martin, 14 A. C.
12, 26; 58 L. J. Ch. 309 ; KlliUon
V. Reacher. (1908) 2 Ch. 374. S. C.
on appeal, p. 666 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
617; Reut v. Birkerstaff, (1909)
2 Ch. 303 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 768. As
to building irhmx m* ia/Wl,
p. 490.
(a) M(mn y. Stiphtnt, 15 8im.
877 ; 74 R B. 101 ; Cbfai y. Simnu.
»DeG.ll.ft O. I; 23 L. J. Ch.
258; 104 B. B. 1; AV,W/ v. Z'^-
ni'tg, 19 C. D. >58; 61 L. J, Ch.
188.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OP
ti<m is otherwise clear that the purchasera are to be bound
inter fie (h).
The principle governing tlie above class of cases was thus
expressed by Hall, V.-C, in Renal* r. Oowliahaw (c), which
was approved by the House of Lords in .S>/cer v. Martin (d),
"It may be considered as determined that any one who has
acquired land, being one of MTeral lots laid ont for sale as
building plots, where the Court is satisfied that it was the
intention that each one of the several purchasers should be
bound by and should as against the others have the benefit
of the covenants entered into by each of the purchasers, is
entitled to the benefit of the covenant; and that this right,
that is the benefit of the covenant, enures to the assigns of
the first purchaser, in other words runs with the land of
each purchaser. This right exists not only where the several
parties execute a mutual deed of covenant bnt wherever a
mutual contract can be sufficiently established." In a recent
case (e) it was laid down that in order to bring the principles
of Renah v. Cowlishaw and Spicer v. Martin into operation,
it must be proved " (1) that both the plaintiff and the defen-
dant derive title undw a common vendor; (2) that prerioosly
to selling the lands to which the plaintiff and defendant are
respectively entitled, the vendor laid out his estate, or a
defined portion thereof (including the lands purchased by
the plaintiff and defendant) for sale in lots subject to restric-
tions intended to be imposed on all the lots, and which, though
varying in details as to particulav lots, are consistent and con-
sistent only with some general scheme of development;
(3; that these restrictions were intended by the common
vendor to be and were for the benefit of all the lots intended
(h) Sottinyham Ilrick and Tile
Co. V. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. p. 791 ;
65 L. J. Q. U. 280 ; Reid v. HMer-
,tajf, (1909) 2 t'h. p. 323; 78
L. J. Ch. 753.
(c) 9 C. D. p. 129, S. C. on
i^Md, 11 C. D. 8M; 48 L. J. Ck.
830.
{i) 14A.C.P.24; K L.J.Ch.
309.
(e) KllUtvH V. Kearh'r. (1908) 3
Ch. p. 384 ; 77 L. J- Ch. B17, per
Parker, J. : r.Md see IMd v. Bicktr-
ttttff, (1909) 2 Ch. pp. 319-323;
78 L. J. Ch. 753 ; Willf v. St. John,
(191U) 1 Ch. p. 88 ; S. C . on appad,
p. 325 ; 79 L. J . Ch.
COVENANT OB AOBBBlfBNT.
491
to be sold, whether or not they were also intended to be and
were for the benefit of other land retained by the vendor; .
and (4) that both the plaintiff and the defendant, or their
predecessors in title, purchased their lots from the common
vendor upon the fbotii^ that the reatrietions sabjeet to wfaieh
the purchases were made, were to enure for the benefit of
the other lots included in the general scheme whether or
not they were also to enare for the benefit of other lands
retained by the vendor."
In order to establish the existence of a building scheme
it is therefore essential that there should be a defined area
within which the scheme is c^MratiTe and thst the oUigatians
imposed upon purchasers of land within the area are defined
and sufficiently disclosed. There must be between the several
purchasers "commnnity of interest and reciprocity of obliga-
tion" (/).
The mere fact that the vendor has reserved to himself the
right to waive or vary the covenantt; as regards his unsold
property, is not by itself sufficient to prevent the existence
of a building scheme, though it is a circumstance which the
Court will take into consideration in deciding whether there
was or was not s scheme (g). Apart from any building
scheme, a purchaser may be entitled to the benefit of a restric-
tive covenant entered into w*th his vendor by another or
others where his vendor has contracted with him that he shall
be the assign of it, that is, have the benefit of the covenant, w
where the restrictive covenant is expressed to be for the bene-
fit and protection of the particular parcel of land acquired by
the sobseqaent parefaasa*, in iHiich case the benefit of the
covenant passes to such purchaser of the land, whether he
knew of its existence or not, being in the n^ore <rf
an easement attached to his land as the dominant toie-
ment (h).
1.
(/} a*id T. Bkhmtaf, (1809)
3 Ch. pp. 310, 333 ; 78 L. J. Ck. 7S3.
(jf) Otbime r. Bradltg, (1903) 2
Oh. p. 4Sd; miiil<m r. lUacher,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 674 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617.
{h) fienoif T. Cowlithau; 9 C. D.
p. IW; S. 0. en appwO. U C. D.
886 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 830; Itogtri r.
Hottgood, (1900) 2 Ch. 388; 69
L. J. Ch. 662 ; Reid y. Bvktrttaff.
(1909) 2 Ch. iip. 310, m; 78
L. J. Ch. 753.
i
I !
r ^
f:1
i ' 'i *
-I
493
Cliap. X.
BMt. 1.
Public boilie*
parchiwing
under itatutory
)io»en land
■■bj«et to
nataietir*
ODTMUUlta.
Banlen of
ntlirniHtive
covenanU doM
lait nu with
tilt' laoii.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BBEACH OP
Covenants reHtricting the user of land, will not be enforced
against a public body which purchases land under its statu-
tory powers for the purposes of its undertaking, the remedy
of the covenantee for breach of the covenants being by -way
of compensation under sect. 68 of the Lands Clansee Coa-
solidation Act, 1845 (i), but if part of the land is subse-
quently sold as superfluous land, the restrictions re?ive in
respect of such part of the land and can be enforced against
the purchaser (k).
The principle of Talk v. Moihay {I), only applies to re-
strictive covenants, and does not apply to affirmative cove-
nants binding the owner of the land at some future time to
lay out money upon land or to do any act relating to land of
what may be called an active character (m). The Couit will
not enforce a covenant not running at law with the land in
such a way as to require the successors in title of the cove-
nantor taking with notice to spend money on repairs and so
undertake a burden (m). In like manner, where a man who
had taken a lease of premises, subject to a restrictive covenant
not to carry on upon the piomisos or permit or suffer any
part thereof to be occupied by any person who should carry
on there any noisome kade, mac^e a sub-lease of the premises
with a similar covenant on the part of the sub-lessee who
entered into possession and began to cavry on an offensive
business, the Court would not compel the lessee to take pro-
ceedings against his tenuit (o). So also ii^ere the defen-
(») Baibj V. T)e ('le'jii'/ni/, L. R.
4 Q. B. iH L. J. (i. B. 98;
A'l /■'.// V. }!"<-r(Hi<ite ScliiMil ItiHirii,
(1896) 1 Ch. 4;i7 : o5 L. J. Ch. aTfl ;
Lonil Eaton Ihr.iition (Iroiiiiil Cn.
T. Midland Kaihmy Co.. [IVO-') 2
K. B. 574 : 71 L. J. K. B. SST.
(*) Bird v. Eg^ebm, 29 C. D.
1012 ; M L. J. Ch. 819.
(/) 2 Ph. 774 : 78 B. B. 289.
(f/i) Hayiroml v. Bruntii'irh Ptr-
iiHiiieiit, .It. Sa ittij, 8 Q. H. D. 40;5 ;
51 L. J. Q. B. 73 ; /,-.«./..« .^ S,mth
Wtftem ItaUn iiy l'„. v. (roweu, 20
C. D. p. 682; 61 L. J. Ch. 830;
Roijm V. ffosegofd, (1900) 2 Ch.
388, 405; 69 L. J. 652; /;< re
Xi»btt and I'oM Contracl, (1908)
1 Ch. p. 397; 74 L. J. Ch. 310;
affirmed on nppeal, (19M) 1 Ch-
3S6 : 75 L. J. Ch. 23.S.
(n) Aiinterberry v. ('nrporiitiim of
Oldham, 29 C. I). 760 ; 88 L. J. Ch.
m.
(o) HaU T. Bwin, 37 C. D. 74 ;
87 L. J. Ch. 98. See AUomty-
(lineriil v. II'(i/<A((7n»for(' I'rban
Vouueil, (1910) 1 Ch. 347 ; 79 L. J.
Ch. 387.
ni j t
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT.
498
dant who had purchased part of an estate subject to a restric-
tire covenant as to building, demised the land with a similar
covenant on the part of his lessees, and the lessees committed
breaches of their covenant and became bankrupt, and their
trustee disclaimed the lease, the Court refused at the instance
of an aeaignee of the rendw to ordm- the defendant, who had
re-entered into possession, to pull down the buildings erected
in breach of the covenant, the breach not being a continuing
one, and having been committed solely by the defendant's
lessees, the defendant having done nothing himMlf to en-
courage or promote the breach (p).
Although the burden of a restrictive covenant does not run
at law, it is otherwise with the benefit of such a eovenanl
\Vhen the benefit of a restrictive covenant has been annexed
to a piece of land, there is a presumption that it passes by an
assignment of that land, and it may be said to ran with the
land in equity as well as at law, without proof of special
bargain or representation on the assignment of the land (q).
In cases of covenant or agreement, where the breach is clear
and the covenant or agreement is of such a natare that it can
roiisistently with the rules and principles of the Court be
specifically enforced, the Court will not, unless under very
exceptional circumstances (r), take into «»sider»tion at the
lioariiif! the comparative injury to the parties frwn granting
or withholding the injunction ($).
Chap. X.
S».7t, 1.
B«uefit of
rMtrieUr*
oovaoMt
to
Ptrpetoal
itguatieM
gnnUd in ami
of contract
without regard
to queation of
U') I'owell T. HenuUg. (1909) 1
Ch. B80; (1909) 2 Ch. 252; 78
T.. J. Ch. 741.
(v) Riiffert V. Hotegooii, ^1900) 2
Hi. ,!S8 : 69 L. J. Ch. 652 ; Fmvhy
V. ItarUiT, (1903) 2 Ch. pp. 881.
•■>o2: 72 L. J. Ch. 716; and see
HiihtU V. KnfitM, (1!M)9) 1 Ch.
'H ; 7H L. J. Gh. 294, where the
as>ii;iioe of a lesxee enforced a
i iivpnant by the lessor with the
le-^see that the leaaor and his
'i^sin^nee would not weot a bnildinff
on land adjaiiiiof tlw damited
premiies.
(r) See Bawt* v. Lem, 9 Eq.
p. 642 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 483; Lrader
T. Mood,/. 20 Eq. 146 ; 44 L. J. Ch.
711; Othomt v. Brwlhy, (1H03) 2
Ch. p. 451 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 49 ; Att.-
Gtn. V. WiiHhamflow I'rhan Council,
(1910) 1 Ch. p. 351 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 269.
(s) 'J'ippin;/ v. Erkirtlty, 2 K. & J.
p 270; no B. R. 216; Johnttont
V. Hall, 2K.&J. p. 420 ; 2S L. J.
Ch.4e5; 110R.B. 296; Dkkmtm
V. Orand JuneUoH Canal Co., 15
Bear. p. 270 ; Dohert^ y. AUman,
3 A. C. 719, 720 ; Ptiee y. Bala and
Fmtbxvig Railway Co., M L T. 787 ;
JVeJBgRsAani v. OMm. (t^Qj) A. 0.
494
CMp.X.
, 1.
or whether
iajtir; wHtained
1h I
nnlem plaintilT
disentitle'! to
•ue by hi*
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BKEACH OF
The more fn t thnf thoro hnf hcon a hrench of covenant is
as a riilp suffi' ient ground for thu interfennce of the Court
by injunction, for s cwwrnntM hu the right to hw* the
nctuul enjoynunt of i)roprrty nicA ft jormd as Mipii'iited
for by him (<). R'ld is ontitlod fo li, > his right enforced by
injunction without the necessity of sliowing damage (»).
It ia no taumut to mj that tlw .et eompl»ined of will infliet
no injury on the plaintiff, or will '"^ -^vfa beneficial to him.
It is for the plaintiff to judge whether the agreement shall be
presenred as far M he is coneemed, or whether he shkll per-
mit if to be violate 1. It is not nocpssary that he should show
that any damage has been done. It being established that
the acts of the defendant are a Tiolation of the contract entered
into by him, the Court will protect the plaintiff in the «n-
joymont of thr right which hp has purchased (r).
Accordingly, where there is a negative covenant, the Court
has, speaking generally, no diaeretion to consider the balance
of convenience or matters of that nature, but is bound to give
effect to the contract between the parties (y), unless the party
seeking to enforce the cotenant has by his own oonduet, or
by that of the persons through whom he claims, become dis-
entitled to sue {z). But the- Court will not refuse relief
p. 107 ; 77 L. J. P. C. 20 ; (hhome
T. BnMtg, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 451 ; 7:!
L. J. Ch. 49 ; Harrit v. lioott Canh
Cktmitt* Co., (190i) 2 Ch. p. 383;
73 L. J. Ch. 708; Eaiibm ▼.
RratUr, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 396 ; 8. C.
on nppeal, p. 664 ; 77 I.. J. Oh. 617.
(t) .!uhn»ii.nf V. Hall, 2 K. & J.
p. 423 ; 25 I . J. t'h. 465 ; 110 U. R,
296 ; Wfttfrii v. MacDermott, 2 Ch.
p. 7.5 ; .16 1.. J. Ch. 76 ; Mannfri
{Lord) V. John$m,, 1 C. D. p. 680 ;
4i L. J. Ch. 4M ; Othome v.
BradUy, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 451 ; 73
L. 3. Ch. 49 ; v. ItarW.
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 394 ; 8. 0. on
appeal, p. 666 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617.
(ii) Maunrrit {Lord) V. Johnmn, 1
C. D. 673 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 404;
ak*ari» v. Btvitt, 7 C. O. 2M ; 47
L. J. Ch. 472 ; EllUto,, v. Hearher.
nijira.
(x) PicktHum OraiiJ JiinHiim
BaUiMg Co., 18 Beav. p. 270;
WtU$ w. AU*iaor>/mgh, 24 L. T. 318 ;
19 W. R. 485 ; Jbmwrt (/<ani) v.
.Tohitfn, 1 C. D. p. 880; 48 L. J.
Ch. 404 ; RickanU v. BevitI, 7 C. D,
224 : 47 L. J. Ch. 472 ; Collini ?
CaMe, 36 C. D. 243 ; 57 L. J. Ch
76 ; Oibvne v. Braiitt//, (190;j} 2 Ch
p. .51 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 49 ; Ellittoi
V. Rfaeher, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 396 ; S. C
on appeal, p. 666 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617
(y) Dcktrty ▼. AUman, 3 A. C
708,719; OtiorM v. firad<9, (190S
2 Ch. p. 451 ; 73 L. J. Oh. 48.
(x) Ri>ptr V. WilHam, T. * B
18; 23 B. B. 169; ;ff.y./r.i (Duta
T. Trmttm ^ BrtUih Mt umtm ,
496
Ch«p. X.
, 1.
COVENANT OB AOBEElfENT.
merply bccauRc -n a few cases corenants restricting the
of land have not been enforced by the covenantee (o).
The ml* enunciated by Lord CaimR to Doherty v. Alt
man (h), that in the caso of nogative co/enantH the Court
must give effect to tho contract between the parties, primd
facie applies to all restrictive covenants; though where the
right of the covenantee it •qaitabia oa\jr, the Court will mora
rciulily award damages than an injunction, hut the ubsonce of
proof by the plaintiff of substantial damages is not by itself
BuiBetent to warrant the Goorl adopting tiiat coarse (c).
When an application is made to the Court to restrain a Uutim inju»c-
itian frwn currying on a trade or profession contrary to his il^tao*"'"
covenant, the Court oo^t not to grant an injunction upon a
prima facie case, if it is satisfied that to do so would in effect
prevent Vxini from earning his livelihood. If nn injiinction
is granted, conditions should be imposed to prevent such a
result from ensuing (d).
Ill exorcising the jurisdiction by way of mand itory injun- MamiMorr
tion against acts in violation of contract, covenant, or agree- mSHS*^
ment, the Court looka to the ezpren atipnlation of the agree-
raent, and is not, as m cases of trespass or nuisance, in-
fluenced by considerations as to the nature or extent of the
damage, or the comparative convenience or inconvenience of
granting or withholding the injunction. A man who enters
into an agreement is bound in equity to a true and literal
performance of it. He cannot be suffered to depart from it
M. ft K. M2 ; 2 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch.
129 : 38 B. B. 2M ; V. jroMJbiPt,
3 Eq. Sift : 16 L. T. 091 ; Sngert r.
CollHtr, 28 0. D. 103, 108; M
L. J. Ch. 1 ; Knight v. Simmomlt,
(I89(i) 2 Ch. 294, 297 , 298 ; 65
J. Ch. 6H3; Craig v. Crrer,
(iHllii) 1 I. R. 258; Otbome v.
lirwIU,/, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 451 ; 73
I.. J. Ch. 49; Subei/ y. SaiiubHrg,
( 1 !*1 .')] 2 Ch. 513 ; />«{fayM v. AwMf.
(1913)47 8. J. 173.
(a) H«nmm r. Cht^fmam, 7 C. B.
Vf. 378, 379; 47 L. J. SSO ;
Jadmm v. Wiwtifritk, 47 L. T.
MS; Kn/fki Simmimt, (189«)
a Ch. m-, M L. J. Ch. 583;
EUUtm T. Jteaeher, (1908) 2 Ch.
pp. 392, 393; S. C. on appeal,
p. 665; T; L. J. Ch. 617; Tubbt
V. Ksser, (1910) 26 T. L. B. p. 148.
(i) 3 A. e. 709, 719.
(e) EllittOH V. BeachfT, (1908) 3
Oh. p. 395; ac. onappwa. p.a85;
77 L. J. Ch. 617.
(rf) Pahe$ Tktalrt Co. v. Cfaiuy,
(1909) 26 T. L. B. 38, p«r Vau^ui
WiffiaaM,LJ.
■
496
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF
to |iiiblic 110
aniwer.
Chap. X. at his pleasiiro, loaviiig the other party to his remedy by
Seet^ dumuges at law (c). There may be cases in which it is so
clear that the mischief to arise from a breach of covenant
would be inappreciable that the Court may decline to inter-
fere on the ground that a mandatory injunction would be out
of all proportion to the requirempnts of the case, and would
operate with extreme harshness on the defendant (/). But
as a getioral rule, the ineonv 'tiience to the defendant will not
incoiiv.iiii.mc ill such cascs be taken into consideration (g). Nor can the
defendant be permitted to set up the inconTenience to the
public which would arise from his being compelled to perform
his agreement (h).
The case of Lane v. Netvdigate (i) is the first instance to be
found in the books in which an order for a mandatory injunc-
tion was made against a breach of agreoment. The plaintiff
was assignee of a lease granted by the defendant for the pur-
pose of erecting mills, and the defendant was bound by cove-
nant to s'ipply water for canals and reservoirs on his own
estate to work the plaintiff's mills. Tho plaintiff brought his
suit to enforce the execution of ropa rs by the defendant, and
tho restoration of a cut and stop-gate in oxistonee at the date
of tlif loaso, and the removal of a lock which had been made
since the date of the lease. Lord Eldon doubted whether he
could order repairs to be done or the works to be restored, but
arrived at the same end by restraining the defendant from
(f) Storer v. (ireat Weitem Rail- London, Chatham, and Dover Mil-
way Co., 2 Y. & C. C. C. 48 ; 12 wa;/ C,,., 2 D. J. A S. p. 880 ; 34
L. J. Ch. 65 ; 60 B. R. 23 ; Lloyd L. J. Ch. 401.
V. London, Chatham, and Dovtr (ff) Mam -rt (Lord) v. Joknton, 1
Hnihn,,, ro., 2 D. J. & S. p. 579; C. I). 680 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 404.
:U fi. J. Ch. 401 ; Att-Orii. v. Mid- (A) Lloyd v. London, Chatham,
Knit It.iibrnii ('<:. ;) rh. 104; and Ihnr l!aihr„,i f'„, 2 D. J. &
T}ohi-rt;i V. Alhiian. 3 A. ( \ p. 720 ; S. j7!» ; M h. J. Ch. 401 : Ha/ihiiel
U'tilri-rliaiiijifou ( 'iirjioriitvn v. v. 'I'liamiK Vtilliii llnilic:ii/ {■„,, •>
A'mmoos (1901) 1 U H. p. ,)22 ; 70 Ch. 147: .io L. J. Ch. «.j9 ; Pri e
L. J. K. H. 429. See Uirkmnre v. v. Ilnla and l-'esliniog Railway Co.,
IHmmer, {m i) 1 Ch. p. 168 ; 72 oQ L. T. 7S7.
L. J. Ch. 96. (•) 10 Vea. 192; 7 E. E. 881;
( f) Bowet V. Law, 9 Eq. 630 ; and see Jarkeon r. Normandy Bride
39 L J. Ch. 483 ; Kilbey v. Hati- Co., (1899) 1 Ch. m, n.
land, 19 W. B. 698. See Ll"yd v.
Chap. X.
Bwl 1.
COVENANT 01! AGliEEMENT.
hindering the enjoyment of the plaintiff by kepping the works
out of repair, by the use of the lock, or by continuing the
removal of the stop-gates (A). So also an agreement to grant iwUnoes of
a right of way was carried into effect by an injunction to ."j^iS^
restrain the removal of the materials and the destruction of
the way (I). So also a man was restrained from continu-
ing to keep up a wail on liis hind which obstructed u right
which the plaintiff had under an agreement with him to use a
certain road (m). So also the lessee of a field who in viola-
ti Hi of the covenants in his lease caused the fall of one of the
fences bounding the field by excavating the clay from under
it, was compelled by a mandatory injunction in the negative
funn to restore the fence to its former condition (»). So also
tlie Commissioners of Woods and Foi-ests who had granted
a lease of ground to the plaintiff as a site for a club house,
and had covenanted in the lease that part of the land adjoining
the giound so let should belaid out as an ornamental garden,
and that no building should be erected thereon, were re-
strained from permitting such buildings as had already been
Pivoted from continuing on the ground (o). So also a lessee
who had covenanted not to erect on the demised premises any
huildmg other than a stable and coach-house, and not to do
"n tiie demised premises any act which might be an annoyance
to any tenant of the lessor, was ordered to pull down a sub-
stantial trellis-work screen (p) . So also where the purchasers
of plots of land on a residential building estate had covenanted
not to erect any building for the carrying on of any noisy,
noisome or offensive trade, and a lessee of one of the pur-
chasers erected on his plot a large hoarding of a permanent
nature and covered it with' advertisements, the Court granted
Ihe owner of an adjoining plot a mwidatory injunction for the
497
{k) See Lord KUmorey v. Tharkt-
rai), cited 2 Bro. C. C. p. 64. Of.
Ht'tkemore v. (Hamnri/niisliire Hail-
Co., 1 M. & K. p. 184; 1' L. J.
V)( h. !»o; 36 R. R. 2.S9.
I 'I Xtn-marrh v. Uramllini!, 3 Sw.
\m) J'hil/ip, T. Tredty, 8 Jar.
K.I.
X. S. !)99 ; 6 L. T. 313.
(w) Xeirfim V. AVt,43 L. T. 197.
See IMivtll v. IJoUh,,, 63 X,. T. 104,
whore oidor made in positive form.
(<0 Ilnnkin y. HuMuon, 4 Sim.
13; SOB. R 86.
(p) Wood T. Cooper, (1894) 3 Oh.
871 ; 03 L. J. Ch. 8*5.
33
498
Cbap. Z.
Swt.l.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST IJREACH OF
removal of the howding (g) . So also the lessee of a shop and
house who had covenanted not to remove the plate glass win-
dows in front of the house without substituting others of equal
valufc waf- restrained from allowing the shop to remain without
plate glass windows (r). So also where a lessee of a house
and shop had covenanted not to make any alteration in the
elevation of the premises or alter the decorations or iron rail-
ings in front thereof, or to make any addition without the
consent of the lessor, and, notwithstanding the covenant, com-
menced alterations in the front windows of the shop and
removed the iron railings and made a new doorway, he was
restrained by injunction and ordered to restore the front of
the shop to the state in which it was before the bringing of the
action (s). So also a solicitor who had sold his business to
the plaintiff, but kept possession of the books contrary to his
covenant, was restrained from keeping the hooka away from
the possession of the plaintiff, and from permitting the same
to remain away from the office of the plaintiff (<)• So also a
partner who had taken away one of the partnership booka
from the counting-house of the Arm in breach of a covenant m
the partnership deed was restrained from continuing to violate
the covenant (u), and from keeping it at any other place than
the partnership premises («). So also trustees of a chapel
were restrained from permitting a minister to officiate m the
chapel contrary to a covenant entered into by them (y). Bo
also a mine owner who had covenanted to leave sufficient
barriers against the adjoining collieries, but had broken his
covenant, was restrained from permitting a communication
(9) Xmseyy. I'ri.dwial Hill Pout-
ing Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 734 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 539.
(r) lirockkaby v. Mmin, (1H70)
W. N. 42.
(«) IM Nicok V. Abel, (18(59)
W. N. 14.
(() W'htttaktr v. Howe, 3 Beav.
383 ; 52 B. B. 162 ; Whiiivham v.
Moot, 73 L. T. 67 (retention by
rlmk\
(«) royfor V. floi-a, 4 L. J. Ch.
18 ; 7 L. J. Ch. 179 J 3 Be«T.
388, n. ; Oreatrtx v, Ortatrtx, 1
l)e (}. & Sm. 092; 75 E. E. 251;
CharWm v. I'oiilter, 19 Ves. 148, n.
See Jhtties v. (Ia$ Liijht and Cuk'
Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 248, 708; 78
L. J. Ch. 445.
(x) Onatrex v. Grtairex, lupra-
See Pattnership Act, 1890, eeet
24, lub-wot. 9.
(y) Foundling Hoipitalr.QtHrrttt,
47 L. T. 230.
1.
COVENANT OR AGREEMENT. 499
with an adjoining mine to remain open and water to flow
therefrom (z) . 80 also a railway company which had agreed
with a man to make a road at a certain lei el were restnined
from making a road at a lower level than they had agreed to
do (a). So also a railway company which had agreed with
the vendor of land to use a certain portion of the land as and
for a first-class station for the purpose of taking up and
setting down passengers, were restrained from allowing their
trains to pass the station without stopping (b). So also where
a building has been erected in a form that is in violation of a
contract or an Act of Parliament, the Court may restrain the
defendant from using the building (c), or may compel him to
alter the elevation or fbrm of the bailding so as to be in «m-
formity with the terms of the contract m the Act of Parlia-
ment, as the case may be (el).
In a recent case (e) the Court refused to enforce by manda-
tory injunction a contract to maintain a stmotare bearing
an inscription calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.
It is now settled that a mandator, injunction may be
framed in the form <rf a positive and direct wdw upoa the
defendant to do the act required (/).
A man, however, who seeks a mandatory injunction must DAj.
{z) MaAeroughlEafi)r.Bowtr,1 0. D. p. 680 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 404;
Contract to
■aistaiB
•tractnre
bmriag
defanstorjr
inicription.
not at
iteav. .l27 ; affd. 2 L. T. O. 8. 206 ;
64RB.34. See Powdl V. Aiken,4
K. & J. p. 355.
(a) Fatter v.Ilirmingham.Wolvtr-
Immpton and Dudley Raitwaf Co.,
^ W. B. 378 ; 99 K. R. 882.
('') HwkI v. X„rtl, Eastern Rail-
iiaij Co., 5 Ch. 323; 23 L. T. 206.
Cf. milipiis V. Ortat fTMdTM
liaihoay Cu., 7 Ch. 416 ; 41 L. J. Oh.
614 ; Tumtr r. LondoH cmd Sot^
H'rtttm Bailwa^ Co., 17 £q. 061 ;
43 L. J. Ch. 430.
(c) Dover Harbour {Warden) v.
Struth Eastern RaUway Co., 9 Ha.
P-493; 21 L. J. Ch. 886; L<n.d<m,
Chatham and J>mer Jiailivay Cu. v.
"I'll, 47 L. T. 413, 415.
{'{) Manntrt {Lord) v. Johnton, 1
M'Uanut v. Covkt, 35 C. D. 681^
CPS ; 66 L. J. Ch. 662. See S<orer
V. Great Wtslerri Sailway Co., 2
Y. & C. C. C. 48 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 66;
60E.B.23; Child r. Ikmgbu.Kty,
677 ; lOl E. E. 736 ; iV.« v. AUa,
<tc. RaUway Co.,- SO L. T. 787, 788
(buiUings nraovad).
(e) Woodward v. BatUma Borough
Coun^l, (1911) lot L. T. «1 ; 27
T. L. B. 196.
(/) Jackson v. ^ rmanby Brick
Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 438 ; 68 L. J. Ch.
407 ; Davits v. (las Liyht and Coke
Co., (1909) 1 Oh. p. 25C ; 78 L. J. Ch.
443; Att.-Otn. v. Oratul ./mi((min
Canal Co., (1900) 2 Ch. p. 616; 78
L. Ci. «I.
82—2
600 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BBEAGH OP
Chap. X. aae dae diligence in nukiog the application (g). In a oaae
where a building had been erected by the defendant's pre-
decessor in title in breach of covenant, and had been allowed
to stand for fire years, the Court would not interfwre by man
datory injunction to order it to be pulled down(fc). The
Court will seldom interfere to pull down a building which
has been erected without oomidaint (<).
DuMfM. Instead of granting an injunction the Court may, when
it is satisfied that such a course will be justified by the circum-
stances of the case, substitute damages for an injunction (*).
But a man may by acquiescence in a breach of covenant not
only depr himself of his right to an injunction but of his
right to recover damages in substitution for an injunction, or
even nominal damages (2).
BBCTJON n.-— INJUNCTIONS IN AID OF SPECIFIC PEKFOKMANCB.
A Court of equity has jurisdiction pending a suit for
specific performance to restrain the vendor from alienating or
affecting by other acts the subject-matter in litigation.
Whether or not the jurisdiction will be exercised depends on
the special circumstances of the case. If there is a clear, un-
disputed contract, the Court will not permit the Tend«r to
transfer the legal estate to a third person (?»). But if the
validity of the contract is open to doubt, the question whether
the vendor sh '1 be permitted to transfer the legal estate to
a third pwson, pending a suit for specific performance, be-
Ig) Ante. p. 46. '^S C. D. rp. 108, 1 10 ; 62 U J. Ch.
S y. BalU, 13 ('. D. 324, 770 ; and «ee KlMon ^. ifea. W,
328 • 28 W. B. 562. (t9«8) Ch. p. 395 ; S. C. on appeal,
(0 GaMn v. Balls, supra. See ^ 665 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 617 ; ^a.-e- v.
pJel, V. Herasley, (1909) 2 Ch. Tanl^^Ole (E.,rl) 0909) 2 Oh.
262. 'SO ; 78 L. J. Ch. 741 ; but pp. 445, 446 ; 78 U J. Ch. 674.
Bee rri, e v. liala and Miniog Rail- (<) Kelsey v. r>odd, M L. J. Uh.
tfav f'o., 50 L. T. 787; /.ofJ-emf V. 34. , , „ t ■
IMon. 59 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 62 L. T. (m) IMky y. I-^^^/^^l
749 (completion atter issue of writ). Scotland, 3 I)e O. J. * B. M. W.
(i) Lmilft V. Moody, 20 Eq. p. 164 ; 13 W. B. 978.
44 L. J. Oh. 711 ; Saftrtr. Collier,
COVENANT OB AGREEMENT.
601
Cbap. X.
l3.
comeB a question of oomparatire eonrenienoe or incon-
?enience. If, on the one hand, greater inconvenience woald
arise to the plaintiff from withholding the injunction than to
the defendant from granting it, an injunction will be
granted (n). If, on the other hand, greater inconvenience
would arise to the defendant from granting the injunction
than to the plaintiff from withholding it, an injunction will
not be granted (o). Where, however, the legal estate is out-
standing, an injunction to restrain the vendor from dealing
with the property is unnecessary. It is sutBcient in such a
case for ths purcLaser to register the suit as a lis pendens {p).
In a case in which the unpaid vendor of land taken by a
railway company had brought an action to enforce his lien
and an order had been made declaring the plaintiff entitled
to a lien and directing «ie purchase-money to be paid on or
before a certain day, the defendants having made default in
complying with the order, and there being evidence that the
land was unsaleable, the Court granted an injunction restrain-
ing the defendants from running trains over the railway and
from continuing in possession {q).
Relic! may be given even against parties whose rights are
independent of the contract. Thus, where the suit relafc i to
an agreement for the sale of a next presentation to a living,
the bishop of the diocese was restrained from instituting,'
or in the case of a lapse taking place pending the suit'
from collating to the Hnng any clerk not nominated by the
plaintiff (r).
Where an agreement had been entered into for the sale M.„„ato^ order
Of a house at a fixed price, and of Oie fixtures and fumitui-e ""^
at a valuation by a person named by the parties, but the
vendor refused him permission to enter the premises for the
(n) lb. ; see Proton v. Luck, 27
C. n. 497.
(o) Hadlty v. London Bank <j/"
SrotlamI, 3 De O. J. ft S. 63 : 13
W. R. 978.
(/)) See 2 4 3 Vict. c. 11, m. 4,
11: and see fliw% y. Lm,!-Jn Bank
of SaOand, 3 De J. ft S. pp. 6», 70 ;
13 W. E. 978.
(q) AUgoody MtrrylmtmaDar.
UngUm BaUway Co., 33 C. D. a71 •
M L. J. Oh. 743.
(r) N^hctton v. Knapi,, 9 Sim
•*a6; 7 L. J. (N.8.) Ch. 219; 47
602 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OF COVENANT. ETC.
Ctap. X. purpose of valuation, a mandatory order was maHr* to compel
the yendor to allow the entry to enable the va'aation to
M.nd.ior,ori« proceed (»). Where the plaintiffs had watered into a con-
purh^Tof tract with the defendant for the purchase of timber growing
tiiii'i«r growing j^js estftto with the right to enter upon the estate for the
" purpose of sawing and removing the timber, and the defen-
dant repudiated the contract and forcibly ejected the plain-
tiffs from his estate, an ■■ mction was granted restraining the
defendant from preve- the due execution of the contract
by the plaintiffs, eve ^ugh the Court might not have been
able to compel the plaintiffs co cut and remove the timber
if they liad refused to do so (<) • "V^here serious injury might
be done to property, the subject of the action, unlass ( e
defendant acted in a particular manner, which he could do
with comparatively little trouble and ris' t which the plain-
tiff could not do at all, as where a colliery would be flooded,
unless the person in possession under an agreement for a
lease continued to pump, the interim preservation of the pro-
perty was secured by the issue of a mandatory injunctioii
restraining the defendant from ceasing to act in that parti-
cular manner, e.g., pomp out water («).
U) Smith y. Ptteri, 80 Bq. 411 ; C3h. 674. ^ r,
44 L. J. Ch. 613. W StrMy f D.
* Co. V. Tan:rrrvilU US ; « L. J. Oh. 406 ; Ord. L. 3.
{Earl), (1909) 2 Ch. 440 ; 78 L. J.
CHAPTER XI.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THK DI8CL08UBE OF CONFIDENTUL COM-
MUNIOATIONS, PAPBR8, SRCRBTS, KTC., BTC.
Thr Court will, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction
to correct iibuse of confldMioe, restrain by injunetion the dis-
closure of confidentiHl communications, papers, and secrets.
In all cases where a confidential relationship can be shown
to exist, the Court imidiefl a contract <m the part of a person
who has derived any confidential communication through the
relationship, that he will not use the infoi-maf n to the detri-
ment of the person from whom he received i Upon this
principle, persons into whose possession papers, documents,
or copies of books, have come, or who have had secrets con-
fided in them, will be restrained from making an improper use
of such materials and information (a). The obligation ex-
tends to those who have acquired their information at second
hand from such persons (6). Accordingly, injunctions have
been granted to restrain the use or publication of secret
(a) Moriton r. Moat, 9 Hare,
p. 253 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 613 ; on appeal
21 J. Ch. 248 ; 89 R B. 416 ;
Btfr V. Waril, Jap. p. 80 ; Yomtl v.
Witiyaril, IJ. & W. 394 ; •.»! R. E.
1!H ; Lfwii V. Smith, 1 Mac. & O.
H7: 84 R. R. 108; Witliainx v.
I'rihie <;/■ WaM l.ife Assiirnnre
<o., 23 Iteav. 340; 113 H. R 163;
Mrrri/meiither v. Moore, (1892) 2 Ch.
m; 61 J. Ch. dOA; Babb t.
'irtm, (1893) 2 Q. B. 1 ; on appeal,
p. 318; 64 L. J. Q. B. 393;
Siimmen r. Boycr, (1907) 97 L. T.
•■'ii.'. ; 23 T. L. R. 724; K!rrl,ner\.
Unihan, (1909) I Ch. 413, 422; 78
1.. J. Ch. 117: Mmtitrei Urntliert
V. .Veaaiiret, (191()) 1 Ch. 336, 343 ;
79 L. J. Ch. p. 710; aff. on
appeal on other ground!', (1910) 5:
Ch. 248 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 712 ; /.iV/«W
t'eneer Co. v. Scott, (1912) 29 R. P. C.
<iS9 : Amher Size ami ( 'uemiral Co.
V. Menzel, (1913) 2 Ch. 239; 82
L. J. Ch. 373; LitMUt Co. v.-
Travit and Intulalon CS»., (1913)
30 B. P. C. 266.
(i) Tipping y. Clarke, 2 Hare,
p. 393 ; 62 R. B. 144 ; niis»fll v.
JaeJtmm, 9 Hare, p. 391 ; 21 L. J.
Ch. 146; 89 R. R. 495; liohk v.
Oreeti, (1895) 2 Q. B. p. 1«; 64
Ij. J. (i. B. 593; Smnmera v. Boyre ;
Liquiil Veneer C,,. y. Srolt, $upra;
Athhtirtrm. (Lord) v. Pape, (1913)
2 Ch. 469 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 327.
504
INJI NCTIONS AOAINST THE DI^^CLOSl UK OF
Chap. XI.
Privilege
Ijctwecn rliciit
and bin legal
adTiien.
iiiformiitidii (ilitiiim il liy clfiks or Mci-viitits in the wurse of
their L'liijjloymoiil, *<ui'li us ti list of Aw nuincs and addreneii
of thp plaintiffH' customera copied from their books (c) ; a
tahli of (liiii('!isioiis of maohinery designed It.v the pliiirMiffs
and coliectfd from their plans by one of their draftsmen ('/) ;
materials for the construction of a hook of advertispments
collected hv the plaintiffs' canvassers (f) : the accounts and
dealingM of tiie piaintiffn' businosH (fj ; or their secret process
of manufaeture (g).
The jurisdiction extends to enable the Court to restrain a
third parvy from nsinp secret informal ion which hii'< heen to
his knowledge ohtnined or communicatwl in hreach ot faith,
duty, or contract. Thus, where under a contract information
was supplied to the plaintiffs by the Stock P'xchanpe luul the
same information • as surreptitiously obtained by the defen-
dant from a third person, the defendant was restrained from
publishing it (h).
The protection which is given by the Court to all who have
employeil any person in u confidential way in their aSairt
does not, however, extend to cases where a fraudulent trans-
action hat. come to the knowledge of such other person in the
course of his employment (•). "An employer," said Lord
Hatherley (fc), "can have no property in iniquitous secrets."
The rule which protects from disclosure eonfldenfial com-
munications between a client and his counsel or solicitor {I),
(r) Uiilili V. (,'rfeii, nu/ira ; f,ntii$
V. Smell ie. (18!I5} 7;i L. T. 226:
W. X. 115: Siimmrri v. Ilni/rr :
Mrnmirrn llriilhrri> v. Min^iiren,
note (n), ni/Ta.
(i/) Mfrrywfatlier\. .l/iHirc, (lHil2)
2(Ti. 618; 61 Ti. J. Ch. S«6.
(«) Lamh V. Evant, (1892) 3 Ch.
4«2: fil li. J. Ch. 681; (1893) 1
Ch. 218; 62 L. J. Ch. 404.
(/) Siimmfm V. Hot/rr, tujirn.
(i/) fji/iiiil Vriiifr <'i>. V. Si-att,
(1!M2) 29 R. P. ('. fi:{9 ; Amhrr She
(iiiil I'liemiral I'u. v. .V/fnzf/. (1913)
2 t h. -m ; ft2 L. J. < h. 573;
LUholUe ' '». V. Trarin nml fmulator*
rn.. (1913) 30 B. P. C. 200.
(//) Kxrliaii'lf >'n. V. < !reiitirii,
(1890) 1 (i. li. 147 : 05 T,. J. (1. B.
202; and WOP Exrlinii</e Cn. v. I'ru-
tral Xrwi. (1897) 2 Ch. 48; 00
L. .1. Ch. ()72 ; Siimmiri v. /Iiii/rr,
(1907) 97 I.. T. 505; 2;i T. L. E.
726 ; AthliurtoH [Lunl) v. I'ayt,
(1913) 2 Ch. 469 ; 82 L. J. Ch. (27
(idaintilTa letters to his solicitor
obtained by defendant from the
solicitor's clerk).
(i) t/iniavle v. Ontram, 26 L. J.
Ch. 113; 3 Jnr. (N. 8.) p. 40.
[k ) lb.
(/) (irttnmigh v. Oadettt, I My. ft
( ONFIDENTFAI. COMMI NICATIONS. HECRET8, ETC.
(Iocs not l ost siniply upon tlio conftdcncn reposrd by tlio client
ill his legal adviser, for there is no siu-h rule in other cases in
which, at least, eqiial confldenee is reposed ; in the ctuum, for
instance, of the inwlical adviser and llio putient, iind of the
clergj-man and the piisoner (wi). The rule rests not only
upon the confidence iteelf, but upon the necessity of carrying
it out. It is for the interests of justice that the most full,
free, and complete conitnunication should tiiko place !)etwoen a
client and his legal adviser, for if tluit did not take place, it
would be impossible to conduct a suit or to obtain justice, or
for a mnn to defend himself and to prevent an injustice
The privilege is not confined to litigation actually com-
menced or in contemplation, but extends to all communica-
tions which pass between a client and his legal adviser in the
course and for the purpose of tho husiness (n). The pi ivilego
does not terminate with the death of the client, hut belongs
after his death to persons claiming under him as against
parties claiming adversely to him; but it doPs not belong to
I xecutors as against the next of kin, nor to one of two parties
claiming under the client rather than to ^e other, but, follow-
ing the legal interest, is subject to the trusts and incidents to
which the legal interest is subject (p). The privilege is
limited to communications of a solicitor with his client and
those persons necessarily employed under the solicitor, and
does not extend to connounieations between a solicitor and
third parties (g).
(1901) A. V. p. 201 ; 70 L. J. K. B.
645; JiineM v. Great Oiifral RaiU
wnii r,,., (1910) A. ('. ].. 5 ; 79 L. J.
K. B. 191.
(o) Minel V. Mi^iim,. 8 Ch.
;J68; 42 1 J. t'h. (i27: Wheeler \.
I.e Marrhnn , 17 ('. D. p. 682; 40
L. J. Ch. 793.
(;>) RttutU V. Jacksm, 9 Hare,
p. 393 : 21 L. 3. Ch. 146 ; 88 B. R.
496; niillivant v. Att.-Oen. for
Vitioria, (1901) K. C. p. 206 ; 70
L. J. K. B. 645.
(?) FcTii V. Tennaut, S2 Beav.
83 L. J. Ch. 466 ; Andtnm
606
Chap.Zt.
K. 98 ; .39 B. R. 258 ; Btu/idl r.
■lai-ktm, 9 Hare, p. .191 ; 31 1^. J.
Ch. 146: 89 R. n. 495; Hlaiie v.
Tiirnir. M C. 1). p. 828; 49 T.. J.
I 'll. <!4 4: Wheeler v. I.e Afnrrhniit,
17 C. !•. ]). 6H2 ; 50 L. J. Ch. V.n ;
.\i„.H,rorih V. Wihlimi. (1900) 2 Ch.
]'. 321 ; 69 L. J. Ch. (i95 ; Rakusen
V. A7/M Munday .fc Co.. (1912) 1
Ch. pp. 8.14, 836 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 409.
(m) Ortenitugh v. Oatkell, 1 M. ft
K. p. 103 ; .19 B. B. 288 ; Xomum-
fhnm V. Sormdmiinw, 69 L. T. 468.
('■) (irccnoufih v. f!as!;ell, supra ;
Biillivant t. AU.-Oeit. for Victoria,
S06
INJUNCTI0N8 AOAINST THE DI8GL08UKE OF
XI. Ill f|i(> cxtTi isc of its juriH(liction by injiirict nti the Court
dra'vs a distinction between casea where a solicitor roluntarily
makes a communication of what has come to his knowledge in
the course of hi.s piofessionul employment and cases where ho
i« r«'c|iiirod to di.Hclose what he knows by giving evidence before
u Court of justice (r). In the one case the Court will interfere
by injunction (•). In the other eaae it will not interfere (().
The existence of un illegal purpose or fraud will prevent
any privilege from Httaching to the communications between a
solicitor and client (u).
As a general rule, a document onco privileged is always
privileged (x). Hut the privilege is that of the c''('nt, "and
not the privilege of the confidential agent '' (//) ; and accord-
ingly it may be waired by the client (z). The privilege will
be enforced, at the instance of the client, as well against the
solicitor's partner (a) as against the solicitor himself.
tiijiiiK't ion lo With the further riew to the protection of a client from the
acting «K«i'>«t disclosure of confidential communications, the Court will re-
former client, gjfgj^ g solicitor from disclosing any secrets which have been
confidentially reposed in him, but there is no general rale
that a solicitor who has acted in a particular matter for one
party cannot subsequently act in the matter or anything con-
nected with it for the opposite party: whether the solicitor
can so act or not depends on the circumstances of the parti-
cular case. If there exists, or may be reasonably anticipated
T. Bank 0/ BriUih Columbia, 3 BuUivatU r. Att.-Otn. for FMorte,
C. D. p. 6M ; 4fi L. J. Ch. 440; (1801) A. C. 196, 201 ; 70 L. J.
Aintworth t. WMing, (1900) 2 Ch. K. B. 64,5.
p. 324; «9 L.J. (Ti. 698; and Bee (r) t'akra/t v. (18im) 1
Jimff V. rireat Ctntral Itnihriii/ <'n., (i. H. p. Ttil ; 07 li. J. (i. 11. 503 ;
(1910) A. < '. 4 ; 79 L. J. K. li. 191. (I,.l<htv„f\. U illinmn, l>e,mm ,(■ Co.,
(r) P,rr V. Il'dr./, Jac. 77. (1899) 1 Ch. 31, 52 ; 08 T;. J. ("h. 24.
(j) .'.i wif V. Smith, 1 M. & 0. (1/) Aniltrtou v. Bank of British
417 ; 84 U. R. 108. Coiumbia, 2 C. D. p. 649 ; 46 L. J.
(<) Beer v. IVanl, lupra. Ch. 449.
(«) FnlUU V. Jrfenif, 1 Sim. (») Ih. ; Caltrf^fl v. Omtt, (1898)
(N. 8.) 3; 20 L. J. Ch. 65; 89 1 aB. p. 761 ; 67 L. J. a B. 60S;
B. B. 1 : Buttell V. JMkmm, 9 Hare, ProrUr r. SmUta, 66 L. J. Q. B. 927.
38": 21 Ij. J. Ch. 146; 89 B. B. (a) Paiietv. I'louyh, S Sim. 2»2 :
496; Willianu v. Qu^muia, Rail- (i L. J. (N. S.^ Ch. 113: 42 H. B.
tray, etc. Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 761; 171.
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS. SECRETS. ETC.
M7
to eziit, a danger of the itolicitor committing n breach of th* _cbmp^i.
confldenre reposfd in him, the Court will restrain him from
acting for the new cliont, but in the abaenee of such danger
the Court will not interfere (»).
in ti proper piiso tiic injiinotion will issue, nofwithstanding
iipquiescenco by tho fonner client for some time in the em-
ployment of the solicitor by the new client (r). The fact
f'l it tiie ne*.. client may Huffer miitorial inconvenience cannot
be talien ! considenition (d). The injunction goes to re-
strain the client from employing the solicitor, as well as the
solicitor from being employed (e).
The name of a floret preparation mny be used by anyone Tmle
for goods uctuallj orepored according to the recipe (/). Until
the secret is discovered the goods of the original inrentor or
his successors can l)e the only goods to which the name is
applicable, but if a person cwi discover the recipe, he can, it
seems, nae the name if he can do so without passing off his
ffoods for those of the original inTentor (g).
If a man who has a trade secret employs persons under a
contract, either express or implied, or under a duty, express
or implied, not to discloee the secret, those persons cannot gain
file knowledge of the secret and then set it up ap inst their
employer (h). In Moriton v. Moat (»), the plaint vere the
inventors of a secret medicine, and had eoatmm i tted the
(h) Rahum t. Etti*, Mtrndap t
i larke, (1913) 1 Oh. 831 ; 81 L. J.
Oh. 40B ; decirion of Hall. V.-C, ir
f.iltle V. Kiniitmml <\>tlierie* Co.,
20 ('. n. T.'ia- 51 L. J. Ch. 498,
"vprruled.
(r) Hobhoute v. Hamilton, Sau. it
Sc. SW, n.
(-0 lb.
(«) lb. See LHOt v. Kingiteood
CoUitriei Co., 20 C. D. 733; SI
Ti. J. Ch. 498; llatumt v. Ettit,
}fun,l,ttj <fe Clarke, (1912) 1 Ch.
1'. H J2; 81 L. J. Ch. 409.
(/) Can/mm v. Jon«$, 2 V. ft B.
218: 13 H. R. 70.
{g) Sieg^ t. Findlaler, 1 C. D.
Ml ; 47 L. J. Ch. 233 ; Birming.
ham Vitug-.'^ 'Vi. y. Powtn, (189i)
' . C. p. 71" : :,<'■ L. J. Ch. p. 769.
7i) IVilliayi,, 7. fVillianu, :i Mor.
p. 160; 17 R. B. 49; Voratt v.
Wifii/avl. I J. & W. 394 ; 21 B. R.
194 ; Moriium v. Moat, 9 Ha. 241 ;
20 L. J. Ch. 513; aft. 21 L. J. Ch.
24S ; RM v. Orem, (1895) 2 Q. B.
318, 319; 64 L. J. Q. B. S93;
Li^id Vtnmr Co. v. Scott, (1912)
29 R. P. C. 639 ; Ambtr Site and
Chemical Co. v. Memtl, (1913) 2 Ch.
239 : 82 L. J. Ch. 57.t ; LitholUe
CiK V. TravU and Iruulatort Co.,
(1913) 30 R P. C. 266.
(0 9Ha.241;sS.aiL.X0h.348.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST DISCLOSURE OP SECRETS.
secret to the father of the defendant, whom they took into
partnership in consideration of his devoting all his time to the
miinufaeture of the medicine. Previoualy to the secret being
corjmunicated to him he had entered into a bond never to
divulge it, but, in violation of his bond, (he defendant's father
communicated it to the defendant. The Court restrained the
defendant from selling the medicine under the name of that
prepared according to the secret recipe, inasmuch as it was
))y the use of the name that ho was availing himself of the
breach of faith on the part of his father (fc) . Parties, however,
in possession of a trade secret, who take a man into partner-
ship without making any stipulation as to the trade secret, and
permit him to acquire a full knowledge of the secret, will be
considered to have waived their right to preserve the secret
for their separate benefit (I).
When a man lias, without unfair means, become acquainted
with the secret of the preparation of an unpatented article, he
may make use of his knowledge, and compomid and sell the
article himself in his own name, though it be the same as
that of the proprietor of the secret, provided that he does not
induce the public to believe that it was made by the proprietor
of the secret or his representative, or that he is tiie saccessor
in businesi^ of the propi ietor of the secret (m).
The purchaseio trom the trustee of a bankrupt of his interest
in a sauce, the secret of which they did not acquire, cannot
have an injunction to restrain the original inventor from
making the sarce, of which he alone knows the recipe, under
the original title (n).
A motion to restrain a defendant from disclosing confi-
dential information will be heard in cnmerd where the object
of the motion would be defeated by its being heard in open
Court (o).
[k) See Leathfr Cloth Co. v. Lor- Ch. 90.
ioni, 9 Ivq. .l.M ; 39 L. J. Ch. 80. (") Mellor r. Thompson, 31 C. D.
(/) Miirimn v. Mnat, 9 IIii. 211 ; 65 ; C>j L. J. fh. 9t2. See .SaM v.
20L.J.rh.r.l:i;ii£f.21L.J.Ch.248. Sa,tt. (191:!) A. C. pp. 448, 482; 82
(ml Munmm v. Thorley's Cattle Ij. J. P. pp. 89, 108 ; Ikildaway v.
F,io,ICo.. U C. T>. 748: 2K W. R. Fli/nn, (19l;t) 30 E. P. C. 16; and
960. »ee thif< CAM M to limited ortar kit
(n) Cotton V. Gillard, 44 L. J. diioovwy.
CHAPTEB XII.
INJUNCTIONS TO BBSTBAIN LIBBL, BLilNDBB OF TITLE, AKD
TBBBAT8 OF PB0CBBDIN08.
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction the
publication of a libel or the making of slanderous statements
calculated to injure a man in his business and also a mere
personal libel (a).
The jurisdiction, however, to restrain on interlocutory
application the publication of defamatory statements is of a
delicate nature, and will be exercised with caution (6), espe-
cially when the statements are oral (c). There are cases in
which it would be quite proper to exercise the jurisdiction, as,
for instance, in the case of an atrocious libel wholly unjustified
and inflicting serious injury on the plaintiff. Bat, on the
other hand, where thoro is a case to try and no immediate
injury to be expected from the further publication of the libel,
the Court will be unwilling to interfere by interlocutory
injunction (d). The jurisdiction will not, as a general rule,
be exercised unless the Court is satisfied that the statement in
the libel is untrue, and that the publication proposed to be
restrained is of such a character that any jury would find
it libellous, and where, if the jury did not so find, the Court
(a) Hermann Loog y. Bean, 20
C. D. 306 ; 63 L. J. Ch. U'js ;
Unniinrd v. Verriimnii, (1891) 2 ( h.
: m L. J. Ch. CI" ; Monatm v.
TiiMnmh, (1894) 1 Q. B. 671 ; 63
h. 3. (i. 15. 454.
[li) 'Quartz //ill, etc., Mining Cn. v.
/Uall, 20 (\ I), p. 611 ; 61 L. J. Ch.
Si4 ; Salumutu v. Knight, (1891) 3
( h. 294 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 748 ; CoOard
V. ManhaU, (1898) 1 Ch. 671 ; 61
I^. J. Ch. 268 ; Champion v. Ilir-
mingham Vinegar Jirewery Co., 10
T. I.. E. 164 ; Moiiaon v. TttsMtwh^
iii/ira : /Joi/ih /lank- v. lloi/al /Iritial,
/Uink. (190.)) 19 T. L. E. 648 ;
Ci^relli V. \\\iU, (1906) 22 T. L. B.
532.
(<•) //ermann Loog v. Bean, 26
e. D. 306; 63 L. J. Ch. 1128.
{d) Quartz nm, etc.. Mining Oa.r.
BtdU, 30 0. D. p. 608 ; Al L. J. CIl
874 ; and bm Salomtm$ v. Knitj/it,
Monmmv. TtutawU, mi>ra ; Walton
V. Daitg .fieeorrf (<?Ja»«/r «;}, (l!H»7) 1
K.B.8SS: 761.. J.k. B.448.
Chap. XII.
610
INJUNCTIONS TO BESTBAIN LIBEL, 8LANDEB
Chap. XII.
Defamatory
itatenicnts in
the case of
oompanics.
would set aside the verdict as unreasonable (e). Still more
caution is requisite where the document is primd facie a
privileged communication, so as not to be actionable unless
express malice is proved, the question of malice being one
which cannot be satisfactorily tried on interlocutory applica-
tion (/).
In a case where a solicitor acting for some shareholders in a
company printed and circulated, but only among shareholders,
a circular containing very strong reflections on tho mode in
which the company had been brought out and on the conduct
of the promoters and directors, and proposing a meeting of
shareholders to take steps to promote their interests, the
Court, not being satisfied that the statements in the document
were false or malicious, would not interfere by interlocutory
injunction {g).
The Court will not grant an interlocutory injunction which
will restrain the fair discussion in a newspaper of matters of
such importance as that of the probable success or foilure
of a public company ; although if anything is published in
a newspaper which is grossly libellous, there is ground for
an injunction. A newspaper occupies a peculiar position,
especially with regard to matters of public interest which
concern those among whom the paper circulates, such as the
position and prospects of a public company {h).
Nor will the Court grant an injunction with reference to the
publication in future of statements in respect to which the
Court cannot possibly decide whether a jury would find them
to be libellous or not (/) . In a case where a trading company
(e) CmiUon v. VcmUm, 3 T. L. K.
846 ; Liverpool Stores AuociatioR v.
Smith, 37 C. D. 170 ; S7 L. J. Ch.
B6 ; Btmnard v. I^rryman, (1891) 2
Ch. i269, 284; 60 L. J. Ch. 617;
Mrnison v. TuMmuh, (1894) 1 (i. B.
p. 676 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 454 ; U.n/.U
Banks. Royal llritixh Hank, (1903)
19 T. L. R. M8; nn-elli v. Walt,
(1906) 22 T. L. R. d32.
(/) Qiiartt Hill, etc., Minmg Cv,
y. BmD. ao c. D. p. we : 61 L. J.
Ch. 874 ; I'milett v. Chatto (mi
H indu; (1887) W. N. 192.
{g) Quartz Hill, etc.. Mining Co.
T. Btall, 20 C. D. SOI ; SI L. J. Ch.
874.
(It) Liverpool, etc., Stores Aitocia-
iiuii V. Smith, 37 C. 1). 170; 57
L. J. Ch. 8o.
(«) Literpovt, etc., Stores Associa-
tion \. SmUh, 37 C. D. 170; 57
L. J. Ch. S5 ; and «ee Plumbli/ y.
Perryman, (1801) W. N. 64.
OP TITLE, AND THBBATS OP PBOCEEDINOa
511
claimed an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication ch«p. xil.
in u newspaper of letters and statements in the future similar
to those which had been already inserted in the same news-
paper reflecting on the solvency and financial condition of the
company, the Court would not interfere, on the ground that it
would be almost, if not entirely, impractical)le so to frame the
injunction as not possibly to include in its terms something
that might not be libellous ; and if an injunction were granted
in tei-ms confined to the publication of "libellous" letters, it
would have to be decided on motion to commit whether what
was published was libellous or not (*).
Nor will the Court interfere upon interlocutory application
to restrain the further publication of a libel where the mis-
chief, if any, has been done, and there is no intention on the
part of the defendant to issue any mwe libellous state-
ments (I).
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain a man from making Trade libeto.
slanderous statements calculated to injure another man in his
trade or business (w). The jurisdiction extends to oral as
well as written statements, though it requires to be exer-
cised with great caution as respects oral statements (n). The
Court will not, however, restrain by injunction the publication
of statements which are in the nature of a slander of title or
are to the injury of another in his trade or business, unless it
is proved to the satisfaction of the Court (i.) that the state-
ments are false; (ii.) that they were made maliciously, i.e.,
without just cause or excuse; and (iii.) that the plaintiff
has suffered special damage thereby (o). When the false
(A') Liitrpool 8tore» Auociation v. matte Tt/re Co. v. MaUm Talbot
Smith, 37 C. D. 170; 87 L. J. (IWM), 20 T, L. E. 379; and see
Ch. 83.
Lyne v. Xieolls, (1906) 23 T. L. E.
86 ; Barrett v. A«»<Kiate<l Xewt-
jmpers Co., (1906) 23 T. L. E.
666.
{I) Quartz Hill, etc., Mining Co. v.
Ilfnll, 20 C. 1). 501, 509 ; 51 L. J.
Ch. 874 ; see Watson v. Daily
Record {OUugow), (1907) 1 K. B.
853 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 448.
(n) Hermann Loog v. Btan, 26
C. D. 306: S3 L. J. Oh. 1108.
(m) CoUord v. MarthM, (189S) 1
Ch. 371, 377 : 61 L. J. Ch. 268 :
White V. Mellin, (1893) A. C. 154;
«4 L. J. Ch. 308; Dunhp I'neu-
(o) itoyol Baking Powder Oo, v.
Wright, (1901) 18 R. P. 0. 93
(II. L.) ; Dunlop Pneumatic Tgre
Co. V. Maiion Talbot, (1904) 20
512
Chitp. XII.
Puffing lUte-
ments.
Cse of firm
name by
ex-eniplo.vt.
INJUNCTIONS TO KE8TRAIN LIBEL, SLANDER
statements are in their very nature reasonably likely to pro-
duce and in th(> oidinHry course of things do produce a general
loss of business, evidence of such general loss of business
IB admissible to prove special damage (p).
The publication of a misleading report of a trade mark
action, or of an order made therein, may be a trade libel within
the principle of the above cases (q).
The making of false statements as to a trader's goods gives
no ground for an action of libel, but if the trader nroves that
he lias buffered damage, he can recover in an action on the
case (r). On the other hand the words used, though directly
disparaging the trader's goods, may imi)ute such misconduct
or want of skill in the conduct of his business as to justify an
action for libel («).
A mere puff of the defendant's own goods or a statement
that they are superior to those of a rival trader, even if untrue
and made maliciously and the cause of damage to the latter, is
not actionable (t).
So also a statement by a defendant that he comes with
L^any years' experience from the plaintiff's firm, though un-
true, cannot be restrained by injunction, such a use of a
firm name being mere puff. To be entitled to an injunction in
such cases it is necessary for the plaintiff to satisfy the Court
that such a false statement amounts to a representation that
T. L. U. p. oH(l; Ali-ott V. Millar'*
Karri, ih\, h'orrslA r,,., (I!t04) 21
T. li. K. p. :!1 ; (litOo) 91 L. T.
p. 1-n : l.ijnc V. Mrli„lh, (l'J(H>) 2;i
T. L. R. p. HT ; llarrtlt v. .I w-
HutM Nf'i'ii>(ii>errt '<i. . note (m),
tupra ; Cumley v. Lerwill, (1908) 99
li. T. p. 274 ; 24 T. L. E. p. 586;
Ltetham v. Rank, ( 1912) 57 S. J. 1 11 ;
see also Lonilon ami North .Vettern
Hank- V. Xiiviim, fti T. L. B. 96.
( /. ) /Mrlife V. (1892) 2
(i. B. p. o3y ; (il L. J. Q. B. SHO ;
ri/iie V. Xu/wiu, (lyoti) -a T. I,. I!.
p. SS4 ; ('imiarin \. />«;«««, (19()!»)
W. N. 51 ; Lttlham v. Hank, aujira.
(7) HaywanI * Co, y. Hnywarit
.t «(W,», 34 C. I). 198 ; 56 L. J. Ch.
.;K7.
(r) See oastis note (o), iiui>ra, and
'irijJMs V. lleiiH, (1911) 27 T. K B.
\>\). ;i4«, ;i5(».
(«) 8ee IJnoti/jie Co. v. llriHsh
Empire Typeaelting Machine Co., 81
L. T. 331 (H. ii.); Oriffitk* v.
Utnn, tupra.
(«) Huhbuck V. II'i7Wn«/»i, (1899)
1 a B. 86; m L. J. Q. li. -ii ;
Alciitt V. Millar'n Karri, ftc, i'oresta
'■„.,(1904)21 T. L. E. p. ;tl ; (ISlOo)
91 L. T. pp. 72;}, 724 ; Cuiuley v.
LtrwiU, (190(<) 99 L. T. 273; 24
T. L. K. 684.
t! I-
OP TITLE, AND THREATS OP PROCEEDINGS. 513
the plaintiff is a partner, so exposing him to liability, or that Clap, xii.
it tendfl to the passin^r off of the defendant's goods or business
as the plaintiff's, or tliat it tends to disp..rage the piaintiCs
goods, and causes him special damage («).
So also a doctor whose name had been .:«ed dthout his a« of doctor ,
authority in an advertisement to puff the sale of a medicine SSn/"*"'
was held to liave no cause of action either for damages or for ">«"«'»#.
ail injunction unless he could show that the publication was
defamatory, or was injurious to him in his property or pro-
fession (x).
Hut where the defendant published a statement which was
untrue, that his paper was the one read extensively in a certain
district, and that its circulation was twenty to one of any other
paper in the district, and was the only paper which could
give a comprehensive view of what the inhabitants were doing,
it was held that the statmnents were not mere puff, but
amounted to an untrue disparagement of the plaintiff's paper
and actionable on proof of special damage (y).
Under the law as it existed before the Patents, Designs and
Trade Marks Act of 1883 (z) a person who had a bond fide
heiief that h€ had a patent right might issue circulars or
advertisements threatfenmg legal proceedings against persons
infringing it. It was immaterial that his belief was without
foundation. It was enough that ha had a hov'i fide belief
that his allegations were true, unless the person threai«ned
could prove that ihe statements -vere ouuue and made
•uiiliciously, he had no remedy (a).
Sect. ?,2 of the Act of 1883 created a new cause of action, Tkn^^
VIZ., the right to sue for threats though made bond fide, but
with the proviso that the section should not apply if tl^
person making the threats with due diligence, commenced and
(«) Cundey v. Lerwill, tupra.
(r) DodtrfU T. DougaO, 80 L. T.
356.
(v) Li/ne V. NieholU, fl906) 23
T. L. R. 86.
48 * 47 Vict, c. 57.
{") IMm/ r. T'ratherhnoil, 19
IJ. 386 ; 61 i.. J. Ch. 223;
K.t.
Drifietd Lituted Cake Co. v.
Waterloo MilU Co., 31 C. D. p. 642 ;
35 L. J. Ch. 391 ; Skintier v. S/iew
(1893) 1 Ch. p. 423 ; 62 L. J. Ch
19(i; I.mett SwIiiU Co. v. Brook, &
Co., (19fH) 21 E. P. 0. p. 664;
Craiy v. Dowdinij, (1908) 98 L. T.
p 233; 24 B. P.O. 269.
83
514
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN LIBEL. SLANDER
cImh». hi. prosecuted an action for infringement of his patent (b).
Sect. 32 has been repealed und re-enected sect. 36 of
p.unuand the Patents and Designs Act of 1907 (o) \MUch provideB
1907,°M. 36. «l- where any person claiming to be the patentee of an
invention, by circulars, adTertisements or otherwise, threatens
any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in
respect of any alleged infringement of the patent, any person
aggrieved thereby may bring an action against him, an'i may
obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats,
and may recover such damage (if any) as he has sustained
thereby, if the alleged infringement to which the threats re-
lated was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of
the person making such threats; provided that the section
shall not apply if the person making such reats with due
diligence commences and , prosecutes an action for infringe-
ment of his patent (d).
Sect. 61 of the Act of 1907 applies the provisions of
sect. 36 to the case of groundless threats by the proprietor
of a registered design. There is, however, no action for
threats in respect of a trade mark. The publication in good
faith of a statement that the plaintiff is infringing the defen-
dant's trade mark, and that the defmdant intends to proceed
against all persons dealing in the infringing goods cannot be
restrained by injunction (e).
A person threatened with an action has a right under sect.
86 to sue for an injunction to restrain the continuance of
such threats, if the alleged patentee or proprietor of the
registered design does not avail himself of the proviso by
which the burden of taking proceedings is thrown upon
him (/). If an action to test the validity of the patent or
design or the fact of its infringement is honestly brought and
prosecuted with due diligence against theperscm or any of the
<b) Sea Craig ». DowtUng, lupra. Spence, 67 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 5 R. P. <-'•
(f) 7 Edw. 7, c. 29. 161 ; Joknwn v. Edge, (1892) 2 Ch
(rf) The threati of legal prowed- 1 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 262.
ings referred to in this section nead (c) Colley v. HaH, O^E. P. C. 17.
not relate to acts already com- (./ ) Drijitld Linrnd Cafe Cb. f.
milted, hwi may also \w warnings Waterlm MilU Co., 31 C. D. 6M,
directed to future acts; Kttrti v. 64:1; 51 L. J. Ch. 223.
OF TITLE, AND THREATS OP PROCEEDINGS.
persons to whom the threats were made, the proviso is satis-
fied and the clause does not apply (g). It is not reqoired by
the proviso that the action should be brought against the
person ^ho is applying for an inj unction against the threats;
it is sufficient if it is brought against any of the persons who
have been threatened (h). In considering whether an action
is brought with "due diligence," the time of issuing the
threats and not the time when the party bringing the action
first knew of the acts which be alleges to be infringements
is the period looked to (i) .
Threats of legal proceedings for infringement of patents
or registered designs are actionable whether addressed to
the alleged infringer himself or intimated to a third per-
son (k), and are none the less "threats " within the meaning
of the section because they are made in answer to in-
quiries (/), or in a letter written "without prejudice "
In construing the expression in sect. 36, threats "by cir-
culars, advertisements or otherwise," the words "or other-
wise are to be read not as being restricted to threats by
measures ejusdem generis with " circulars or advertisements "
but as extending the previous words so at absolutely to pro-
hibit any threats whatever of legal proceedings, unless the
case comes within either of the two saving clauses at the end
of the section (w). A mere general warning to the public
516
Chap. XII.
('/) Challender v. Royle, 36 C. D.
425 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 995 ; MetropolUan
das Metrrt Co. v. BrtiUh, Foreign,
etc.. Light Co., (1913) 1 Oh. p. 1S3 ;
82 L. J. Ch. 74.
(*) ChaOender v. Boylt, tupra ;
Z Electric Lamp Co. r. Otram Lamp
Work» Co., (1911) 28 B. P. C. 479.
(t) Challender v. Aoj U, tupra ;
HaskeU Golf Ball Co. r. Hutchiton,
;i304)2lE. P. C. 497; 20 T. L. E.
As to due diligence, sue also
('"lley V. LLarl, 44 C. D. 179; 59
L. J. Ch. 308 ; Edlin r. PnemmaUe
Tyrr Cytle Agmey, 10 E. P. C. 311 ;
Bithop T. Immm, 17 B. P. 0. 749.
(ft) /SfttMtr A do. V. aktv <fc Co.,
(1893) 1 Ch. 413 ; 62 L.'J. Ch. l96;
Hognung v. SoMmrj), 18 B. P. C. 374.
(i) 8kinn»r 4k Co. f. Shew'* Co.,
(1893) 1 C*. 413 J ea L. J. Cu. 196 ;
of. Beven v. Wdtbaeh Incandeuent
Light Co., (1903) 20 E. P. C. 73, 74.
As to genoral waniings not to
infringe, see Challender v. Rogle, 36
0. D. p. 441 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 995 ;
Johnton V. Edge, (1892) 2 Ch. 1 ; 01
L. J. Ch. 262 ; Crov>ther y. United
Fleiribh Tube Co., (1906) 22 B. P. C
M».
(») Kurtt T. Spemse, »7 L. J. Ch.
238; &8L.T.438.
(n) SMmMr * Jo. r. HAem* On,,
eupra.
S16
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN LIBEL. 8LAMDEB
G tmt. Ml. that the patentee haa a patent, and that infringers will b«
proceeded against, is not an actionable threat, being no more
than what the patent itself implies (o).
In action to In En BctioJi to restrain threats of legal proceedings under
ZuaM/T'' sect. 36, no defence can be based upon Uie ground that what
a«icB<tent no the defendant did was done bond fide, or that it was done on a
privileged occasion {p).
Uue <iiiig.nc. In order that an action by the owner of a patent, or regis-
tered design, for the infringement of his patent or design,
should he "prosecuted with due diligence" within the mean-
ing of the proviso to sect. 36, so as to exclude the operation of
the former part of that section, it is not necessary that the
infringement action should be prosecuted up to judgment.
The plaintiff will not lose the protection of the proviso by
reason of his discontinuing the action before trial upon dis-
covering that he has no cause of action, or by not succeeding at
the trial (q).
Where the proviso is satisfied, the section does not apply,
and the case comes under the old law as it waa before the
Act of 1883, and must be dealt with as if sect. 36 did not
exist (r). Where accordingly a man brought an action under
the section to restrain a patentee from issuing a circular inti-
mating his intention to take legal proceedings against in-
fringers of his patent, and the patentee thereupon brought
an action against him, it was held, though the patent was
proved on trial to be invalid, that the action against the
patentee under the section should be dismissed, there being
no evidence to show that at the time the circular was issued,
the defendant had not a bond ficU belief that he had a
(o) Challenger v. Royle. 36 C. D. 59 L. J. Ch. 308 ; KoslUh and
425; 56 L.J. Ch. 995; Jrhnionv. Amerimn Machinery Co. v. dart
Ed^. (1892) 2 Ch. pp. 9, 10; 61 Machine Co., 11 R. P. C. p. 632;
L J Ch. 262; Crowther v. UnUed Craig v. Dimdiiuj, (1908)98 L. T.
Fhiibh Tube Co., note (I). **pra- P- 233 ; 26 E. P. C. 264.
{p) mrmer,tCo.f.Bhew*Co., (r) CbBey Hart, Craig v.
note (n), lupro; Craig ▼. Dowding, Dowding, tupra. See Melropoliian
(1908) 98 L. T. p. 233; 26 R. P. C. Oof MOert Co. v. BfUM end
264 Foreign, etc., f ight CmUrcttii^ Co.,
(,) CoUsy V, JBart, 44 C. D. 179 ; (1913) 1 Ch. p. 163 ; 82L. J. Ch, 74.
OF TITLE, AND THBBAT8 OF PB0CBEDIN08. fir
perfect le^l right to tho ezcloaive enjoyment of the c>«^ m.
patent («). — — _
The plaintifi in a tlireats action will, it successful, be iUm^,M
— .1 I.H., .1 om-cusoiui, ue
entitled to an injunction and dumuges (t). In addition to the
remedy of a perpetual injunction at the trial he may move
for an interim injunction till the li,«iring ( „.) . Such motion
should not be made ex parte, but on notice {x}. The Court
will not, howerer, grant an interim injunction unleea the
plaintiff shows u strong prima facie cose (ij). It will not be
conceded on a mere balance of convenience (z). In order to
obtain an interim injunction the plaintiff must satisfy the
Court that he has not infringed the defendant's patent or
registered design (a), and, if an infiingomcnt action by the
defendant is pending, that it has not been brought bond fide
or with due diligence, or that it ia not being duly prose-
cut(Kl {/>). The proceedings in a threats action are generally
stayed to abid^ the result of the defendant's action for in-
fringement on the defendant undertaking to prosecute his
action with due dilit,«ncp, and not to issue new threats, the
stay of proceedings in the threats action to be removed in the
event of the defendant issuing threats, or not prosecuting
his action with due diligence, the coats of the tiireats action
being 1 "served, or made costs in the infringement action (c).
p. -136; 56 L. J. Ch. 993.
i-r) ll'i/aon V. C/iureh inyineering
<'«., 2H. P. ('. 176.
(.'/) Smiet^ Ahoni/me V. Tilghman
23 V. D. 1 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 1. '
(z) ChaUemltr v. Boyle, SociM
Anonym* Y. TUghman,»upra. But
iee WaUttr v. Clarkt, M L. J. Ch.
239 ; 68 L. T. 1.
(n) Barney v. Vuiteit Teleph. ne
Co., 28 CD. p. 397;32W. «. 676;
TIerliuer v. ft/m,;., 16 R. p. C". 338;
but see Walker v. Clarke, suj,ra.
{!>) See cases note (r), $itiira.
(r) See Mackie v. Solio Laundry
Co.. PR. P. r.i65:£i^i«r.i^ra.
matte Tyre and Bcah'e Cycle Co
10 B. P. C. 316 ; iTontoM v. Parker,
(«) Shurp T. Brauer, 3 H. P. C.
193 ; and see MetroiMlitan Get
Meters C o. v. British an,l Fi>rti;in,
eii:, Light CmUroHing Co., (1913) 1
l-'h. 150 ; 82 L. J. CL. 74, where the
action to restrain threats was dis-
'"issod without costs.
(0 See as to form of injunction,
I'riffielil Linseed Cake Co. j,
Wuferloo MUU Co., 31 C. D. 639,
«H4 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 391 ; Montain v.
i-ark^, (1903) 20 B. P. C. 774, and
as to damages, Vngar v. Suyy, 8
K. P. V. 3H5; 9 K. P. V. 113;
Skinner v. Shew & Co., (1894) 2 Ch.
: 63 L. J. Ch. 826; Montain y.
I'arker, supra.
(») CAoifander v. SoyU, 36 C. D.
S18
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN LIBEL AND SLANDER.
<»> >•«"• By the Gorrapt and lUegnl PnetioM Preroitioa Aet,
r*lw 1M- 1896 (d), it in provided (in eflcct) thut uiiy porson who, or tho
y!lritemMtaa directors of any body or associatjoa corporate which, before
m»Mi»m. Japing any iwrliamentary election, shall, for the purpoee
of aflecting the retum of any candidute, make or publish any
fuUe stiitenu-nt of fact in rciiitioii to the poraonul character or
conduct of such candidute, may be restrained by interim or
perpetual injunction frmn any repetition of aooh false state-
ment or any false sttitcinont of u sitnilur character in relation
to such candidate, und for the purpose of granting an interim
injunction primi facie proof of the falsity of the statemmt
will be sufBcient.
(11H)3) 20 1!. P. ('. 771; ll>i.//.^oii eti:. l.v.i'it rimtnitliiKj ('v., {191S) I
V. Tiii/h.r. (Iit07) 24 1{. I'. V. Ml ; Ch. 150 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 74.
Criii;/ V. l>'.tf'liii<J, (I'HW) 9« I,. T. ('/) »N & 6i' Vict. r. 40, nn. 1, 3;
231; 25 R. V. V. 25i»; Can v. ece lltiylri/ y. Kilmitmlt, \l T.
JUati'l l.i'jht Synilitatt, (lOU) 28 637; uixl v. yatiimal l iiim.
B. P. C. 40 ; see Mttropolitun Oat of Cunteriativt AMoeiation; 44
Mden Co. v. BritUh and Fortign, S. J. ISO.
CHAPTER Xni.
IVJlTNCTIOKa AOAIWBT IXBOUTOU.
Iv an executor or adrnmistrator through miscunduct (a), cb.p. xiii.
iasohmiy (6), or bmikmptcy (c), is bringing the property of ~ — —
the deceased into diiiiger, an injunction will be granted to
restrain him from getting in the ttssetB, and u receiver will be
a|>|,(jii)ted. If, bowerer, a testator haa selected an tnaolTent
(It htor HH his executor, with full knowledge of his insf^Tency,
the Court will not, on the bare fact of the inttolrenoy alone,
interfere and appoint a receirer (<{) ; but where a perscm
appointed executor heconies l»ankrupt after the date of the
will (e), or after the death of the testator, the Court may
restrain him from further acting, and if there is a co-executor
who is willing to act, it is not necessary to appoint r> ra-
ce. - r (/). The circumstance tliat an executor is poor and id
moan circumstances, is not a sufficient ground for the inter-
ference of the C!ourt (g), but an injunction will be granted
where an executor or administrator is proved to be of bad
character, drunken habits, and great poverty (h), or where
there is evidence that he is not in a situation to be trusted with
tlie management of the deceased's estate (t).
The Court will not restrain an executor from parting with FkrUH witfc
the assets unless a case of past or probable misapplication of
.1 /!..«., 12 Vcs. 5; llnrritm («) Ltm^ v. Hawk, A Madd.
V. ' 'uck-trell, 3 Mer. 1 ; CoUMmrne
V. I 'olOHmmt, 1 C. D. 690 ; 4fi L. J.
C h. 749.
(A) Scott V. Beehtr, 4 Wco, 346 :
1» B. B. 722 ; Mantfitld v. fthmo,
3 Madd. 1(K); 18 R. E. 201.
[A V. Sttiiitmitii, 1 ^^aJ^l.
14.i, 11. ; I'tttraoh v. .Voir, 2 Vc-i.
!tT ; I!, Jvlmtim, 1 Ch. 325.
('/) Stnnttm v. I'arron Co., 18
Hnav. p. 16! : 2.'i !,. .T. ('h. 299;
ol.ljield V. CobbolU, 4 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch.
272.
48.
(/) Bctem T. Philliiis. (1897) 1
Ch. 17t; 66 L. J. Ch. IGb.
(g) Hinvlhi.rnthwnite v. HiniteU,
■2 .\tk. 12« ; H. C. Bunmrd, Ch. 3.(4 ;
//vwanl V. I'apfra, 1 Madd. 142 ;
-Inon., 12 Ve». 5.
(/<) £vtrtit V. Prgthtrgk, 12 Sim.
p 36A: 11 L. J. Ch. 54 ; M R. B.
68.
(»■) (Hdfidd V. CM>ta, 4 L. J.
(N.S.)Ch.271.
INJVNCTIOMS A0AIN8T EXECUTORS.
C^M- ^t' H- them has been mudo out. TImM, wlien un annuity stHurcd by
a wurnmt of iittoriU'y hud biu-n t»ruiilt d, tlio Court would not,
at the Muit of thu linnuitunt, rutttiuin tlui «>xucutor of the
grantor from payiiig simple cmtraet debts before setting apart
IV fund to iinswcr tho futuro pjiynicnt ')f the annuity (A). So
also, where tlie oniy uMHetti of u tetttator conHiMte<l of u devised
real estate, which was liable to his bond for securing an
annuity, and l)efoi'! the annuity had fallen into arieiir the
annuitant instituted u suit, alleging waste, and sought to
restrain the executrix from selling or mortgagir^ ..le real
estate, the Court refused to interfere {I). The principle upon
which these ciuscs proceeded was, that until an annuity is
actuiilly due there is no Kigal title, and the liability is only in
contingency (m). Where, howerer, the liability in future is
certain, tho case is different, and the assets may not be parted
with (n). liut tho Court will not interfere by injunction in
favour of a creditor, unless it is shown that the assets are
being wasted, or are in serious danger; nor will the Court
interfere with th,> exeeutoi 's rif^ht of retainer or of preferring
a ixirticular crwlitor (o). An injunction may be had to re-
strai; an executor A> »on tori trom parting with assets (p).
lajunctioB An injuiietioti may b»' granted before probate on the apfrii-
ti'?in*' mri!i- cation of a person appointed executor to restrain another
e"ui* ;«f 're ppr.soii ap])ointed co-executor from intermeddling with the
prabat*. estate and improperly dealing with it before probate (7).
Injunction to In a recent case (r), an injunction was gianted to restrain
ment'of leiiViy. executors fmm paying, and u legatee from receiving, a legacy,
the legatee having gtme out of the jurisdiction, and m shaving
complied with an order for payment of costs whidi had been
made against him.
(A ) nea,l V. Blunt, 6 Sim. fi67. 45 C. O. 669 ; S9 L. J. Ch. 8ia;
{!) Xonnany.Johnmm,3tBMr.''. Be HIevent, Cooker. S., I Ch.
(m) lb. 173: 67 L. J. Ch. 118.
(/.) Ki/fjy. yf'd'i'lt, TTa. ti!»2: ( /.) Seo lie Ijo-ett, 3 C. U. 19S,
I,. J. Ch. l.iT; W) R. If. ; 2(Mi ; 15 I.. J. ( h. 7f>8 : /Irrml v
Atkinsi.ii V. (inii/, 1 Sill. & ti. .I/iY»r.n, 4j L. J. 1'. 41 ; 24 W. li. 524.
,<77. Sfo /le Hull, (1903) 2 t'h. (7) Itf Minnre, 13 1'. I». 30; 67
p. 235 : 72 L. -J. Ch. o.M : llf King. h. J. V. 37.
(1907) 1 Ch. p. 75 ; 7« L. J.Ch. 44. (r) Jiullut v. BuUiu, (1910) 102
(o) Be Well', Mulontf v. Brook*, L. T. 390 ; 26 T. L. B. 330.
i
CHAPTJiK XIV.
iKjUKOTioNa AOAiirn nvvrun,
A Till SI KK may not use the powem whioh the tru»t eonfws cUp. xiv.
on him ut luw, cxcop* for thi' Icgilimtite purpone» of tlui trust.
If lie uttempt to do so, the Court will restrain him by injuac-
tion (a).
Ill /'*(•//,/ V. Fnwfer ib), a ca.se in tlie Exi-heijutT, it is said i.,j,,nrii„„
to huvo been held that a cewtui que truat could not restrain an ^,["'|Ii?r"«to
imprudent sale by a trustee for sale, because, as he might ^} '"'••^
proceed against the trustee for the consequential damage, the
injury was not irreparable, but Sir John Leach, under similar
circumstances, granted an injunction (c), and other autho-
rities show that the jorisdiotion rests, not apon the irronedi-
ihlo nature of the mischief, but upon the breach of trust (d).
When a sale of trust property is conducted in such a
manner, as to conttitote as between the tnutees, having the
power of sale, and the cestui que tru$t, a breaeh of trust, the
Court will at the suit of the cestui que. trust restr in both the
purchaser and the trustees from completing the sale ) . The
smallnoss of the intereet of the {daintiff and the faet that she
WHS nil infant, and that the suit might have been instituted
from other motives, were held not to be sufficient reasons for
refusing an injunction (/).
By the Trustee Act, 1898 (g), it is iwovided, in effect, HuA
(n) MU T. Strutt, 1 Ha. 148 ;
Att-Otn. T, WeUh. 4 Ha. 372 ; 67
K. B. 182; M'FttiUlm v. Jmkyni, J
I'll. 1.-.:!; 12I„ J.rh. HG; 65K.E.
•t.il : Miir.Jiitll V. SUulileii, 7 Hare,
l-'M: { lio(i.&Sm.4tjM: IPL. J.Ch.
; Nl' 1{. ]{. 15!»; UigaUy. rotter,
18 .I'lr, ;!9 (!!i!pr'.!'!iT mortgage).
{l>) 2 Anst. 649 ; 3 K. E. 62V.
(r) ^HON., 6Madd. 10.
(rf) Att.-Gen. \. CvrjKjraiion oj
LiverpMl, 1 M. & C. p. 210; 43
K. K. 170; Balls v. Strutt, tupra.
(f) I)a7i<e V. (IvUinyham, 8 Ch.
902; 42 L. J. Ch. 777.
(/) Jlanit V. Ovltlingham, % Oh.
902 - 42 L. J. Ch. 777; *ee Onm
T. Stareh, (1906) 22 T. L. E. 290.
(y) M * 87 Vict. o. 53, s. 14.
Ttiia Mctum only applies to sales
S32
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEES.
Clwp- ^'V- no sale made by a trustee shall be impeached by a beneficiary
upon the ground that any of the conditions tire unnecessarily
depreciatory, unless it also appears that the consideration for
the sale was thereby rendered inadequate ; and that no sale
made by a trustee shall, after execation of the conTeyance. be
impeached as against the purchaser upon the ground that
any of the conditions were unnecessarily depreciatory, unless
it appears that the purchaser was acting in ctrflusion with the
trustee.
SalM under the By the Settled Land Act, 188-2 (h), a tenant for life in
Settled Land . . > \ / >
Act*. exercising any power under the Act, must have regard to the
interests of all parties entitled under the settlement, being
deemed to Iw in the position and to have the duties and lia-
bilities of a trustee for such parties, according to their rights
as created by the settlement (t). The Cktart cannot, how-
ever, as a general rule, restrain a tenant for life from selling
under the Act, so long as he acts bond fide, even though he
sell from mere caprice, or whim, or to gain some personal
benefit (Xr), nor will the Court restrain a sale by trustees
at the request and for the benefit of the tenant for life, on
merely speculative evidence by the remaindermen that the
estate will increase in Talae in the future (Q. But the Court
will restrain a tenant for life from soiling under the Act at
so gross an undervalue as to be evidence of fraud (ni) . So
also the Court will restrain a tenant for life from mortgaging
a heavily incumbered estate under sect. 11 of the AH of
1890 for the sake of preserving it, if by so doing the
interests of annuitants or other parties interested under the
settlement will be sacri&oed (o). So also the Court will
iimile alter the 24th December, 804.
188B; see Grove v. Hearch, tupra. {!) Tliomaii v. Williams, 24 C. D.
(A) 43 & 46 Vict c. 38, ». 43. 058 ; 52 L. J. Oh. cm.
(i) In n Laem, (1911) 2 Ch. (m) W/ieelviriyht v. ITalker.
p. 2;J ; 80 L. J. Ch. 610. lupra.
(t) Wheelwright v. Hatter, 23 (n) 8.3 & .M Vict. r. 1.9.
C. T>. 739. "62 ; 32 li. J. Ch. 274 ; (o) Ham}><ltn v. f.arl of Bucking-
llumi'len v. Eitrl af lluckinijham- htimshire, (1893) 2 I'h. 531 ; 62
thire, (IN93) 2 01). 335, 644; 62 L. J. Ch. 643. See, as to this
^,. .1. ch. 643; Kr Uicliardson, decision. A'f Ilicliar<h(m. (1900) S
(1900) 2 Ch. p. 791 ; 69 L. J. Ch. CL. 778 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 8(H.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEES.
528
restmin a tenant for life from directing the truateea to make Owp- xiv.
an improper or undesirable inrestment, thou^ it me/ be
within the descriptiOD (rf the inrestmoits authorised by the
Act(p).
A man who has a common interest with others in a trust P«rti«.
fund, or trust estate, is entitled to sre on behalf of himself and
the others, for the protection of tiie property, by injunc-
tion {q).
Where an injuncti<m has been granted against trustees and Knforcim
ninv trustees are appointed who with knowledge of the order ij^"nrt nSw
do the act restrained by the injunction, they will be com-
mitted for contempt (r).
If a voluntary settlement be binding on the settlor, an in- Voinntuy
junction may be had to restrain the commission of any act by
which the settlomwit may be defeated (s). A mere trust for
the payment of debts, executed by a man behind the backs
of his creditors, and without communicating with them, is
not binding on the debtor, but he may, in general, revoke the
authority given to the .rufltees.who are merely his agents (t).
In a eas3 where a man, having executed such a deed, after-
wards varied the trusts of the deed, the Court would not inter-
fere at the suit of a creditor under the first deed to restrain
the trustees from executing the subsequent trusts (u). The
case, however, is different if the creditor is a party to the
arrangement (?!),or if, though not a party to the arrangement,
{p) He IluuV» Settle'! Ettattt, Ch. 4 14 ; 30 "W. E. 566.
(«) Mackenzie V. Mackenzie, 18
Ym. 372.
(() iroiwyn T. Co^tt, 3 Uer. 707 ;
3 Sim. 14; 30 R. R. 117; Bitty.
Ciireton, 2M. 4 K. p. oil ; 4 L. J.
(N. S.) Ch. 98; 39 E. E. 258;
Oarraril v. [.ainlenlale, 2 E. & M.
451 ; 30 E. E. 105 ; Johit v. Jamet,
8 C. D. 744 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 853 ;
Priettley v. Jillis, (1897) 1 Ch.
p. 401 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 240 ; Xew <ft
Co.'$ Tru»te$ v. Bunting, (1897) 3
Q.B.p.aO; 66L. J.aS. U4.
(tt) Walwyn t. CovtU, tupra.
{») JPKiimtm r. attmart, 1 Sim.
(K. &) 76; ao L. J. Cb. 49; 80
(1905) 2 Ch. 418 ; 74 L. J. Ch. '69 ;
s. I ., (1906) 2 Ch. 11; 74 L. J.
Ch. 496. See a L. Act, 1882,
sect. 22, anbHiect 2; and Me Re
Lord Coleridge'* SeMmmaU, (1894) 2
Ch. 704 ; 73 L. T. 206 ; lie Hatham,
(1901) 2 Ch. 790 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 68 ;
S. «'., (1902) 2 Ch. 575 ; 71 L. J.
"h. 789; In re Sir Robert Peel's
Kttatet, (19:0) 1 Ch. 389; 79
I.. J. Ch. 233.
(v) Scott T. Bechtr, 4 Price, 346 ;
18 B. B. 722; Dane* v. CMding-
ham, 8 Oh. 9W ; 42 L. J. Ch. 777.
See B. 8. 0. Order 16, rr. 36, 37.
(r) ilvory t. A*drtw*, 41 L. J.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEES.
he has been told by the debtor that he may look to the
property comiNriBed in the deed for the payment of his
demand (y) • or if the trust in favour of creditors is to come
into operation only after the death of the settlor (z). Where
a man creates a trust for particular persons, and not merely
for his creditors generally, it cannot be revoked (a).
for The Court will enforce by injunction tiust deeds for
lies*
religious bodies, or for the purposes of education. If a living
or the ri^t of electing the incumbent of a parish, is vested
in trustees, or i particular body, and iui improper appointment
is made, the Court will restrain l)y injunction, the trustees
from pmsenting the person so appointed to the bishop for
institution {b), and will also restrain the person so appointed,
or any other person than the person properly appointed,
from performing divine service in the church (c). So, also,
if a man be elected or appointed ministei of a dissenting
chapel, improperly or not in the mode provided for by the
deed of trust, the Court will, on a proper application being
made, restrain him by injunction from officiating as pastor or
intermeddling with the aerrices and disturbing a pastor duly
elected in the performance of dirine service (d) . So, also,
if the minister or pastor of a chapel has been improperly dis-
missed, the Court will restrain the governing body from
hindering him in the discharge of his office (e).
B. B. 24 ; Mont^iore v. Browne,
7 H. L. C. ^41 ; 115 E. B. 132.
(i/) Act.ii >. n'mJi/afe, 2 M. & K.
49'J ; 3 L. J. ,N S.) ('h. 83 ; 39 li. 11.
251 ; //((Wa), /v iHids, 15Q. H 713;
20 L. J. Q. it. Ufi; hi 11 K. 770;
Sii/gera v. Ecans, o E. & U. 36" ; 24
L. J. Q. B. 305; Jvlitis v. Jamtt,
8 CD. "44; 47 L. J. Oh. Sj.l.
(z) 8ynoU \. Stmpmf'., 6 H. / . C.
146 ; Re f'Utgtrald, 37 C. 11. tS, 26 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 594 ; /V/f v. Ellit,
(1897) 1 Ch. 501 ; 6ti L. J. ("h. 240.
((/) (l((l/rey v. /Wf, 13 A. ('.
497; 57 1.. J. 1'. l . 7S ; \iw ct
Cu.'s Trustee v. lluntiuy. (1897) 2
Q. B. 19, 25 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 554 ; cf.
;« re Co»fin, (1913) 2 Ch. 178.
[h] Cirtir V. Cropley, 8 De O. M.
& G. (i80, (i98 ; 26 li J. Ch. 246;
114 E. K. 279.
(i) Att.-Hiti. V. KurJ of Pimit,
Kny, 186 ; 101 li. B. 571 ; Miiligan
V. Mitchell, 1 M. & K. 446 ; 3
M. & C. 72 : 45 B. B. 218.
('/) Ptrry \. Shipwag, 4 De O. ft J.
363 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 660; 124 E. B. 286;
Vtx^ T. Gordon, 8 Eq. 249 ; 38 L. J.
Ch. 489 ; cf. Foley v. Wontner, 2 J. *
W. p. 247 ; 22 B. E. 110 ; r.etlie v.
Uirhie, 2 HufH. 114 ; 26 E. R. 14.
(f) haugars v. Itivm, 28 lieav.
233: 29 L. J. Ch. 685: Att.-Hen.
T. Daugari, 33 Bmt. 621. Sm
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBUSTEES.
S25
If ministers of dissenting chapels hold tenets differing from c«»p- XIT.
those of the founders, they will be restrained by injunction Miiuteii"
from preaching (/), or from remaining in possession of the
chapel (g), although elected by a majority |0f the trustees
or the congregation, as it is not in their power to alter the
designed objects of the institution. So, also, the Court will,
upon a proper case being made oat, restrain a chapel from
lioing used or enjoyed by persons not contemplated by the
deed of foundation, and will restrain the minister from ad-
mitting to communion persons not contemplated by the deed
of foundation. But if the majority of the congregation, or
the trustees, have the power of varying the trusts, or doctrines,
the Court will not interfere (h).
The mode set forth in the instrument creating the trust, or Uemorai of
required l)y statute (/) , with respect to the removal of a school-
master, must in all cases be observed (k).
Where trustees of a grammar-school have by the foundation
deed power to remove a schoolmaster at their discretion, they
may at any time remove him, so long as they do not act from
corrupt or improper motives, and it seems they need not
assign any reasons (I). But if tiiey remove him for mia-
Hkiii v. liftinelt. 9 £([. 625, o9
I.. J. Ch. 674; 6 Ch. 490; 40 1.. J.
t'li. 452; llniimtin v. (liwernors nf
Hiiijliy Srhool, 18 Kq. 60, 71; ii
L. J. Ch. 834. As to the right of
milliliter to withdraw hia reaigna-
ti»n. Me Nidcmm y. Dolphin, (1911)
56 S. J. 123.
( / ) Att.-Gtn. V. Wthh, 4 Ha.
572; 67 R. R. 162: Att.-Oen. v.
.l/«i/ro, 2 De O. & S. 122 ; 79 B. R.
151 ; Att.-Gen. v. Murilnrk, 1
I 'e ( f. M. & G. 86 ; 21 J. Ch. 694 ;
B. B. 172; Shure v. WiUoii, 9
I') & Fin. 335; 57 R. R. 2; AU.-
<ii II. V. Aniierton, 67 L. J. Ol. M7 ;
m V. Oregg, 21 C. D. 613 ; 51
I J. Ch. 783.
in) Broom t. Summert, 11 Sim.
353 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 71 ; 64 K. R. 3»«.
(A) Att Oeii, T. Ooutd, 28 Beav.
485; SOL. J. Ch. 77; Att.-Uen. v.
Ktheridi/e, 32 L. J. Ch. 161. Aa to
the power of a n - )rity of the
truuteea of a chaiity to bind the
minority, aee lie irhOeUy, (1910) 1
Ch. H). 607, 608 ; 79 li. J. Ch. 405.
(0 See the Charitable Trusts
Acts, 1853 and 1860 (16 4 17 V--t.
c. 137, H. 22; 23 & 24 Vict, i: 136,
S8. 2, «, 14) ; the Endowed .Shools
Acts, 1869 a id 1908 (32 & 33 Vict.
0. 5(i. s. 22 ; 8 Edw. 7, o. 39, s. 1) ;
the Hoard of Education Act, 1809
(62 & (i3 Vict. c. 38), a. 2 ; and tl»
Eduoation Aot, lOOS (3 Edw. 7,
C. 42), a. 7 (1) (c).
(*) See Critp v. ffMen, (1010)
54 8. J. 784; Smith v. Maenally,
(1912) 1 Oh. 816; 81 L. J. Ch. 483.
(0 Bx parte HMand, Bunion
Sekecl, U fur. 5«1; Mf Dmningh , H
626
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEES.
Chap. XIV. conduct, he must be infonned of the charges brouglit against
him, and have an opportunity of defending himself (m).
The Court will prevent a corrupt or irregular exercise of
powers of removal. Thus, where the trustees, or managers
of a school with powers to i-emovo a schoolmaster, deprive him
of his office from improper motives, e.g., because he has voted
for a certain ciindidate at a pirticiilar r1 etion (n), or arbi-
trarily, without giving him an opportunity to answ • the
charges against him (o), or irregularly, by not giving him the
proper notice or by not obtaining the consent of the
necessary authorities, to his dismissal (</), or by removing
him at an irregularly constituted meeting of the governing
body (r), the Court will grant an injunction. In a case where
power had been given to trustees, under a sohr^ie of the
Court for the regulation of a grauimar-school whicu iiad been
founded by King Edward the Sixth, to remove the school-
master "upon such grounds as they should in their discre-
tion in the due exercise and execution of the powers and
trusts reposed in them deem just," Lord Langdale, being
of opinion that the scheme of regulation did not confer on tiie
trustees a power to dismiss the master arbitrarily upon any
grounds they might deem just, free from the control of the
Court, granted an injunction to restrain the trustees from
enforcing the dismissal and ejecting the master (s).
Charity Com- ^ schoolmaster who seeks the aid of the Court against the
Biiwiuuers,
counntof. School, 1») Jur. 51'.'; 11 Jm. 421;
77 R. R. S7i»; Jieij. v. Parlinijton
Schad, 6 Q. B. 682 ; 14 L. J. Q. B.
67 ; 66 B. B. 621 ; Dean v. BenneU,
6 Ch. 489 ; 40 L. J. Oh.4liSS; Haymtan
T. ChvtmortofBugiy School, 18 Eq.
p. es ; l;i L. J. Ch. 834 ; and see
Lane V. yimnnii, (1891) 61 L. J.
Ch. p. 152.
(»n) Fisher v. Jackai u, (1891) 2
Ch. 84; 60 L. J. Ch. 482. Soe
Orten v. Hmeell, (1910) 1 Ch. p.
604 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 557.
(«) Dtmmm v. Corporation of
Chippenham, 14 Ven. 240.
(o) Be PkiVipU CkarUy, 9 Jur.
(N. S.) 969 ; 72 H. E. 802 ; Fithtrs.
JaHaon, (1891) 2 Ch. 84 ; 60 L. J.
Ch. 482.
(;>) Criap v. HoUen (1910), S4
S. j. 784. See Sowen v. Tomg,
(1004) 48 S. J. 733.
(9) Smith V. MacnaOy, (1913) 1
Ch. 816; 81 L. J. Ch. 483.
(r) Lane v. Nvrman, (1892) 61
L. J. Ch. 149 ; 66 L. T. 83. See
Bi.wers v. VciirKj, (1904) 4S S. J.
733; ef. Afei/ers v. Hennell, (1912) 2
Ch. 256; 81 L. J. Ch. 794.
(«) H't^MT. CAtV(/«,13Beav. 117
20L. J. Ch. 113; 88B.B. 440.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEES.
627
trustees of a charity to restrain them from removing him
from his office need not obtain the sanction of the Charity
Commissioners (t), unless the claim to such relief involves the
administration of the trust (u). On the other hand, the
governoi-8 of a charity school who have dismissed their svhwA-
master may bring an acticm to restrain him from teaching at
the sciiool and remaining in possession of the Rchool-house,
without obtaining the sanoticMi of the Charity Commis-
sioners (x).
Where trustees disagree among themselves, so that the trust Rseeirer ud
cannot bo properly carried on without the assistance of the Zg^'^e'J «f
Court, a receiver will be appointed (y). So also, where one
of the trustees is excluded by the others from taking part in tr«»t,
iidministering the trust, this is a ground for the appointment
of a receiver (z). So also, where a trustee has been guilty
of breaches of trust, an injunction may be granted to restrain
him from receiving the trust funds, and a receiver appointed
in his stead to receive the same (a).
(t) Or the consent of the Board
I if Education. See the Board of
i ; liK iition Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict,
c. 3a , s. 2 (2), aa to transfer to
lioard of Education of the powers
of the Charity Commissioneis in
matten relating to education.
(m) BendOl v. Jfa»>, 46 C. D.
139; 69 L. J. Ch. 641 ; Fiiher v.
Jackim, (1891) 2 Ch. 84 ; 60 L. J.
Ch. 482; Booke v. Dawson, (1896)
1 Ch. pp. 487, 488 ; 86 L. J. Oi.
p. 304.
(x) Holme V. (luy, 3 C. I). 901 ;
46 L. J. Ch. 223 ; Kook f v. Dawtnn,
(1896) 1 Ch. 480 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 304 ;
or the consent of the Board of
Education. See note («), tufra.
in) H'tbm V. romi, % Keen,
349; 44 B. B. 23A; Hart t. Dm-
hamx, (1871) W. N. 2; Swale >.
Swale, 22 B. 684 ; 111 H. R. 495.
{x) Sirale v. bivale, supra.
(a) Snare v. Baker, 13 Jur. 203 ;
aSB. B. 793.
CHAPTEll XV.
INJUNCTIONS BBTWBBN PARTNBR8.
Chip. XV.
Injunctiiiii
linntcil
kitltough
dianlntion
not olumdl.
Rxelnnonof
psrtMr.
Improper
•ppiintioa of
fSBlil.
Alteration of
fira preminw.
The Court has jurisdiction to restain by injunction one or
more members of a partnership firm from doing acts inconsis-
tent with the terms of the partnership agreement, or vith the
duties of a partner.
An injunction will not be refused simply because a dissolu-
tion of partnership is not sought (u). Whore, accordingly, a
member of a partnership firm who had been suffering from
temporary insanity had recovered, but was excluded by his
co-partners from the management of the affairs of the partner-
ship, they were restrained from preventing him from trans-
acting the business of the partnership as a partner (b). So
also, disputes having arisen among the partners in a firm,
formed for twenty-one ycui;, and determinable on twelve
months' notice by either party, one of the partners was re-
strained from excluding his co^partner from the partnership
business, and from obstructing or interfering with the plain-
tiff in the exercise or enjoyment of his right under the
partnership articles (c), and from applying any of the funds
or effects of the partnership, otherwise than in the ordinary
course of business, though no dissolution was sought (d). So
also one partner was restrained from pulling dowi ~'ing,
or adding to the partnership premises w't'^-nt the "^t. -v.d of
the other partners (e). So also, whc . partn<- .-, erm
(a) Fairthorne y. Wtiton, 3 Ha. restrained from ir.te. i ■•■I j in the
conduct of the partnership afturs.
(e) Hall V. Hall, \2 Beav. 414 ;
3 Mao. & O. 79 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 58d;
ST R. B. 15.
(it) Hall V. /Ml, supra. See
(fnrilnrr v. M'< iitehton, 4 Be*V.
o34 ; 55 R. R. 1 54.
(f) A;/HM/ie V. Bertt/ord, (1873)
W. N. 152.
387 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 64 B. B.
342; Richardtm r. ffa$tingi, 7
Beav. 301; 13 L. J. Ch. 129; 64
R. R. 86 ; Watne;/ v. Tritt, 46 I T.
Ch. 412; ... V. .S., (1894) ;i a.
p. 74 ; 6;i L. J. ( h. 615.
(fc) Awm., 2 K. & J. 441 ; 110
E. R. 308. In J. V. .s , mipm, a
partner of unaouiii' aind was
5S9
CIm». XV.
iNJUNCTIOxVS BETWEEN PARTNERS.
had not expired, one of the partners who purported to retire
from the partnership and entered into a new partnership for ~
carrying on business of the same eharaeter and nature was
restrained from carrying on such business with his new pert- CkrryiM*
ners, or with any other person than his old co-partners, until Jtt?r^
the expiration of the term ; and from puWishing or circulating
any notice of the dissolution of the old firm, before the expire-
tion of the term for which it had been entered into (/) So
also a partner was restrained from using the firm's name in „^„,«„.
u business carried on by him on his own account, though such
business was so far beyond the scope of that of the Ann that
he was not bound to account for the benefit derived from it (g).
So also where partnership articles provided that proper P„v.otin,
l)ooks of account should be kept by the managing partners "uX***""
and that each partner should have free access to and liberty to
examine and copy or take extracts from any of the books and
wriungs of the partnership at all reasonable timee, it was
held that under this provision (as well as under sect 24
sub-sect. 9 of the Partnership Act, 1890) a partner was en-
titled to have the books and accounts examined on his behalf
by an agent appointed by him for the purpose, provided that
the agent was a person to whom no reasonable objection could
be taken by the other partners, the agent undertaking not to
make use of the information which he should thus acquire
except for the purpose of confidentially advising his prin-
cipal, and an injunction restraining the defendants from
preventing the exercise of this right by the plaintii! was
accordingly granted (A).
So also the Court will restrain by injunction the exercise E,p«Ui«irf
of a power of expelling a partner, where the power is not
exercised bond fide, or in accordance with the terms of the
(/ ) En<ilaiul V. Varllng, 8 Besv.
129; 68 R. R. 39.
,'/) A(t» V. Btnham, (1891) 2 Ch.
W4 : as I,. T. 25. See the Partner-
ship Act, 1890, 8. 29.
{!') lievan v. WM, (1901)2 Gh.
59 ; 7(1 L. J. Ch. (38. 8m Ntngf.
Afe/,, (1809) 1 Ch. p. a®«; 78 L. J.
K.r.
Ch. 334 ; and sect. 6, »ub-«ect. 1
of 7 Edw. 7, c. 24, tts to the li^t
of a limited partner and hit agwit
to inspect the firm book* ; Darin
r. Oat Light and Coke "b., (1909)
ICh. 248, 788: 78 L. J. Ch. 445,
a COM nndertbe Conpuuea Clauses
Act, 1M4.
84
S80
IN Jr NOTIONS BETWEEN PARTNERS.
cim p. XV. purtnership deed (i). But if the power is exercisable at the
will and plonsure of the other partner, the Court will not
interfere in the iibsonce of imili fides (k). Where, howtver,
the power is exercisable in the event of a ^ trtner's miscon-
duct, the Ciourt will inquire whether it has been properlj
exercised (0. ii'"l ^^If" h'** co-partners are the tribunal t(
determine the question of expulsion, will restrain them fron
expeilii him if he has not been given notice of the grounds o
couipliiint against liini, and hud an opportunity of de^endinf
himself (m). But where the question whether the partne
is or is not proixjrly expelled has to be determined, not h
his co-partners, but by the Court, or arbitration, the ex
pelling partners are undei no obligation to inform him
the charges against him, or to give him an opportunity (
being heard before serving the notice of expulsion («).
In a case where there was power to expel a partner fo
"any flagrant breach of any of the duties of a partner,
the Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction «
straining the expulsion of the plaintiff who had been co
victed of having travelled without a ticket with intent to av
payment, holding tlmt such conduct was likely to do seric
injury to the partnership business, whereas the exclusit
of the plaintiff would not inflict irreparable injury upon hir
and he would have his remedy, if at the trial it should 1
held that he ought not to have been excluded (o).
Injunction The Court will not, in general, interfere by injuncti
^..neraity not |j^p pj^j,g q{ partnerships detonninable at will if a dissolutii
Ptne.si'ir''at ig not pravwl, for supiwsing the Court to interfere, ttxe defe
will and diMO-
luti.mnot (,) Sop /Wwfv. /VinW, lOlIare, p. 196; 43 L. J. Ex. 183. I
cUini«a. ^^^^ _ ,j ^.^ _ ^. „.^^^,, ^ p^gg 34 L. T. 80; I
L. 1!. 9 Kx. 19" : I- J- l'^- 'Iretn v. Ifcwell, lupra.
KuMell V. Jlumll. 14 C. I>. 471 ; 49 (m) See (Ireen v. Ifmoell, (U
L. J. Ch.26S ; r,irmuh<ifl\. Hians. 1 Ch. pp. 5(K), 5(M ; 79 L. J.
(1904)1 Ch. p. 490 ; 7:i L. J. < 'h. .■>49.
329; ilrten v. Ilotrell, (1910) 1 rh. (n) Hreen v. Hnwell, (1910) 1
p. 504 ; 79 L. J. Ch. S49. 496 ; 79 L. J. Cli. 649, oveirul
(t) Bliuet V. Daniel, $upra; on this point hamet v. J'o"
R,„^l V. RuMdl, 14 r. T>. pp. 479, (1898) J Ch. 414 ; 67 L. J. Ch. ;
480 ■ 49 L. J. Ch. 268. (o) Carmicha^ v. Emmt, (II
(/} U\.o,{ V. n-Mrl, li. K. 9 Ex. 1 Ch. 486 ; 73 L. J.Ch. W9.
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN PABTNBR8.
581
Cbap. XV.
dant might itmnediatolydiasolve the. partnership (p). Butthe
Court will not decline to interfere where the act craipUuiad
of tends to the destruction of the partnership property, or
where its interference might be of service in preventing the
doing of an illegal act (q). -
In an action for dissolution, a partner will be restrained InjanetloM i,t.
from improperly obstructing the partnership business (r) ; i^SSSJtoJ""
from interfering with the receiver and manager appointed^
hy the Court to carry on the business with a view to a sale (t) ;
from accepting or negotiating bills for other than partner-
ship purposes (t) ; from drawing, accepting, indorsing, or
negotiating bills of exchange in the partnership name ;
from getting in debts due to the firm (x) ■ from drawing
cheques in the name of the firm or taking any monies out of
the capital of the partnership (y) ; from oontinaing to keep
away from the firm a partnership book {z) ; from tampering
with the employees of the business, and inducing them to
enter the serriee of a firm which is being started in opposi-
tion (a), and generally, from doing an intentional serioas
damage to the property of the firm (6) ; so also a surviving
partner will be restrained from improperly ejecting the repre-
sentatives of his deoeasfld co-pwtner (o) ; and from dispos-
(/■^ See Peacock v. Peacock; 16
VfH. 40 ; 10 B. B. 138.
(y) See Milet v. Thomas, 9 Sim.
m, 009 ; 47 B. E. 320.
(r) Charlton T. PtiutUr, 19 Ve*
p. 147, n. : Smttk v. Ja/m, 4 Bear.
403 ; 55 B. B. 149 ; see Dixo,i y.
I>irm. (1904) 1 Ch. 161 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 103.
(s) Dixon V. IHxon, lupra.
't) WiUiamt t. sU^, 3 Vera.
liTs, n.
{") JirvU V. U'liite, 7 Ves. 413 ;
« II. B. 26 ; Hood v. Alton, I Bum.
^K'; 25 B. E. 93. In Jtrvi$ v.
'i'l'ite and Hood r. Atbm, the
y i i unction was extended to restrain
indorseee for value with construc-
tive ootioe from ueg^>tiating the
securities.
(a:) Stad v. Sowen, 4 Bio. C. C.
440.
(y) Lmann r. Berger, 34 L. T.
235.
(z) Charlton v. Puulter, 19 Ves.
147, n. ; Taylor v. Dai-it, 7 L. J.
Ch. 179; Oreatrex v. Orealrex, 1
BeO. & S. 692 ; 76 R B. 251. See
Partnership Act, 1890, s. 24 (9).
(a) Diron v. Diacon, (1904) 1 Oh.
161 ; 73 L. J. Ch. V».
(») Masnhatt t. Watmrn, 25 Bear.
flOl ; Twmtr r. Jit^, 3 Qiff. 442 ;
5 L. T. 600 ; Dixon v. Dixon, (1904)
1 Ch. 161 ; 73 I,. J. Oh. 103.
((•) Ellic*t T. liroum, 3 Sw.
489, n.; HawHnt AmMm, 4
Jut. N. S. 1045.
84—3
MS
INJUNOnONB BETWEEN PABTMERS.
_ck<ipjcv^ ing of, or getting in, the partnership aasats, if he hM aliwdj
made an improper use of the monies received by him (d).
injuBction In a case in which an action was pending for the disaolo-
^■nNwT^' tion of a partnership on the ground that the defendant wu
of unsound mind, the Court granted an injunction to r«atniin
the defendant from interfering in the conduct of the partner-
c>hip affairs so as to injure the business and atssets of the
firm (e).
Arbitmtion |.ro- An injunction will in a proper case be granted to restrain
iMtniatd! a partner from proceeding with an arbitration if an action is
pending iui|)eaching the instrument which contains the agree-
ment to refer (/). But the Court will not restrain a partner
frmn proceeding to arbitration where it is satisfied tliat the
result of the arbitration will be merely futile and productive
of no injury to tiie plaintiff (g).
After (linulutii.n After the dissolution of a partnership any one of the
nitr in tb« partners may, in the absence of express agreement, carry on
^nmn'mn, """^ business in the old neighboorhood (A). Though a
wiiUwM retiring partner may have assigned his interest and goodwill
in the business to his co-partner, an agreement not to carry
on the B&me trade will not be implied (*), unless here was an
understanding to that effect oil the sale of the bosiness (k) ;
but a retiring partner may not recommence or carry on busi-
ness in such a way as to lead people to suppose that he is the
successor of the old flrm(f). He has, however, a ri^t to
say, in the absence of express agreement, that he lately
belonged to u certain firm, and may advertise the fact (m),
(d) Hartz r. Sehmder, 8 Vw. Oh. «87 ; 73 L. J. Ch. MO.
817 ; 7 B. E. 85. (•) lb.
(e) J. V. S., (1894} 3 ('h. 72 ; 63 (k) Harritm r. Oardntr, 2 Ifadd.
L. J. Ch. 615. 198; 17 R. E. 207. See Tre<jo v.
(/) Kittiy. Moore, (1899)1 Q. B. Hunt, (1896) A. C. p. 23 ; 65 L. J.
253, 269 ; 64 L. J. Ct. It. 152. Ch. pp. lO, 11.
(y) Famr v. Coojier, 44 C. D. (/) Churtmi v. Douylat, JohiM.
323 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 606. 174 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 841 ; 123 B. B.
(A) CnMwMy. Lye, 17 Ye*. 336 ; 66 ; Haokham r. Pet ^, H Ch. 91 ;
11 B. B. 98. 8m DaHm t. Hedg- 27 L. T. 69 ; Tttgor. Hmt, (139^
•on, 36 Bmt. 177 ; 27 L. J. Ch. A. C. p. 27 ; 66 L. J. Ch. p. 11.
449 ; 129 B. B. 379 ; Trtyo v. Hunt, (m) Treyu v. Hunt, (1896) A. 0.
(1896) A. C. p. 27 ; 86 L. J. Ch. 1 ; p. 27; 66 L. J. C%.p. 11.
Curt Brothtrt v. Wetter, (1904) I
INJUKOnONB BBTWBEN PABTMIBS.
or any sdrertiM that h« it no kngmr ooniMetcd with the
concern (n). But a retiring partner who haa sold his interest
in the partnership may not solicit the customers of the old Ma.t not Miirit
flrm for bmineM (o), even although tfiey may have come '^^„,
to him of their own accord since the sale (p).
This restriction on soliciting former customers does not, EiMp«i«Mi*
howerer, apply in the case of involuntary alienation. Thus
the purchaser of the goodwill of a business fnmi tiiatmstM in
bankruptcy of a debtor, is not entitled to an injunction to re-
strain the debtor from soliciting the customers of his former
business, even althoogh the debtor may have joined in the
nssignment of the goodwill to the purchaser (q), nor does the
restriction apply in the case of a partner who has been ex-
pelled under a prorisioo in the articles of partnership (r).
Upon tr dissolution of a partnership, withoat any sale or Wghi lo Ui. »,
assignment of the goo<lwili of the business, and without any
. . name afMr
provision as to the use of the flrm name, each of the partners <ii«»l«tl««.
is entitied to carry on i isiness under that name, provided that
he does not thereby expose his former partners to risk of lia-
bility («). Whether there w. be any such risk, is a matter
to be determined with regard to the circumstances of each
case as it arises (<).
Where the goodwill of a business is taken over on the
dissolution of a partnership without any express stipulation
against the retiring partner carrying on a similar business, he
is at liberty to start in the same trade again under his own
name, so long as he does not use it so as to mislead the
public ; but he cannot trade under the old name if it differs
from his own name (%), and he will not be allowed to scdidt
(«) Bradbury v. Dirkent, 27 Beav.
53; 28 L. J. Ch. 667; 122 E. E.
311.
(o) Trego V. Hunt, (1896) A. C. 7 ;
fio L. J. Ch. 1 ; Jenuinya v. Jm-
>'i>"j». (1898) 1 Ch. 378; 67 L. J.
Ch. 190; Oillingham v. Beddow,
(1900) 2 Ch. 242 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 487.
(/*) Curl Sfkithtft V. Wtbtttr,
(1904) 1 Ch. 6M; T8 L. J. Ch. MO.
(j) Wallur T. JMfroM, 19 C. D.
358 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 108.
(r) Dawton v. Beeton, 22 C. D.
604 ; 37 W. :E. 837.
{>) Chappell V. Qriffith. 83 L. T.
459; Burchell v. W ilde, (1900) 1
Ch. 661 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314.
(() BimMl T. Wm», Mipni.
(«) CkmHm T. Dougltu, Johns.
174; 28 L. J. Ch. 841 ; 123 B. B.
56 ; Re David and Mntthnot, (1880)
ICh. 378 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 186.
584
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN PARTNERS.
ClMy.XT. the cnatomera of tlu- oUi ftrm (x). Where a continuing piirtner
is tt liberty to uxc the tnuie name of his Into firm, hr can only
do SO in a wuy whicli will not cust risk or liability on hia
late partners (y).
Whore Ihn (»oo<lwill nf a hiisiiioss is assigned, without any
express attsigiiment of the right to use the thm nunie, and
such firm name eonststs of the name of the rendor with the
words "niid Co." added to it, the vendor runs no appreciable
risk liy the purchaspr contiiming the business under such
lirni name, and cannot therefore maintain an injunction to
restrain such user («).
In Bmdhury v. Dirkrnii (n), .in author, who had boon in
partnership with a publisher, was restrained, after dissolu-
tion, from adrertising that a certain publication would be
discontinued, t'io right to use the name of the publication
being partnership assets (6). Upon the dissolution of a
partnership, and the sale of the business to one of the part-
ners, the purchaser, where there is no agreement permitting
him to use it, miy be restrained from using the outgoing part-
ner \: name, as part of the style oi tlie farm, unless the outgoing
partner is dead or bankrupt (o), or unless it is used in such
a way as not to expose the out^o.ng partuii to risk of !; i-
bility (d). In Evans v. Hughes (c), a surviving partner was
restrained from carrying on business for three months after
the decease of the other partner, under any style except that
of the old Ann, there being a stipulation in the articles of
partnership that the representatives of a deceased partner
might elect, within three months from his deatii, to take the
deceased partner's shore.
Salt of KOC.I will If the whole of a partnership concern and the goodwill of a
passes rig! * to
teMfirrf ' """^ i') Beddew, (1900) 867 ; 122 B. E. 311.
coToimt not to 2 Ch. 242 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 627. (6) See UanhaU WaUim, 28
Mrry on MmiUr f,^^ soo lUirrhe!! v. M'ildr, (1900) Beav. 601 ; 110 B. B. 609.
baiiow. J . , J pj, . Scott V. Rowlan,!, 20 W. B.
see ulsd 'ruwiiffnit v. .htrmmi, (1900) 808.
2 Ch. ; L. J. Oh. S2;<. (<0 See HurrhfU v. H'iWe, (1900)
,1 V Jnrmjn,., fUMMtl 1 Ch. 551 : 6!) L. J. Ch. 314.
2 Ch. 698 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 823. («■) 18 Jur. 691.
(o) 27 B«kT. 68; 28 L. J. Ch.
INMI NCTUINS PKTWKHX PAKTNER8.
588
liiisin.'.^s hiivo been sold, th« ri^lit to the rmmp or p:irtiifM Mhip OUy-XT.
style, as a general ruiu, pasttea with it(/), bIho the benefit
of » ptrtncr*! or Mnruf • wftmat, not to nrry oo within
H certain limit of time or apae* a siinilar bosineM to that of tha
tiurtnership
Tbp Court will not interfere in all caBeti of miiiconduct to Tk* Cmtt i—
(•rant nn iiijunotion aKainst one partner at the suit of another. Un'iJrJr*'*
Mrro disagreements, or quarrels arising from bad tcnirn'r and "' T*^' ***'
improprieties of conduct, are not a sufficient ground for the
interference of tha Ooart. Bat if a parteer is conducting
himsplf so grossly as to render it impo.sHibli« for tho bii-incsw
to be carried on in a proper muiner, the Court will inter-
fere (h). When partners have agreed that the management wiwr panMr
of their affairs shall be entrusted to one or more of them ex- mi^iwllSt"
clusively, the Court will not interpose, unless ho or they is
or are acting illegally, or in breach of the trust reposed in
liiin or them, or has or have become inaolrent (<). The Court Partner not
will not interfere to restrain a jiailner from acting,' as such, !,'ting°merelj"u
merely because if ne were known to be acting as partner the s™"""'
poMihlit lOM of
confidence of ihe pablio in the concern might be shaken {k). eattom in
But in a case where a partnership was formed between sereral *^
(/) Bankt v. Oib»on, 34 Boav. {</) Towniend v. Jannnn, (1900)
■>iii'>; M L. J. Oi. »9l; Townarwl 2('>i.G98; 69 L. J. ( h. S^t ;
\. ■Inrman, (1800) 2 Ch. 698 ; 6tf ttrivl v. Ilwlley. (liMM) 21 T. I,. It.
I.. J. Ch. 823. As to "goodwill," l«j; Aittinn'Mr Cirriai/r lliiihhrx
-.■p Aii.Hteii V. llmiH, i De (i. & J. v. Siuiem, (1909) 101 L. T. 119,
ii2(!; 27 L. J. Ch. 714; 119 R. R. (A) Sef (hx^lman v. Whitetmh,
■1VA\ 7rf;/o V. //Hn<, (1896) A. C. 17, 1 J. & W. p. 592; 21 B. B. 244;
2a; 65 L. J. Ch. p. 10; /aland Smith v. •Unti, 4 Beav. 503; 35
Keveuae Commist ioH e n v. MuUer * B. B. 149 ; Jndtrtm v. Aiuknm,
iVt Margarme Ch., (1901) A. C. 30 Bear. 190,194; 119 B. B. 388;
223, 224 ; 70 L. J. K. B. p. 680; Manhallv. Colmnn/i J. & W. 2«8;
Hill V. Fearu, (1905) 1 Ch. ].. 471 ; 22 I!. R. 11(1; ll<uter v. We»t. 1 Dr.
74 L. J. Ch. p. 2;}8; Ml. (I at. v. & Sm. 173; 28 I.. J. Ch. I(i9.
IMni. (1912) 1 K. H. o39; 81 L. J. (•) Waters v. T,u,l,r, 1.5 Ves. 10;
K. H. 7tH. As to pxHlwill of a 13 R. R. 91 ; llohrrU v. Kherliardt,
s'llii itor's hiwiiieHM, mxi Aiuiten v. Kay, p. 160; 23 L. J. Ch. 201 ; 101
/-'"//*, tufira ; Arundel v. BrU, 62 R. R. 548; Automatic titlf Cleaning
I.. J. Ch. 537; BurchtU v. ll ilile, Filter Oo. v. Cuninghame, (1906) 2
(1900) 1 Ch. Ml ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314- Ch. pp. 44, 40 ; 75 L. J. Ch. p. 441.
As to goodwtii of a (tockbmker'R {k) Anon., 2 K. A J. 441; 1 10
buMineas, nee UUl t. Ftari*, mpm. B. B. 2.
S»6
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN PARTNERS.
C!lnp.XV.
Iiijanctions to
rastraiD a man
(rom boliling oat
anolbar w
partBir.
A jiartnerwho
8eek» relief
mutt do sqail;.
Acqaieaccnce.
persons in a mail-coach buainesa, one of the partners was
ii'striiined from supplying the horses, on the ground that liis
horses were ao bad as to causs irreparable injury to the busi-
ness of the firm (0.
An injunction will be granted to icstrain a pprson from
holding out another as a partner, against the wish and without
the authority of that other (tn). So also a company waa
restrained from advertising a certain person as their trustee
without his authority (ti).
In a case, in which a dealer in cycles had advertised his
goods in a manner which satisfied the Court that he intended
the public to believe that the plaintiffs (the proprietors of
The Times newspaper) were either the vendors, for whom
he acted as manager, or were partners with him, or in some
way connected with the sale of such cycles, it "vas held that
as tlio plaintiffs were exposed to somr risk by the unauthorised
use by the defendant of the name of their newspaper, an inter-
locutory injunctiwi ought to be granted restraining the defen-
dant from in any way representing that the cycles offered by
him for sale were offered for sale by the plaintiffs, and from
in any way holding out The Times to be the owners of, or
connected with his business (o).
A pertner who seeks to restrain his co-partner from violat-
ing the terms of a partnership agreement, or his duties as a
partner, must be able to show that he is able and willing to
perform his own part of the agreement, and has fulfilled the
duties incumbent on himself (p) . However improper the con-
duct of his co-partner may have been, a partner may, by hia
own acts, debar and preclude himself from relief in equity (q).
Acquiescence in the act complained of may disentitle t partner
to relief against his co-partnera (r).
(I) Andtrmm v. WeMaet, 3 M61L
640.
(m) See Routh v. Webster, 10
Beav. 6«1 ; 7(> B. R. 211 : Ititllnck
V. Chaj.man, 'i Ue (i. & S. 211;
Walter v. Aihton, (1902) 'i Ch. 883,
2&1 ; 71 L. J. Ch. »;», 842.
(n) Ro«th V. WtMtr, 10 ))eav.
861; 76B.B.311.
(o) trotter T. Atktm, (19(»}3 Ch.
282 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 838.
(/<) Cimtt y. HcarrU, T. ft B.
p. 524 ; 24 B. R. 108.
(v) Litthwood T. ValdwM, 11
Prir«, 2S R, B. 711.
(r) Ulamnghn v. TkteaiUi, 1
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN PARTNERS.
587
The appointment of a receiver in partnership cases of itself Ch»p. xv.
()|)oiaf('s HH an injunction (»), though the t'ourt in grunting Ap|H>i..tnient of
or refusing »• u, der for a receiver does not act upon the same ITu i^jn^Siii!
principl' ■ as when it jsr^nts or refuses an order for an in-
junctior 'i). An iiijun i jn may exclude one of the partners Difference of
from th .r.inagemcnt of the partnership affairs, but the w^iri^rwd,.,
appointive!, t ci u r ' driver excludes the plaintiff as well as the i'„'''^i^^"''
defradant, the Court taking upon itself, through the receiver gnuiti.
and manager, the management of the partnership affairs. It
therefore does not follow that because the Court will grant an
injunction it will also appoint a receiver, or that because it
refuses to appoint a receiver it will also decline to interfere
by injunction (tt). The Court, liowever, will often grant an
injunction as well as appoint a receiver in order to mark its
sense of the impropriety of the conduct of iboae whom it
specially restrains (x).
Sim. & St. 125 ; 1 I,. J. ((). S.) Ch. (!ol,IJiel,l i ■„., (1909) 1 K. L. p. 437 ;
lis; 24 11. R. is;); clr,,,, v. 78 L. J. K. B. p. 354 (caHe« of the
Eilmondttim, S De O. Nt. C 787 ; ai)pointment of a receiver br way
26 L. J. Ch. 673 ; 1 14 E. E. 326 ; of equitable execution).
Kfum V. Smalk<ml,f, L. B. 3 H. L. («) Hall v. HM, 3 Mm. ft O. 79,
266; 37 L. J. Ch. 793. M; 20 L. J. Ch. 5M ; 87 B. R. 16.
(») Evan* v. Ornntry, 3 Drew. (») Hatty. Hall, lupra : Lindley,
p. 82 ; < De O. M. ft O. p. 918; 6th ed. p. 868.
106 B. B. 290; Aurfrr v. Wei*, 1 [x) Evans v. Com.trv, 3 Drew.
Dr.ft Sm. 173; 28 L. J. Ch. 169; p. 82; 5 De O. M. & G. 911 ; 106
and see TyreU v. rninton, (1895) 1 E. B. 280 ; Lindley, 6th ed. p. 668.
U. B. p. 206; J!» r*« Puk HiU
CHAPTER XVI.
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN MORTOA001 AND MORTGAGEE.
C'lap. XVI.
Mnrtgssee's
ri;.'lit to in'.rsue
reiiieilies
coticurreiitl)'.
Siilc l.y
iuurt|;agee —
whether Coait
will mtnin.
As long as anything remains due on the mortgage security
a mortgagee may, as a general rule, pursue all his remedies
concurrently. lie may bring actions of covenant and eject-
ment, and may at the same time proceed to foreclose the mort-
gage (a). If the mortgufjee forecloses first, and the value
of the estate proves insufficient to satisfy his debt, he may,
while the estate remains in his [wwer to reconvey, sue oa ihe
covenant to pay, but he thereby opens the foreclosure and
the mortgagor may redeem (6). If he sues on the covenant
fust, and does not get fully paid, he may pioopod to foreclose
the mortgage. But if he has been fully paid by means of his
personal remedy under the covenant, he cannot touch the
estate, and is precluded from all proceedings afterwards (r).
There may, however, be cases of fraud or special contract
or other peculiar circumstances, which will deprive a mort-
gagee of his right to pursue all his remedies concurrently (rf).
The Court has no jurisdiction to restrain a mortgagee from
selling under a power of sale, provided he keep within the
terms of the power and no case of fraud be made ont(e).
^0 Srhnoh- :. Sail, 1 Sch. & Lef. 169 ; 9(i I?. R. 7:).
170 ; l.nckhart v. Ilanli/, !) Heuv.
349; 15 L. J. Ch. 347: 73 E. R.
379 ; IIV//M V. Levett. 1 De O. & S.
392 ; Kinnaird v. Trollopf, 39 C. D.
643, 644 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 906.
{h) T.nckhart v. Hardy, $Hpra ;
Palimr v. Ifemlrif, 27 Beav. 341 ;
28 IW. 341; 122 R. R. 426;
Kinnairil V. Trollojir, miiTd ; Wmtli-
in<jf-n V. Jhhvtt, (1910) 1 Ch. p.
596 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 254.
(c) Lockliart v. Hanh/, h'innainl
?. TrMopt, uifira.
(rf) CoeMl V. Baton, 16 Beav.
(e) See ,rei,l.li,H v Jonts. 2 (iifV.
99; 29 I;. J. Ch. 493; Ailiiins v.
Scott, 7 W. R. 213; IlVfrxfc v.
Jacob, 20 C. 1). p. 224; o\ I.. J. Ch.
642 ; Colion v. nUlianu, 68 L. J.
Ch. 539 ; Kennedy v. De Traford,
(1896) 1 Ch. 762 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
465; (1897) K. C. 180 ; 66 L. J.
Ch. 413; Suit V. AVufon, (1899)1
Ch. 877 ; (iS L. J. Ch. 367 ; affirmed,
(1900) 1 Ch. 29; 69 L. J. Ch. 46;
lloilum V. Deaiit, (1903) 2 Ch. 647,
65;); 72 li. J. Ch. 751; ami we
Haddington Itlaud Quarry Co. v.
MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE.
689
But the mortgagee will be restrained from selling without Ch»p. XVI.
satisfying any condition which by the mortgage deed is
imposed upon the exercise of the power (/).
A mei offer unaccompanied by actual tender of the monies
due is noi sufficient to prevent a 8ale(y). So long as the
mortgagee is acting bond fide, he can only be restrained by
tnuler of the principal monies due, interest and costs (h) ; or,
if an action is pending, by payment into Court of the amount
which the mortgagee claims to be due to him (t). If, how-
ever, it appears upon the face of tiie mortgage deed that the
mortgagee is claiming more than is due to him, the mortgagor
will not be required to pay into Couit the full amount
claimed (k).
Sect. 7 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, which prevents Biihof SnJeAet,
seizure of personal chattels under a bill of sale except for the *"
causes therein mentioned, provides (inter alia) that the
grantor may, within five days from the seizure or taking pos-
session of any chattels, apply to the High Court, or to a judge
thereof in chambers, and such Court or judge, if satisfied
that by payment or otherwise tiie oaose of seiaare no longer
exists, may restrain the grantee from removing or selling the
said chatteld, or may make such other order as may seem
just (1).
A sale by a mortgagee under a power, even with stringent
conditions, will not be restrained on light grounds (m).
Huwn, (1911) A. C. 722 ; 105 L. T. (») Whitw<,rth v. Rhalei, 20 L. J.
467 (P. C). Ch. 105 ; Warner v. Jacob, mpra;
(/) See Oill V. XewtoH, U W. B- Hiek$on Darlow, 23 C. D. MO ;
4»0. 48 L. T. 449 ; Madtod r. Jmn, 24
(y) MeMhW mmtrii*, 16 L. J. C. D. 289; 03 L. J. Ch. 146 ; Hill
Ch. 408 ; IFofiwr t. Jae<^, 20 C. D. v. Kirkwooil ; Stubbt v. Slater,
p. 224 ; 51 Jj. J. Ch. 642. tnpra.
(A) I'aynter v. Cam'; Kay. App. (A) llirkton v. Parlmp, supra.
;t6 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 59(i ; 101 R. R. (/) .See Kx parte Cotton, 11
^f>'l ; im V. Kirhrnn,!, 28 W. R. Q. B. D. 301 ; 49 L. T. 62 ; HUl r.
.158 ; ffarner v. Jacoh, 20 C. D. A'«'< («(«»/, 28 W. B. 3M ; Hifkum
]). 221 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 642 ; Dererget v. Darlow, ntpra.
V. s<„„/,'iii<iu ,t- Co., (1902) 1 Ch. (m) Kir*kaw t. Kaioit, I JFur.
p. 597; 71 L. J. Ch.p.32«; Stuhbt N. 8. 974; Mofhad r. Jm», 24
V. Shter, (1910) 1 Ch. 64«: 79 0. D. 296, 299; A3 L. J. Ch.
L. J. Ch. p. 427. p. 149.
640
CImv-ZVI.
When mortgag'-e
ulicitor o(
mortfigor,
may be
nttrainetl with-
out requiring
whole tarn
eUimol b;
Bortgiflee to be
ptid iBto
Cuait.
Po*er of »ale
not stopped bj
iaMitntlBg
nd«n)|>tioii or
tonolonu*
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN
Where a special authority to sell has been given to a person,
and it is alleged that it has be^-n revoked at law, an injunc-
tion will no b(> granted to restrain a sale unless the power
has been revoked in equity. Thus an injunction to restrain
the exercise of a power of sale given to secure a balance to he
ascertained by an arbitrator was refused, although the award
was made after the plaintiff had executed a deed for the pur-
pose of revoking his authority (n).
If special circumstances, however, be made out, a mortgagee
will be restrained by injunction from selling under his power
of sale. Where, for example, the mortgagee of the property
of a company was also a shareholder in the company and had
presented a petition for winding-up the company, he was re-
strained from exercising his power of sale under thr mortgage
until the hearing of the petition (o).
The ordinary rule that the Court will not grant an int^-rlocu-
tory injunction restraining a mortgagee from exercising his
power of sale except on the terms of the mortgagor paying
into Court the sum sworn by the mortgagee to be due for
principal, interest, and costs, does not apply to a case where
the mortgagee at the time of taking the mortgage was the
solicitor of the mortgagor. In such a case the Court will look
at all the circumstances of the case, and will make such order
as will save the mortgagor from oppression without injuring
the security of the mortgagee (p).
The mere institution of a redemption action does not affect
the mortgagee's power of sale (g) ; nor will the commence-
ment of a foreclosure action by the mortgagee prevent his
exercising the power of sale, but after the order visi for
foreclosure, and before the foreclosure is made absolute,
the power of sale can only be exercised by leave of the
Court (f).
(n) HanouH Somtbcttom, I
J. ft W. 606.
(o) En parte FM, » W. B. 881,
(1881) W. N. m.
(p) Maeltod v. Jem*, M C. D.
289 ; 6.3 L. J. Ch. 146.
(j) Adamt V. Bcttt, 7 W. E.
213; 113 R. R. l(W.i; Slertnt v.
Tl<mtre». I.imiied, (1903) 1 I'h. p.
86i ; 72 li. J. Ch. 7(i4.
(r) Htevent v. Thentre; Limited,
^!<M)3\ 1 Ch. 8.'57 ; 72 J. Ch. 764 ;
Haim T. Du,U»y (fioW). (1807) 1
Cb. p. 803 ; 78 L. J. cat. p. »7.
M0BTQA60B AND MOBTGAO£E.
541
A mortgagee in exflrcising his power of sale, is not a trustee C^XVi.
in the ordinary aense for the mortgagor (»), even where the Mortgagee
mortgage is in the form of a trust for sale (t) ; for although a of wUe'not'"**'
mortgagee is under obligatimu to the mortgagor, be has ri^ts i^^'t^r'
of his own which he is entitled to exercise adversely to the
mortgagor, while a trustee for sale has no right to plaoe
himself in such a position as to give rise to a conflict of
interest and duty. Accordingly a sale by a mortgagee at an
undervalue will not be set aside, unless the price is so inade-
quate as to be evidence of fraud (u). In fact the only obliga-
tion upon a mortgagee selling under his power of sale is that
he should act in good faith, and take reasonable precautions to
obtain a proper price. In determining whether the mort-
gagee's o(aiduct in this reepeot comes up to the required stan-
dard, regard must br had to the eircumstaaces of the parti-
cular case (x) .
A mortgagee with a power of sale is, however, in the posi- Mortgagee with
tion of a trustee for the mortgagor and those claiming under rtrartMrf'* **
Lim of the surplus monies that may remain after satisfaction ••'P''*
of what is owing under the mortgage (y) ; and he may be
(») Warner v. Jacob, 30 B.
220 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 642 ; Farrar y.
Farrars, Limitetl.'iO C. D. 410, 411 ;
68 L. J. Ch. p. 194 ; Kmnedyy. De
Trafford, (1896) 1 Ch. "62, 772 ; 65
L. J. Ch. 466 ; (1P97) A. C. 180 ; 66
L. J.Ch. 413 ; Nutt v. Norton, (1899)
1 Ch. p. 879; 68 L. J. Ch. M7 i
(1800)lCai. 99; M L. J. Oh. 46;
ITodioii V. Dmim, (1908) 3 Ch. p. 662 :
73 L. J. Ch. p. 763 : Twrtur y. WoUh,
(1909) 2 K. B. p. 496 ; 78 L. J.
K. B. p. 760 ; Haddington Uland
Quarry Co. v. Huton, (1911) A. C.
729 ; 106 L. T. 467 (P. C.) ; see
■a to wdes by mortgagees, Oon-
veyanoing Act, 1881, a. 21, lab-c 6,
■■■awndsd by OnmTnciiig Aet,
1911, •. S, (ab-a. S.
{t) Wanm- v. JaaA, 20 C. D.
220 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 642.
(tt) Warmr v. Jacob, 20 C. D.
p. 234; SI L. J. Ch. 642 ; Field v.
Debeniure Corporation, (1896) 12
T. L. R. 470; Farrar v. Farrart,
I xmited, 40 C. D. p. 411 ; 58 L. J.
Ch. p. 194 ; and »ee Ktunedij v.
De Traffiird, (1897) A. C. 180 ; 66
L. J. Ch. 413 ; Haddington v.
ItlcMd Quarty Co. t. Huion, (1911)
A. O. 722, 789; lOS L. T. 467
(P. C).
(i) Kennedy v. De Trafford, (1897)
A. C. 180, 185, 192; 66 L. J. Ch.
413 ; and see Nuit v. JSofton, (1899)
1 Ch. 873; 68 L. J. Ch. 367;
(1900) 1 Ch. 29 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 46 ;
Haddmglm I^mmd Quar r g Oa. r,
HmtoK, tupra,
(y) JmJtiii$ V. Imm, 2 Oiff.
f. 108; Wttftm T. /ocei. 20 0. D.
398 ; 81 L. J. Cb. 843; wd m
Met 21, sub-Met 9, Omnvymmm^
Aet, 1881.
S42
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN
Ch*p. XVI.
Whtra mort-
isai^ee also a
trustee.
injanetioM
ngainit
mortgagor on
applicatiuu of
mortgag««.
Waste by
BMrtcagor in
ordered to pay intereat on such surplos monies in his
hands (z).
The trustee of a chapel belonging to a public body, being
also u mortgagee of the chapel under an instrument executed
for the purposes of the trusts, will not be restrained from
exercising the rights of a mortgagee, although in opposition to
the trusts (a) .
A legal mortgagee of business premises, such as an hotel,
who is prevented by the morfgagor from taking possession
under the mortgage may, provided that the mortgage includes
the goodwill, obtain on interlocutory application an order for
the appointment of a receiver and manager (b), and an in-
junction restraining the mortgiigor from interfering with the
management of the business and the possession of the
premises (c).
Where a mortgagee has appointed a receiver under th( ("on-
Teyancing Act, 1881, the Court will restrain the mortgagor
from distraining for rent due from a tenant of the property.
This will be done even in a case where the receiver is negligent
in collecting the rents (d).
A mortgagor in possession is in equity the owner of the
estate, and may accordingly exercise all acts of ownership, pro-
vided he does not thereby render the security insufficient (e).
But if the security is insufficient, he may not commit
waste (/), and will be restrained from cutting timber (9). A
(*) Chark$ v. Jonei, 35 C. I).
644 ; 56 L. u. Ch. 745; EUy v.
Read, 78 L. T. 39.
(a) Aa.-Om. v. ffarHy, 1 Sim.
N. S. 338; 20 L. J. Ch. 4S0; Re
M iton's Orphanage ami Lmilou ami
A Mh Weaiem Bailwai/, (1H96) 1
Ch. p. 59 : 65 L. J. Ch. p. 3.j.
(b) Truman <fe Co. v. Redyraie,
18 0. D. 547 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 830 ;
Whitley t. ChaUU, (1892) 1 Ch. 64 ;
61 K J. Ok. 307 ; and see In re
LtM HM Co., (1902) 1 Ch. 332 ;
71 L. J. Ch. 294 ; Lmey r. Catling-
ham, (19M) 1 K. B. 79, 84: 77
L. J. K. B. 64. 67 ; Be Nttodigate
VMiery Co., (1913) 1 Ch. p. 472;
81 L. j. Ch. p. 238.
(c) Truman * Co. T. JMgrmt,
18 C. D. 547.
(rf) Bayly v. Went, (1884) W. N.
197; 81 h. T. 763; WooUton r.
Rou, (1900) 1 Ch. 788; 69 L. J.
Ch. :m.
(t) Kektwich v. Marker, 3 Mac. &
O. p. :)29 ; 31 L. J. Ch. p. 188; 87
B. R. 99.
( / ) Ifumphreys v. Ilarriion, 1
J. & W. 681 ; 21 B. E. 238; Harftr
V. Ai4in, 64 L. T. 388.
(g) Ilumphrei/i T. Harritfm,
eupra ; Uippeeley v. Sptnetr, 8
MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE.
648
mortgagor in poesession will alio be reBtrained from com- ch«p. xvi.
inittiiig waste after a decree for foreclosure nm (h), and from
cutting and removing crops after a demand for possession by
the mortgagee (t).
A mortgagee in possession with a sufficient spcurity will be Wmi* i.v
retrained from committing waste (k). In the case of a mort- JJJii^on.'"
gage made by deed after the 31st of December, 1881, the
mortgagee, in the absence of provision to the ocmtrary, may,
while in possession, cut and sell timber and other trees ripe
for cutting, and not planted or left standing for shelter or
ornament (I).
When an advowson is the subject of a mortgage, the Court Mmigaiieof
will, upon the tender of th« mortgage monies by the mort-
gagor, restrain the mortgagee from presenting, though u bill i>ie»eiiution.
for foreclosure has been institatsd. The mortgagee does not
till after foreclosure acquire a right to present (m).
A mortgagor of a ship remaining in possession retams Mortgage of »
under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (n), all tiie rights *^''''
and powers of ownership, and his contracts with regard to the
ship will be valid and eSectual, provided his dealings do not
materially impair the security of the mortgage (o). Accord-
ingly, when a mortgagor in possession had entered into a
charter-party, the mortgagees were restrained at the suit of
the charterers from dealing with the ship in derogation of
the charter-party (p). Bat where mortgagors in possession
had entered into a charter-party for the carriage of contra-
Madd. 422 ; King v. Smith, 2 Hare, 401. See Qardmer t. GriJSth, 2
23» ; 62 B. B. 93 : Harper r. Aplin, P. Wms. 403.
not* (/), tupra, A» to vhen a (nj A7 ft M Tiot. o. 60, s. 34.
security is " invoffioieiit," MS King (o) Collinty. Lamport, 4 Be O. J.
T. Smith, tupra. & 8. 500 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 196 ; Keith
(A) Ooodmm y. JTme, 8 Bwt. v. /hirrowi, 2 A. C. (Ho. 64() ; 46
379. L. J. e. P. p. 807; 77,e //eather
(i) llagnoll y. Villar, 13 0. D. Hell, (1901) P. 280; 70 L.J. P. 67;
812 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 695. Law Guarantee and Trust Svciety v.
(k) Milhtt V. Davey, 31 Bear- liuuian Bank- far Foreijfn Traile,
p. 475 ; 32 L. J. Ch. p. 124. (1906) 1 K B. p. 822 ; 74 L. J.
(0 CoDT^rMMiiig Aet, 1881 (4 ! ft KB. 677 : The Manor, (1907) ,P
46 Viot 0. 41), », mb-aect (W.). 339, 369; 77 L. J. P. p. 17.
(m) Amhtml t. Bawling, 2 V«m. Callmt r. Lamport, tupra..
044
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN
CU|>. XVI.
InjanctioM at
■■It ol •qaiuU*
Ritiht of legal
mortgiigec lo
•I^BllueBt of
Pun*
mortgacM.
band of war , and the ship was not insared against the riak, the
mortgagees were held entitled to a declaration that the c' artw-
partj' was not binding upon them {q).
The mortgagee of an equity of redemption may, on a proper
case being made oat, obtain an injunction to restrain the
mortgagee or other person in possession of the legal estate
from paying over to thr mortgagor the surplus rents or monies
which remain after tiie satisfaction of bis own claim (r).
Under the old law a mortgagee having the legal estate could
not, except under special circumstances, obtain a receiver,
because he could take possession under his legal title («).
But since the Judicature Acts the Court may, in its discretion,
apjx)int a receiver at the instance of a legal mortgagee (<)•
A mortgages, however, who has once taken possession, cannot
relinquish it at his pleasure. Haring once assumed the
responsibilities attaching to a mortgagee in possession, he
cannot, at his own pleasure, get rid of them ; and as a general
rule the Court will not, by appointing a receiTor, assist him
to do so (w).
A receiver will not be appointed at the instance of a puisne
mortgagee if a prior legal incumbrancer is in possessicm,
unless the applicant will pay off the prior mortgagee's demand.
If the prior incumbrancer be not in possession, a puisne
mortgagee may obtain the appointment of a receiver, without
prejudice to the right of the prior mortgagee to i^fij for
possession (v).
(q) Law Ouaraattt and Trust
Socitty V. Buman Bank for Fertig*
Trade, (1906) 1 K. B. 815 ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 677.
(r) Parker ▼. Caiar^ft, 6 ILidd.
U.
(«) llerney v. Sewell, 1 J. & W.
64T ; 21 R. R. 265 ; TilUtt v. Xireii,
25 C. 1). p. 239 ; -Vl L. J. Ch. 199 ;
Se Pope, 17 Q. B. D. p. 749 : 55
L. J. a B. p. 624.
(«) Bi Prfftherck, 42 C. D. 690 ;
59 L. J. Ch. 79 ; Be Pope, tupra.
((') lb. ; but see TilUtt v. Alien,
25 C. D. 238 : 53 L. J. Ch. 199 ;
Maton V. WeHoby, 32 C. D. 206 ; 55
L. J. Ch. 607 ; County of OlouceOer
Bank t. Budry, Mtrthyr, etc, Steam
Co., (1886) 1 Ch. 68», «40 ; «4 L. J.
Ch. p. 456.
(») Bemry v. Sewell, 1 J. ft W.
647 ; 21 B. R. 265 ; Jlrookt v. Oreat-
Im ', 1 J. & W. 176; Umlerhay v.
Rt .d, 20 Q. B. 1) p. 218 ; oV L. J.
(.1. B. p. 133 ; Jle LotuUm Prettat
Hinye Co., (1905) 1 Ch. p. 682 ; 74
L. J. Ch. p. 326. See Be Metro-
jMMon AmalgBmatti Eetaiee Co.,
(1913) 3 Ol. Ml. 602; 81 L. J. Ok
746.
MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE.
645
An equitable nuMigagee by depoiiit of deeds luuy obtain an cha i.. xvi.
injunction, or the appointment of a receiver, for the protee* i^ihabi^
tiori of his Hoc-urity (x). So also nuiy a person who is poB- i^HSfS^
sossod of an equitable lien(y). The lien which a solicitor
has on the papens of his client will be {Mrotected by injunc- Soiieiter't Um.
lion (r).
The appointment of a receiver at the instance of un equit-
able incumbrancer, where nothing is presently payable to
him, is a matter in the discretion of the Court (a).
In an action by an equitable morfgagee for sale and fore- i„i.,n, .ion to
closure, an interim injunction was granted to restrain dealing I,u'h'ibe'**'*'"*
with the legal estate till the next motion day on an ex parte ^
iipplicalion by fhe plaintiff, there being ground to believe that
the defendant intended to part with tb'i l^al estate ( h) .
Upon the principle that a mortgagee is entitled to the pro- Debe..t.ire.
tection of his security, the Court will, at the instance of a '""^
debenture-holder of a limited company, where the debenture
creates a floating charge on the property of the company,
apiwint a receiver of the property so chaiged, if the security
IS in jeopardy, even though the principal money is not yet
due, and default has not yet been made in payment of
interest (c).
A mortgagor in receipt of the rents and profits has a suffi- Mortgmjorin
cient interest to enable him to maintain an action for an. p"^'""
* entitled to ane
for injuty to
Co. T. Ltwit, 21 C. D. 490. property witboat
(c) McMahon v. North Kent Irrni-
works Co., (18!tl) 2 Ch. 148; oo """■'«^
L. J. Ch. 372; Thorn v. Sine lieeft
<■(,., (1892) 67 I.. T. 93; Eilivurdt
V. Stnnilanl Rvlliii,/ Stock Sywlkate,
(1893) 1 Ch. 574 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 605 \
hi re Viclorin Stenmboati Co.,{lW)
1 Ch. 158 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 21 ; y» f»
Londou Preueii Hinge CSa., (igOS) 1
Ch. 476; 74 L. J. Ch. 321 ; In re
OartkaUon Park Ettate, (1908) 2
Oh. 62 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 560. As to
}6op«idT. Bee III re Sets Y:=rl- Tnyi-
tah Co.] (1913) 1 Ch. 1 ; 82 L. J.
Ch. 41 ; Tnre Tilt Cove Copper Co.,
(1913) 2 Ch. 688 ; 82 L. J. Ch. MS.
86
(x) Meux > . lleli, 7 Jur. 821 ;
Hoilgtr V. Bodger, 11 W. B. 160.
(y) ffolroyd v. MarthaU, 10
II. L. C. 191 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 193,
197 ; MvUlletim v. Maijnay, 2 11. &
M. 233; Qnrnell v. (lardner, 4
< tiff. {yiG.
{z) Stetlman v. Ifehh, 4 M. & C.
:!!«; fi L. J. ("h. 196; Hirlianls v.
l-latrl, Ci. & Ph. 79, 80; 10 L. J.
< h. 37o ; 54 E. R. 216 ; W(tt*tm r.
l-yon, 7 De G. M. * G. 288 ; 24
L. J. Ch.7S4; 109B.B.122.
(a) In re London Preued Hinge
Co., (1905) 1 Ch. p. 682 ; 74 L. j.
< 'h. p. 325.
(i) London and Countg Banking
546
MORTGAGOR AND MORTOAOEE.
Ch»p. XVI.
MortflCN after
mtrj can lue for
injurr to
pro|)erty
•onimilteil
befuri' entry.
Teimnt fur lift
ri-Htiaiiieil from
mort^Bijinj: to
prejadicc of
other iaenm-
injunction to lewtrain an injury doiio to tho mortgaged pre-
mises without joining the mortgagee (rf).
A mortgagee after entry into poHsrs.sion is entitled toraiiin-
tain an action against a wrongdoer for a trespass committed
prior to his entry (e).
When a tenant for life i)roiK)sed to mortgage settled lands
under sect. 11 of the Settled Land Act, 18»0, under such
circumstances that the interests of certain annuitants would
have been unjustly prejudiced thereby, tlie Court restrainixl
Iiim from carrying out the mortgage otherwit;e than subject
to the rights of such annuitants (/).
(J) Fuirrlouyh v. Martliall, 4
Ex. D. 37 ; 39 L. T. 389 ; I n/.
OMtr * fU T. Souttrby Bridge
Flour Society, 44 0. D. 374, 390; W
I,. J. Ch. 587, 5S8. Soe the Judi-
cature Alt, KSVa, sect. 25, iub-
sect. 5 ; iiud Turner v. W'ahh,
(1909) 2 K. B. 484, 493 ; '« l>. J.
K. B. p. 759.
(f) ()ie<tii Airi'liiit (iml lluaiiiiitet
r,,ri>irnti,iii v. ///i<r./ <!a*
(1906) -1 K. B. 493 ; 74 L. J. K. B.
799.
(/) Ham/'lni v. Bmkiitgham-
thin {Earl), (1893) 2 Ch. 431, 644;
62 L. J. Ch. 643. See Re Richard-
ion, (1900) 2 Ch. 778, 790 ; 69 L. J.
Ch. p. 811.
CHAPTEB XVII.
INJUNCTIONS AOillNBT OOMPAMIEB.
Tbb Court will, on a proper case being made out, restrain ch«p. xvii.
coinpunies, wliethcr iiicorpoiatid hy Slutute or congtltnted
under deed;, of settienionl, from doing illegal acts.
The principlds on which the Court interferes in restraining
Lumpany from doing illegal acts are the same as those on
which it interferes in otli(>r cases. If the right at law is clear,
and the breach is clear, and serious injury is likely to arise
from the breach, the Court will interfere at once and protect
the right by injunction. Hut if the right at law is not clear
or the breach is doubtful, the Court, in determining whether
or not it shall interfere by in j unction, is guided by the balance
of convenience and inconvenience likely to arise to the parties
from granting or withholding the injunction (a).
Companies incorporated l»y Statute are bound to confine Po.e™ ol
themselres within the limits of the powers irtiich have been ^v^^
conferred upon them by the legislature, and to proceed in the
mode which the legislature has pointed out. If a company
goes bsyond the line of its authority, and violates the rights
of others, it becomes amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court
by injunction (ft).
Companies incorporated for a special purpose exist for
(a) Fiehlen v. Lancaihire am/ 385; affirmed (1907) A. C 415-
VoiMxre Kailwau (\,., 2 I>o G. ft 7G L. J. Ch. 668; Ati..</e„. v'
^m. 531 : Xorman v. Mitchell, 5 I)e Manchetter VorjKiration, (1806) 1
< 1. M & G. p. 673 ; 104 R. B. 244. Ch. p. 651 ; 76 I . J. Ch. 330 {when
(/') AMniry Ilailway Co. t. Jiiche, the distinction between a itatatory
H. 7 H. L. 693; 44 L. J. Ex. ooiporation and one incorporated
1^0 ; Henlock (fiaronm) v. Bivtr hy Boyal Chuier is pointed out) •
/'« Co. (18M), 10 A. C. 344; S4 Jfarrirff t. Eart Oriiulewl Gas and
i^. J. Q. B. 677 : lb. 36 C. D. 678 Watfr , i -r^ rn .
ii..6«Sn.; 86 L. J. Ch. 899. .See L. J. ch. 141 ; J«.-r,v«.'v' |V«t
■ Itt.-'len. V. Mersey Itailwuy Co., (!t(iuceater!,:iirc H'ater Co (1909) 2
(1906) 1 Ch. 811 ; 76 L. J. Ch. Ch. 340, 341 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 746.
36—2
51H
INJUyjTIONH AGAINST COMPANIES.
I'Ura riivi
cb»p. XVII. tho»t) jjurjKJsca only for which they Jiuv«' lt»>i'ii iiicoriM)rutod,
and for no other purpoM whaterer (c). The agency of the
coin|)uny, thu course of action, mid the ^plicrc of action of
tint company, are limited entirely to timt whicli \h lifflned
by the legislature {d). Those things which are incident to
and may reuMonultly and properly Ik; <Ioiic iitidti the main
j)iirp»>se, thoiiKa they may not literally he within it, ure DOt
prohihited (e). The Court will restrain a company, whioh
has been formed for a special purpose, from going beyond
or excewliiiR the seoiw^ of siieh luiriKjse. ThuH, a railway com-
pany was restrained from currying on the huainesa of coal
merchants (/), or of omnibus proprietors (g), or the business
of u shipping /^mpony or of lirewers (h), or from purchasing
shares in another company (i). A company formed to mako
and deal in railway carriages cannot purchase a concession
for making a foreign railway (&) ; and on the same principle
a company formed solely for the purpose of carrying on the
business of lite insurance was restrained from carrying on the
business of marine insurance (i) ; and a company formed for
the purpose of carrying on insurance and guarantee business
in all branches (except "the business of lifo insurance")
(e) Rochdale Canal Co. t. RwI- U. 1). 4S6, 489; 82 L. J. Q. B.
c/i/e, 18 a B. 287 ; 31 L. J. a B.
297 ; 88 B. B. M7 ; IfMional Manure
Co. V. Donald, 4 H. ft N. 8 ; 38
L. J. Ex. 188 ; 118 B. B. 299. See
Kini/Khiiri/ CoUitriet I'u. and Moorr't
Vimlrai t, (1907) 2 t'h. !>. '204 ; "ti
L. J. Ch. p. 471.
((/) Wenlurk {liaroiirn) V. flirer
Dee Co., 10 A. C. p. Ml ; o4 1.. J.
Q. B. 877 ; LoiuUm County Council
V. .<<«.-(/«»., (1902) A. C. 168; 71
L. J. Ch. 368 ; Att.-nf,i. v. North
Eatttm Railxvy Co., (1906) 2 Ch.
p. tMi6; "li I.. J. Ch. 6; Aa.-OeH.
V. Weft (llmtcetttrehirt Waterwork*
Co.. (i909) 2 Ch. p. 340 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 74«.
{() AU.-licn. V. Urn-.i En-trrr.
Railway Co., 8 A. C. p. 481 ; 49
L. J. Ch. 648 ; Londoit n,ul Xorth
WeiUm Railway Cj. v. Pria, 11
784; /Stof/!/ v. Medway ((>;■«•)
Navigation Co., (1903) 1 Ch. 169:
73 L. J. Oi. 177 ; AttMlen. r. Weit
Olourettinkire Water woriu Co.,
(1909) 2 Ch. S13, 348 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
746.
(/) .itt.-<Srn. V. drtnl Xcrtlirrn
Haihrn,, Co., 1 Dr. & Sin. 154.
(;/) Att.-deii. V. Mrrtrfi Hailiray
Co., (190fi) 1 Cb. Sll ; (1!M)7) A. V.
415 ; "6 I.. J. < h. j()H.
(A) Lyde t. Eaitem Benga' Rail-
way Co., 36 Be«T. 10.
(<) Oreat Wttttm Bailum^ X.
X. Metropolitan Railway Co., 32
L. J. Ch. 382.
(A-) Aihbury Carriaye Co. v. Riche,
T Vu 7 H. L.893 ; 44 I>. J. Ex-
1S5.
[l] I'hitnix Life Atttmmet Co.,
3 J, ft H. 441.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST C0UPANIE8. M9
was restrained from imutng investment policies with a pro- Chi» ivil
vision for the n luiri of the whole or p«rt of the premiums
on the ussuri'd's dfutli witliia th. poriod, u being life OHsur-
(ince basinefls within the meaning f*f sect. 1. sub-Hect. (a) of
tlif AsHiiiani't" Coin [mi lien Ac . 1909 frn) " It is," -aid Lord
liuthorloy, "a priiifiph' of p ililc |K>lii \ thii' . ' .ro Pa. la-
ment has authorined a coi poiiition iai*ie a la gr CBpita.
for a specific purpose, the privi^ip confers no r^ht apon
lhi< coni|mny to i-mploy it- in romprtition with tht^
general puhlic ujion sjn ciiiuiKit.s of a different kind " {«).
So also a water eomfwny was rfkatrained from supplying water
oiitMidp its statutoi y iiniifs . or from constructing works
not authorised hy its special Act (p>. On \Ur same prin-
ciple, th'^ London County Council was restrained from can y
ing on tht "uusiness of omnibus prop' ■ ' irs in connection with
its ti 'umway underfill !ii<; ((^), and a wl 'or[X)rati''ii was
restrained from carrying; on the bu.siiifs.i .il common carrierti
apart from its authorised tramway business (r), and a muni-
cipal corporati in i Mipov.crcd ti. apply electricity was re-
strained from Muppising electrical Qttings and apparatus for
the use of eonsuraerh (s), and « society registered under the
Friendly Societies Act, 1896, was restrained from converting
itself into a cniiipany under the Companies (Consolidation)
Act, 1908, with objects more exteiisivo than and differing
from the objects specified in the rules of the society (<).
(m) Jiisr/ili \ . I.ivi- liitri/ritii hi- 19s ; Mnrriiitt V. luut <!niiilr<ul
'urniire Cn., 'J Ch. oSl ; s2 Hun iiml Witter Co., (190H) I Ch.
I. J. <"h. 1H7. i>. 77; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 143. Cf.
(n) y/i<iv V. LoH'lim ami A'»r(/> .itt.-(ien. y. BarnH Otu and IVaiir
»>«««•» Hailwat/ Co.. 2 3. * H. Co.. (1900) 101 L. T. 661; (1910)
KW; 30 L. J. Ch. aDil mo 102 L. T. M0.
Ati.->tfn. V. Itrrrtt Xorthrrn Rail- (7) Lnm/oM Pt unty Cuiinri/ v.
"V . 1 Dr. v Sm. 154. Att.-Uen., ^mvi) \. C. 164; 71
('.) Alt. -1:1,1. \_ ll>»« (iloureittr- L.J. Ch. U<)8.
-'..re II ,;^r"-, r<-,s ' V.., ( 1«6») 2 Ch. (r) Att. -<;,,}. v, Mni„ i,r.i,r C f
:::iK: 7,S I,. J. Ch. 74fi. if.mtvm. {mu,) 1 Ch. tHA ; 75 L. J.
(/.) .{Il.-di-fi. V. I'rimlry ami Ch. .CiO.
h'liruiiirrouiih District W'atrr '<>., {») Att.-den. s. Levt^ Corpora-
;i;*ON) 1 Ch. 727; 77 h. J. CTi. 442 ; lion, (1910) 2 Ch. 84»» ; »0 L. J.
AU.-(le». T. So¥tk fUafortUhire Cfa. 21.
IVaftrmrtm Co., (1909) 3S T, L. B. («) Ugthe r. Btrtitp, (1910) 1 Ch.
S50
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Ch«p. XVII.
PnoMdinn to
remrain ulfra
rirfH acta Ity
puhlic IxKlj
■hould be
by Attorney'
Qenanl.
The Attorney-
Geneml'8 dia-
eretion aa to
aaing.
The Court baa
diaeretioD M to
gtastingan
injanetioD.
Proceedings to restrain a railway company or other pablie
body from pxcoeding its powers should bo instituted by the
Attoi npy-Cienenil. A rival company is not qualified to repre-
sent the rights und interests of the public (w). To suppor*
an information, no substantial damage or definite injury to
the public need he shown. It is enough that the company
has not strictly followed, or is about to transgress, the powen
which have been vested in it by the legislature (»), or is
doinK an act which is illegal and tends to the injury of the
public (y).
The Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the dis-
cretion of the Attorney-General in consenting or refusing
to put the law in motion in matters affecting the public. If
there is an excess of power claimed by a particular body,
it is for the Attorney-General, and not for the Courts, to
determine whether he should institute proceedings or not (z).
On the other hand the Attorney-General is not entitled to
an injunction as a matter of right, on proving his ease, tot
the Court has a discretion as to granting an injunction and
may in a proper case refuse such relief, e.g., where it in-
volves the removal of works which have been erected without
opposition, and maintained at considerable expense for a long
period of time (a), or where there has been great delay in
2'IH; 7!) li. J.Ch. ;S15; ct.MrtllwIe Ch. 153 ; Att.-Gfii. v. CiKkermmth
V. /•o;/(i/ /,"«'/"« Mutual /nmiranre
Co , (1910) 2 Ch. 169 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
631.
(m) Stockport Wttltrwork* Co. v.
Mayor, ir., of Matrhmttr, 9 Jur.
N. 8. 266 ; I^tdtei/ (hu Co. v. Brad-
foril, 13 Eq. 167. See Att.-am. v.
I.nitiltin ai.'' Sorth Wrstrrii ftailirail
(•«.. (IPIXt) 1 U. H. 7H ; (>9 T;. J.
(i. 1'. hmilnii t'tiiiiifii I'liiimil
V. .tt(.-'l>„., (19(V2) A. C. 163, HW :
71 I;. J. Ch. 268 ; AU.-Otu. v.
I'mUpprvli' U aterwork4 Co., (1908)
1 Ch'. 388 : 77 L. J. Ch. 2.(7.
(a) Livrrponl Corpnratitm v. ('Iinr-
n'attripftrk* Co., 2 1^ O. M.
ft Q. SeO ; Ware v. Hrgenfi Canal
Co., 3 De O. & J. 228 ; » L. J.
Loral hoard, 18 E<i. 172 ; 44 L. J.
Ch. 118; Hontier v. Great Western
Kailirn}/ Co., 24 C. 1). p. 8; Jorde-
aon V. Sutton, (1899) 2 Ch. 217 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 4S7 ; AU.-Oen. r. Londm
anil Snrth WtittrH RaUwajf Co.,
(1900) 1 Q. B. 78; « li. J. Q. B.
26 ; Marriott v. Enrt Grinitewl Qa*
a„<l Water Co., (1909) 1 Ch. p. 79 ;
78 L. J. Ch. p. 1-34.
(v) Att.-fleii. V. Shreirshtiry Hrulne
ro. . 21 C. 1). 7.VJ.
(z) l.oii'lon County Cotwril y.
Att.-den., (1902) A. C. p. 168; 71
li. J. Ch. 268.
(a) Ait.^ntm. r. Gnmil JuntUcn
(^nal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. 606, 618 ;
78 L. J.Ch.«81.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
651
instituting the , ; v^ceedings, or where the wrongful act is being Cfc«p. XTII.
made good by the defendants and the Court is satiafied that
they have no intention of repeating it (&).
Although, as stated above, proceedings to restrain a public When printc
body from exceeding its powers should be instituted by the *"*•
Attorney-Qeneral, a private individual may sue, if he can
show special damage, some peculiar injury beyond that which
he may be supposed to sustain in common with the rest of
the King's subjects by the infringement of the law (c). But
when the act prohibited is obviously prohibited for the pro-
tection of a particular person, then it is not necessary to
allege special damage (rf).
In a case in which a railway company had constantly
allowed its trains to pass over a level crossing at a speed
exceeding four miles an hour, in disregard of the provisi(His
of sect. 48 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, an informa-
tion was filed by the Attorney-Qeneral to restrain it from so
doing. The railway company set np as a defence that there
was no proof of any injury occasioned to the public, and
that the inconvenience to the public by reasrai of the exist-
ence of the level crossing would be increased if it comfdied
with the requirements of sect. 48 of the Railways Clauses
Act; but it was held that as the information was filed by
the Attorney-General to enforce the express terms of an
enactment made by the legislature in the interests of the
public, the Court could not entertain the question whether
injury to the public was in fact occasioned by the contra-
vention of the Act, but was bound to grant the injonetimi («).
((/) See Att.-afH. T. mmKedoH 2 Ch. p. 325; 71 L. J. Ch. p. 72H ;
//ouM^Vute To., (1904)2t'h. p. 42; Bogre v. PaddingUm Borough Counril
73 L. J. Ch. p. 59ti; Att-Oen. T. (IMM) 1 Ch. p. 114; 72 L. J. Ch!
Mrmingkam, Tame, <te., J)rttimtg$ p. 33 ; JforrtDM v. BmI OHmtltad
Ihanl, (1910) 1 Ch. p. dS ; 79L. J. Om tmd Wulir Co., (1909) 1 Ch.
Vh. p. 139 ; (1912) A. C. p. SIS , p. 78; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 143.
(lit 13) 82 L. J. Ch. p. 3fl. (r/) Chamhtrlatnt v. Chater and
(') /JirrjHKil Corixyrutiou v. liirkmhtail Railway Co., 1 Kxofa.
i liin-lei/ Waterivorkt Tn., aDeO. M. 870; 18 1,. J. Kx. 494.
HQ. 832, 86<); Pudurt/ (hit Co. v. (f) AU.-(lr„.\. Londtm ami Nurlli
JJrudJurd (/vr/juru<iun, 10 E4. 1G7 ; ii'ttUrii HaUway ru.,(1900) l(i.B.
.Jemfan, U. v. TtiUU, (1902) 78; 99 L. J. Q. B. 98.
652
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Chap. XVII.
Opening of
railway.
BaiiwaT ntM.
Where a railway compHiy, authorised by sppcial Act to con-
struct a main line with a branch, completed the one but took
no steps to construct the other, the Court refused to compel
specific performance of the Act by granting an injunction (/).
A railway company has been restrained from op»>ning its
line without the sanction of the Board of Trade (g) : and
where an inspector of the Board of Trade reports, in accord-
ance with 5 t 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 6, that the opening of a
railway, or branch of a railway, will be attended with danger
to the public by reason of the incompleteness of the works,
the Board of Trade has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter,
and the Court will not enter into the question as to wheftiier
the inspector b s come to a wrong conclusion (h).
The Or, irt of Ciiancery would not restrain a railway com-
pany from making certain charges (i), or from charging the
plaintiff for the carriage of his goods otherwise than equally
with otherpei-sons (A;). But by the Bailway Traffic and Canal
Act, 1864, 17 k 18 Vict. c. 31, ss. 2, 3, power was gvnn
to the Coart of Common Pittas to grant an injunction against
railway and ranal companies who, by their traffic arruige-
ments, give an undue or unreasonable preference to, or ad-
vantage to, or in favour of any particular person or com-
pany in any particular description of traffic, in any respect
whatever (1). This jurisdiction was transferred to the Bail-
way Commissioners by the Begulation of Bailways Act,
1873 (m) ; and has since become vested in the Bailway and
(/) AU.-Gtn. V. liirmingham attil
Orfurd Railway f 'o., 4 De 0. 4 8m.
490 ; 3 Mac. £ O. 463.
{g) Att-Oen. t. Great WeikrH
Railway f V , 7 Cb. 767. See, ac to
Ratictinn of BoBtd of Trade, Ptarct
V. li i/rimhe Railimi/ Co., 1 Drew.
2H; ill H. R. 656; Att.-Oen. v.
Orntt SvrlherH BaUwajf Co., I Dr.
& Sin. 154.
(/() Atf.-(len. V. (Irent Wfulmi
linilwa;/ Co., iC. I). 735; 46 L. J.
Ch. 192.
(<) I'iekfurU r. drawl ilunction
Hailttat) Co.,%^k.Qm. 638, 668,
V. South EatttTH
L. B. 1 Ex. 33; 36
(i) Siiftoii
Raihrnii Cn.,
L. J. Ex. 38.
(I) 8ee JWnmr v. Laulim and
Brigklm and Dtmth CoaM Raihmii
Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 194 ; 40 L. J.
C. P. l.Tt. By 51 & 32 Viot. c. 15,
(>ect. 28, the pi. visions of sect. 2
iif the .Al t of lH.'i4 nre applied to
undue preference of poods carried
by sea ; as to damages in case
of undue preference, see Chante v.
(Irrat U ettern lloiluMjf Co., (IMS)
'M T. L. it. 4M3.
(w) 36 * 37Vtcic4H,R.«.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
558
Canal Commissionera by 61 k 52 Vict. c. 25, s. 8. Acc<»d- J?!12l?IHi_
ingly if a railway company carries goods for a customer at
a lower rate than that charged to other customers, it may
he an undue preference arid give the other customers a right
to complain before the Railway Commissioners, but it ia not
an act ultra t-irex, and gives no right to a shareholder to
sue for an injunction to restrain further preferences (»).
In a case in which a contract which was rdtra vire$ had judgment by
been entered into by a railway companv with A, and A after- ™»«"' ™
, . 1 • 7 contract ultra
wards obtained judgment by consent enforcing the contract, "WfetaaiUe.
it was held, in snbsequent proceedings, that the contract was
invalid, and that the judgment having been obtained by coo-
sent without the question of ultra vires being raised, was of
no greater validity, and relief was accordingly granted upon
that footing (o).
So also, where a private Act of a railway company bound apeeific
the company to maintain a station for a landowner, and the ^ »™,Il?rin
company's successors in title, in ignorance of the prorision <!•">«»»'»'> «'
... statutory obliga-
or tne Act, contracted with the plamtiff to pull down the tion to lami-
station and erect another nearer to the plaintiff's land, jt
was held that the contract was ultra vires and could not be
enforced by the plaintiff, and that it made no differoice that
the statutory provision was not in the interest of the general
public, but for the benefit of a private owner (p).
A creditor cannot, upon the ground that a company is Creiitor not
diminishing its fund for the payment of debts, maintain an "|11JJJ1m
action to restrain the company from dealing with its assets ""'"iningcom-
(otherwise than assets, if any, comprised in the creditor' 8 with iti asset*,
security) in sm h manner as the company thinks fit (q).
A corporation having acquired land under its statutory of
powers for the purposes of its undertaking has generally a ^^^^
right to use the land which it has acquired as it tii s «2»^teiy
(n) Anilersnn V. .Wiitlaml Rnilirai/ vclli/ v. I ',»i»iimrrii' Coriage Vo.
'■n.. (1902) 1 Ch. :i(i9 : 71 L. J. Ch. (1903), 89 L. T. 347.
m. .See h'oTwoiHl \. Hrent Si.rlhirn {f>) CorhHt y. South gaaltrm amd
RaUway Co., (1904) 20 T. L. B. 330. Chatham BaOmag Co., (1906) S Oh.
(«) Otmt Iforth-Wml OmtrmHtaa. 19, 91 ; 7S T<. 3, Cb. 489.
wtm Co. T. CAorMoi*, (1889) A C. (j) Milh v. S,.tihern Railwny
114 ; «8 L. J. P. C. St. 8w <Ai»i. Bweiioi ^j^rw, 6 Ch. 621, fiiS.
654 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
ciMip. XVII. fit, provided it is not used in a manner which ia inconsiBtent
with tho piopor puriioscs of the Act undor which the com-
pany is incoi-poi-uted (r). If the company has been em-
powered to take land on the hanks of a river, it has all the
ordinary rights of a riparian proprietor (»). So also it has
ti l ight to talve measures to prevent prescriptive rights being
acquired for windows looking over its land(«)-
But a company incorporated by Act of Parliament and
acquiring land under statutory powers for the purposes of its
undertaking has not in all respects the same rights over the
land as an ordinary purchaser of the land in fee. The com-
pany is entitled to use the land for all the purposes of the
undertaking whatever they may be, but beyond that it has
not the rights of an ordinary purchaser in fee simple. The
company can neither use the land nor give any one else the
right to use it for any piirposes inconsistent with the neces-
sary purposes of the undertaking (u), nor can the company
delegate or preclude itself from tt»e exercise of its statutory
powers (*).
(r) MMinrr v. MMlatul Saittnay
(Jo., a C. D. 611 : 48 L. J. Ch.a68;
BoHner V. (Ireat U'ettem Railway,
Co.. 24 C. T. 10 ; Fmtrr v. Lontton,
Chatliam ami Ih\<r llailway Co.,
(1895) 1 Q. H. Til, -'20: 04 L. J.
Q. U. (!') ; III re donty an'l the Man-
rheUtr, Shtijielil (iml l.iiiinlniiliire
Bailwai/Co., (ISiifi) 1! Q- li- P- -l^S ;
M L. j. Q. B. 1525; <lreat ire»«»ni
SailH'ay Co. v. HoMimU, 86 L. T.
852 ; <lrmi Vmtral Railway Co. v.
linlhii-ii ith-IleicHiorpe I'rban Votm-
«i7. (1912) 2 ( 'h. 110; 81L. J.Ch.fi96.
(x) Swinilon Waterimrk-i Co. v.
n i/(i ami Iterku Canal Co.. K.
7 II. 1,. tiHT ; 45 L. J. < 'h. ti:i« , and
bee .MrCartiirii v. LntnlmnlfTril ami
Lou'ih Swilly Railii aii, (1»M) A. C.
308.316; 731.. J. P.O. p. 80.
(!) Ilmnfrv. Urtat W'tdrrH Hail-
may Co., 'i! V. D. 10; #o«#fr v.
LoiuUm, Cl,nt!ini)i atul Dower Rail-
1.-01/ Co., ^1395) 1 Q. B. 720; 64
L. J. Q. B. 63.
(«) MuUiner v. Midlanil Railway
Co., 11 C. D. p. 622 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
258; .4yr Harbour Trudm v.
(hwalil, 8 A. C . p. 634 ; Mrd v.
Kfiglfton, 29 0. D. j). 1017 ; 64 L. J.
Ch. p. 822 ; and k<>o Foster v. Aon-
i/dii, cliatliam ami /'over liliraij
(•„., (isiij) 1 H. B. 711 ; (i-l L. J.
(i. B. <>o ; Uimtii v. .Xtar.cheMer,
Slitjielil ami I.iurnliialiire Uailirai/
Co., (1896) 2 Q. B. 439 ; 66 L. J.
Q. B. 626 ; Taff Vale Railway Co.
V. PimtypriiU t'rban f^mncH,
(1906) 93 L. T. 126; Re Soirf*
Katterii Itnibrny Co. ami Wi^ffin'l
Ciintract, (1907) 2 Ch. 366 ; "<>
L. J. Ch. 481 ; Stonrrlife'K K»tntt C„.
V. lliiuriifmniitli Ciir)xiriiiii>n, (1910)
2 Ch. p. 22; 79 1.. .1. Ch. p. 464.
(ar) South Kuttern llailtmy Co.
,md lVi£in'.i Ctntir::-. : . (1907) 2 Ch.
366 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 481 ; KctU* Cor-
IK.raiio* V. SohIA Lafiaukirt Tram-
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIEa
Where a railway company acquired under its eompalwiry Qlwy. XVn.
powns n strip of liind on which it constructed a railway,
carried over a series of arches, and afterwards let the interiors
of the arches for shops to divers persons upon short tenancies,
reserving power to resume possession when it deemed it neces-
sary for the pui fwses of the railway, it was held that such a
letting of the arches was not inconsistent with the purposes
for which the company was cmstituted, and was therefore
within the company's powers (y).
So also, although a railway company cannot alienate any Power of rail-
land which is required for the purposes of its undertaking (2), '^"^^Lt.
or grant any easement (a), or enter into any covenant restrict-
ing the user of its land (6), which is inconsistent with such
purposes, it can grant a right of way or other easement
over (c), or under (d), its lands where it is not ineQnsistvnt
with the purposes for which the lands were taken. Accord- QuialeoafMy.
ingly, where land was acquired and used by a canal company,
under its statutes for the purposes of a towing path, and it
wa;it Co., (1910) 2 Ch. 263 ; 79
L. J. Cb. 759; affirmed (1913)
A. C. 4M: 81 L. J. Ch. 361;
Tit«h«r$t Water and (las Co. t.
0'i» and Waterworks Suji/ily Co.,
(1911) 53 .S. J. 489; see /n re
Woking I'rhtui Cviincil {Batitiijstiike
'■anal) Art, 1911, (1913) W. N. 346.
(v) Foster v. I.ifnilou, i'hatliam
niiil Ihwtr lUtilmiii Co., (1895) 1
il U. 711 ; 64 li. J.Q. B. 626.
(;;) Ht.„o$ T. Midland Kaiboay Co.,
20C.D.418;ML. J.Ch. 320; Z>i<ii-
hiU T. North £asl9m Sailwag Co., '
(1896) 1 Ch. 128,129 ; 6S L. J.Ch. 178;
Tttf V<dt RaVtmy Co. v. Pontyfyridd
I'riian Coimril (1905), 93 L. T. 126.
(a) MuUiner v. Miillaml Hnihray
Co.. 11 r. 1). 622; 48 L. J.Ch. 258;
TalJ' I'ole Ilaihrai/ Co. v. I 'oiiti/iiridil
I'rlHin Cnimnl (IMo), 93 L. T. 126;
.Ut.-Oen. V. LoniloH and Sout/4
Wft-rn n»i(mfif Co. (1905), 21
T. L. S. 230 ; Lmmthin and )'«rft-
thirt Railwag Co. t. DmvtmjmH
(1906). 4 L. a. B. 4SS; 70 J.P.
129; AmM v. Marram, (1911) 8
K.B. 314, 333 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 9Sa ;
Great Central RaUumy Co. v. Italhy-
imth - Hexthorpe I'rban Coundl,
(1912) 2 Ch. 110 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 596.
(''} /n re .Sout/i Kattem Railway
Co. ,11,(1 Wiji.-rs ''OTi(rart, (1907) 3
Ch. 3»i6 : 76 L. J. Ch. 481.
(t) llunty v. Manchetter, ShejgUd
and LincUnehire Railway Co., (1896)
2Q.B. 439 ; 65 L. J. Q. B.«Si
Grand Jundum Canal Co. r. PMy,
21 Q. B. D. 273 ; 37 L. J. Q. B.
572; Att.-Gtn.\. f.imilon and South
Western Railway Co. (1905), 21
T. L. R. 220 ; I ancashire and York-
shire Railwai; Co. v. Pai'mjiort
(1906), 4 L. G. E, 425; 70 J. P.
129 ; Arnold v. Moryan, (1911) 2
K. It. 328, 324 ; 80 L. J. K B. 9U.
{d) S» Sooth Sadernaaatm^Oo.
fKtmrtre, (1910) 1 Oh., p. 3«; 79
L. 3. IM.
666 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
0luf.xyih appeared that the use of the land as n pnUI'C footpath was not
inconsistent with ita use as a tcwitig \>M\ hy the company, it
was held that the company could dedicate the land as a public
footpath, subject to its use by the company as a towing
path (e). But a canal company cannot grant the right to take
water from its canal in derogation of its statutory duties (/),
nor can the right be acquired against the company by pre-
scription (g) , nor can a railway company agree to lay down
pipes and mains and supply drinking water and thereby
possibly deprive itself of water which may be required for
working its undertaking (h).
Temponuy A railway company may use the land, which it has
^„fj""'!,r arquired under tlie Lands Clauses Act, in the same state and
underukint;. condition, without making any alteration by building or other-
wise which would interfere with the rights of its neighbour?,
imtil the time arrives when it must either sell the I'lnd or
satisfy the Court that the land is being kept for the purposes
of its undertaking. Until the time arrives when the company
must apply the land to the purposes of the undertaking, the
company has a perfect right to use the land in the same state
in which it was when acquired, but not to alienate it or to
do an act which will prevent- it from being used for the pur-
poses of the raihviiy. The fuct of a stable having been pur-
chased by a railway company for the purposes of its under-
taking does not preclude the company from claiming a right
of way to it so long as the premises are used as a stable, till
such time as the premises are required for the si^ecial purposes
of the railway or are sold as superfluous land (i).
Sale of s„,.er- A railway company selling its superfluous lands may sell
tttioui lands . ^. ■ ^ t ■ > < , ^
by railway {') '!r.ni<l ■fiinrtum (anal Co. r. v. Ilorhilule ( anal Co. (1899), 81
coni|iany. I'tttif. [c], 'iifira. I- T. ^"2; and see Ait.-Oen. v.
[l] IliKhiliilr t'anni Co. v. Kini/, llreat Xurthern liailinay Co., (1909)
14 U. B. f2-' ; 18 L. J. U. B. 293 ; 1 Ch. 77,), 77« ; 78 L. J. Ch. 577.
8(1 1!. K, 21'2, l-Mi; IttnlnlaU Caiiol (./) Att.-Gen. v. Ureat Ntrtktr»
Co. V. Haikiifft, 18 Q. B. 287; 21 Railway Co., tuj-ra.
L. J. a B. 297 ; 88 K. E. 211; (A) Wilton y.OrtotUe>t,rn Rail-
KtajfoHthin and Wortxiterthire mat/ Co, (1910), 128 L. T. Jounuil,
Canal Co. v. Hirminghatn Cohal 340.
Co., L. B. 1 H. L. 264 ; 34 L. J. (•) ."agUtf ▼. Gitat II eitcni Sail-
Ch. 7S7 ; ManrhetUr Ship < 'anal Co. tva>t Co., 26 C. D. 434 { 61 L. T. 337.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
557
them in the way that is most advantageous to itself and under
such conditions and restrictions as to the mode of user aa may
be most to the company's advantage as vendor. In that
respect the company has the same rights us an ordinary
vendor (k).
The acts of a company may be illegal as against an indi-
vidual member of the eom|),iny, and where such is the case, a
shareholder of the company may sue the company to restrain
special injury to himself (I). The Court will, upon a proper
case being made out, interfere by injunction in aid of the legal
right. Injunctions have accordingly been granted to restrain
the rasertion and continuance of a man's name on the register
of shareholders (hi) ; the interference by the company with a
shareholder or debenture-holder in the exercise of his statu-
tory right to inspect at all reasonable times the register of
mortgages of the c<»npany (n), or the interferMiee by the
company with a shareholder's right to inspect the register of
members of the company (o). So, also, an injunction has
beoi grantsd nfOD the application of a director restraining
the plaintiff's co-directors from wrongfully excluding him
Cli»p. XVII.
ShanheMer
may aue to
rcHtrain illegal
acU CiiusiDg
to bimwlf.
Regiiter.
{k) In re Hiijyins ami Hiichman,
21 C. D. p. 98 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 772.
(I) 8m PfMnok ■*. Bieknumd
Mining Co., 9 0. D. 610 ; 48 L. i.
Ch. M; Muniterr. CammM Co., 21
C. D. 183 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 731.
(ot) Taylor v. Huahet, 2 J. & L.
24; fi9 k R. 219; Bargate v.
Sliortri'lye, 5 H. L. C. 297 ; 24 L. J.
Ch. 437 ; 101 E. H. 163. The pro-
cedure in the case of companies
governed by the Companies Acts is
usually by motion to rectify the
registwtmder seetSSof theOom-
panies (Consolids^on) Afit, 1808.
See Diijitt v. Mexiam Gdtd, etc. Co.,
(1S90) W. N. 116. If the case is
complicated or doubtful relief
should be sought by an action.
See Ex parte Shaw. 2 Q. B. D. 463.
(n) See sect 45 of the Companies
CUiiaec Act. 1845; sect. 28 of the
Bxclttiion
diractor.
Companies Clanses Act, 1863;
sects. 100—102 of the OmipMiias
(ConsolidiUion} Act, 19% ; and see
Belbmd t. Didcion, 37 C. D. 669 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 502 ; Mutter v. Kattem
anil Midland Kaihi ay Co., % 0. D.
92 ; 57 L. J. Ch. G15.
(u) .See sect. 10 of the Companies
Clauses Act, 1845, and Davim v.
Qai Liyht and Coke Co., (190B) 1
Ch. 708 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 445 ; see
also sect 30, CcunpuiiM Act, 1908 ;
ib BtHaghat OMMining Co., (1901)
2 K. B. 665 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 866.
The right of inspection ceases upfin
the company going into liquidation
{In re Kent CoalfieUi Syndicate,
(1898) 1 Q. B. 754 ; 67 L. J. Q. B.
500). See «y;t. 221 . Companies Act,
1908, as to inspection of a com-
pany's books dming windiBg-npw
668
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
FarfritafB of
Cktf. XTII. from acting as director (p). But in a case in which an mteriBS
injunction Jiad bpen giuntod restraining directoiH from ex-
cluding the i)laintiff from acting as managing director of the
company, and Mubsequently ii resolution was passed by the
Bhareholdera at a general meeting, that they did not desire the
plaintiff to act, the Court dissolved the injunction (q). So
also an injunction has been granted to restrain the illegal or
oppressive forfeiture of shares (r). When a shareholder is
suing for resciasion of the contract to take the shnres, the
Court will grant an interim injunction restraining a forfeiture
on payment into Court of the ainount of the call and
interest (•).
Any single registered shareholder has a right to bring an
action either in his own name (<), or on behalf of himself and
all other ahardiolders who have a common interest witii him-
self, to restrain the application of the common funds of the
company to another purpose than the proper purposes of the
concern, and the Court will interpose tm his behalf by injuno-
ticm («)• The amount of interest of the complaining share-
Who eaa lue
to mtnin
improper
application of
company 'a
(p) Pulbrook r. Bkkmoml Mining
Co., 9 C. D. «10; 48 L. J. Ch. M;
Muiiater v. CammeU Co., 21 C. D.
183 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 731 ; Kytehe v.
Alturat Co., 4 T. L. R. 331; 36
W. E. 496 ; Turnbull v. West Riding
AthMic, CM., 70 L. T. 92; Urundy
V. Briyg», (1910) I Ch. 446, 452;
79 L. J. Ch. 244.
(j) Sdinbndge t. Smith, 41 0. D.
462 ; 60 L. T. 879; see alio
Harben v. PhitKpt, 23 C. D. 14 ;
48 L T. 334 ; and Cuff v. Lowton
anil County Und Co., (1912) 1 Ch.
440, 4o() ; 81 h. J. Ch. 42(); iii
which cose the Court refused to
grant a mandatory iujunction at
the instance of auditors, who
elaimed access to the books of the
(XHupuiy, before the Bhareholdera
bad be«i consulted u to whether
they desired the auditm to con-
tinue to act or not
(r) Norman v. MitchtU, S De O.
M. ft G. 648 ; 104 B. B. 244 ;
Johnmn v. Litth'i Iron Agency Co.,
b C. L). 687; 46 L. J. Ch. 786;
(loidtoii V. f.oiidon Arrhiteitural ttc.
Co., (1877) AV. N. 141. SeeJonfs
V. ,\ifrth I'ancoitver Lanil Co., {laiO)
A. C. 317 ; 79 L. J. P. C. 89, where
relief was refused on ths gioond of
delay, tbe plaiotiff having been a
direetor of the d^sndaat ooa-
pany.
(<) Lamb y. Sandiai Robber Co.,
(1908) 1 Ch. 845 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
386 ; Joi.ea v. I'acaya Rubber Co.,
(1911) 1 K. B. 455 ; 80 L. J. K. B.
15o.
(t) floole V. Great Weitern Rail-
way Co., 3 Ch. 262 ; 17 L. T. 153 ;
Charlton v. Neuxastle and CarUill
BttUway Co., 7 W. B. 731.
(«) Carlisle v. SotUh Eaatern
BaUway Co., 1 Mac ft Q., p. 099 ;
INJUNCTIONS AOAINST (X)MPANI£S.
U9
holder will not be taken into consideraticm (x). Nor will his <^ ^tVH'
motives for complaining be inquired into (i/). A Hhureholder
may maintain the action, although holding shares in u rival
company (z). The fact that the action may not have been insti- PUintiri
tuted from the best of moUres ia not sufficieot to debar him ""^'^
from suing (a). If, however, a plaintiff pur[)orts to sue on
behalf oi himself and the other shareholders of a company, and
it appears that he is the mere puf^ and nominee of a rival
compnny, relief will not be given (6) ; but it is otherwise
if he purport to sue on behalf of himself personally, and not
on behalf of the other shareholders, although he may be a
mere puppet of a rival company (c).
A shareliolder cannot, however, institute proceedings on Tb* IbImm of
behalf of himself and all other shareholders unless for s pur- SS.t i^'j!II[tic»i
pose in which his interest is identical in a judicial point of °'
view with that of those whom he iwofesses to rqtrasent (d). pnfMw'to ^
19 L. J. Ch. 477 ; 88 R. B. 497 ;
Fawcttt V Laurie, 1 Dr. ft Sm.
199, 902 ; 8 W. B. 609; Stu^MM
T. IfMtmin^r Palace Hotel Co., S
H. L. 0. 717; 2 L. T. 707; 125
B. E. 296 ; Tumkiuson v. South
Eatiem Jiailway Co., 35 C. D. 677 ;
36 L. J. Ch. i)32; Alexantlir v.
Automatic Telep/ione Co., (1900) 2
Ch. p. 69 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 428 ;
Towen t. African Tug Co., (1904)
1 Oh. pp. m, m ; 73 L. J. Oh.
79a ; Motely v. Kofy/ontein Mine*
Co., (1911), 1 Ch. p. 84; 80 L. J.
Ch. p. 116; afBrmed on other
grounds, (1911) A. C. 409; 80
L. J. Ch. 668.
(x) McDowell V. Grand Canal
Co., 3 Ir. Ch. 578.
(y) Blomm v. MtlropoiHan Bail-
way Co,, S di. m7, 3aS; 18 L. T.
41.
(«) SaU m mt v. Laimg, 19 Bmv.
p. 803: 19 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 83 B. B.
107 ; Winch t. Birkenhead, Lanea-
ihire, (tc. Railway Co., 5 De O. ft
Sm. 681 ; 90 U. E. 146 ; AU.-OtH.
V. Qrma SoHkom BuOmtg Co., 1
Dr. ftSm.139; 2L.T. 663.
(0) Formtw.Maiiekmler,aheJlMd,
and Limeolnehire Bailway Co., 4 D«
G. F. ft J. p. 131; 4 L. T. 666;
liloxam V. Mttrnpolitan Bailway
Co., 3 Ch. .137 ; 18 L. T. 41 ;
Mutter V. Eatiern anil Midland*
Bailway Co., 38 C. D. pp. 96, 104 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 613.
(1) Forriilr.Mancheiter,ShejfUd,
ami UmabuMrt Bailway Co., 4 De
O. F. ft J. p. 130; 4 L. T. 666;
FiUer r. London, Brighton, dx.,
Bailway Co., 1 H. ft M. 489 ;
Uloxam V. Metroimlitan Bailway
Co., 3 Ch. p. 353; 18 L. T. 41 ;
Bobton V. Doddt, 8 Eq. 306 ; 38
L. J. Ch. 547.
(e) See Mutttr y. Batlwn and
Midtmde Bmlvag Co., 38 C. D, 92,
104 ; 67 L. J. CSl 616 ; Daviee t.
Oai !.igkt and Coke Co., (1909) 1
Ch. 710; 78 L. J. Ch. 44fl,
((/) Motley V. AlHon, 1 I'h. 790 ;
16 L. J. Ch. 217 ; Clay v. lluford,
8 HiL 281; 90 K. £. 229;
seo
INJUNCTIOKS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Cannut sue
in or raUiaiag
brnfitot
Mltra rirtt tot.
^^'^ If he has u distinct and seiwrate interest from that of the rest
of the thareholdera, he cannot sue on bdialf of hhnself and
them (r). Thus, although tho Court may in an action so
framed restrain the directors of a company from declaring a
future diridend, it cannot upon an application in this form
restrain the payment of a dividt'iid aln ady dfclait'd, because,
as soon as a dividend has Ihh'II (Icclaied, caeli sharciiolch'r
acquires a separate right to iiis siiarc of tlic dividend (/).
A man who by his conduct has perstmally precluded himMlf
from suing cannot maintain the action (()) ; nor can an action
be instituted by a shareholder on behalf of himself and all
other shareholders, complaining of transactions in which some
of them have acquiesced (/i), or of transactions from which he
has derived, and still retains, a benefit (t). But a shareholder
who has been a j>arty to acts ultra vires of the company is
not debarred from suing to restrain the commission by the
company of further ultra vircn acts of the same nature (k).
VthaiuiiM, Shareholders who have an interest distinct from and
opposed to that of the plaintiff should be made parties to an
action to restrain tlie doing of an unlawful act by the com-
pany, but if a shareholder complains of an act of li' .^hole
company or the executive of the company, there is no neces-
sity for any other shareholders to be repreamted (I). It the
Williams v. Snlmi»i, '2 K. & J. 4fi.l ;
1 lU R. K. 320. See iwiiie v. .Vhi./v,
6 Ub. MyS ; 16 L. J. Ch. 51.
(e) Macbride v. Lindtay, 9 Hare,
574 ; Pulbrooic v. Birhmowl Mining
Co., 9 0. D. 610. 613 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
65.
(_/ ) Carlisle v. South Kastern lluil-
way Co., 1 Mac. & O. (iN9; 8S
R. R. 497 ; Fawcett v. Laurie, 1
Dr. & Sm. p. imi ; « W. R. (199.
((/) Burt V. Uritish Saturn Life
Auunxnce Atndation, 4 De Q. & J.
158; Totetn y. African Tug Co.,
(1904) 1 Ch. 558 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 395 :
Mot^y T. Kojfyfonitin Mintt Co.,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 78; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 115.
(/«) Ktiit V. Jaeksun, \i Ueav. 367 ;
•-' I)o(}. M. & O. 49; SlupaH v.
A i roumith, 3 Sm. ft O. 176;
L. J. Ch. 153 ; 107 B. B. 70 : but
M« WkU« V. Ctmmwthtm, At., Baii-
vmy Co., 1 H. * H. 786; 33 L. jr.
Ch. 93.
(i) Towers v. Afruan Tuy Co.,
(JWH) 1 Ch. 5j8 ; 73 I;. J. Ch.
395.
(k) Mutely V. Koffyfoiuti , Mines
lo., (1911) 1 Lh. 73 ; 80 I.. J. Ih.
Ill; affirmed on other grounds,
(1911) A. C. 409 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
668.
(i) HooU T. Ortal Wtikm Sail'
U>., 3 Ch. p. 377 ; 17 L. T.
153.
Ok«p.XVIL
Acta nltra tirm
cuiiipHiiy caaa^t
U rstifitd.
Aoto uUt» rirri
directon but
intra rirm
I comiMBjr oaj bt
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
object of the action is to restrain the carrying out of an agree-
ment with other companies, all the companies are necessary
parties (m).
An act vltra virea of the company is incapabl" of atiflca-
tioo, and therefore cannot be made valid by the acquiescence
of the shareholders (»). Bat aets intm vin» as regards the
company, although iiUra inreit the dirpctors, may be rendered
valid by acquiescf.nce (o) . Such acquiescence may be inferred J^XSi
from o.'rcnmstances which satisfy the Court that the thing
fo be ratified vmine to the knowledge of all who chose to
inquire, and that all the shareholders had full opjwrtunity and
means of inquiry (p). If the means of knowledge to all
appear sufficient so as to raise the preeomption of knowledge
and acquiescence and the arrangement is left unimpeaehed
for a great numb r of years, then that which was in Ite
ineepticm invalid will by aeqniescenee be rendered Qnimpeaoh-
able (}). But full knowledge must be shown (r) ; it is oot
enough to show merely that there was suflScient to arouse
attention (»). In the absence of full information mere lapse
561
(m) Hare y. London ami North
Wetttni RaUway Co., 1 J. & H.
2S3. Sae 2 J. ft H. 80 : 30 L. J.
ni. 817 ; MaHntelly. Midland Ortat
Weilem Railway Co. of IrOand, \
H.ft]i.iao:nL.j.cii. fils.
(n) SimptOH w. Wmlmintter PuUict
HatdCo., 8 H. L.O. 712,717; 2
L. T. (N. 8.) 707 ; Aihhury Railway
Carriage Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L.
<!j.} ; 44 L. J. Ex. 185 ; Wenlock y.
Iliver Dee Co., 36 P. D. 674; 38
0. D. 534 ; 67 I-. J. Ob. 946 ; Totoeri
V. African Tug ( 904) 1 Ch.
p. 566 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. ; Mo»»^
V. Kof!/fontei» Minet Co., (1911) 1
Ch. p. 84; 80 L. J^. Ch. p. 116;
•ffirmad <m other gtonads. (1911)
A. C. 409; 80 L. J. Ch. 668.
(o) HouUtwnrth t. Fnnnt, L, B.
3 H. L. ?63: 37 L. Ch. 800;
^/'"'^kmnn V. Evans, L. B. 3 H. L.
190, 191;37L.J.Ch.742 and aee
K.I.
flo Tiitu, V. Man On Iiumrmut
Co., {1902) A.C. 23a:71L.J.P.O.
46 ; Att.-OtH. for Ommh t. SUtn-
dard TmH Oonvmy e/ ITme Fcrk,
(1911) A. 0. 498, 404; 80 L. J.
P. 0. p. 108.
{p) PhotphaU of Lime Co. v.
(heen, L. R 10. p. 43 ; 25 L. T.
636; iiii-' * //o Tung v. Man On
Inmrame < c, (1902) A. 0. p. 236 ;
71 L. J. P. C. 48.
('/) Evani T. Smalkombt, L. B. 8
H. L. 249; 37 L. J. Ch. 7"8;
HotUdMBcrtky.EvmUt'L.JLiB.h.
263 ; 87 L. J. Ch. 800; J7o Tuny r.
Man On Inturauct Co., $upra.
(r) Aahbury v. U'atton, 30 C. D.
376 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 986.
(») Athhury Railuny Carriage Co.
V. Rifhf, L. R. 7 H. L. p. 6S1;
44 L. J. Ex. 185 ; Blatkbum Build-
ing Sofiety v. Brooki, 29 CD, 9M,
910 ; M L. J. Ch. 1091.
INJI NTTTONS AOAINRT COMPANIEB.
Injll'ieti •
«t unit (
Khitl'-I "M ■ '»!
HDll I'tli.'I'K
to mtimn art»
iiijiiiK tion«
to nstraia
imi'nuwr
.'ipplioalion of
coitipuny's
funiia.
uf tiriM) cannot grow into acquieMfence. Length of timeBsy,
in many own*, matemlly in mtaMMinff ftequieM«i»ee :
liiit it is not tlio tinip, but tho acqnif^so nrp, whu-h changn
whi»t would otherwir^P be a void act into a valid one (<)•
Where it i^ Bought to eatahliBh an invalid tr»nfi»«*ioo m
h iving bmi rendered valid h\ noqui. -. . it must be
shdWTi to C0I1K' strictly witliiii tin- i. rnis of ill'' ■ • ifigement
whieh ira* wiiiiriunicatt (I to and ucquiesccil in , iiP share-
iioldrrs («).
h. in'cif. > ing ti_v injonetitni at lit of a HhMr<'l'"
on hfhalf of himself and all -<'iii'r nipmbers of the co>
' p,.rv to reatrain a fomimny, font fd for >' 8ppcial purpose,
from doing tM'f- or entering into ■ icn<,'. ui.nts wtiirh .-.rr nv<.
within thr prri|M'r purpospw for which it was established, the
Court not <>: iy enforces the equitahle relations which Babsiat
between • >• memlwri* in(r> ^e. in it acts in aid of the legal
i j^Tiit, The suit l>v ii Dldf-r to resfrain a company from
doing illegal act- or nnu nn(j nto pngHgemenM which are
beyond the proper pwrpfwes of the eompan may h' in f«rm
on 1m h :U of all the Hhan i^-t'dTs. li is ini: itorial that BOtm
of tlu> sliarc! Idfra may Im» op|Mr*ed to the suit (xt.
Injunctions i-avo been granted at the suit of a »harehold*T
suing on behalf of hip If and all other aha u idf to
restrain u railway rnmpHny from api vine 'lo -ids of he
conip my towards th.> pstahlishnicnt of h >tpam
pany in ct' ;necfi<wi with the railway ' «i -i ca?
business of <■ in' i.- propript r ( : i' i
shiin- in another railway com|wny (■<). il-
panips have been restrained from ipplv im-
the purpose of completing a particular *
ket om-
ii^onfhe
f
•i-r
(() Einnt V. SmaUi, «Af, L. B.
3 H. L. p. 2aO ; 37 L. J Ch. 7W
(«> l/MiMnrorth v. f>(t«M, I,. B.
it II I.. J(i3; :i" T,. J.
( .■ Hrinan ^ li" '
V ^ 1 : •-
Willi V. ('ori:,,ir1lii
Cv.. 1 11. &M. :h6:
(v) Colman v. A-
sOO.
•/, I Sim.
f. Ch. :
. i:
Sat/ '-ay
Oh. 73 : >
ikirt Railt'
L. T. 666.
fo.. (!','
568.
{o -,
10 Bear
B. B. 78 : ct
fthtjffltid, •"■
30 Beav iO; -i
V. Afernf:
(IS; TC.
» V. /,C "!>7.
ftailwai
,. J. Ch
Beav
INJUNCTION s A .iUNBT COMl^.iNIEB.
088
of any part of Uw main liws (6). and from af^ying the cor- Ch.p. xvir.
poriiti fundi* in the f{.n>tructio!i of part oi Jy of the line or
olhfi viR<., I ruh the view und purjiose t,' completing thi<
wlK»li'(r^ \\ j,i werer, in u BOiuewhui iiuilar ciwe, it
H,.j»«rp( uu; gr<'itt«rmi8chH«f would arimfroiagrantii^ than
wi So I i/iii t ion, ill.. Cou ! (pfuHrd 10 interfere (rf).
• toiupttn> u .s reBtruiniti fro i subscribing
a aum to th FtnT -rial fn»tjtate, notwHhstanui^ that the
succ- ut thf li.rtitute iL I't.; greatly inoraaae the eorapany'M
tr«f!
t api^y its funds in pn ' divi-
"H thouirii the memorH inm or
-nt ; or in m.ikiri^! turn
c-pt i cordance with the pro-
tfts (h or In the pnymont of
' it complying wi, llic requirements of
lie mpanies (Consolidation) Aii 1908 (0;
ng ^esenis to tiie directors (*), or in pa ng them
Ho
'♦>nds ■
irtii'lcH ii
' i .ip:* ll
-ion«
mmis
et. H!»
n
il C«>.'
of
(.Ml-
3 -
lu;.
(A'
Cb. 225; M R. B.
'haw y. Eatttm I'liiim
"., 2 Mfl' \ O. ;iM9; 19
I. ' H» : so K :. U8.
V "■'!, , ■„„, 12 Heav.
.0. A mi ; Ih L. J. Ch.
iK Ii
/»•• ^vM T. A.'ar/ o/ Pourtt, 1
M. . G. M ; ai L. J. Ch. 17 ;
- -l. B. 130.
) Tumliiiuom r. South EaOtm
lilway Co., » V. D. «78 ; M L. J.
I h. 032.
( • Fiu{"Ht V. Laurie, I Dr. i^-
111. i!(2 ; 8 \V. P.. ()9»; Macihuga.
'"ley Imiieriol lloi 'Co., 2 U. &
; 34 L. J. Ch. 2H ; Flitcr<t/t'»
, .'1 V. I). 519; 62 L. J. Ch.
- 1 7 ; /« re fiharpt, ( 1882) 1 Cb. IM ;
HI L. J. Ch. m ; Airy i^omt-
(ima Dtethf-meia Co., (1909) 1 Ch.
754, 760; 78 L. J. Ch. 408 ; (1910)
A. C. 439 : 79 L. J. Ch. 597. Sco
Table A., art. 97, ConpanieM Act,
-w- Com-
3.
1
1908, and the I'oT ipH
Act, 1844, K. 121.
(if iii>re«t out of
paniea Act, 1908, ^
(v) I'ernerv. (lent:
Tniit, (1894) 2 Ch. p.
Ch. p. 461.
(*) Mairimm v. tirani
«i. B. 88 : 88 L. J. Q. B. 9;
(1) See Boc*k t. .Vne A frikawler
<IM Mining <:„., (19<)3) 1 ("h. 29o ;
72 \i. 3. Ch. 125 ; JIarrow v. I'nrini/a
Mine* Co., (1909) 2 Ch. 658 ; 7« I.. J.
Ch. 723; Ikminion 0/ 1 ...i/n
Trniliiiii Syuilicate v. y/ri./-' ■/,
,191 1; 2 K. U. (M8; 80 L. J. K. B.
1344.
(A) York and North MuUand Rail-
woff Co. r. Hudoom, 18 Bear. 484 ;
32L. J. Ch.A29; 96B.B. 228; In
re Otorge Xewman <t Co., (1895) 1
(A. 674 : 64 I.. .1. Ch. 407 : mii^'ye
Vmmy v. Aniahnul Militarq, itf..
Society, (1905) 1 K. B. p. WS; 74
L. J. K. B. p. 304.
86—3
564 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Cbap. XVII. their travelling expenses of attending board meetings in addi-
tion to their remuneration {1} ; or in the prosecution of an
action in which the ecHopsny are not plaintiffs (m) ; or ia
payment of the costs of a prosecution for libel against a
former secretary of the committee of the company (n) ; or in
payment of the costs of an unsuccessful petition for windmg
up the company presented by the directors, but opposed by a
number of the shareholders and a minority of the directors,
and of the costs of an appeal from the dismissal of such
petition (o).
A limited company formed under the Companies Acts can-
not purchase its own shares, although authorised by its regu-
lation, as such a transaction amoonta to an unauthorised
reduction of capital (p). Upon the same principle, a sur-
render to a limited company by shareholders of partly paid
shares in the company is, in effect, a transaction of purchase
and sale, the compiiny purchasing the shares in consideration
of discharging the shareholders from liability to calls ; and
such a transaction is therefore invalid ((/). But a surrender
of old shares in exchange for new shares which does not in-
volve any reduction of capital is valid (r). So also, a limited
company governed by the Companies Acts cannot issue its
shares at a discount (») ; but it is otherwise in ttie case (rf
(I) Young v. Xaval an<l Militan,, ( p) Tren^ v. mitworth, 12
At., Socutv, (1906) 1 K. B. 687 ; T4 A. C. 409 ; 87 L. J. Ch. 28. See
L. J K. B. 302. See Maimar * Rowtll v. -'ol.n Rowell A Co., (1912)
Co. T. Alennuier, (1908) & C. 78. 2 Ch. 609 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 769 ; /n re
(m) Kemaghan r. WiUiarM, 6Bq. IritkPntidttU Ammrmtt Co., (1913)
228. See siud.ltrt v. Orotvenar, 33 1 1. B. 362. 370. A« to the JOWV of
C. I?, p. 536 : iiS L. J. Ch. 689. an unlimited eraipuiy to retuni
(n) I'ickrriuij v. Sffphenium, 14 capital to ita ahareholders, lee
Eq. 341. ThecostHoftheprosecu- liorongh Commtrtidl SodHy, {\i9Z)
tiu.i of an action (or libel carried on 2 Ch. 242 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 456.
in theinteresta ol the company are (7) ISflUrhy v. liowlanil and Mar-
properiy payaUe out of the fund« wow/ Steamthi/) Co., (1902) 2 Ch.
of theoompuiy. 81-d.Mr. (inM- 14; 70 L. J. Ch. 616; see H.well
veaor, 33 C. D. 628 ; 66 L. J. Oh. v. John Bvwtll <t Co., (1912) 2 Cfc.
tm .nAaMBnayr.nugalBrUitk 800 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 769.
!funt$ Amodatioft, (1897) 2 Ch. (r) Jfowett Jokm McmM * Oa.,
272 ; 88 L. J. Ch. 38". sit^^ra.
(0) Smith V. Duk» 0/ Manchuttr, (•) /» « Atmad» mi 3««o Ofc,
24C. D.6U; 63 L. J.Ca>. 98. 38 C. D. 41«5 87 L. J. C*. TWj
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
565
companies governed by the Companies Clauses Acts (t). Com- ch»p. XVIL
panies whether governed by the Companies Acts, or the Com-
panies Clauses Acts, may however issue debentures at a dis-
count (m). But a company was restrained from issuing deben-
tures at a discount with a right to the holder to exchange
them for fully paid shares of the nominal value of the deben-
tures, the transaction involving the issue of sharss at a
discount (x).
The payment of dividends on the ordinary stock of a com-
pany until the arrears of dividend on preference shares, Injunction to
created under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, shall Z^'la'^^
have been successively paid according to their priorities (y) StirSSdwi'
out of the {Hnfits accruing subsequently to the date of the ti^^
arrears (z), is improper, and will be restrained by injunc-
tion. The fact that the owner of preference shares may have
in fumer years acquiesced in a declaration of a dividend on
the u.dinary shares, whilst there was an arrear of dividend
duo on the preference shares, will not dep.i.e him of his
right in respect of subsequent arrears, though it will preclude
him from making any claim in respect of tiiese partieolar
arrears (a). A preferential shareholder may bring an actkm
Oongum Co. v. iliifwr, (1892) A. C. Oi., (1904) 3 Ch. IM; 78L.jr.au
12A; 61 L. J. Ch. 337; rPetlon S69.
V. Saferg; (1897) A. C. 299; (y) Crawfunl v. Svrth Ea.
66 L. J. Ch. 362 ; Mmdy v. Koffy- Hailway I'o., 3 K. & J.
/ontein Mines r,,., (1904) 2 Ch. 108 ; (z) Steveiii v. Suiith Ittvmt Rail-
73 L. J. Ch; 569. See Com- tf^uy Co., 9 Ha. 325 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
paiiies Act, 1908, 8. S!l, as to pay- 81G ; 89 R. K. 460 ; Htnry v. Ureat
meut of commission to subscribers Northtrn Saiheag Co., 1 DeO. ft J.
forshares. «06; 2711. J. Ch. 1 ; 118 B. B. 844.
(<) Webby. ShrojMhirt, dr., &ul- As to whea pivtemoe shttea
«'«j/C'o.,(1893)3Ch.307; H3L.J. Mitille the hoUw. thereof to cumu-
Ch. 80; Btathamv. lirighUm Marine lative preferential dividends see
POace Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 199; 68 HViJ v. ^:aWe, 20 Eq. 436; 44 L. J.
h. J. Ch. 172. Ch. 608 ; Staples v. Kaslman P/into-
(h) ('amphell's Case, 4 C. D. 470; ./raphi^ Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 303; 65
'•id L. T. 900 ; Wehh y. Shropekire, L. J. Ch. 682 ; Foster v. CoUt,
<tc., Railway Co., sujira ; Mostly ( 1906) W. N. 107 ; 22 T. L. B. 444 •
V. Kaffufontein Mines Co., (1904) Adair v. Old Sushmith DUtOkry
2 Ch. p. 119; 73 Ih J. Ch. p. tfe . '1908) W. N. M.
875.
(a) MaUktm v. Oiwtf iMitr»
(») Maiajf V. Ki^fiifimMn Mitm Siiihmf (h.,»L. 3. CLSti.
566
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
ciMip. XYll. to restrain a company from declaring or paying a diTidend
{M'ejudicial to his rights and interests (b).
of biiN The ai)pIication of the funds of a company in paying the
•«rliMa«Di. g^pgjjggy o£ ^ in Parliament is improper, unless specially
authorised by the Act or any Acts incorporated therewith (e).
"The intended application," said Turner, L.J., in Simpsonv.
Denison (d), " is for another and a difierent purpose from that
which is described in the Act under which the company is
formed, and which constitutes the partnership deed of the
company" (e). Accordingly railway companies have been
restrained from applying any part of their funds towards
the expenses ncident to an application to Parliament for the
promotion of a branch line (/), or a new line in extension of
the existing one (g), for the improvement of the navigation of
a river communicating by means of a branch line witii &e
main line (/<), or for the purpose of bringing about an altera-
tion in the constitution of the company (0, or for the purpose
of carrying out an arrangement with another company (k),
or for the purpose of conferring further powers on the com-
pany, even although the application to Parliament had been
pursuant to a resolution passed by three -fourths of the share-
holders in cOTipliance with* the Wharnclifie order (Q. The
application of the funds of a company towards making up
the parliamentary deposit required for bills in Parliament
promoted by another company («i), or towards repaying
{!,) Stiir;ie\. Ernterii I'nitm lldil- (h) Munt v. Shreirtlmri/ and
way Co., 7 V)e (i. M. & (i. \:>H. rhetlrr llaitiraii Co., V,i Iteav. 1 ;
(.) Stevens v. Deron Hail- 20 L. J. Ch. lt!9 ; 88 R. E. 403;
tray ' 13 Be«v. oit : 88 H. R. 418. Ka»t An;/lian Itaihmi/ Co. v. Katlem
(d) 10 II». 62 ; 90 B. B. 276. Cmmtie* Raitiiny Co., 1 1 C. U. 775 ;
(») Eatt AngliaH Hailway Co. v. 21 li. J. C. P. 23; 87 B. R. 783.
jS^uftm Couaiua BaUwag Co., 11 (•) Btetexiv. South Devon Rail-
C. B. 77a ; 21 L. J. C. P. 23; 87 teoy Co., 13Bmt.48; 88E.B.418.
K. R. 783; Athhury Railivay (t) Simjmm v. Deiritam, 10 H*.
frrrW.../. Co. V. Itiehe.h. K. 7 H. L. 61 ; 20 L. T. (O. S.) 46; 90B.B.278.
653; 44 L. J. Kx. 183. [I) Caledi.nian Itoihi-ay Co. T,
(/) Ureal WeOrm Railway Co. Snlway Junction Railway Co., Vf.V.
V. R,„ho„t, S De O. ft Soi. aw ; SO (1883) 179 ; 49 L. T. 327.
y_ -((_ (>«') Miti^iiitU V. .MiiiiiTiii Cirrr.t
Ig) Vaneer. Eatt l.annithire Rail- Western Itniiimiij <■». of Irlan'l.l
uM9Co.,iK.iiJ.6lii n2B.B.28. U. * M. 130 ; 32 L. J. Ch. S13.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
567
monies borrowed by the {mmotera, and subscribed by them
ill conformity with the standing orders of Pszlisment (»),
is improper.
The funds of a corporation may, however, be applied in
discharging expenses incurred in opposing in Parliament a
bill, which would, if sanctioned, be injurious to the company's
interests (o).
The distinction between going to Parliament for un altera-
tion of the constitution, or a variation or extension of the
powers of a company, and applying the funds of the company
towards the payment of the expenses thereby incarred is a
well-defined one (p). Every company acting in its corporate
capacity has full power to make an application to Parliament
for these or other purposes. There is no ground on which a
Court of equity can interfere (q). Thus the Court would not
restrain a company incorporated under the laws of a foreign
country from applying to the legislature of that country,
even though nearly ail the ^rdiolders were resident in Eng-
land, there appearing to be no intention on the part of the
company to act except with the sanction of the foreign legis-
lature (r). So also the Court refused to restrain a railway
ctnnpany, which had taken lands of the plaintiff under their
compu'iory powers for the purpose of making a railway, from
making an application to Parliament upon the abandonment
of the railway to enable them to use the land for e different
purpose and in a different undertaking («).
Torquay Curiieiraiion , (1902) 1 K. It.
p. («»; 71 L. J. K. IV 109; A(1.-
Om. T. Thomicm, (1913) U K. B.
p. see.
(;>) Simpum t. Dtniton, 10 Ha.
p. 61 ; {>0 B. B. 278; Stevetf v.
South Devon RaUwajf Oe., 13 Bear.
48 ; 88 R. R. 418.
((/) i'ani-e v. Kimf Lanntthire
Railtitay Co., 3 K. & J. 67 ; Steveiia
V. Smith Detxm Railway Co., tupra.
(r) Bill y. Sierra Ntvaiia Co.,
1 De O. F. * J. m. 183: ML. J.
Ckl76; 1SSB.R. 3M.
(•) AMtfi T. MnmtkMttr, Shtglelil,
oh^t. z.vn.
(n) Spaekman v. Lattimore, 3 Oiff.
(o) Brirht T. North, 3 Ph. 216 ;
7S R. R. 74; AU.-am. t. Art^wt,
2 Mm. * O. »0 ; !» L. J.
467 ; M B. B. 79 ; HM An.-Otn. f.
Mayor of Wiyan, 6 l)e G. M. * O.
54 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 429 ; 104 R. R, 22 ;
Att.-(fen. V. Ma;<ir of Brecon, 10
C. I). 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 183; and
Att.-Oen. V. iS'«'a«««i Corporation,
(189H) 1 Ch. p. 608 ; 67 L. J. Ch.
356 ; Ltith CouHcil T. Leith Harbour
CommiuioMrt, (IBM) A. C. p. 016 ;
n L. J. P. C. 1 W : Sfwk$JmHm r.
fPWfl
566
INJUNCTIONS AOAINBT COMPANIES.
Chap. XVII.
The Court will
not tak« into
oonsidention
the possibility
of further powora
being obtained.
Contncta not
within the
proper pnipoMt
•( tfa« coapuj
are at law.
Thn doctrine of
ultra rirf
applied
naioaably.
When a public copany incorporated by Statute is en-
gaging in a transaction which is ultra vires, the Court can only
deal with the case m it exists, and will not take into considera-
tion tiie possibility of further powers being obtained by the
company (t). In a recent case (u) in which a company was
promoting a bill in Parliament to secure power to do the act
complained of, the Court suspended tot seven nnrnths tiie
operation of an injunction restraining the ultra vires act.
Where a contract is one which, from the nature and object
of incorporation, a corporate body is by necessary or reason-
able inference from the provisions of the deed of settlement
or the Act prohibited from making, it is v,'tra vires and
void (x). " Where a corporation is created by Act of Parlia-
ment for particular purposes with special powers, their deed,
though under their corporate seal, does not bind them, if iu
appear by the express provisions of the Statute creating the
corporation, or by necesBsry or reasonable inference from its
enactmmt^s, that the deed is ultra vires; that is, that the
legislature meant that such a deed should not be made " (y) .
The doctrine of vUra vires must, however, be reasonably
understood and applied, and whatever may fairly be regarded
as incidental to or consequential upon those things which the
legislature has authorised, ought not, unless expressly pro-
hibited, to be held by judicMl construction to be ultra
viret(z). Thus a c(mipany incorporated for the purpose of
and Lineoliuhirt Raitway CSv., 2 De
O. & J. 463 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 478 ;
119 R. E. 207.
(f) Ureal U'tttern Raihray Co. v.
Metropolitan RaUiPOji (^.,S2 L. J.
Ch. :W2.
(«) Att.-Gtn. V. Suiitli Staff.yrd-
thirt Water •I'wkt d.., (1909} 26
T. L. B. 406.
(m) ShrtwAurff tmd Birmimshcm
Railway Co. r. London and Sorth
Wmttrn Railway Co., 6 II. L. C.
136 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 108 R. R.
46; Athbury Railway Carriaye Co.
V. Kich€, U K. 7 H. li. 673 ; 44
L. J. Ex. ISA ; ^tt.-0«ii. v. Great
JSoilerR Ai^y Cd., « A. 0. p. 481 ;
49 L. J. Ch. 545 ; Wtnioth v. River
Dee 10 A. C. 360 ; 64 L. J.
Q. 13. o77 ; ' •orbtit v. South Eastem
and Cliatliam Railways, (1906) S
C"h. 20 ; 75 h. J Ch. 486.
{y) Soittli I'orkslnre Railu-ay Co,
and River Dun NavijfatioH Co. v.
Ortat Northern iMioay Co.,9EmA.
55, 84 : 9S L. J. Ex. 305. •14 ; M
B. B. 550; Chamhere r. Manchutor
and Mil/ord Railway Co., 6B. 4 8.
5H8; 33 L. J. Q. B. 268.
(j) Att.-Oen. V. Ureal Eatltrn
Railway Co., 6 A. C. p. 478; 49
L. J. MS; Lomdom and Forth
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
S09
keeping a hotel waa held entitled to lease part <rf the liotel ca»».ivn.
for a short term of yeara to the head of a government depart-
ment (a). So also a colliery company, which had purchased
land tor the purpose of erecting cottages for its miners, was
held entitled to sell the land to a purchaser who had agreed to
erect the cottages and let them to the company (6). So also
a railway and steam ferry company may lend out its ferry
boats on excureion toips, when not wanted f«w the ferry (c).
So also a railway company may charge not only its customers,
but also the public ,-'enerally, for the use of its scales for weigh-
ing coal (d). So a^ a railway company may sdl water on
its land not required for the working of its undertaking (e).
So also a contract between a railway company and a person
to run a steamer between the terminus of the railway in Eng-
land and the coast of Ireland was held ralid, as being in
furtherance of the object for which the company was formed
and incorporated, viz., to facilitate communication between
Engkuid and Ireland (/). So also the directws of a fire in-
suranco company may, in the exercise of their discretion,
make payments to persons insured in respect of losses not
fallmg strietly within the terms of the policies, if such pay-
ments are conducive to the welfare of the c«npany and cri-
culated to promote its interest, or if the payment of such
losses is in accordance with the usual custom of other
insurance componiea (g). So also a company may grant a
U'etfern Railway Cu. y. Price, 11 30 Beav. 40. affirmed on othar
U. B. 1). p. 487 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. "54 ; grouuds, 4 De O. ¥. & J. 126.
/li re Kinynburi/ Collieries Co. ami (r?) l.„ndon awt Xortli WetterH
Moore'tCmitract, {l90~)2Ch.j>.2^; Piailaay Co. T. ice, 11 Q. £. D.
70 L. J. Ch. ... 471. 485, 488; «aL.J.aB.7M.
(a) Simjpaon v. Wtttmituttr I'lOact (t) Wihm v. OraU Wuttm Ball-
HoM O)., 8 H. L. 0. 712; a L. T. way Co., (1910) 128 L. T. Journal,
(N. 8.) 707; m B. B. 398; 340.
Ftathtrdmhwitk v. Ltt Maer Pur. (/) South WaU, Railway Co. v.
reUin Co., 1 Sq. 318, 329; 39 L. J. Hetlnwml, 10 C. B. N. S. 675 ; 4
t'b '*-!. L. T. 619. See Warden 0/ JM>ver
(i) hi re Kitmsburi/ Colliery Co. Harbour v. Svutli EaUem Bailuiay
ami Moore't Contract, (1907) 2 Ch. Co., 9 Ha. 489 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 888
259 ; 76 I,. J. Oh, 469. (user of li^^ for vw/tem-
(c) Forrat v. Manekt$ltr, SW' ^vm).
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
pension to its retired officer or serrant (h), provided the
cimipiiny is not being wound up (i).
Will i f the primary and special objects for which a company
has been i--- med tire gone, it cannot continue to carry on boii-
nesB for obiects whidi are merely anetllary and subservient to
the main ol i els (A-). A comiKin " memorandum of ii-ssocia-
tion frtHjuently conlauis wiJ general words which, if con-
strued litemBy, would estMr the confany to carry on almost
any kind of business. But >a words most be taken within
certain limitt>, and those limits are lhat they must prima facie
be regarded as ancillary to the piirixirt of the scheme for whieh
the company was formed "(f). GeiK i al worth in a memo-
rundum of association must be construed in such a way "as
not to make them a trap for unwary people. General wards
construed literally may mean anything; but they must be
taken in connection with what are shown by the context to be
the dominant or main object. It will not do under general
words to turn a company for manufacturing one thing into a
company for imi^rting something else, however general the
words are" (m). This principle of construction has been
adopted in a case where the memorandum contained a claose
that the objects specified in. eadi paragraph were to be in no
Co., 2 H. & M. 135 ; :« I-. J. Ch.
406 ; and see Ilreii;/ v. Il(>;ial Uritiuli
Nuriet Aaiiciciatum, (1897) 2 Ch.
278; M L. J. Ch. 687; CyeliiW
TouHng CTui T. Hopkifum, (1910)
1 Ch. 186, 187 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
86.
(A) IkHdirtm v. Bank of Av*-
trulia, 40 (\ D. 170 ; 58 L. J. Ch.
1>7 ; S'drm'niih/ v. hul, ('rxi/if if ( 'o.,
(1<K)8) 1 1 11. p. HM ; 77 I.. J. Ch.
p. 88; l'i/rlixl»' Tiwriiiij Cliili V.
Iloiikiiwi, (l)tlO) 1 Ch. 17!t; 7!»
L. J. Ch. l>. 87 ; »iv I" re Uiiklf k
Henejit JSuMiny iSorirty, (1913) 1
Ch. 400; 82 L. J. Ch. 232.
(i) BtttUm V. Wta Cork Railway
Co., 23 C. P. 634; 52 L. J. Ch.
G89 ; Striiiiil v. /ii'i/"' .•!'/"'"•'""'•
Ac, S eitti/ (1903), 89 L. T. 243;
\V. N. 14»): see In re Birkbtde
Hmefit Ifuililiui/ Sixiety, mijira.
(A) In re Ilaren dolil Mining Co.,
20 C. D. 161; 61 L. J. Ch. 242;
In re Amalgamated Si/mlfratm,
(1897) 2 Ch. 600 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 783 :
In re Ceclyardie Conudidated (ftU
Mine* Co., 76 L. T. 269 ; fitei, <,eu> v.
Mt/Dore Rtefe {Knnyundii) Mining
Co., (1902) 1 Ch. 745 ; 76 I^. J.
29.">.
(/) In re dermnn hate ('nffn- i'k.,
20 C. I), p. 187 ; .il L. J. Ch. MA ;
Petilary. Roa<l IM (inhl Mineit < n.,
(1905) 2 Ch. p. 439 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
753.
(tn) In rt Oerman DaU Otfii
Co.. 20 0. D. p. 188 ; 51 L. J. Ch.
464.
ISJtNCTIONS AGAINST COllPANffiS.
571
wise limited or restricted by reference to, or inference from, the ct»^ XVII.
terms of any other paragraph, or the name of the company (tt).
Hut if it appeiirs from the memorandum read as a whole that
the company contemplates several primary objects, the com-
pany's powers will not be reskieted by reference to the obi' ;
contained in the first sub-clause of clause 3 of the mt ■
randum, or to the name of the company (o).
A trafiSc agreement between two railway companies for u Working agrM-
certain number of years to divide the profits of the whole «nw1,'lta?'
trafSc in certain fixed proportions caleiiliited on the past
course of traffic, and entered into bond fide for the purpose of
avoiding c(Mnpetiti(», is not ultra vire» (p) ; and a breach of
such an agreement will be restrained by injunction (q). The
managing body of a railway company, however, have no
power to enter into a contract fixing and regulating the future
traffic which may be carried upon a line of railway, which the
company may be thereafter empowere<l to construct, so as to
give another company an interest in such traffic and profit (r) .
In a recent case an agreemrat betwem two railway companies
to their income, and an agreement for the joint working
of the two companies, as distinct from the working of the two
lines by one of the companim, was held vUra nVs* (<}.
In a case where a railway company was authorised to enter
into an agreement with another railway company for woriung
the line it was held that they might manufacture carriages
and rolling stock for and let than for hire to the other
company (f).
(«) Stephena v. Mi/tore Reff$ Railway Co. v. Mi,l/aifl Huiliray
{Kanyufuiy) Miniiuj Co.. (IMS) 1 Co. (1912), 1 C'h. 21-1, 218; 103
("h. 745 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 295. I,. T H-ili ; uffirmetl (1913) W. N.
(») I'fMar V. Jlnad Jilork (laid 29-4 (II. L.).
.Mine* Co., (1906) 2 Ch. 427 ; 74 (<■) Midland Railwe^ Co. y. lom-
li. J. Ch. 7S3 ; Butler v. Northern don tmd North Wettem Satiwag Co.,
rerrtt>m*»Mmma/AudrmUtt(l9m), 8 Bq. ^ ; M L. J. Ck 881.
96 L. T. 41 ; 23 T. L. B. IW. {») In re OrttU Northern Railtaay
(/') Hart V. London and North Co. and the Oreat Central Railumg
Wettem Raiti'jay Co., 2 .1. & H. HO; Co. (1908), 24 T. L. B. 417.
30 h. J. r-h. 8!7. it) Att.-Qen. v. nreat Eaiteni
(y) Midland Railway Co. v. Ureat Railwai/ Co.. A. C. 478 ; 49 L. J.
IVeiier,, Railimy Co., 8 Ch. 841 ; 42 Ck. Hi.
L. J. Ch. 438; Ureat Central
573
INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T COMPANIES.
An 8gre«n«nt between two railway cmnitonies to miAe ai
A gwfwrt to application to Parliament for the necessary powers to carr;
■wttepwtn. out certain heads of agreement between them, which are nc
to be acted on antil the necesaary powers hare been obtained
is not illegal {u) ; but any attempt to act upon the agree
ment before the necesaary powers have been obtained i
illegal (x).
Agreement icfii An agreement cannot be cmisidered legal, though sraie o
iri^TiB'iu the terms involve acts which may be lawfully done, if thi
patpoM. purpose of the agreement be to work out something illegal
Therefore where railway companies agree to do acts wfaiel
they have power to do, as well as others which they have n
power to do, their object being to carry out an illegal scheme
the Court will restrain the agreement from being acted upoi
ataU (y).
AfraMMBt A shareholder in a company, the directors of which havi
SiHrujr uSyU. afSxed the company's seal to an agreement some of the pro
visions whereof are illegal, is entitled to restrain the director
from acting upon the agreement so far as it is illegal (z).
Coart will not If & contract between two companies is illegal, the Cour
Jiirt*«'toai'^ will not assist either of the parties in obtaining a eoUatera
•••••• benefit which the agreement would give, or aid them in an;
manner which would promote the object of the agreement (a)
Court will nut An act, although it may be beyond the powers of th<
fai«i"nintten <l''***or8 or managing body of a company, may be eapabh
which are of being adopted and confirmeu at a meeting of the share
ject for inuriuU holders. If SO, the question is properly a subject of interna
Ngnhtim. regulation and management, and the Court will not interfen
until all reasonable attempts have been made to take the senw
of the general Dudy of the shareholders on the matters ic
question. Before applying to the Court, all the meant
(«) Winch V. Uirktnhtad, «t.-., H. & M. ; 32 L. J. Ch. 613.
7Jai7u)ai/ro.,aDeG. ft8lll.ae2; 90 (« i Orf v V„rthem Hailway Oo
B. R. 145. V. KatUrn < <mntiei Bailway Co.
(z) Ilattertley t. Lord ahdbume, 9 Ha. 306 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 8)
31 L. J. Cb. 873. B. B. 456 ; Skkwumd Waltrwork
(y) lb. Co.Y. Vtitry Skkmimd, 8 0.D
{t) Mamttll V. Mi'lland Great p. M ; M L. J. Ch. -HI.
WttltTH Railuay Co. of Mand, I
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES. 678
prorided by the articles, the deed of settlement, or the Act cup. ivit
of Incorporation, as the case may b«, for the parpoM of
bringing the matter before the general body of the share-
holders must be resorted to and exhaustad (6). Accordingly
where two members of an inctM-porated ocHnpony had Died a
bill agninet the directors and others, charging them with
fraudulent and illegal acts and praying for the appointment
of 8 receiver, the Court refused to interfere on the ground tlut
the acts complained of were capable of conflrmati<m, and tlwt
it did not appear that any attempt Imd been made to bring
the matter before the general body of the shareholders (c).
So also, and upon the same groonds, in w action brought by
certain shareholders to restrain persons alleged to have been
inegularly appointed directors from acting as such, the Court
refused to interfere (d). In like manner the Court refused to
restrain directors from excluding one of their number from
acting when the majority of the members of the company
did not wish him to act (c). So also where the directors of a
company refused to allow its aaditora to examine the com-
pany's books, the Court would not grant an interlocutory in-
junction to compel the directors and the company to give tha
auditors aeceea to the books, holding that a meeting ot the
shareholders should be held to ascertain whether they desired
the auditors to continue to act or not (/). So also the Coorfc
(6) MoOfy T. Alston, I Ph. 800;
in L. J. Ch. 217; 6S B.B. 530;
Lord T. Copper Minimg Ob., a Fh.
18 L. J. Ch. M; 78 B. B. 270 ;
.Macilomjall v. Gardiner, 1 C. D.
p. 21 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 27 ; Burland x.
l-:<trk, (19()2) A. C. 83, 93 ; 71 L. J.
1'. C. 1; Camyihell y. Ainiralian
Vutiial IWovident Societi/, (19(18) 77
T. P. C. 117; 99L. T. 3; Nor-
maiidy v. Ind, Coopt A C«., (1908)
1 Ch. 84, 107 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 89;
Daminitm CWfo* MiBt Co. r. Amyid^
(1912) A. C. 546. 552 ; 81 L. J. V. C.
21)3; Cuff V. London aiui County
Land and Building Co., (1912) 1
Ch. p. 449; 81 L. J. CL p. 431 ; «•
to the ezoaptiaas te ibm rale, tm
infra, p. 870.
(r) Fou 7. HonUm, S Him. 461;
62 B. R. 185.
{d) Moilty y. Alston, 1 Ph. 790 ;
16 L. J. Ch. 217; 65 B. B. 520;
Hattertley v. Lord Shelbume, 31
L. J. Ch. 873 ; Harben t. PkH^
23 CD. 14; 48L.T. 334:/a«MrM
Hi/dinpatkie HM Co. y. Bmi^fte»,
280. D.l; 48L.T. 147.
(«) BmtAridfi y. Smith, 41 C. D.
462 ; 60 L. T. 879 ; gee Cuff y.
r.nndnn and County Land and
Bnilding Co., (1912) 1 Ch. 460 ; 81
L. J. Ch. 426.
(/} (^"ff ▼• London and Comfy
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
will not int«rfer« for the parpoee of ftmsing companies to
conduct their business according to the strictest rules when
the irrpgulurity complained of can Iw Bet right at any momeDt,
as for instance where tiiere has been some informality ta
sumninning ii Inmrd (//), or in the H|)|)()int>i!ent of th" direc
tors (h). So also the Court has rcfased to interfere with the
decision of directors ivs to what part of the company's pn^ts
should be carried to ihe credit of its reserve fund, and what
part should lie distriluited (t). So also the Court has refused
to interfere with the directors' undcr-valuation of the com-
pany's adsets in the balance-sheet, whieh had been approred
by the comptmy in general meeting (fc) ; so also the Court has
refused to restrain the {wymcnt of a dividend by a railway
company before its works were completed (2), or before ita
unsecured debts were paid (m). So also the Court will not
restrain a company from making a call, if made in a proper
form and for a proper purpose (n), or from enforcing it (o),
even in a ease where the shareholder has commmeed aaaotioa
to try the question as to his liability (p).
So also the Court will not rebtrain the application of monies
raised by the issue of new shares to a purpose different froBot
that for which they were raised (.7) ; or the reissue of cer-
tain unissued shares to directors at a price below their true
value, notwithstanding that the resolution of the cmnpany in
general meeting authorising the issue was carried by the votes
of the directors who held a majority of the shares in the com-
Lanil ,m<l Uuildi,,;/ C>i., (1912) 1 wai/ Co., 9 Ha. 313; 21 L. J. (. h.
Ch. 440 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 426. 816; 89 K. R. 460.
(j) Bruwnt V. La Trinulad, 37 (n) T'oo/wr v. fhroiithin Vnum
C. D. 1 ; « L. J. Ch. m Railway Co., 6 Ba. Ca. 136 ; BaHti
(A) MoOtg V. Ai$lo», 1 Ph. 180 ; v. Mrktnhtad, Ltmcatkirt, Mc
16 L. J. Ch. 217 ; 69 B. B. CMUr* JuMtien gaitwatf Ck, IS
020. Bmv. 433; M L. J. CSi. S77; SI
(<) Burlamlv. Karle, (1902) A. 0. ». B. 1S8.
83 ; "1 Ii. J. P. f. 1. (>') - i'niierMl BmA T
(i) Young t. Brownlte <t CV, Bara</iicm, 45 L. T. .m.
(1911) 8. C. 677. (/') Tathamv. I'alaee j
(J) Broii-ne v. jl/<>Hniou<A*Atre To. (1909), 53 S. J. 743.
Bailiay Co., 13 Beav. 32; 20 L. J. (7) »«» v. Nor/M RaUwttf Ct.
Ch. 497 ; 88 B. B. 408. 3 De O. & Sm. 293.
(m) StMWM T. SotOh Dm* RttiU
INJUNCTIONS AOAINBT COUPANIBS.
575
pary (r) ; or the appliaition by the diradon of % portkm of r ■• vivit
tlip fun<ls in gratuities to sprvunis of the coinptuiy forservioM
rendered («), provided that the compttny is a going con-
cern (0 ; or in paying a pension to the family of a deceaaed
officer {«), or retired secretary (x) of the company, or in
imying a sum in compromise of an notion apaiiist 'he com-
pany ill) or in satisfaction of a claim which could not have
been legally enforced (»).
Nor wi!' the Court interfere to restrain a min ting of the
sliareholders of a company from being held upon the ground
that the notice calling it is no expressed that consistently with
its terms vesolutions might he passed which are uUm virei (a).
It, however, it is absolutely necessary that the Court should wi,en th« Oonrt
intwiere to prevent irreparable mischief from being done in'LlmnS
before the time for taking the necessary steps to call a generri ^^T^
meeting of the sharrhoidcrs i im nrrive (b), or if the directors
are adopting a particular course for the express purpose of
preventing the free action of the riiar^lders (e) ; or if the
diroctor-s, or a majority of the shareholders, are acting in
an illegal, fraudulent, or oppressive manner against the
minority (rf), the Court will interfere.
(r) I'tii'i V. Roberttnti ,t- Woiil-
r<A; LM. 56 S. J. 412 ; see
Dominion Cotton MilU Co. v.
Amyot, (1913) A. C. p. US; 81
r-. J. p. O. 886.
(<) Hamptm T. PHei't /Mm<
f.'o»««« C,,., 24 W. K. 744.
(0 Huttun V. We»t I ■ rrl,- Rnitirmi
'V... 23 C. D. ()54 ; \,. J. Ch.
689; StroiidY. Royal murium <V).,
(1903) W. N. U(i; mi I,. T. 243;
H'arrrn v. Lambeth It' ul T iwi r fa
(1903), 21 T. li. R. 685.
(«) lleiultrtun r. liank • /' .4i<--
traUuia, 40 C. D. 170; 68 L. J. Ch.
794.
{x) CticlitW Touring Cluhr. ffop-
kinton, (1910) 1 Ch. 179 ; 79 L. J.
'Ti. 82 (association not for profit).
(v) yatt$ V. CyclitW Tourina
C/uA(1908), 24T. L. R. 681.
{z) Taunton y. BoycU Inturutiee
' 2H. *M. IM, 141; 33 L. J.
I h. 406.
(o) of Wight BmUwny (V v.
roAownfM, 26 C. D. 320. 384; M
L. J.Ok.3«3; m* Frttttand VtgilaUti
drowen A$ioeiati<m v. Kektwirh,
(1912) 2 Ch. 57 : 81 L. J. Ch. 499.
(6) (Irent W'etttm Raihray Co. v.
Rmhoitt, 5 De O. ct 8m. .310 ; 90
H. R. 87; Sormnndii v. Coojie
Jk Co., (1908) 1 Ch. p. 108; 77 L.J.
Ch. 82.
(f ) Frair t. WhaUey, 2 H. ft M.
10: 11 L.T. m; Omuumy.TrMk,
20 Bq. 6a»; 44 L. J. Ch. 772 ; PwU
T. %moM « Co., (1903) 2 Ch. 606 ;
72 L. J. Ch. 768.
[d) Oray v. Leims, 8 Ch. 1035,
1050; 45 L. J. C-h. 28i ; Mfiiirr v.
HoojierU Trln/Td/ih Workii, 9 Ch.
350 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 330 ; AlManHtr
V. Autoinatic Co., (1900), 2 Ch. 56 :
576
TNJVNCnONB A0AIN8T C0MPANIB8.
i I
ta||WMIUH«
gimlMl ia
DirMton scoordingly lum httn ntlnincd from iMaini
>haics for Ihf cxpreM porpo80 of thereby controlling a
general mectiitg («) ; or from issuing shares without the
authority of a renolution of a general meeting of the eooi-
pnny (/) ; or from t xoreii4irm their powers so as to place them-
''tilvps in 11 ht>tt«'r pwitiou in regti'-d to the p«ymprit of calls
than the other HlmreluililerH {ij), or from summoning the
genera) meeting at sodi a dote aa to deprife shareholden (rf
fhrir iK)WPr of voting (h) ; or from holding an irregulnr meet-
ing not properly f-onveiied wliich was likely to be iojuriOBl
to the interest of the company (<} ; or from osing the eor-
porate nuine und {Mwers for the purpose of dividing amongst
the majority, to the exclusion of the minority, consideration
money received from an arrangement with another com-
pany (*).
So also wher»' the vot^a of certain shareholders had been
improperly rejected at a meeting of the compcuiy, an injunc-
tion waa granted to restrain the company from acting on the
footing of the votes being bad (h. So also if directors, acting
!indei ' n erroneous construction of their articles, are intend-
ing to exclude fr<an voting those who ought to vote, or if
directcrr >re intending to act on a reaolatioa imnrq^ierly cotm
aSL. J. C'h. 42«; lliirl.mil ^. h.arle.
(1902) A. C. t«, 93 ; 71 I* J. P. 0.
1 ; iVxt T. SymoM * Co., (1803) 2
Ch. p. 616; 7a L. J. CIl ]». 773;
Cem^Ml T. Auttrolian Mtdual Pro-
wiimt Sodttf (1908), 77 L. J. P. C.
117 ; 99 L, T. 3 ; MerriJUld, :<ifyler
it T. Livtrjiool Ci'itim ArMxia-
tUm, (1911) 105 L.T. 104 ; fknninion
CiMon Milh ''o. v. Amyot, (1912)
A. C. 540 ; 81 L. J. P. ('. 23;i ; Ving
T. Roberitan (191'J), 56 S. J. 412;
■ee tino an to debentuie-holdera,
Ooo^dhw T. NeitoH List, Liver-
pod, (191S} 2 C1>. 324, S3S; 107
L. T. 344 ; Inrt Ntw Tork Taxieai
Co.. (1913) 1 Ch.p. 9: 8SL. J, c*,
p. 45.
(e) Frwter v. Whallty, 2 li. & M.
10; 11 L. T. 174; Puni v. Hymotu
.( Co., (1903) 2 Oh. 506 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 768; see AhMi/itTi HiM Co.
T. KiAyham ;1910), 102 L. T. lit,
whan an intaria iojuactioit waa
TafnwaA.
(/) Mittly V. Koffij/(rrtM» Mimm
Co., (tun) 1 Ch. 73; 80 L. J. Ck.
Ill ; (1911) A. 0.409; SOL. J.(%.
(>68.
((/) AlexaudfT T. A iiti'inatir Tele-
phone <'o., (1900) 2 Ch. .■)«, 72; 68
L J. Ch. 514.
(A) Cmnm r. Traik, 20 Eq. 660 ;
44 L. J. Ob. 779.
(0 Harit» v. Pkilyypt, 28 0. D.
p. 34; 48i:i.T. 334.
(i) Mt«i*r T. ffatifer't Telegrafk
Work*, 9 Ch. 350 ; 43 L. 3. Ch. 380l
(0 /Wer V. IiuAti^tal, S 0. O.
70 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 317.
ntJVNOnONB AOAOIST 001iPANIE&
5T7
toinaimttor MMntwl m ngardt the trali-being of the c m- ON».im.
pany (w), or if diracton, purporting to «el oa the .4tthr»ntj
of roBolutione irraRularly pauBwl, threaten to part with -he
property of the company go as to eauHe irreparable injury (n),
the Court will interfeM. So sbo difMlon irwt raefawiiMd
from iNHuing b circular which was cf ii miHlcading tendency
and from proposing at a general meeting of the company
certain reMriiHfoae, on tiie ground that the shar^lKridan hud
not heen fully informe<l and instructj?d upon wlnt WM pro-
potted to he done (o) . Bo alao where the general managriment
of a company'R bueineii ia by its arttclee entrusted to the
directors, tht: Court will restrain the company acting Ufoa •
resolution patiHal hy h majority of the shareholders which is
inconsi^nt with ihe articles and interferes with the direc-
tors in their nwaageoiMit of the compuy's affairs (p).
The notice of an extraordinary (general meeting must dis- IfotiM of eztn-
close ail facte necessary to enable the shareholder receiring ^'^^ SZf
it to detennine in his own intweet whetiior or not he ousht 'i^''> purpwe
to attend thi meeting, and the pecuniary interest <rf • director
in the matter of a special i evolution tci proposed at the
meeting is for this \vii iv uwlerial fact (q). Thus where
an agie«nent entered int •, n two eoaapsniM for the saio
of the undertaking of t'. otlier, and which providedl
for compensation being . . y ;« directors of the smiiig
company for their loss ot irffico, had been eoolfaniied h; .t
general meeting, but the notice calling tiie meeting (it .'nbt i
(m) Hart>en r. Phil^, 'ja CD. 78 L. J. Oh. MS; narnu 4t
33;«i^l,a»». a».T. (loii) 10* L.T.W4:
(») }f«rma»iy^.M,Coef*<^, 100 L.T. 419; Dlaxr Open UmHk
(1900) 1 Cb. p. 10* 77 L. J. Oil. .' t r,ae, Co. v. IUi;,< t, {m:'-' it
i". m. Cf. MarthalVi ■ a'ye
(o) Jarkton v. .1/"it«<w Hank, l„ ■■i^n, Co. v. Manni nf, »'ardle<t Co.,
R. Ir. 119. (1»0«) 1 Ch. 267 ; T8 h. J. Ch. 46.
See Aiitomatii- Self-Cltamnmi (</) Saye v. Croydon l'r«tmwag$
/'liter Syndicate v. Cuninghame, ''o., (189»' 1 Ch. 3S8 ; 67 L. J, Gfc.
[\m)2 Ch. 34 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 4S7 ; 223 i Ttft'iM v. Bmdtnm, (IIW) 1
fii re (hamophom TyptmrUmf Cl». T. Ch. 861 ; 6g L. 7. MS ; ifw
^nlty, (190I} 8 K.fi. p. IW: 77 mmm^ t. Ind. Ooift S Oa^ (iae«\
I'.i.K. B.p.H*; QtrinamdAglm 1 Ol 84 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 82. Sm
f. Saimm, (1909) 1 Ch. 311,319; aeote. 86-69, and Arts. 46—49.
78 L. X CSi. M>« ; (1909) A. C. 443 ; TaUe A, CompMiM (Coiwoiidatian)
578
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Ctop.XVn. the agreement merely as an agreement for th« sale of the
undertaking and did not mention the proposed payment to
the directoi-H, an injunction was granted restraining ttie
company from carrying the agreement into effect until duly
sanctionMl by the shareholders at a meeting duly convened
for the pui-jjose (r). So also where the notice calling an
extraordinary general meeting for the purpose of psMingreao-
lutions for the reconstruction of the companj did not disclose
that coHflin of the directors were largely interested in the
proposed sclieme, an injunction was granted restraining the
company and its directors and ostensible liquidator from
acting upon the resolutions (»).
Ai.i>"it.tmcni ..( The existence of disputes between the different members of
«'ru!«r.H.pX« the governing body of a company, which prevents its affairs
•mooggoverniug heipg oan iod on properly, is a ground for the intervention of
the Court by injunction and receiver to protect the property
of the company, but the interference of flie Court will be
continued only until a governing body is duly appointed («).
The wmpanv Where there is a body corporate capable of suing, that body
Sm.e'for" ""'y ^hc proper plaintiff in an action for the recovery of,
wrniis to the or protection of, ito property, and an action for that purpose
comiany. cannot be inaintftined by one shareholder on behalf of himself
and all others except the defendants (it). But this rule does
not hold where the persons against whom the relief is sou^
control the majority of the com,.any'8 shares, and will not
permit an action to be brought in the name of the company
In that case the Courts allow the shareholders complaining tc
bring an action in ttieir own names (x). This, however, is 8
Act. 1908, and wot 71, CompaniM Co., 20 Eq 474 ; 44 h. J. Ch. 4i»6
Clauaw Act, IMS. MatdmuiaU t. Gardimr, 1 C. D. i;i
(r) Kmtfe v. Orogdm Tramwaif 33 ; 4 j L. J. Ch. 27 ; BttrUutd ^
Co., ««pra. Earle, (1902) A. C. p. P3 ; 71 L. J
(<) Tiffsm T. Hmilrrtnn, »>ij/ra. V. V. 1 ; Manhaltf Vnlvr Qmr Co. \
[t) Ffithrr4:iir v. 'Wr, 16 Kq. Mannini) * fo., (1909) 1 Ch. p. 271
298 ; 'Jl W. R. h;).'); Tra.lrAujiliarii 78 L. J. Ch. 46; Dominion Cntto
Co. V. riVfaTJ, ;i03;21W. B. mi* <'<>■ v. Anyot, (1912) A. (
p. 852 ; 81 I,. J. P. C. p. 235 : ll>
(ii) Gray v. Lruit, 8 Ch. 103«; Kwi Hoteh Si/n^limtf v. Hai/i
43 Ii. /. Ch. 281 ; ««««</ v. n'ake- (19i:j), 29 T. L. R. 92.
field K'aterworfa t^, 44 L. J. Ch. (*) Bitrtand v. EwrU. (1902) A. <
498 : JIiuMii V. Wak^/Ud Ifadrtporfa p. M; 71 L. J. P. 0. t.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
579
mere matter of procedure in order to gi?e a remedy for ■ wrong owp. vni.
which would othei-wise escape redress, and it is obvious that
in such an action the plaintiffs cannot have a larger right to
relief than the company itself woold hare had if it were
plaintiff, and cannot complain of acts which are valid if
done with the approval of the majority of the shareholders,
or are capable of being confirmed by the majority. The ca«es
in which the minority can maintain such an aeti(m are,
therefore, confined to those in which the acts complained
of arc of a fraudulent character, or beyond the powers of
the company. A familiar example is where the majority
are endeavouring directly or indirectly to appropriate to
themselves money, property, or advantages which belong to
the company (».
"There may bo a variety of things which a company may
well be entitled to complain of, but which, as a matter of good
sense, they do not think it right to make the subject of litiga-
tion ; and it is the company, as a company, which has t-j
determine whether it will make anything that is a «vrong to
the company a subject-matter of litigation, or whether it will
take steps itself to prevent the wrong from being done"
In such a case, therefore, if individual shareholders bring an
action ' ding the name of the company, they do so at their
own risk anless able to show that they have the support of
the majority (a) ; and if the Court grant interlocutory relief,
it will take care that a meeting bo ciilled at an early date to
determine wheither the action has in fact the approval of the
majority of tbe sfaftrehdders (ft).
{y) liiirlaml r. Eark,{\9(a) A.C.
p. 93; 71 L. J. P. 0. 1.
(z) MaeAmsall v. Oardkur, 1
I'. I), p. 22; 45 I, J. Ch. 27.
(<i) Mnrilniigall v. (fnrdinrr, 1
(". I). 13, 22; 4.-. I,. J. Cli. 27;
I'nulrr v. Liithint/toH, 6 C. T>. 70 ;
4fi L. J. Ch. 317; Imptrial llii.lrn.
pnthif ffaM Co. v. Ilamftmn, 23
C. I). 1 ; 49 I,. T. 147; La Com-
pagnit tU Mt^/viUt v. WMtUf. (ISM)
1 Ch. 788. 8M ; «S L. X C%. 7SV ; uid
•M ChU of Wtiltm Autfralia
Co. T. Dawtm, (1897) 1 Ch. 115;
«• L. 3. C*. 147 ; Wut End Hi*fU
SyndkaUJt. Aa9fw.(1813)S9T.L.B.
92.
(A) Pender v. Luthinyton , 6 C. D.
70; 46 L. J. Ch. ;n7: La Comi
jHi'inie -h Maiivillr v. WhiUt^, (I8M)
1 Ch. p. 803 ; 64 L. J. di. 729.
8m Mar$MF* Vahe Omr Ce. v.
jrM»«i9« Ch.,(l9(N>} 1 Okp^tTt;
78 L. J di. 4&
87—2
111
580
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
A eom]»n!r
majr not be
registered, or
carry on biui-
Btm, nndari
to d«Miv«.
ciup. XVII. Where an action u brought by a uharehulder against the
directors, who hold a preponderance of riiares in coaqmiy,
tlic proceei'ing may be in the form of an action by the plaintiff
on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in the company
(other than the defendants), the compniiy being joined as co-
defMidanta (c). " An action in this form is far preferable to
an action in the name of the company, and tiien a fight as to
the right to use its name " (d) .
Sect. 8 of the Companies (ConMlidatim) Aet, 1906, pro-
vidoH that « compiuiy may not be ropistered by a name iden-
tical with that by which a company in existence is already
registered, or so nearly resembling that name as to be caloa-
lated to deceive, except where the cornpsvny in existence is in
the course of being dissolved and signifies its consent in such
ma'incr as the registrar requires. If a company, through
inadvertence, or otiienrise, is, without such consent as afore-
said, registered by a name identical with that by which a
company in existence is previously registered, or so nearly
resembling it as to be calculated to deceive, the first men-
tioned company may, witti the sanction of ttie r^skw,
change its name.
f)i.cr.tion o£ The registrar has under the section a discretion, and if he
refuses to register a company on the ground that its name so
nearly renembles the name of a company already on the
regitier, as to be calculated to deceive, the Court will not
interfere by maniamu$, unless it be satisfied either that the
registrar did not in fact exercise any discretion, or that he
exercised 't upon some wrong principle of law, or that he
was influenced by eztraneoos consideratimis which h« oo^t
not to have taken into account (r).
A " roistered " company is entitled under the section (/)
Injunetina to
restrain
tioa of
(r) Meuier v. Ilmi'tr'n Teltura/ih
Works, 9 Ch. 3o0: 4:{ L. J. Ch.
330; Alf.ruiiiUr T. Automatic Telr-
j»*o»«(o.,(1900) 2 fh. .^0, 69: 69
U t. Oh. 428.
(rf) Altxamitr V. AutoiHatir Tilt-
phtm* Co., (1900) a Ch. p. «; W
J. (It. m.
(f) Hex V. Regittrar of CompoftiM,
(mi) 3 K. B. p. 34 ; 81 L. J. K. B.
914.
(/■) Sne ,^fT(iMi i, IJ<1. V. TolliU,
(1902) i Ch. p. .\i-i \ 71 L. J.
Ch. p. 72S ; thimh Cei/lini F.ttate*
V. Vva Ceylon liuhber Arfafe*. (1910)
103 L. T. p. 417 ; 37 T. L. B
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
881
to an injunction to restrain the " registrtttion " of another chap, x VI I.
compuiy with a naow identical with, or so closely resembling, co^y^oTth.
the name of the registered oompaoy as to be caiei^itad toJ^^J^ •*
(y)f and, if such a company has been registered,. "K"**"*! eom-
is at law entitled to an injunction to restrain it from nllmaMjouUud
currying on a similar bemew under sueh a name (A). "^"'^
So also an " unregistered " company can at law restrain the
registration of a company which is intended to carry on a
similar bonneaa to that of the onregiBtered company, under a
name so closely resembling it as to be calculated to deceive.
Mid if such a company is registered, can rest i a in it from
carrying on ito btisiness under such a name (i). In determin-
ing the question whether the name of a company ia likely to
deceive, the Court will apply the principles upon which in-
junctions are granted in the case of individuals carrying on
the same business under similar names, and in ordinary cases
of passing oS (k).
|>. 25, whore it is pointed out that v. Ilaru iioil, Cash d Co., (1907) 2
the law gives a Urger protection to Ch. 184, 190 ; 76 L. J. Ch. p. 672 ;
u company thw it does to bd Slantlard Bamk of SoM Afrka t.
individuid, in i«qwct of nunM Hkmivr* Am*. (I90») 2a T. L. B.
whicii an identieia. 420; OhvoA Ceylon Ettatri v. I'va
(S) 8e« Tntm ti d v. TtuaoHd, 44 ' Ciyfow Hiibher Kttatei, (1010) 1(13
C. D. 878 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 631; L. T. 416; 27 T. L. B. 24; IJo,,,U
Air^on. Ltd. v. r,.im, (1902) /lank-v. /Jo,/<h rn,tttmei4 Tru>t (o.,
2 Uh. 319 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 727 ; Fi,.e (1912) >S f. h. R. :171» ; King,t,m,
''<itlon Si)inrurii,,(-c.,Co.v. Jliiriiix^l, Miller * On. v. Thornan h'inytlon
fmh * Co., (1907) 2 Ch. p. 190; * Co., (1912) 1 Ch. 478; 81 L. J.
TO L. J. Vh. p. 672; Kinytton, Ch. p. 41!».
.Milltr A Co. V. Thomat Kit^tUm * (•) fMg t. Grontnor Library Co.,
ro., (1912) 1 Ch. p. «7«; 81 L. J. 88 W. B. 38ft; JHMMefa t.
t*- P- JTmAwn. 17 0. D. 638; » L. J.
(A) Sm M>rtkm»t Ibmking Ob. Ck. 488 ; Panhard «t Lenutor
of Londom T. Mtrrharit$' Joint Stock [Socifle .( nnii,/,nf, .£c. ) v. Pwihard et
Bank, 9 C. D. 860; 47 L. J. Ch. Ltmtvir Mott>r Co., (1901) 2 Ch.
S28; Accident /iimrtiiire Co. v. 513; 70 L. J. Ch. 7;t« ; Lloydt v.
.ieiiJmt, Diteage and Ufuernl In- l.loyda [Sont/iamjiton), Ltd., (1912)
mramt Co., 54 L. J. Ch. KM; 28 T. L. R. 338.
Manrhftter llrnofrif Co. v. North (A) Merrhant Banking Vo. of
("•r»li%re and .Mouchf.iter Urtirmj London v. Mmkant^ Joint Stock
Co., (1898) 1 Ch. 639 ; 67 L. J. Ch. Bank, 9 C. D. 880; 47 L. /. (».
: 'I : (189»} A. C. 83 : 88 1« J. Ch. 888 ; AmOon, IM. t. ToUm,
''i ; fiH4 OMam Hpinntn, *t., Cb. (19M) :i Oh. pp. 04, «» ; UUi
582
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
Chap. XVII.
Fraud nnd not
In fnmi.
On appliotion
to register
company with
■Munt uuilar to
phiatif titwrt
■ eltiM
Coapany
CUIBOt acquire
m—pa ly of
onliaafj wmi.
Nor right to na*
nam* of iadWi-
dual to prejudice
of othere wiiere
goodwill not
acfaind.
To obtain an injunction, it is not necessary to prove
fraud (I) on the part of the defendujit company, it is suffi-
cient to ghow that the siaularity of nuoes ia calculated to
deceive (I), and that there is a reaMoable prtriiabilii v 1hat the
plaintiff's business will be damaged (m).
On an application to restrain the registration of a new eran-
puny with a title alleged to l>e so similar to that of the plain-
tiff company an to l>e calculated to d.-ceive, the Court will have
regard to the kind of business which has been or is intended
to bo carried on by the plaintiff c<Hspany, and to that which is
intended to be carried on by the new company, and also to the
kind of name which has been adopted by the plaintiff com-
pany (n).
A con^any cannot by registering as its title a word in
common use acquire a monopoly of the word so as to restrain
other companies making use of it (o). Nor can a company
which has registered as its title the name of its promot^'r, with-
out having acquirwl his l)usiness and goodw ill, use such name
to the prejudice of anotliier person carrying on business under
the same name ; such a company does not merely by registra-
tion acquire and incorporate the individual rights which its
rh.p. "29; llrifish Varniim Clenner
I'l'. V. .Ve«) Vaeiiinn Cteaiitr >'o.,
(IWIT) 2 Ch. pp. 320, 321 ; 7eL. J.
Ch. p. SI,-..
(/) Xorth Chealiire and Manclm/ttr
Hnwery ( 'o. v. Mamhettfr Brtivtry
Co., (18W) A. C. tW ; 68 L. J. Ch.
74 ; itarotort. Ud. v. TeUiU, (1002)
•i Ch. p. 322; 71 L. 3. Ch. p. 738;
Hee Siottisk L'nion and NhUohuI
Inimranre Co. v. Scotiuh .Vaftonal
l„s„r(ii,re r,,., (m)9) S. ('. :n8;
EUiiiU V. Kj-jmnainit nf Trailf, Ltd.,
(1910) 44 H. J. 101.
(m) (Ifiitrul IniiMiiieiit >'<>, v.
(lenrral Itn'tTsinniirij ' 1 Mi'g.
65 ; The London and Provinriui
LamAmtranetBecittgr.LoiMUmatKl
Pmrincial Joint Stock L{fi Auuranft
Co., 17 li. i. Ch. 37, where iaUr-
locutory iBjunctiotM were refueed.
(«) Aemtori, I.til. \. ToUiit,
(1902)2 Ch. 319; 71 U 3. Ch. 727 ;
and see ticoHinh I'niim, etc., Iii«ur-
ame Co. v. Scoliiuli Sutiimal Intiir-
anre Co., note (/), sii/irii.
(«) Colonial i.i/t [itsnranre Co. v.
Himw and CoUmial AMurnnre ('o,,
33 Beev. M8; 33 L. J. Ch. 741 ;
Atralon, I Ad. v. TMM, $uf.ra;
Eltiiromobile Co. v. British Klectro-
mobiU <'o. (1907), 97 L. T. 196; 23
T. li. R. (Wl ; attirined, (190S) 98
I.. T. 258; 24 T. 1.. R. 192;
Uritith Viinium Cleinrr <''•. v .Vei»
Viiniiim ciraner C.i.. (19(17) 2 Ch.
,112, -.m; 7« L. J. Ch. 311; //. E.
HandcM, Lid. v. Brivllry & Stmt
(1907), 34 B. P. 0. 773, 781 ; sad
eeo Dunlop I'ncumalif Tyre f!n. r.
Dunlcf, Motor C.,., (1907) A. C.
430 ; 78L. J.P. 0. 103.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COMPANIES.
promoter may hare had to carry on buainesa in hia own chap, ivil
name (p).
A company which hu inadvertently omitted to publish its Bi|^ttotajae>
name in accordance with the provisions of sect. 63 of the md*
Gmnpanies (Consdidation) Act, 1908, is not thereby pre- ^wtaaSI ol
eluded frmn obtaining an injunction to protect its trade
name (g).
Where a company was formed to carry on the business of Compur
8,, who had been struck off the dentists' register, the Court J^idg'^n''*
restrained the company from rejn-eBenting that it was carry- j^^JJ^^^
ing on the business of a dentist as successor to 8., and from »k« wglitar.
using any name or description implying that it was registered
under the Dentists Act, 1878, or was specially qualified to
practise dentistry (r).
So also where a company was formed to acquire the busi- Company
ness of C, who was not a duly qualified veterinary surgeon {aUeiyXre™"
within the meaning of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881, the JJj^m
Court restrained the company and C, its managing director, qi!»li(ie<i
from representing that C. was a duly qualified veterinary lurgeoo^^
surgeon (•).
( p) FitM (Mam Spimun, At., Co. 781 : we alao Att.-Otu. t. AppUtm
V. Harwoal, rath * Co., (1907) 2 (1907). 1 Jr. 232 ; AU.-Otn. \.
Ch. 184, IW); 76 L. J. Ch. 670; .VWrfWwn, (1907) llr. 471. A» to
KiiiijsUm, Miller tt Co. v. Thi.mat tho meaiiinif of the words "specially
Kiiiijtton d- t'o.,'\\)\i) 1 Ch. 375, qualitied to practise dent:ntry " in
Mi; SI L. J. Ch. 417. sect. 3 of the Act ol 1878, see
(7) Ramlalt, Ltd. v. Hritith ami IMIerhy v. ffepivnrth, (1910) A. C.
.Imerican Shoe Co., (1902) it Ch. 37"; 79 L. J. Ch. 402.
334 ; 71 li. J. Ch. 683. («) Att-Oeu. T. VhurckiU'* IWe.
(r) Att.-atii. T. Chorg* V. SmM, rinarg Saiiatorimm, LM., (1910) 2
Ud., (ISOB) 2 Ch. OSS : 78 L. J. cat. at. 401 ; 79 K J. Ch. 741.
CHAPTER XVIII.
INJUNCnoNH AGAINST CnRPORATIONS.
A CORPORATION Created by or under u statute can do such
acts only as are authorised expressly or impliedly by the
statute by or under which it is incorporated (a) ; a corpora-
tion created by Koyul Charter has the same power to contract
and to deal witti its property that an ordin«ry individoal
has (h) ; if it is restrained by its charter from doing certain
things, and sucli things are done, proceedings may be insti-
tuted by tcire facim, in the name of the Crown, to repeal the
letters patent creating tiie corporation, but if the Crown takes
no such steps, neither the corporation, nor the person who
has contracted with it, can set up that the contratjt is void
as being beymd the powers of the corporation (c). The appli-
cation of the property of a common law corporation to other
(a) Hirlie v. Ashlnirii llailimii
Carrtai/f Co., L. H. 9 Ex. pp. 20^
•m ; 43 I,. J. Kx. p. Jlio ; H>/i/.« A-
[Itarune^i] v. liirir l>er Co., ,'16 ('.
1). p. 685, II.: ib., 10 A. C. p. 362;
54 L. J. ti. U. 577; Att.-tlen. v.
Maiirl,e«lrr ' 'crjxirHtioii, (1906) 1 Ch.
p. 6jil ; TA L. J. Ch. p. 934 ; AU.-
Otn. T. Pontypridd Urban Council,
(19M) a Ch. p. 262 ; 7A L. J. Ch.
678; Kingthur^ CMierii* Co. and
irW* CoMrart, (1907) 2 Ch.
p. 264 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 471.
(i) A'ran v. Ciirfioration of Avmi,
L>9 Ikmv. 144, 149; 30 L. J. Ch.
165, 168 : llichf v. Aihhiiry Rail-
K-ay Curriaye Co., Ij. R 9 Kx.
pp. 263, 264 ; 43 L. J. Ex. p. 205 ;
Wenlock (Barontu) Rivrr Du Co.,
36 0. D. 6U, n. ; Alt. (hm. r. Man-
cActter CorpormUoti, Inr* K ingt b i try
CuUierki (-o, and Moan't CoiAruH,
wpra; Orvn v. PrmMt tf TrinOp
roUeye, Dnbliti, (1910) 1 Ir. p. 383;
liritith South Ai'rira Co, v. fte Been
< oi,i>olid,itrd Mii,e» Co., (1910) 1
Ch. 374 376; 79 L. J. Ch. 343,
354 ; S. C. reversed on appeal on
other grounds, (1912) A. C. 52 ; 81
Ij. J. Ch. 137 ; Smrborouyh Corfiora-
tionv. Cooper, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 71 ;
79 L. J. Ch. n>- 38. 40. Ai to
Munioipal Owpon^iom, «ee the
Municipal Corporation Act, 1882,
OS. 108, 109, which impew
rostriotions on alimmtiou.
(') Hirlie V. .\»libiiry Riilliray
I'arriaye Co., L. K. 9 Ex. 26;i,264 ;
43 L. J. Kx. p. 205; HV«/„A-
{llarontn) y. River Ike Co., 36
C. D. p. eSd, n. Aa to the altwa-
tion uf a charter and the powm of
a majority d the mmnben of a
oorpMBtion created by chaitw, ■••
ffran T. iVovett ^THnitj/ C^hgt,
DtMin, (1910) 1 Lr. 370.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS. MS
(Imn corporate purpoHtv* is tlicrt-fore not in general u ground chap. XVIII.
for the interference of the Court, unleus a breach of trust Jnriidiction of
can b« dumn (d). If ooqxmte property be affected by a Si'Uew'*^
trust, the power and jurisdiction of the Court to enforce and JJ^miIw
execute the trust attaches equally as it does upon other pro- corpomttai
l erty similarly circumstanced (e). The burden of proof lies I^tT* '
on the party who seeks to establish the trust (/).
Thus where the members of a corporation had to take an
oath against alienation generally, Lord St. Leonards held
that a tnut not to alienate must be inferred (g), bat in a
case where the oath which the members of a corporation
bad to take was against alienaticm so as to prejudice the
corporation, the Court held tiiat no trust was created, and that
(he corporation itself had (he power of determining whether a
walo was prejudicial or not, and iillowed a demurrer to a bill
for an injunction to restrain the corporation from selling part
of it6 corporate property, there being no evidence of fraud
on the j)ai t of the coriwration (h).
The Court will interfere at the suit of a member of the Injunction to
corporation to prevent a forfeiture of the charter of the ,"iti^"J'""
corporation (/), or to prevent the corporation from surrender- ^J*J2J^^
ing its charter with a view to obtaining a now charier for an ekwtw.
object d>*ferent from that for which (he original charter was
granted (k). So also the Court will interfere at the suit of ConTenion of
IV member of a friendly society to re.sd.iin its officers from lav^^^J^j'
converting it in*o a company under the Companies Act, 1908, ^Jj^***'
with objeeta wider and differing fnun the objects specified
in the rules of the society, or in sect. 8, sob-sect. 1, of th«
(./) Purr T. Att.-(le».. H CI. & ra.Ae/, 3 Dr. * War. 3M. 814; 61
Fin. 409; Aft.-UeH. v. Portrttvn,/ R. h. 48.
Av<m, 3 I)e O. J. & ». 637. (A) F.i-an v. iSirptirtMm i^ A^,
[e) Kmn v. < 'or/'oratioH <>/ .Inm, tiifira.
an Beav. p. 149; Alt.-(irn. v. St. («) Hemtall \. Cr.jttal Palace Co.,
JohH't Hoti>ital, 2 De O. J. ft 8. 4 K. * J. 326; a7 L. J. Ch. 3»7;
6S6; /n re rAon^wm'f SttOmmt, (/rag r. Provott of Trinity miege,
(IMS) 1 Cb. p. m : 74 L. J. Oh. DMin, (1910) 1 Ir. 384, 38d.
133. (*) Ward v. Hocliy o/ Attomtyt,
(/) A'txm T. OorfarmumtfAvtm, I OoU. ;I70, 379; 60 B. R. loi ; eee
29 Bmv. 144. Onui T. Provott of Trinity CoUeiit,
ia) AttMien. t. t'nrpamHon of />«&<«»,( 1010} 1 b. p. 388.
586
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COItl'ORATIONS.
c1m>p-XV1U Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (I). But where a friendly society
had been registered as a company with a memorandum of
aasooiatioa oontaming objeota more extenaire than thoaa oom-
prised in sect. 8, sub sect. 1, of the Act of 1896, the Court
refused at the suit of a luember of the company, who had been
tt member of the society, to restrain the company from exer-
cising the powers contained in its memorandum of associa-
tion which were in excess of the powers allowed under
sect. 8 of the Act of 1896, and sect. 36 of the Assurance
Companies Act of 1909 (m).
Fkitid. If there be a trust and the trust be for public purposes, or
the act complained uf affects the propeity or revenues of the
corporation, the suit should be instituted by tiie Attomey-
Uoneral at the instance of a relatw, who, if he has any interest
in the matter, may join as plaintiff (n). If the Attorney-
General declines to interfere, and the parties differ among
themselves as to the proper mode of administering the trust,
a certain number may file a bill on behalf of themselves and
others, making some of the dissentients and the Attorney -
Oeneral defendants (o). If the trust be of a private nature,
or the act ooniplained of does not affect the property or
revenues of the corporation,- the suit must be by action (p),
and the Attomey-Oer< rai should not be made a piu-ty (q).
A corporation may itself institute the suit, although the truis-
(/) y;/,v</if V. «irt/ej/, (1910) ICh. -IH.-'.Vw. v. /»' U intun, (HMVil 2
22N; T'.tL. J. Ch 315. Ch. 106, llj; 'o L. J. Vh. p. til4;
(m) Mcdlade v. Jioyal Lomlim see irfir v. tirinanagh I'uuntjf
Uutiui Jnsunmte Societg, (1910) 2 Council atul EnuitkiUm I'rbtm
Ch. 169 ; '0 L. J. Ch. 631 ; ■• to JHtlrkt Comteit, (1913) 1 Ir. pp. 198,
tlia lelief which the plaiutiff might 208.
ha\o obtained, tee the judgment (o) l.any ^. Purvtit, 15 Moo. P. C.
of Buokl6>'. L.J. 389.
(;<) Att.-deii. V. Maijura/ I'lililiit, (/<) Att.-den. v. Srn'cviiiln; 14
1 Hligh, N. S. 347; 30 H. K. 43; Ve«. 1 ; lurU v. ./miAdih, 3 V. &
Att.-deii. V. I'iirtretvt uf .liwi, 3 U. p. l.'i" ; 13 K. 11. 1<>8; see
De (}. J. & H. 651; Att.-ihu. v. J'rmtney v. ( ulchealiT ( 'iiriHiration
Aipinall, 2 M. & Cr. 613, 618; 7 and the AU.-dtn., 21 C. D. Ill ; 51
L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 58 ; M & & U:t ; L. J. Ch. 805.
UoUm V. BoUtm CorporaHtm, 3 (9) AU.-(hii.^. l^itirttvtofAvom,
T. L. B. 676 ; Watmt y. Mayor of 3 De O. J. ft H. 637.
Uftlu, (1906) 22 T. L. B. MA;
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COKl'ORATIONS.
887
aotionb complained uf may have beeo carried into efleot ia Cfc»»- XTin.
it« name by the governing body (r).
The Court* have no juriadietioa to interfere villi the Abwiau dk-
djscretion of tht; Attorney-General in consenting, or refusing Attorney,
to put the law in motion in matters affecting the public. ""Jj^** " ^
" If there ia excess of power claimed by a particular public
IxMly, und it is u mutter that concerns the puUie, it is for the
Attorney-General, und not for the CouHh, to determine
whether he ought to initiate litigation in that respect or
not" (•).
The Attorney (ienerui ia not however entitled as of right NotontitMto
to an injunction whenever a public body has exceeded its |^»«*'"'"»'
powers, for the Court has a discretion in the case of actions
hy the Attomey-Generui an well as in other uetions (<).
The funds and property of nil corporations which are within Uunieipal
the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, are impressed with the ^^^mT
character of a trust. The MMiiontitm has been cmstituted by co»poi«Ufl«
the Act u trustee for public purposes of the borough fund and Acf'trus'tL! of
property, and is us such subject to the jurisdiction of the borougb f and
Court («). Although the Act contains ]Horisions for correct-
ing abuses in respect of the borough property, there is nothing
to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court to prevent
a municipal corporation committing a breach of trust (x).
(r) \H..llm. V. Wilmn, C'r. & 1 Ch. p. 5.1; 7i) L. J. ("h. p. 14;J ;
1 h. 1 . 10 I. J. (N. S.) C h. 33; 47 (1912) A. C. p. 812; 82 L. J. Ch.
R. H. ITS p. 6fl.
(a) London County Council V. (u) Hm Wet*. 138, 140, and the
Aa.-GtH., (19QS) A. O. 168; 71 lifth SdiMhile to the Act
L. J. Ch. p. SW; AU.-Oen. r. (ic) Att-Oen-v. .Upitiall, 2tl. St.
W imNnlon Homt Etlate Co., (1904) C. 613 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 51 ; 45
2 Ch. pp. 43, 44; 73 I,. J. Ch. E. R. 142; AU.-Uen.y. M't/soii, Cr.
ji. .'i9fi; Mt.-den. v. Wt»t aiuiicttltr & Ph. p. 22; 10 L. J. Ch. 53; 47
ll o'er r,,., (li)09)2Ch.p. »4«; 7» E. R. 173; J'arr \. Att.-'U,,., 8
1.. J. Ch. p. 761. CI. & Vin. p. 431 ; J«.-0'«,. v.
(0 Alt. -den. V. Wimhltilon HoiiM liatley Corporatwii, 26 Ij. T. 392;
/■;»<n<f ro., (1904) 2 Ch. p. 42; 73 AU.-(JtH. v. Corpbratitm qf New-
L. J. Ch. p. 59« ; Att..Om. T. Wat MiHt.upon-Tjfn; 23 Q. B. D. 493,
(lloHtuttr Wal» Co., wpra; Att.- 407 : 68 L. J. a B. MS ; aff. (1899)
Om, T. Ormi Jmutiom Oatutl Co., A. C. 668 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 72 ;
(1909) 2 Ch. p. 618; 78 L. J. Ch. Tynemonth CuriKn-ation v, Att.-(len.,
681 ; AU.-U€n. f. Biimingham (1899) A. C. pp. 305, liiHi ; (i8 L. J.
Tant, 4e., Drainage Board, (1910) Q. B. 762, 768 ; and we StivtM t.
S8S
INJUNCnOSS AOAINST CORPOHATIONR.
ThuH It ior|M)f itH ii wii- retrained from ({ranting a leam tA
un undui'MiliU' and for n lini«, contrtn v to tlif provisioim of th«
96Ui clause of the Munici)iitl ( ixporution \ut, I8a6 (y).
r>i>iic bodin Public bodiea, tneoqjorsted by statute for a pubKo purpose,
withiatMr **■' |>"'iiii ; <ii f a puUic beneui, may nut i xccmI th<
jurittdiction which liu»> been entrusted to them by the Ufgiti
lature. If, umi«r pretence of an authority which the lai
does give them to mtiiin extent, they exccwl 'heir uutho
rity, and asHume to tliPiiiselvca s power whicli the lnw doct
not give them, the i uurt no longer coiiisiders tiuiii tm acting
under the authority of their oommiaaion, but treats Ihera ai
persons aetint; without legiil authority (z). So long its thej
strictly confine themselves within the limits of their juris
diction, and proceed in the mode which the legislature hai
pointed out, fill (V)urt will not interfere with them in the
exercise of their discretion in currying out their powers, unleH^
it be shown that they have not exercised their discretion
bond fiile (a).
TnimtiM if irti Accordinply, a niunieijwl corjHtraf ion, authorised to worl
uUrmHn*. tramwuys and carry ixircels by them, was restruiaed from
carrying on a general parcels delivery business apart from
its tramway business (ft). - 80 also a local authority, whioti
Ckown, (Xmi) I Ch. 894, W>»; 70 v. Aa-OtH., (IMS) A. C. IM; "I
L. J. Ch. p. a76; AH.-dni. y. L. J. Ch. 2«8; A«.-(hH. y. Man-
}f<iiirhe$ltr ('fr/M^tlio,i,{V.m)\ Ch. rhftter CorporvHem, {Um) 1 Ch.
p. 041 ; 75 L. J. Ch. p. ;m ; Mt - ]k ti.51 : 76 L. J. Ch. p. 331 ; Att.-
llrii. V. hf irinti.ii, (190fi) Ch. '.>/«. V. I'trntijiiHih' Crhan Coimcil,
lOti, IKi ; T.-i I.. J. Ch. .!«.- (l!MMi) 'J Ch. p. L'Wi; 75 I,. J. Ch.
Hen. V. Flnt:' I'ritiii IHntrii-l ">7.S ; .-ttl.-dm. v. I\'t»t Uhnnedrr-
rouiinl. (imif*: 1>J. P. 120. ihire HW»r '',..,( 2 Ch. pp. 340,
{#) All. -Hen. v. Yiirmoulh I 'or- 343; 78 I,. J. Ch. 74fi; fili/the v.
poraHon, 21 UeeT. A25; 25 L. T. Birtley, (1910} 1 Ch. p. 235; 7S
(O. B.) S; in & B. 231; aM L. J. Ch. 315.
MunieiiMl Corpontiims Aot, 1882, (a) lb. ; and we Wtdmkultf
m. 5, 108, and 51 ft S2 Vkt. c. 41, Ccfrperatim r, London and North
: 72, M smMifM by the iMatute Wattm Rnilway I'o., (I)H)j) A. C.
TiawBevwion Act, 1908. p. 430 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. ; Jin
{-.) Frririn V. 4 M. .'i C. V. llriglitoH (W/Kirid ion , ;iiK)7) Hti
p. 2j4 ; 48 U. 1{. «H. See r,„U,r v. L. T. 762 ; 23 T. L. li. 441, 44J.
U'andmrtirtli Hoard of Worku, 2 I»e At1.-(lni. v. Manrhrtter I'vr-
Q. & J. 261; 27 U. J. Ch. 342; \ '.\> jHmtim. (190«) 1 Ch. 643; 70 L. J.
B. B. 121 ; London Cnufy Comm. U di. 390.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
had aeqaired Und andwr the eomputeory pnw«n eoaf«rr«i by XYIU.
llio Public Hnulth Act, 1876, for sewage purposes, was re-
strained from using the hmd for an isolation hospital (c). 80
siao a manieipal eorporation, anthwiscd to supply electricity,
waa restrained from aoj^ying electrical flltingH ivnd apparatus
for the uae of the consumers of the electricity (it). 80 also
a water company, incorporated for the purpose of erecting
and maintaining defined ivoriu, and sopplying water within
certtiin limits, with jiower t« puichnse ndditionni liind for
the purpose of it« undertaking, was restrained from using
the additional land which it had parcbased at eome distance
from its works for 11 pumping station for a new water
supply (e). So also water comiutnies, incorporated for the
pur|>OHe of supplying water within certain defined limits, were
restrained from supplying it outside those limits although not
expressly forbidden to do so by their Acts (/).
Municipal corporations dealing with borough funds, and Minvplk
acting under a general or some local statute, and public bodies f*
incorporated by statute for carrying into effect certain works,
are bound to apply the corporate funds for the purposes
direeted, and in the mode pointed out, by the Act which giret
ihem authority, and for no other purpose wfaatsoerer (jf). Hw
(<■) AH.-tlen. r. HoMwttl Vfimm 443. Bte Marrietfr. Etut Orintltad
Council, (1900) 3 Ch. 377: aeii. J. Oai and U aftr Co., (1909) 1 Ch.
Ch. 62fl. See now Public Health p. 77 ; Att.-(,rit. v. Sviith StafforJ-
Att, 1907 (7 KAw. 7, c. 53), 8. »3 tkire W at'nnHa ra. (1909). 25
(lis ti) user of lands not required for T. L. R. 4(18.
piiriHwe* for which aiquirod) ; and (/) Att.-Uen. v. Wat OUmtt^.
Sloiirrliffe Eitatn v. Bonnie- ,hirr ll n/rr To., (1909) 2 Cfc. 888;
m „itl, iWiwratinu, (1910) 2 Ch. 78 L. J. Ch. 74B. Ct AU..Oni.y.
I J ; 79 L. J Ch. 465 ; «ee aUo the BarMt (Jot and Water Co. (1910). 101
Education (Adminiatrative PtoTi- L. T. 8S ; aff. 102 L. T. 546 (H. L.).
aoM) Act. 18W (8 Edw. 7. c 38). As to a watn company delegating
*• to another company its power to
{it) Atl.-atn. V. Leieetttr Corjxi- conitnict works and distribute
mf<..«, (1910) 2 Ch. 359 ; 80 L. J. water within the statutory area.
Ch. 21 ; AU.-Oen. v. HhtffieU Our- gee Tu-rhurtt H ater and Go* Co. v.
l«ratUm {ini), 106 L. T. 367 ; 38 (lot and Waterworkt Sufpl^, ix.,
T. L. R. ' ■„. ( 191 1 ), 53 S. J. 459.
[>■) Att.-i ,. V. Frimlty and [ti) AU. Iien. y. Mayor of Wigm,
j-arnborousb Dittrict Water Co., Kay, 368 ; A Da O. M. ft Q. M : 104
(1908) 1 a>. 737, 788 ; 77 L. J. cat B. B. » ; AtL-Omt. t. Jfaysr. ^.
590 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
Chup. xvni. application of the corporate funds to any other purpose than
tlie proper purposes of the Act, however desirable it may be,
is improper, and will be restrained by injnnetion (h). Thns
a local niithoiity vas restrained from ni)plyinf? any part of
the general district rate in repayment of a loiin obtained
witiiout the sanction of the Local Government Board(f). So
also the treasurer of a municipal corporation was restrained
from applying any part of the borough fund in the repayment
of a sum borrowwi without authority, or in the payment of
interest on such sum (k), notwithstanding that the pa3rments
might have been quashwl by rerfioniri under sect. 141, sub-
sect. 2, of the Miinitipal Corporations Act, 1882 (I). So
also a municipal corporation, authorised to borrow for special
undertakings, was restrained from Iwrrowing by overdraft
and applying the money for its general expenditure (m). So
also a municipal corporation, authorised to contribute a sum
out of the borough funds towards the purchase of a site for a
AttMlen. v. Manchtiter CorporaUoH,
(1906) 1 C*. «fil ; 78 U J. Ch.
330 (unauthorised btminess) ; AU.-
(ien. V. />e U'iiiton, (1906) 2 Ch.
106 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 612 (interest on
overdrafts); .Ut.-<len. \. Flertirond
Urban C„„„ril (190S), 72 J. V. 120
(costs of another council) ; Att.-
<len. V. Leifeiter Corporation, (1910)
2 Ch. 360, 372 ; 89 L. J. Ch. 21;
Att'dm. T. SheJIdd Corpontim
(1912), 106 L. T. 367 ; 38 T. L. B.
266 (nnauthoriwd business).
(i) AU.-Gen. v. Tnttmham Vrhan
rouneit (1909), 73 J. P. 4:{7. !See
Atf.-Om. v. Ile»< Ham Corpora-
Hon, (1910) 2 Ch. 060; 108 L. T.
;i94.
(/,) Mt.-Crn. V. lit IIVnteN,
(liH)6) 2 th. 106, 118 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
612.
(/) Att.-Um. V. Ik Wintim.
mpra.
(m) Att.-Oen. v. fTsK Him Cor-
poratwn, lupra.
of Bailey, 28 L. T. N. 8. 392;
W. N. (1872) 74; Att.-aen.y. Xew-
ta$tle-upon-Tyne Corporation, 23
a B. D. 492 ; LeUh Council v. r.eith
Harbour Commisiioners, (1899) A. C.
508; 68 L. J. V. C. 109; Att.-den.
V. Mniirliestrr Coiimratinn, (1906) 1
( h. p. fi.'(l ; 75 Ti. J. Ch. 330;
Atl.-den. V. /)« Winton, (1906) 2
Ch. 106, 116; 75 L. J. Ch. 612;
see Att.-Oen. v. Il'ert Ham Cor-
pnratiim, (1910) 2 Ch. S60; 103
L. T. 394.
(A) Att.-Oen. t. Hwantea Corpo-
ration, (1898) 1 Ch. 602 ; 67 L. J.
Ch. 356 (opposition to bill in Par-
liament) ; Att.-den. T. t^nmbfTirrl/
VfMrti, 63 li. J. Ch. 878 (cowts of
inhabitants rcfusinp; to pay water
company's charges); Att. -Hen. v.
Tymmnnth ( 'iirjxirafion, (1899) A. C.
293 ; 68 L. J. a B. 752 (costs of
chief conrtable) ; Att.-Oen. r. Lon-
don Countji Council, (1901) 1 Ch.
781 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 267 ; (1902) A. C.
166, 169; 71 J. Ch. 3t», 870;
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
591
college, was held not entitled to pay interest on such sum (n). dip. xvill.
So also where a corporate body, without having authority so Eipenaea of
to do, has promoted a bill in Parliament for the purpose of S^ginl.
obtaining increased powers, and such bill has been rejected, '""rf*"^-
an injunction has been granted to restrain the corporation
from discharging the expenses of the application to Parlia-
ment out of the corporate funds (o). So also commissioners
under a local Act for draining and lighting a to ,n, "with
powers to pay all costs incident to the purposes of the Act
and to carry the intents and purposes of the Act into full and
complete execution in other respects," were restrained from
applying any part of the rates raised under the Act in paying
the expenses of an application to Parliament (p).
The Borough Funds Acts, 1872 and 1908 (q), empoirer
mun- ipal bodies to apply the public funds or rates in pro-
moting or opposing bills in Parliament, but subject never-
theless to the restrictions therein mentioned. It seems, how- Right of
ever, that, independently of these Acts, a municipal corpora- "■"»'«'i>^'
^'l>• corporation a«d
tion or public authority has the right to defray out of the P"*"""
borough funds or ntee the expenses of resisting an attack defr«y"out of
made by bill in Parliament against the existence of the cor- Sbriltlli"rf'
poration, or against its property, or against its rights, powers, fe«'»«v««^«*»
... . _ on tnoir HiAto.
or privileges (r). On the same principle, the compensation &«•
authority of a county borough, under the Licensing (Con-
solidation) Act, 1910, was held entitled to pay out of the com-
(m) Att.-Oen. v. CanliJ' Corpora- applied the produce of raten to an
tinn, (1894) 2 Ch. 337 ; 63 L. J. Ch. illegal purpose, Att.-ffen. v. Totten-
I'om Loral /loan/. {1S72) W. N.
(«) Att.-ISen. V. Xorwivh (W/h)- 2(»5 : 27 L. T. (N. S.) 440.
ration, Ifi Sim. 225 ; aff. 21 J. (,/) :t5 & 36 Vict. c. 9l,m.3,i;
Ch. 1.39 ; Att.-den. v. (Iimrilians of 3 Edw. 7, c. 14, w. 1, 3, 7.
yW (/ SoiiihamiiUm, 17 Sim. 6; (r) ^«..f/«H. T. ^ndrciM, 2 Mm.
18 L. J. Ch. 393; AU-Om. v. & O. 224; AU-Om,. y. Magor of
Plymouth OorponOien, 1 W. B. r^n, « De O. M. * O. 43 ; 23 L. J.
Ch. 429 ; Ait deii. v. Mayor,
ip) AU.-Otn.r. Andrtw$,2Wus. o/ St. Helen' > {ISIO), W. N. lai ;
& G. 223; 20 1.. J. Ch. 4B7 ; Att.-Oen. v. Brecon rorporatvm, 10
Otn. V. ]ye»t llartleixtvl, d-r.. Com- ('. 1). 204 ; 48 li. J. Ch. lo-'l; Att..
miMiouers, 10 E<|. 182; 39 L. J. (len. v. Thomeon, (1913) 3 K. B.
Ch. 624. S«e 88 to form of order p. 208 ; 29 T. L. B. 510; and wa
where membere of a boMd hmf Ltith Oomuil ▼. Z^M Narbimr tmd
592
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
Lh«p. .Win, pensation fund their costs reasonably incurred in defending
the validity of their decisions as such authority («). In a
case where a municipal corporation, without having first
obtained the consent of the owners end raf^'payers of the
district, and otherwise coniplied with the requirements of
sect. 4 (t) of the Boiough Funds Act, 1872, oppoMd a bill in
Parliament jjiomofod by a local gas company, their opposi-
tion being directed against certain clauses in the bill affect-
ing the price of gas to be paid by consumers, the corpora-
tion being large consumers of gas for public lighting and
other purposes, it was held that the bill was not an attack
upon the property, rights, duties or privileges of the cor-
poration, within the principle of Attorney-Oeneral v. Mayor
of Brecon (u), and an injunction wns accordingly granted to
restrain the corporation from applying any part of the
borough fund (tiiere being no surplus) In paying the expenses
Chief constable's of Opposing the bill (r). In like manner, a nnmicipal cor-
appe«u »piiMt* P<'''''*'°" Ciinnof, where there is no surplus, legally pay out
renew I'iMimi borough funds the costs incurred by the chief cm-
stable in opposing, by directimi of the council, appeals against
the refusal of justices to renew the licenses of publicans ; and
it seems that even if there had been 'a surplus of the borough
fund, the same could not have been so applied (y). So also
a local authority was restrained from paying out of the rates
the expenses of a dinner or a ball or other ceremonies in am-
nection with the o]ioiiing of a new vestry hall (z). So also a
KxpeiiM* of
ecramoniM on
opening at new
'haU.
fkxk* ('ommiMtoners, (1899) A. C.
p. 616 ; 68 L. J. P. C. p. 114.
(«) AU.-Oen.v. Thornton, (19U) 3
K.B.198; 29T. L. B.510. 8m 10
Edw. 7 and I Geo. 0, c. 24, s. 21 (6).
(0 See now the Borough Funds
Act, 1903 (3 Bdw. :, c. 14), s. 7,
which enacts that the provision in
sect. 1 of the Act of 1S72, that no
expenses in opposing a bill in
Farliament shall be charged unlesx
the oppositiou has had the consent
ol Um ownan and Mt q »y w of
th* diitriot, Aall c a a ae to iqtfiiy.
(») 10 C. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
15H.
(x) AU.-amt. T. Magor of Swam-
«M, (1898) 1 Ol. 60S ; 67 L. J. Ch.
SW; and M« Att.-Otn. v. Riek-
mamtvorth Urban Council, (1902) 86
L. T. 521 ; 18 T. L. R. 481.
(v) Jtt.-<len. V. Mayor nf Tync-
month, (1898) 1 (|. K Cm : (1880)
A. V. 293 ; 6S I,. J. Q. H. 762.
(2) Att.-<lni. V. Bmnomlat;/
Ve^ry, 23 C. D. 60 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
687. 8m alao Aa; T. DoOf, 87
L. T. 37; 18 T. L. B. 481. lAm
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS. £98
municiiwl foiiwration wae restniined from purcliasing out of Ctap.xvin.
the borough fund a chain and budge for the mayor {„). In a Kxpn^ot
recent case {/,) the Court refused to grant an interim injunc- i^t!^
tion to restrain payment by a local authority out of the rates '"«"««•
of a sum towards the Coronation festivities in its district, the
Local Government Board having made a general order sa ic-
tioning a reasonable expenditure by local authorities for such
purpose (6). A corporation will not be restrained from
making a reasonable addition to its mayor's salary, if it is ,Va,or » «iUry.
anticipated that during his year of office his expenditure as
mayor may be increased by some event <rf national import-
ance (c).
Where a vestry authorised by Act of Parliament to levy i„j„„cti.nto
rates for certam purposes had mixed the monies arising from '<*•
„!. i • i , ■ . . ° tioii of r»te« fur
aibtinct rates mto one fund for the purpose of meeting the "n»uthori«a
general expenditure of the parish, the Court restrained tiiem
fiom applying any portion of one class of rates and receipts
in supplying the deficiencies in any other clos.s of rates, and
generally from applying the monies received by them for
any other purposes than those for which they were authorised
by the Act to be collected (d).
Where a body of persons are by statute constituted trustees u.tron»eti„
for certain public purposes, and powers are conferred on them
to levy rates upon the district to a ceitain limited amount,
they are authorised (if not expressly prohibited) to apply the
rates of any one year in the payment of debts properly in-
the Wert Ham District Council fatle,, [ rhan IJutrict Couneil, (1911)
8 L. G. E. 913; 7d J. P. 484.
having purchased an omnibus for
tho purpoite of conve>'ing the mem-
l)en of the council about th« du-
trict when patmning their ordi-
nary duties, expended certain
moneys in repairing the omnibus,
which the auditor diHallowed. It
was held that the surcharge by the
luditor was right.
(«) Att.-Utn. V. BatUy, 26 L. T.
•i a case on sect. 92 of the
ifunicipal CJoiporations Act, 1830
& 6 WiU. 4. c 76).
(i) AU.-<itn. r. £aM BamH
K.I.
. In
HMen r. Botton Corporation, 3
T. L. B. 676, a motion to restrain
payment out of the rates of Jul)ilee
festivities was ordered to stand
over, as the application ghuuld have
been by the Attoi iiey-Geueral.
{<■) Jlt.-l/eii. V. HIaikbiirn Cor-
/xTution, 3 T. L. H. 676 ; Att.-Oen.
V. a^rdiff Corporation, (1894) 2 Oh.
337,342; 63 L. J. Ch. M7.
(d) Ait-Otn. T. AmM, 9 L. J.
(N. a)Ob. aei : wadmo Att.-Oen. t.
694
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
CUp. XVIII.
Injunctioiij
relatinK lo poor
Uw ralitf.
Delajr in apply*
ini; to reitrain
ulti'fi rivet
aoU.
Injnnetion to
restnin local
authority mak-
ing a rate, and
laryiDg UMeu-
cuiTcd in a previous year in the execution of those trusts. It
is otherwise, however, if the power of rating be unlimited in
amount. Where one of the purposes of the trust is such that
it can only be properly carried out by raising a sum of money
larger than the current rates can supply, the trustees are
justified in raising this sum by way of loan, and paying the
same with interest out of the future rates (e).
The Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction restrain-
ing poor law guardians from applying rates in the relief of
able-bodied men who, in consequence of a strike, refuse to
accept work which they might obtain (/). But having regard
to the wide powers vested in the Local Government Board of
remitting, i.e., authorising the allowance of expenses which
have been projK'rly disallowed in the audit of the poor law
accounts, the Court ought to be "very careful in granting
injunctions relating to poor law relief " (y).
Delay in making the application to restrain a corporation
from applying the corporate funds to other purposes than the
proper purposes of the Act is not in most eases material (A).
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain a local authority
from making a rate (i), but the proper remedy ia to apply by
certiorari to the King's Bench Division under sect. 141, sub-
sect. 2, of tlM Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 (k). The
Court has also restrained a local authority from levying execu-
tion to enforce payment of a rate, on the plaintiff's under-
(«) Att.-Oen. V. Church, 2 H. &
11.897.
(/) AU.-atH. T. Mtrthyr Tydfil
Union, (1900) 1 Ch. S16 ; 09 L. J.
Ch. 299.
(») (1900) 1 (^"b. p. o46 ; 69 L. J.
Ch. p. 307; and nee Att.-Oen. v.
Ecut Banitt Valley Vrlxm Vuttru il,
(1911) » Ik o . B 918; 76 J. P.
484.
(A) .itt.-'Un. V. KaMake, 11 Ila.
209, 22d ; and see tit. Mary, Iding-
tonVertry v. Homtey Vrhon (JouHtil,
(1900) 1 Ch. jp. 70S, 706; W L. J.
Ch. p. :<30; Att..OeH. v. South
tajfardthirt WaUrworkt Co., (1909)
25 T. L. R. 408.
(•) AU.-Oen. v. LichJiM Cor-
poration, 11 Bear. 121; 17 L. J.
Ch. 472; NtwtwtU-upon.Tynt
Corporation t. Att.-Oen., (1892)
A. C. 568 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 72 ; lee
11 Mr V. Fermanaijh County Council
and Kuniskilltn Rtiral Dittrict
Council, (1913) 1 I. B. 193—198.
{k) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 60 ; see
Tyncmouth Curixiration v. Att.-
Oen., (1899) A. C. pp. 305, 306 ; 68
L. J. Q. B. p. 758 ; AU.-Oen. Y.Jk
Winton, (1906) 2 Oi. p. 118; 75
L. J. Ch. p. 616.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS. 895
tiiking to consent to a case being stated for the opinion of (ft«p.ir.IL
the King's Bench Division and on payment into Court of the
amount of ihe rate claimed ({).
Eleemosynary corporations, or corporations for charitable Ei.emo.yn.ry
purposea, are subject to the rules, laws, statutes, and ordin- <""l«™"»"-
anoes ordained by the founder or the visitor whom he has
appointed (rn) . To all eleemosynary corporations the right of
visitation is incident. Where the King is foimdor, the King VWtow.
and his successors am the visitors: if a private person has
been the founder, ]^ heirs and assigns are the visitors. If
the heirs of a founder fail, and no visitor h is been appointed,
the right of visitation devolves on the Crown, and is exercised
on behalf of the Crown by the Court of Chancery The
visitor has an exclusive jurisdiction over all matters which
come within the scope of his authority (o). Whatever relates
to the internal management and regulation of the charity rests
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor. The decisions
of the visitor, so long as he keeps within his jurisdiction, are
final, and not examinable at law (p) or in equity (q). If the
visitor has not acted, or has declined to act in a case where
he ought to act, or is about to interfere in a case where ha
h, no jurisdiction, application must be made to the King's
Bench Division tar a mandamus or a prohibition, as the case
may be. and not to a Court of equity (r). The Court has no Co«rt win ...t
jurisdiction to interfere with the visitorial power anlesR it
, , uutvBD 11 vi.itori bb1«m
(/) A till wort li V. lUMtn liridge
Local Hoard, 47 L. J. Ch. 195.
Philippi T. Bury, 2 T. E.
346 ; 1 Lord lUiyiii. 6.
(n) Edm v. Foiter, 2 P. Wms.
326; Att.-Oen. v. Oaunt, 3 8w.
148 ; 19R. R. 186 ; It. v. Catherine's
Hall, Cambridge, 4 T. K. p. 239 ; 2
R. R. 369 ; In re Chriit Clmrrli, 1
Ch. 526 ; 14 L. T. 719 ; Hey. v.
Hertford Colkge, 3 Q. B. D. pp. 702,
703 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. p. 655.
(o) Her. V. BUhop of Ely, 2 T. R.
290 ; 1 B. B. 484 ; Oram v. Buihtr-
forth, \ V*. 8. 462; AU-Oen. v.
Maydalm VeU*g», Oxford, 10 Bmv.
402;16L. J.Ch.391;76E.B.S;;;S'«-*,^
(p) Philippt V. Bury, 2 T. R.
346 ; St. John't College v. Toddiny-
toil, 1 Burr. p. 200 ; Rtg. y. Hertford
College, 3 Q. B. U. pp. 702, 703 ; 47
L. J. Q. B. 649.
('/) Mt.-ileii. V. Smythiei, 2 M. 4
C. 135; 6L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 35; 43
E. B. 24; Aa..Om. v. Duheieh
College, 4 Bmt. 288; Thtmpmm v.
Univer$ity of Loodm, S3 L. J. C*.
626; 10L.T. 403.
(r) Whiiton v. Dean and Chapter
o/Boehuter, 7 Ha, .532 : 18 L J
Ch. 473 ; 83 B. R. 243.
88—3
596
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
CI iy. XVUI. finds a breach of trust («) : but whdre there is a breach of
trust the Court will interfere to see the trusts properly per-
formed, notvithatanditi^ there inuy he h genenil or a wpecial
visitor (0- Thus, where ii French Prote.stant Ciiurch had
been established by letters patent from the Crown, and the
governing body had, apart from the charter of ineorpwatMMi,
funds impressed with a trust in favour of the pastor, who,
when electt'd, was presented, approved, and instituted by the
Crown, the Court, notwithstanding the visitorship of the
Crown, restrained the governing iKxly from hindering the
pastor in the duties of his office (m). Where the duties of the
N sitor are not confined to overlooking the character of the
instituticm, but extend to the management of tiie proi)erty,
he is, so fur as there is a trust, subject to the jurisdiction of
the Court (x) .
Eleemosynary corporations include hospitals, colleges, or
fref grammar schools incoriK)rate<l for the teaching of
children (y). Protestant dissenting chapels, incorporated by
charter or letters patent for religious purposes, may be also
classed under this head (z).
The visitor of a spiritual or ecclesiastical corporation has
the samt ' "lusi-'e right over all matters which come within
the sc(< A thority as the Tisitor of an eleemosyDary
VWteifc one (a) ^irt of Chancery has no jurisdictiwi orer the
SpbrituI or
Kie ltriMtiw i l
aorpontionj
(«) Att. 'Itii \. FuHiidlinij Hos-
pital, 2 Vo9. 41 ; H,; Berkhami,stea<l
ScW,2V. &B. 134; IHU.K.43;
2'AomjMon v. Cnivenity of London, 33
L. J. Ch. 825 ; AU.-Otn. v. Magdalen
Colhge, Oxford, 10 Beav. 402 ; 16
L. J. Ch. 391; 76 B. B. 148;
Att.-'lfii- V. (iovemors of JUeiham
'sv/.o'/, 23 Beav. 350 ; 26 L. J. Ch.
497; 113 R. R. 169; Sen- v. Hert-
ford College, Oxford, 3 U. B. D.
702. 703 ; 47 h. J. Q. B. 649.
(t) Att.-aen.v.St. CroM Hotpital,
17 Beav. 435; 22 L. J. Ch. 793 ;
99 B. R. 22S.
(h) Duugart v. Bicaz, 28 Bmv.
333; 29 L. J. Ch. 6M: 126 B. B.
109.
(i) AH.-nen. v. /.«*, 3 Atk.
165; Alt. -Hen. v. Smythies, 2 M. &
(M35 ; 6 Ii. J. (N. S.) Ch. 35 ; 45
R. R. 24.
(y) Att.-Oen. v. /Vtte, 3 Atk.
106; Att.-am. v. Brataum CoUegt,
2 CL ft Fin. 295 ; atfinnad, 1 L. J.
(N. 8.) Oh. 66; 37 B. B. 107.
(z) AU.-atn. T. Coek, 2 Vei. 8.
273; Att.-den. v. Fowler, 15 V««.
So ; Dauyars v. Rivaz, 28 Beav.
233 ; 29 L. .J. Ch. 685 ; 126 R. B.
109.
(«) lie;/. V. Derni and Chapter of
CkrMer, !5 U. H. 6! 3: 19 L, -T.
a B. 485; 81 B. B. 949; Jl^. r.
INJFNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
697
visitorial |iower unless it finds a trust {b) ; hut wIumt then- is (-'br- XVIII.
a trust the Court will interfere to see the trust proixrly per-
formed, iioiwKliHtiinding there may be a visitor (c). The
relationship in the ordinary sense of trustee and centui 7ite
trust does not exist between the dean and chapter of a cathe-
dral and the head master of a xrammar school attached to it,
where both the ciithedral and the scImm ' are governed by the
statutes of the founder, and are subject to the jurisdiction
of a special visitor, and where the head master is paid out of
the common fund of the endowment. Where, accordingly,
the J3ean and Chapter of Rochester, in exercise of a power
vested in themi by the statutes of their founder, summarily dis-
missed the head master of the grammar school attached to the
ciithedral from bis office without hearing him in tiis defence,
the Coui-t refused to interfere by injunction eitlier durante
lite, or otherwise, to restrain the dean and chapter from re-
moving him from his office, or iram appointiBg another heed
master in his stead {d).
Trustees of a charity, whether they be a corporation or AppUction of
individuals, having in their hands funds devoted to certain '"'***"'
charitable pur|>oses, must devote the funds of the charity to
those puriKBes. The application of the funds to other than
such purposes is a breach of trust, and will be restrained (e).
Where, however, an action (/) relating to a charity (;/) in- Actlm.
volves, even if it be only in part, the administration of the
tnists of the charity, the leave of the Charity Commissioners
must be obtained under sect. 17 of the Charitable Trusts
Act, 1853, to the institution of the proceedings {h).
Ch. 473 ; 82 R. R. 243.
{<■) Alt-Urn. V. Cnmptoii, 1 Y. *
C. C. C. 417; .Ut.-(len. v. Vorpora-
tiiin of Xtwburg, C. P. Octopw,
72.
(/) Except i>rooeediDg8 by the
Atttamey-Oeneral, see sects. 17,
18 of the Act of 18fi3.
(9) Other than » charity within
the exceptions in sect. fS2 uf the
Act of 186.3, see lllenn v. >lre<jg, 21
C. D. 613; 61 L. J. L'h. 783.
(A) See Thm-M t. Earford, 48
Dtan and Vhajder 0/ Rochester, 17
Q. B. 1, 29; ao L. J. Q. & 467 ; 85
R. R. 306.
(/i) ]Vliii>t(in v. Deiin and ('hiifiter
':/' RtM-hester, 7 Ila. o32 ; 18 L. J.
rh. 473 ; 82 R. R. 243.
((•) AtL-Oea. v. St. Crom Hot-
j'ital, 17 Iteav. 438 ; 22 L. ^ Ch.
7»3; on B, 228; Att.-Om. v.
Shrrborne School, 18 Beav. 266 ; 24
r-. J. Ch. 274 : 104 B. B. 443.
((/) WhiitoH v. Dean and Chapter
of SMhtdtr, 7 Ha. S32; 18 L. J.
S96
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.
Chip. XVI 1 1.
Schofiies of
CbHritjr
Cmaf
Unnrnment
dtpaitmraU.
Tnjiinctioii to
reatntiii
prcMotation,
■ad iBMitation.
Int«rfM«iic«
with ticwr iit
kill
The Court will not intorferu willi the details of a scheme
lettled by the Charity ConttniMik>iH>rti, nnlemi they have ex-
eceded their authority, or the Hchcnie contuinH something
wrong in principle or wrong in law (i). Nor can the Court
in{9rfere with Oorernment departments in the performance
of their statutory duties, if they exerciHe the discretion en-
trusted to thcni hy the logiHlaturo, hmid fule and uninfluenced
by extraneous ur irrelevant considerations. But the Court
baa power to prevent the asBamptiai by audi bodies of a
jurindiction bojond that given to them by the law, and the
refusal of their true jurisdiction by the adoption of extraneous
considerations in arrivinf; at their conclasion, or deciding
a point other than that brought l)efore them (fe).
Pending a suit respecting the right of nomination to a
benefice, a bishop will be restrained from taking advantage
of the lapse and exercising the presentation (I). So also,
where an improper appointment ha.s been made of a chaplain
or vicar by persons in whom thu power of appointment is
vested, Ihe Court wiU restrain a bishop from instituting the
person so appointed (wi). So also, the Court will, in a pro{)er
case, restrain a bishop and churchwardens from interfering
with a vicar in the enjoyment of his benefice (n).
In a ease where a vicar had for many years performed
Divine service in a thupel on the defendants' estate, the Court
refused to grant him an injunction restraining the defen-
dants from excluding him frcmi the chapel, it appearing that
L. T. 262; riemlall v. 'lilair, 48
r. I). 139: 59 L. J. Ch. 641;
Rookm V. Dawson, (1895) 1 Ch.
486; 64 L. J. Ch. 301.
(() In re Campdm Chariliet, IS
('. I), ain, :5;(1 ; 50 L. J. ch. 646;
In re Berkhampttead School, (1808)
2 Ch. p. 42; 77 L. J. Ch. p. fi74;
In re lFe& HtmpUai, (1910) 2 Cli.
124 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 723.
(/,) Ur.r V. Hoard of KdmaHoii,
(1910) 2 K. B. p. 179; 79 L. J.
K. U. 11. 603 : i>rr Farwell. L.J. :
8. C. on appeal, (1911) A. C. 179 ;
80 L. J. K. B. 796.
(/) Edenhoroiii/h v. Arrhhithop of
('miterhuri/. 2 Buss. 98. 110; Att.-
(leii. V. riimviij, 2 Y. & C. 0. 0.
1.39; 60 B. B. 86; NkhOum r.
Kna].p, 9 Sim. 326 ; 7 L. J. (N. 8.)
Ch. 219 : 47 B. B. 2M.
(«n) Att.-Om, T. Hart nf Powi*,
Kay, 186 ; 101 B. B. S71 ; and see
Orrmdade y. Dare, 17 Bear. 302;
99 B. B. 261 ; Ptdter t. Cht^mm,
Diek, 146.
(h) Sweet V. nishop of kill, (19(0)
2 Ch. 308, 616 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 771.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST OORPORATIONB.
the ohepel wbh not a consecrated public bnilding, but had IVHI.
alwaya been merely a domMtio chapel, ao that the piaintiC
had not ii> vinar of thf» pariflh any right to t' - ' esession or
control of the chapel, except with the cooaet the defen-
dants (o).
(0) NtvUl atmUg, (1906) »4 L. T. 391 ; tt T. L. K. 94».
CHAPTER XIX.
INJUNrriOSB AOAINtT CLUB!I, IIOCIIITIRII, BTC.
Whkrk pai tioH contribute funds which are laid out on pro-
perty which all ciijov in cci. hkmi, such as chihs, HorirticH,
iisHOi iations, tc, the incmbfiH of which have ugiped to bind
thnnBelvMi by certain nilea, they are hound by their rule*, and
the Court will not interfere, exceji* in ruses of breach of troat
or oppression (a). The jurisdiction uf the Court in such cases
is founded on the common interest of erery member in the
property of the club, society, tc, and on the common right of
every memlwr to re:|iiire that the rules to which he has
subscribed shall be properly carried out (6).
But although in the case of an ordinarily constituted club,
in which members have ri}»h(s of property, a member whose
rights have been interfered with by the committee is entitled
to ask the Court to consider whether the rules of the club
have been ol)sene(l, wliether anyt'.iing has been done which is
contrary to natural justice, and whether the decisioti com-
plained of has been come to hand fide (<•), in the case of >i
proprietary club in which members have no rights of pro-
perty, but merely the ripht to use the dub on .-ortain cor
ditions, a member whose rights have been im^. ^^rly inter
fered with cannot obtain relief by way of injuuction, but
only in damages (d).
(a) See Hopkintnn v. Marqinx of
Enter, S Eq. 63, 6S ; ;J7 L. J. ( h.
173 ; f.'irini/lnii v. Seiulall, (1903)
1 Ch. ; 12 I,. J. Ch. 396;
'J'Jif'l/i'sAon V. I'lArotitit Vnlfntia,
(IWm' 1 Ch. 4S0 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 368 ;
(1907) 2 Ch. 1 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 46a ;
Lapointe r. L'AttoeuUim dt Bien-
faimnee, etc., lU la IViee de
Mmtrial, (1006) A. C. A» ; 7A L. J*
P. C. 78.
(/)) See MiUlran v. Siillivaii, 4
T. li. R. p. 21M ; Uurinyton T.
.S,H,/n//, (1903) 1 Ch. p. 926; 72
L. J. Vh. 396.
(r) Hairil V. Welh, 44 C. D. 661,
670; 69 h. J. Ch. 673; Oray r.
AllUom, (1909) 2S T. L. B. 031.
(rf) Baird t. WelU, tmpn ; and
■ee Lj/UtUm* t. BlndAmrtM, 4ft
L. J. Ch. 219.
INJI'NCTIONS A0AIX8T CLVm, H0CIETIB8. ETC. mi
The Court hu jurisdiction to roNtraia tho cominittpo or a f hmi. m.
genoml meeting of a cluh (no* being » proprietary elub) from K«nui>i.n. fi««
PXfH'lliriR n mcmbpi of the rluh, hut in ('xcirlMing the juris- """'^
diction tho (Joiirt does not sit us b Court of Apj»eal from the
dooiaion of the moniierH of the club duly HBwmMed. All that
the C^omt ir(jiiuT.s in llmt tlx'ir proceedingH he conducti^d on
the commo.i principle of ordinary justice. The Court will
not int«rfer< • >»«it tfii» deciaioii of the members of a dab
oxpclliiiR of the cluh unieHs it can be shown either
that wlmt I n done is not HufhoriMcd by any rule of che
club or is not roguhir, or that, if it be within any rule of the
club, tiie rule ij not eonimnant wiA the prindples of natiml
justice, or that there bus been iixil'i fiden or malice in arriving
at tho deciflion (e). The Court has first to consider wht Ser
the action of the eommtttee or of the general meeting was Th* pncMdini*
authorised by any rule, that is to say, whether it was within ' '
the terms of any rule and whether it was regulHr (/). The
rules of the club as to the formalities necessary for the expul-
sion of a member by the committee or by a general meeting
must be atrii fly complied with. A f;eneral meeting, if re-
quired by the rules, must be summoned with proper notice,
and the resolution most be earried by a snfBcient majority.
If the j.ieeting has been irregularly called or the resolution
has been carried by an insufficient majority, the Court will
at the instance of ttie member so proceeded against restrain
the club by injunction from interfering witlt hM rights of
mei. .tership ((7).
The next thing for the Court to conaider is whether the
committee or general meeting of a club, in convicting n
member of an offence warranting his expulsion from tho l iah,
have acted on the principles of natural justice. Though w hat
is done may be witiitn the rules of the club, it may be con-
(«) BaM r. Wdit, 44 C. D. 6« :
W L. J. Oh. 673; Harimstm t.
Sfntltai, (1903) t Ch. 981 ; li h. J.
Ch. 396; Oran t. Am$ait, (1909)
25 T. L. R. 831.
(/) I>atrki!:s V. AutToMas, 17
C. b. 615 ; 44 L. T. 667 ; Haring-
fen T. 8ti»MI, ttipra; A»4rtm$ t.
MUdM, (1905) A. C. 78 ; 74 L. J.
a B. 78 (friendly iiooivty); D'Areg
V. Adam»>,n, (1913) » T. L. B.
367; 37 S. J. 391.
(3) f.fi>^"--kfn V. f.onl yVham-
clijft, 13 C. D. 340; 41 L. T. 639.
602
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS, SOCIETIES, ETC.
Chap. XIX.
The niembcr
mii*t bare
opportanitjr of
being htud.
The power of
expuUion must
Ih! exercitietl
. bond Jide,
trary to natural justice. It would be a denial of natural
justice, if a decision was come to expelling a man without
giving him an oppoitimity of stating his case and defending
iiis conduct. Where the conduct of one of its members is
impugned, due notice {h) ought to be given to that member
of what the committee are going to consider as a ground for
his expulsion, in order that he may have an opportunity of
stating his case and defending his conduct. The Court will
at the instance of any member of a club declare any resolution
passed without previous notice to him based upon ex parte
evidence purporting to expel him from the club to be null and
void, and will restrain the club by injunction from interfering
by virtue of such resolution with his rights of membership (i).
If the pi-oceedings of the committee or members of a club in
expelling a member have been in strict accordance with tibie
rules and the rules are not in any way contrary to natural
justice, the next consideration for the Court is whether the
proceedings have been in the bond fide honest exercise of the
powers given by the rules. If the connnittee, acting bond
fide and without malice, come to the conchision that a man is
not a fit member of the club, or that his conduct is injurious to
the interests of the club, the Court will not interfere. It is nol
for the Court to consider whether it should have arrived at the
same conclusion or not. The Court has no right to consider
whether what was done was ri^t or not, or even as a sub-
stantive question whether what was decided was reasonable
or not. The only question is whether it was bond fide. The
(/i) See Jumea v. Iimiitiite uf
Charttred .Wrountantt, (1907) 98
L. T. 225 ; 24 T. L. R. 27, in which
case the Court held that notice had
been duly given where it had been
poated to the pUintifPa registered
•ddieaa in the lict <rf memben,
though the plaintilf did not receive
it, owing to his omission to notify
his change of address.
(i) FUhtr v. Keiine, 11 C. D.
:i33; 49 li. J. t'h. U; l.nmhtrt
T. Additon, 46 L. T. N. S. 20 ;
Andrew v. Milrhell, (1900) A. C.
78; 74 L. J. li. B. li.JS (friendly
society); dray v. Allison, (1909)
25 T. L. H. 631 ; D'Arcy v.
Adattitm, (1913) 29 T. L. B.
367; 57 S. J. 381; and see
Lubg T. Warun'duUft Itintrt'
Auoriatitn, (1913) 8 Oh. p. 379 ; 81
I,. J. Ch. p. 744 ; Parr r. Lanta-
iihire and Chnhire Minert' Fvlrra-
iim, (1913) 1 Ch. p. 373; 82 L. J.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS. SOCIETIES, ETC.
60B
question whether the decision was erroneous or not can only
be taken into consideration in determining whether Uiat
(iecision is so absurd or evidently wrong ns to afford evidence
that the action was not bond fide, but was malicious or
capricious or proceeding from something other than a fair
and honest exercise of the powers given by the rule (k). The
fact that a decision is unreasonable may be strong evidence
of malice, but is not conclusive and may be rebutted by evi-
dence of bona fidet (I).
In a case where one of the rules of a club provided that in
case the conduct of any member should in the opinion of the
committee be injurious to tiie charactw and interests of the
club, the committee should be empowered to recommend such
member to resign, and if he should not comply, the committee
should then call a general meeting which should by a certain
majority have power to expel him ; and the plaintiff, a member
of the club, sent a pamphlet reflecting on the conduct of S., a
gentleman in high official position, also a member of the club,
to S. at his official address enclosed in an envelope, on the out-
side of which was printed, "Dishonourable conduct of S.,"
the committee being of opinion that this action was injurious
to the character ai^ interests of the club, called upon the
plaintiff for an explanation of his conduct, which he refused
to give. They then called on him to resign, and as he did not
comply with their recommendation, they duly summoned a
general meeting, at which a resolution was passed by the
requisite majority expelling the plaintiff from the club. The
Court would not interfere to restrain his expulsion from the
club (m).
Committees in cases of the kind are not expected to act on
strictly legal evidence. A committee in arriving at a con-
clusion may be drawn to it by one of a great many cir-
(*•) Richanhon-tlarilner v. Free- 17 V. T>. 015 ; 44 L. T. 55T ;
niiiiiile, -i-i L. T. 81 ; llopk inn v. r.amhrt v. AMinm, 46 L. T. 20 ;
.l/flr.yH«,i of ICreter, J.. 11. 5 Eq. (i3 ; r.j/lMUn BlaMurtU, 4ft L. J. Oh.
.•!T L. J. Ch. 17.J; Labouchtre v. 219.
I.iird Wliarnrliffe, 13 C. 1). p. 332; (/) Dairkint \. Aiitrobut, lupra,
41 L. T. 638 ; Dawkini v. Antrobm, (m) Dawkint j. Antr<ilm$, wpra.
604 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS, SOCIETIES, ETC.
ci^P- -^t^- cumstanees which are well known in the club and quite true
in fact and detail, though aot at tlic inompnt proved before
them. They niiiy consider the immediate conduct a culminat-
ing act, although they may not have so expressed it (n).
AitcMtion of In a case where one of the rules of a club provided that a
general meetijig might alter any of the standing rules affect-
ing the general interests of the club, provided this was done
with certain formalities and by a certain majority, it was
hold that !i i \t\n providing for the expulsion of members who
should i)r guilty of conduct injurious to the interests of the
club could be validly passed by a general meeting, provided
all the requisite formalities were c(»nplied with (o). So also
where the rules of a club formed for the purpose of providing
a ground for pigeon shooting and other sports, contained
power to alter any of the rules by a resolution of a pre-
scribed majority of membt rs, and a resolution was duly j)assed
that pigeon shooting should be discontinue<l at the club, the
Court refus d to declare the resolution invalid, or to restrain
the trustees of the club from acting on it, holding that there
was no fundamental rule that any particular sport should be
provided at the club (p).
Where the rules of a club at the date when a person
becomes a member contain no provision for altering the same
from time to time, the annual subscription to the club cannot
be ra'sed so as to bind such member to pay it. Accordingly,
an injunction was granted restraining the committee of a
clul) from f'xohuling the plaintiff (who had refused to pay
an increased subscription), and from preventing him from
exercising his rights as a member (q).
Tnde Unions. By the Trade Union Act, 1R71 (r), it is provided that the
pur{X)8e8 of a trade union shall not, by reason merely that
they are in restraint of trade, be unlawful so as to render void
(n) DawkiH* t. An^nbui, 17
C. D. p. 623 ; 41 L. T. p. 493, per
Jenal. ILB.
(o) Pawkiimv. Anlrohm, 1" C. D.
615 ; 44 L.T. 5.-.7.
(/<) ThtUnitim v. \'i»count I'o/ew-
tia, (1906) 1 Ck. 480 ; 7a L. J. Ch.
368; (1907) 2 Ch. 1 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
465.
(>/) Haringtim t. Seivlall. (1903)
1 Ch. !»21 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 396.
(r) a4 & 35 Vict. c. 31.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS, S0C7ETIES, ETC.
606
or voidable any agreement or trust («), but the Court shall ch«y MX.
not entertain any 1^1 proceeding instituted with the
object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the
breach of any of the agreements specified in sect. 4 of the
Act (0.
The Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction restrain- Injoactionto
ing a trade union and its officials from wrongfully expelling ^p"s,"onfn»i
a member, as an action claiming such relief is not a i)ro- g^"'^"""
ceeding to " directly enforce an ngreenient " within the mean-
ing of sect. 4 of the Act (u). Hut where a member of a
trade union who liad been expelled for a breach of the rules
of the society claimed a declaration that he was entitled to
participate in the benefits of the society, and an injunction
restraining its committee and trustees from excluding him
from such participation, the Court dinnissed the action on
the ground that it was brought to "directly enforce an agree-
ment between members of a trade union to provide benefits
to members " within the meaning of sect. 4, sub-sect. 3 of
the Act («). So also where the ctMnmitteeof an assooiatimi of
tea warehouse keepers, passed a resolution expelling the plain-
tiffs for an alleged breach of the rules regulating the rates to
be charged by memben of th« astoeiation on teas, tiie Coart
refused to interfere, holding that the action was brought to
enforce an agreement between members within the meaning
of sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 of the Act(^). So also where the
executive committee of a trade union passed a reaolotim im-
posing fines on some of the members for having worked with
a non-member of the union, the Court refused to declare the
reedatiwi tiUra viret or to restrain the defendants fran levy-
(i) 8Mt 3. 482 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 328. The action
(() Sect. 4. woH aUu diHmissed ou the ground
(u) Oiborne v. Amalgamatnl that the society was an illegal aaso-
Society of Bailimy iStrratttf, (IBll) ciation. See 0*bome y. AmalgO'
1 Ch. MO; to L. J. Ch. 315; LiAy matei Boritis of naOway StrwnOs,
V. Warwickthirt Miners' A$n>cia- tupra.
turn, (1912) 2 Ch. 371 ; 81 L. J. Ch. (y) CkamhtHain't Wharf, Ltd. t.
741; Parr t. Laneathirt and <Smt(A, (1900) 2 Ch. 603 ; 69 L. J.
rhthirt MinrrC FtilrmHim, (Ifliy) (h. 7W, 8« Otbomt v. Amalga-
1 Ch. J J5 ; 82 J. Ch. 19;i. mnte<{ SocMy of Bailwag Btrtm^§,
[x) Rigby v. ConiwU, 14 C. D. $upra.
806 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS, SOCIETIES. ETC.
Injnnctiou to
mtnin mil-
■pplieatioB of
fuda.
Oaf. XIX. ing the fines m. the ground that the action was one to directly
enforce an agreement within sect. 4, anb-sect. 2 of the Act (a).
The Court will, on the application of any member of %
trade anion, rentrain the ofBdals and agents of the onion
from misapplying the funds of the society. In granting an
injunction to preeerve the fund, the Court does not " directly
enforce an agreement " within the meaning of sect. 4 of Hie
Act (a). Injunctions have accordingly been granted to re-
strain the funds of a trade union being applied in carrying
out an amalgamation with another society (6), or in pay-
ing strike money in cases not authorised by the rules (c).
So also an injunction has been granted at the instance of a
trade union to restrain the trustees and secretary of a branch
of the union from distributing the funds under thmr eoaiicA.
amongst the members of the branch society on its secession
from the plaintiff society. But the Court refused to order
the defendants to pay the funds to the plaintiffs, holding that
such an order would be " directly enforcing an agreement foi
the application of funds to provide benefits to members "
within sect. 4 of the Act (d). So also injunctions have be«n
granted to restram trade unums from levying contributions
from their members for the puipose of securing Parliamen-
tary (e) or municipal (/) represMitation.
The Trade Union Act, 1918 (g), now provides that the
Ptrliamentarj
Tnd* Uniim
Aet, 1S18.
(») MuOeU V. UniM Frmck
Potiihen' (Ltmiton) SocUtif, (1904)
91 L. T. 133 ; 20 T L. R. 895.
(u) U'ol/e V. MaHhewi, 21 C. 1).
194 ; 61 li. J. Ch. 823 ; Taff Vale
Railway > 'o. v. Amalijamated Htx ieti/
nf Railway SerraiiU, (1901) A. C.
p. 428, per Farwell, J. ; VorkMre
Minert' Auoeiation v. Ilowden,
(1906) A. C. 266 ; 74 L. J. K. U.
Sll ; and M* Ortm r. HuU, (1913)
1 Ch. 259 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 162;
affirmed W. K. 316 (iiiaiiit«Dsnc»
of suit).
(i) W'olfi V. Maitliewi, tupra.
(c) Yorkthire Mintrs' Auoeiatitm
{d) Cope V. Crettini/ham, (1900) 2
Ch. 148 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 618.
(e) Amalganuittd Sottrtf of Bail'
vKty Sercantt v. CMxirni. (1910)
A. C. 87 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 87 ; Parr
V. Lancashire and < 'heihire Miners'
hederaium, (1913) 1 fh. 36« ; 82
L. J. Ch. 193 (registered unions) ;
ll»/»o» V. ScMith TyjMxjraphical
Attcx iation, (191:!) & C. 634 (un-
registered union).
(/) IFtbon T. AmtUyamattd
Boekty c/ fn^iiMrf, (1911) 2 Ch.
324 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 489.
(</) 2 ft 3 Oeo. 5, c. 30, s. 3,
Buh-«. 1.
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST CLUBS. SOCIETIES. ETC. 607
fluids of a trade union (h) , shall not be apjdied for the political Ckv. XIZ.
objects specified in the Act (t), unless (a) the furtherance of
such objects has been approved as an object of the union, by a
resolution (k) passed on a ballot (Q of the members of tiie
union by a majority of the members voting; and (b), where
such a resolution is in force, unless rules approved by the
Registrar of Friendly Societies are in force providing:—
(1) Tbf>t any pajments for such political objects .'jre to
be i . ide out of a separate fund, and for the exemp-
tion (m) of any member of the mion from any obliga-
t' <i to omtribute to such fund if he gives notice ia
accordance with the Act (n) that he objects to contri-
bute; and
(2) That a member who is exempt from the obligation
to contribute to the pctical fund of the union shall
not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed
in any respect under any disability or at uny disadvantage
(except in relation to the control of the poiitisal fond),
by reason of his being so exempt, ana that contribution
to the political fund of the union shall not be made a con-
dition for admissicm to the onion.
The remedy of a member of a trade union who Is aggrieved BoM^r.
by a breach of any of the rules made under sect. 3 of the
Act is to complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies,
who may make such order for remedying the breach as he
thinks just under the circumstances, after having heard the
applicant and any representative of the union (o).
The order of t^4 Begistrar is binding on all parties wifli-
out appeal, and canrot be removed into any Court of law or
be restrained 1 'njuccticn, and when it has been recorded
in the County tt(i'), njiy 'je enforced as if it was an
order of the Gouuiy Gear* {q).
(A) Aa to " trade miiim," m (m) See sect. 6.
sect. 2, sub-s. 1. (n) See sect. 5 and schedule.
(f) See sect. 3, sub-s. 3. (o) Sect. 3, sub-s. 2.
(k) The resolution takes effect aa ( p) Sheriff's Court in Scotland,
a rule of the union, .nnd nmy b« «, 3. gub-s. '2.
reaoinded m auch. Sect. 3, aub-a. 4. (3} Sect u, aub-a. St.
(1) See Met 4.
CHAPTER XX.
ORDKR8 RESTRAININO PROCKRDINOB.
Chip. XX. Undkr the fonm-r prooiHlurc tho Court of ('limicery liad
Ju.iicai.ire Act, jurisdiction to rustruin liy injunction un action ut iuw in all
i87;t, ». u, cases where the defendant to the action could show that he
had a good oquital)!*; dt'foiico. But this jui iwliction has been
abolished by tho Judicature Act, 1873, by which it is enacted
that no c«use or proceeding pending in the High Court of
Justice, or in the Court of Appeal, shall be restrained by
injunction or prohibition, but thai every mutter of equity on
which un injunction ugairjst the prosecution of any such cause
or proceeding might have been obtained under the former
procedure may be relied on by way of defence thereto: Pro-
vided that nothing in the Act shall disable either Uie High
Court or the Court of Appeal from directing a stay of proceed-
ings in any cause or matter pemling before it, i£ it shai'
think fit, upon application nuule to it in a summary way (a).
The proviso does not confer jurisdiction upop any Court
which did not have it before the passing of the Act, but
simply keeps alive the jurisdiction which existed prior to
the Act (6). The enactment only applias where a proceeding
is "pending," accordingly there is jurisdiction restrain
by injunction the institution of proceedings in the High
Court (c).
FrivoioM and '■^^*> Provides that any pleading may be struck
veutioui out ii^Q groond that it discloses no reasonable cause of
action or answer ; and in such case, or in case of the action
(a) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, a. 24, {<) Ilc^arit v. ]\'im!, 12 C. D.
8ub-B. 5 ; (/nW>M« V. /■'aHfu«, 1 CM). p. 6;«); Hart v. Hart, 18 CD.
155; 45 L. J. Ch. Kia ; IVriyht y. p. 680; 5(1 J. Ch. p. 6118; and
Btdgrave, 11 C. 1). 24; 40 L. T. see In re Maiilttone I'alace of
206. roriX.M, (UH)9) 2 Oh. 28S, 2«6;
(b) The Jama Wedoll, (1906) P. 78 L. J. Ch. 739.
p. 61; 74 L. J. P. 9.
INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
608
01- defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or
vexatious, the action may bo stayed or dismissed, or judg-
ment entered, as may be just. Independently of this rule,
every Court of justice has an inherent jurisdiction to protect
itself from abuse of its own procedure, and to stay proceed-
ings which are manifestly frivolous and vexatious {il). When
an ai)plicution is nitule under Order 25, r. 4, the Court does
not look outside the pleadings (e), but when the applica-
tion is under the inhere iit jurisdiction of the Court, affidavit
evidence is admissible (/).
The jurisdiction of the Court to stay proceedmgs on the Juriwliction to
ground that they are an abuse of the process of the Court,
will be exerci I with great caution {g). exMciiedwith
The fact that an action has been commenced in England,
which might more conTeniently and with lees expense to the
defendant, be tried out of the jurisdiction, is not of itself a
sufficient reason for staying the action as vexatious. In or^"'
to justify a stay, it must be proved that either the expense
or the difficulties of trial in England would be so great that
injust'ce would be -lone, or that the action was brought in
ilngland for tJie purpo8<) of annoyance and oppression (A).
By the Vezatioua Actions Act, 1896, it is provided that the Ve«tiom
(d) Mttropolitan Bank v. Pcole;/, Lincnter v. Loiulon a»,l Xorth fg****^
10 A. 0. 210, 214; 54 L. J. Q. B. ' istern Itailwaij Co., (ISilJ) 3 Ch.
449 ; Reuhel v. Ma;/rath, 14 A. C. j.. 2: S; «2 L. J. Ch. p. 273.
6ti5 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 159 ; In rt A (/) RemmingUm v. Scolet, (1897)
' W/Hi/zy, (1891) 2 Ch. 350; 63 2 Ch. 1 >. 66 L. J. Ch. 826 ; and iee
L. J . Ch. 565 ; Stephttuon v. Oar- Lawrence v. Lord N<irrti/(i, 39 C. D.
(1898) 1 Q. B. 677 ; 67 L. J. 213 ; 16 A. 0. 210; S9 L. J. Ch.
Q. B. 447 ; SaUtman v. Steretary of 681 ; CritcheU v. LoniJon and South
State for India, (IbOe) 1 K. B. p. Western Ratlin nj Co., (1907) 1 K. B.
C30 ; 75 L. J. K. B. p. 429 ; Nortm 860 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 422.
V. Xorton, (1908) 1 Ch. 471 ; 77 (y) Loyan v. Uai.k of Sa.tlaud,
L. J. Ch. 312. As to Order XXV. (1906) 1 K. B. p. 150; 75 L. J.
n. \. Dyim v. .4«.-ri'cn., (1911) K. B. p. 223; yorton v. NorUm,
1 K. B. 410; 80 L. J. K. B. 631. (190'S) 1 '~'h. v- 479; 77 L. J. Ch.
As to form of order restraininj} p. 31i; SAocifcton v. SiW/K, (1913)
frivolous interlooucory prooeedingg, 2 K. B. p. 312 ; 82 L. J. K. B. p. 613.
eeo Kinnaird y. *VeW, (1906) 3 Ch. (h) Egbert v. Short, (1907) 2 Ch.
306 ; 74 L. J. Co. 534. 205 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 62"; Norton t.
(«) Jtepublic of Pent y Peruman Norton, (1908) I Ch. 471 ; 77 L. J.
Owtna Co., 36 C. D. 489 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 312.
Hi. 1081 : AH..ae». tff Dufhy of
610 INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
ch«p. XX. Attorney-General may apply for an order under the Act, and
' if he satisfies the High Court tluvt any person has habitually
and porsistcntly inslitiitod vpxiitious legal proceedings,
whether in the High Coiut or in any inferior Court, and
whether against the same person or against different persons,
the Court may, uflcf lieaiinp such i)ers()n or giving him an
opportunity of l)eing heard, after assigning counsel in case
such person is unable on account of poverty to retain counsel,
order tha< no legal proceedings shall he instituted by that
person in the High Court or any other Court, unless he obtains
leave of the High Court or some Judge thereof, and satisfies
the Court or Judge that there is primd facie ground f<w such
procoe<ling (/).
Injunction, to The High Court has jurisdiction on a proper case being
"^inyirioT"'** made out to restrain proceedings in the County Courts (*),
i^w*^"" the Lord Mayor's Court (l), tl. Court of Passage (m), the
Polatinc Court (»). in tribunals constituted for a special pur-
pose (o), and proceedings before magistrates (p).
Injunction to The High Court has also jurisdiction to stay an action
.lay action i„-on2ht within tho juris<liction in respect of a cause of action
broiiRht witliin o ■• i i • • f
jarisdiction on arising out of the jurisdiction, if satisfied that no injustice
^i'singoiuT will be done thereby to the plaintiff, and that the inwm.-
th.jnrii^ictioii. yg^jg^jj^ of defending the action in England will be so great
as to amount to oppresrion to whicli the defendant would
(0 S9 & 60 Vict c. 61. Seo (n) HW v. Crmm.Uy, (1911) 1
In rt Jonat (1902). 18 T. L. K. 476. Ch. 731 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 409.
The Act does not apply to criminal (o) Earl Bmitchamp v. Diirby,
proceedings. In re Bcaler, (1914) W. N. (1866) SOS (Inclosure Com-
1 K. B. 122 (Dariing and Luah J.J., missioners).
Bankes J., flisB). (i') IMlei/ v. Botet, 13 C. D
(A) flal.iurf V. WM,, 16 Beav. 198; 49 L. J. Ch. 170; Staiinan
676; 9<> U. T?. 2()7 ; Beg. v. Jmhje v. Camberwtll Vestry, 20 C. D. 190
of Lincolnshire fount;/ Curt, 20 51 L. J. Ch. 629; In re Brlto)
Q. B. D. 167 ; 67 L. j. Q. B. 136; Meiliral, <tf., Omeral Life Atsiir
Channel Coaling Co. \. Bott, {190') ance Atiociation, 32 C. D. 803
1 K. B. 143 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 146. 66 L. J. Ch. 416; Grand Junctim
{I) Sievehng y. Behren*. 2 M. 4 Waterwork* Co. r. BanqOm tVJai
C. 581 : CtetivfTth V. Ste>,hen», 4 Council, (1898) 2 C9l. 331 ; 67 L. J
Hare. 194; Bedhra'J v. Welton, 30 Ch. 603; Merriikf. Livtrpeel Om
L. J. Ch. 577. poration, (1910) 2 Ch. p. 460; T
(m) The Tereta, 71 L. T. 843. h. J. Ch. 761.
INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
611
not b« aabjedfld if tiie setion were brought in another aeees- cUp ix.
Bible and cunpetent Court (q).
The High Court Iibh uIho jui iHctii-tiononii pmj)ei' cane being InJaimUii ti
made out toreetrain persons within its jurisdiction from i u>- ^WtaJj^T'
secuting suits in tlic CoiirlH of foreign countries (r). In the MptCtmtt.
exercise of the jurindictioii ihi' (Joiiif (lo(>s not proooed upon
luiy claim of right to interfile witli or control the course of
proceedings in the tribunals of a foreign country, or to pre-
vent them from iidjudieating on tlio liglit of parties when
drawn in controversy, and duly presented for their determina-
tion. The jurisdiction is founded on the authority vested
in Courts of equity over persons within the limits of their
jurisdiction, and amenable to process to restrain them from
doing acts which work wrong and injiiry to others, and are
therefore contrary to equity and good omscienee. As the
order of the Court in such cases is pointed solely at the indi-
vidual, and does not extend to the tribunal whers the suit or
proceeding is pending, it is immaterial that the party to whom
it is addressed is prosecuting his action in tiie Courts of a
foreign country («).
It seems that if the circumstances of the case are such as
would have made it the duty of the Court of Chancery under
the former procedure to restrain a party from instituting or
carrying on proceedings in a Court here, they will warrant the
High Court in restraining proceedings in a foreign country (<!).
Thus the indorsee of a bill of exchange was restrained
from suing the plaintiff in the Irish Courts upon the bill
upon certain equitable grounds which would (under the then
('/) Logan v. Hank of Srt^laml,
M906) I K. B. 141, 150; 75 L. J.
K. B. 218 ; Eyhert v. Short, (1907)
2 Ch. 205; 76 L. J. Ch. 520;
Nortim V. Norton, (1908) 1 Ch. 471 ;
77 li. J. C!h. 312.
(r) Sm Mefftmy t. L«wit, 23
C. D. 397 ; 82 L. J. Clk. 325; Arm-
ttnmg t. Armstrong, (1892) P. 98 ;
61 L. J.P.63; LeUv. LHt, (1906) I
I. R. 618, 635 ; Pena Copper Ulna Co.
y.Sio Tinfo Cb.(l»12}, 106 L.T.W2,
(«) Lord I'orlarlitujlon v. Soidhy,
3 M. & K. p. 108 i 41 R. R. 23;
Carron Iron Co. v. Madaren, 6
11. L. C. 41fi, 437 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 620;
101 B. B. 229 ; LOt y. Lea, nifra ;
Wood T. ONmo/fy. {mi) 1 Ch. p.
744 ; 80 L. J. Oh.p.416: Ptna Copper
Minee Co. t. Jtio TVirfo Ci>., lupra.
(<) See Carron Iron Co. y. ilae-
laren, 5 H. L. 0. p. 439; 24 L. J.
Ch. 620; JOl B. B. t»} WM r.
Ctnnollj/, tupra.
99-2
IMJUNCTIOMS TO STAY PR0CBBDIN08.
proeedare) bar* mmrmttd • •imiUr injanetion agftintt any
action in tli' (.'ouils of this country («). In R recent ciwo (x)
whe! a contract provided that the right* and liabilities of
the parties thereto hoald in eaae of dispat* b* referred
to urbitrution in conformity with the provisions of the Arbi
tration Act, 1889, ami that the award of the arbitrators should
be a condition precedent to any liability of «ther party, th*
Court reatrained on« of the parties from taking proeeedinga
against the other party in a foreign coott except in pur-
suance of an award under the contract.
Where a plaintiff sues a defendant for the same object in
two Coorts in this country, such a proceeding is primd facie
vexatious, and tho plaintiff will, us a general rule, be put to
hia election as to which action shall be stayed and which pro-
ceeded with. The same role applies where one of the actions
is in this country and the other action is in the King's Courts
in Scotland or Ireland, or any other part of the King's
dmninions (y). Bat 'f one of the actions is in a foreign
country where there are different forms of procedure and
different remedies, there is no presumption that the multi-
plicity of actions is vexatious, and a special ease mast there-
fore be made out to induce the Court here to interfere by
injunction (2). It is not vexatious for a plaintiff to bring
an action against a defendant relating to the same subject
matter in two different eoontries "where there are aabstantial
reasons of benefit to the plaintiff " in doing so (a).
In a case where a decree liad been obtained for the execu-
tion of the trusts of a deed for the benefit of creditors, and a
receiver of real estates in England and Ireland had been
appoint<Hi, and some of the trustees afterwards filed a bill
in Ireland for executing the trusts of the same deed, Lord
(m) Lord PoHarlinghmY. fhmlby, (x) Miffenry y. Leui,;21 C. D.
3 M. ft K. 104 J 41 B. B. 23. 897, 408 ; 52 li. J, Cb. 323 ; Ptr»-
(r) Pma Copper Minet Co. v. HIo nun O^imo Co. v, BefhtxM, 23
TiiUo Co. (1912), 105 L. T. 846. C D. 228, 232 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 714 :
{■j) McIIevrij V. Lfivii, 22 C. P. Lognn V. Danh of Hrotland, (1906) 1
397 ; 52 L. J. Ch. ''■1f>; J.'o.ino v. K. Hp. 150; TiS T. J. K. B. p. 222.
Ban*: of HcMaud, (1900) 1 K. B. p. («) Ptrui-ian Ouano Co. v. Dock-
150 ; 75 L. J. K. B. p. 222 ; Jn/iton v Mt, 23 C. D. p. 230 ; 63 Ij. J. Ch.
T. Jame$, (1908) 77 I4. J. Ch, 824. p. 718.
INJUKOTtONB TO STAY PR0CEEDINO8.
eit
Ekktt mtnined them from proMcutii^ thftt ■ait. on tht <*f
^•round that it Bought the samn relief as might be had und«r
*ho decree obtained in this couutry (b). Bo alao, where tluf*
had been a decree in ttUs ooantry for an Momint (m • bill to
redeem a We»t India mortgage, Hir John Leach would not
suffer the moi-tgagee to prosecute a suit in Jiunuicii for fore-
cloning the same mortgage, on the ground that full relief
might be had under the decree in thia ooon^ (e). So alio,
n person was restrained from prosecuting a suit in Ireland
after a decree in this country, the subject-matter of the suit
being the same as that already adjudicated on in the Court
here (d). tio also where parties who liad in n suit here estab-
lished their right against the defendant instituted proceed
ings in Scotland against some of the defendants for the same
demand, an injunction was obtained at the Bolls a^inst their
proceedings in Scotland, and Lord Cottenham confirmed the
order (e).
So also where a wife had obtained a dirorce in the Iridi
Court, and in settlement of the proceedings had executed
a deed releasing her husband from further claims in respect
of alimony, the Court restrained her from proceeding with
an actim which she had subsequently commenced against her
late husband in the Argentine Republic for divorce and main-
tenance (/). So also the Court restrained a partner institut-
ing proceedings for dissolutimi of partnership in the Palatin
Court, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, where the purtnt
ship property was situate, having previously made a decree
in an action in which the same relief had been claimed
A defendant in an English Court in which no decree has oehiMUut in
Ix'on made will not as a general rule be restrained on the Kn«ii»h Court
° not u « rula
ground of vexation from commencing an action against the fe»»r»iii«i
/ s II- II I If 1 1 I - '>«fope d«cr»e
(f) M flilei hiini V. (I ti'^hriiini, 2 ,„i,g
lieav. 2U8; 4 M. ft C. 666, 59«; PfauntiriB
OL, J.(N, a)CIi. m; 48 B. B.
181. 8m CarrvH Iron Co. r.
Jfoefaren, S H. L. C. p. 46i ; 21
L. J. Ch. 620 ; 101 K. R. 229.
('/) liouth V. lAgeuUr, 1 Keen, v. leU, 11906} 1 1. B. U18.
CO Harrison v. ilamtg, 8 J. ft
W. 563 ; 22 B. u. 211.
(r) Btdtfurd T. JTemNc, 1 Sim. ft
St 7; 2« B. B. 143; and cm
Madartn t. Staintim, 26 L. J. Ch.
:!,n.
678; on appeBl. 3 M. ft U 4M;
44 B. B. T».
(y) Joim>u V. Jmmm, (IWW) 77
L. J. Cb. 824.
6U INJtmonONB TO STAY PR0CEEDIM08.
f.fca». 3g. plaintiff in h foreign Court in respect of thesaiiM naltor (A).
Tbiu the Court refused to reatrain a husband who was rwpoa-
dmt to a petition by hi* wife for judicial aeparatioa from
proMcuting his right to a divorce in tiie Freoeh Court on
grounds which would not hnve entitled him to relief in Eng-
land, but which were sufficient according to the luw of
France (0*
Even though no deirec Iuih been obtir'ned in this country,
yet if a suit instituted nhroud docs not appear so well calcu-
lated to anawer the ends of justice as the suit here, the Court
will reatrain the foreign action, imposing, however, ierma
which it considers reasonable for protecting the party whom
it enjoins. Thus in Buthby v. Mundny (k), Bushby had given
a bond to Monday to secure a gambling debt, and Monday
assigned the bond to Clowes. Clowes proceed<Hi in Scotland
against Hushby, who was a Scotchman, and a proprietor of
real estate. Bushby flied a bill here to have the bond set
aaide and delivered up. Upon a motion for an injnnetion to
stay the proceedings in Scotland, Sir J. Loach granted the
injunction because he considered the validity of the bond
eoold be better tried in ^e coontry where the Courts jodieially
knew the law applicable than in Scotland, where tiie Courts
could only learn the law as a matter of fact to be communicated
by way of evidence ; and, secondly, that the remedy here, if
the obligor shoald make oot his titie, woold be more ctnnplete
than could be Iiad in Scotland. He laid it down generally that
where parties, defendants, are resident in England, and
brought here by subpoena, thu Court has jurisdiction to act
upon them personally with respect to the objects of the suit,
as the ends of justice lequire, and with that view to order
them to take or to omit to take any steps or proceedings in
any other Court of justice, whether in ihia or in a fmign
country (l). The Vice-Chancellor, therefore, restrained the
{h) llijmaii \. Ilrim, 24 C. I). mjtia.
oMi, 040; 49 li. T. 37«; yardojiiilo (/. ) 5 MudJ. 2!>" : 'Jl H. H. •-MM.
V. Vardoptau (1908), 2ft 1'. L. B. (/) 5 Madd. p. 307 : 21 H. K.
ilH. 294. See slao Carren Irm C*^ v.
(0 FwdtyolH V. FartfagMlii, JTadwwi, ft H. L. C. pfi. 4n, MO,
INJUNCTIONS TO 8TAY PROCEEDINGS.
usHignw from going on with the Scotch action, putting the cUp. XX.
(jluintitf on such terms iu bcotltuid would secure to him the
prtferabie lien whiA he m%lit toquire by his suit ou the
liuna there, if he ah ild ultiniateljr establish any demund on
thti bond(»i;. bo uIm in But^urif v. Bunbury {n). Lord
Cottenhfttn, affirming u judgment of Lord Langdele (o), re<
strained partiee from prosecuting proceedings at l»w in
Demerara to recover real estates there, which inirolved ques-
tions depending on the law of Holland, and also on the hiw of
England, and further questioni of account which Lould cmljr
be taken in this country. Lord Cottenl-'un la'u it down as u
principle that where part of the subjer.. r is uduiitted to
be necessarily within the jurir*)- le Court will take
upon itself to determine the whok .iter, though it involves
ijuestions of foreign law, more esp. -Uy where the question
of foreign law depends to some extent upon the determina-
tion of the Court as to the English law. Upon grunting the
injunctioi , his Lordship put the plaintiff on terms to Kubmit
and carry into effect any order which the Court might think
fit to make in respect of the jHroeeedings in Draierara. So
also the Court, after a decree for administration, restrained
one of the parties interested from prosecuting proceedings
in a foreign country in regard to reel and personal estate
situate there (p).
If, however, from any cause it appears likely to be more Bdanctof con-
conducive to s'lbstontiul justice, or if upon the balance of j^J^jJ^.
convenience and inconvenience it appears desirable that tiie
foreign proceedings should be allowed to take their course,
the Court will allow them to f ocewl (q). li the proceedings
153 ; 24 L. J. rh. iiiO ; 101 R. E. ( /■) ffi'lt v. Canie;iie. I Ch. 320.
•i'J'J; ll'oo./ V. Coniiotlii, (liHl) 1 ('/) VenMll v. Roij.'A l)e O.
Ch. pp. 745, 746; 80 I.. J. Ch. M. & G. p. 140; 22 L. J. Ch. 409;
98 li. R. 78; Truuaiiihinlir Cj.v.
J'ktroni, John. G04 ; 123 E. R. 260 ;
^■'•iHna V. S.mmetH, 29 W. R.
; > ; • J. p. 30; Moor v.
. i -.yfo-yr ; . ,^^.-111*, 10 0. D. 681;
M> . s-.a!; .-.hHtrtrgr. Ltwi*,
3-1 C. 1>. 397 ; &2 1 . J. Cb. 320.
p. 416.
(m) See CarroH Iron CV. v.
Maclarm, 6 H. L. C. pp. 438-446.
453 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 620; 101 B. B
229.
(,0 3 Jur. 61 i; 19 E. E. 785.
(o) lb.; 1 Bear. 318; 8 L. -J
Ch. 2»7 ; 49 B. B. 373.
616
INJUNCTIONH TO BTAY PROCEEDINGS.
in the foreign couiitiy are calculated to give a security against
the property there, so aa to ansirer the demand under tiie
decree here (r), or are necessary in order to protect the pro-
perty there against the demands of creditors who have not
appeared to the suit here, and are not within the jurisdic-
tion (s), tlioy will to this extent be allowed to be continued.
Thus Lord Eldon restrained a suit for administration in
Ireland on the ground that the same relief was sought us
could be had under the decree obtained in this Court, but he
would not prevent a bill from being filed in Ireland for the
mere purpose of calling on a receiver there to account for
his receipts and payments (<)• So also where the Vice-
Chancellor had granted an injunction against a heritable
bond creditor, who was proceedi.ig in Scotland against the
assignees in bankruptcy of the obiigor, who had real estate
in Scotland, Lord Lyndhurst dissohed the injunction upon a
simple consideration of the convenience and inconvenience
of the different courses to be adopted (u). So also the Court
would not lestrain the defendant to an acti(Hi from suing in
a foreign country in respect of the same subject-m-'.tter durii^
the pendency of the action in England in which the matters
in dispute could be determined, there being no evidence to
show that the conduct of the defendant was vexatious, and
it being possible that the course of procedure in the foreign
Court might be such as to give an advantage to the defen-
dant, of which he was entitled to avail himself (x). So also
the Court refused to restrain a husband who was respondent
to a suit by his wife for judicial separation from prosecuting
his right to a divorce in France where he had acquired a
. (r) WeiMtrbtivn r. naUerbum, Iron Co. v. Machren, 6 H L C
2 Bear. 208 ; 4 M. 4 C. 88a ; 9 p. 437; 24 L. J. Ih. 020; 101
L. J. (N. 8.) Ch. 206 ; 48 B. R. H. li. 2'2<).
181 ; Cairon Iron Co. v. Maclartu, J„uei v. GedJe', 1 I'h. 724;
o n. L. C. p. 45 1; 24 L. J. Ch. and »ee Carrmi 7rwn ('„. v.. Vnc?./ren,
«'.>0; 101 E. B. 229. H. l. c. p. 454; 24 L. J. Ch.
(«) /-amOi T. J^mdl, 7 Ir. Ch. 620; 101 B. B. 229.
, r „. W %manv.//«/m, 24 CD. 631,
■J, ll-^fii-vn V. ■,fr::vy, -j.&W. 49 L_ J, . yardepulo ».
a(i3 ; 22 11. B. 211 ; and eee Carron Vardopulo (1909), 86 T. L. B. «ll.
INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
617
domicil, and thereby obtaining relief to which he was not Cfc«>. XX.
in the circumstances entitled by English law (y).
In a case where a receiver had beeo appointed, in a deben-
ture-holders' action, of the undertaking and assets of a com-
pany, which comprised a debt due to the company from a
French firm, and subsequently P. k Co., an English firm,
who were creditors of the company, took proceedings in
France for the purpose of attaching the debt due to the com-
pany from the French firm, and the plaintiffs in the deben-
ture-holders' action thereupon applied for an injuncticn to
l estrain P. k Co. from intercepting or attaching, or attempt-
ing to obtain payment of the moneys due from the French
firm. It was held that the charge created by the deben-
tures did not entitle the debenture -holders to prevent P. k Co.
from enforcing any rights given them by French law over
the debt in question, which must be regarded as a French
asset of the company, utd that the attachment, which alone
was recognised by the law of France, ought to prevail over
the title of the debenture-holders (z).
The jurisdiction of the Court in restraining proceedings in Umiu of the
foreign Courts, is in general limited to the case of persons {jJij^i.^'j^riJ^,
who are within the power or the reach of the Court. The Court """l »»'•» >» .
will not, unless under very special circumstances, interfere
with the right <d a foreigner resident alntiad, who h not
sought relief under a decree, or appeared in a suit here, to
recover his debt according to the laws of his own country.
The eireamstance that a foreigner resident abroad may have
property within this country, or may have a house of agency
here, does not give the Court jurisdiction (a). There may
(y) Vardopulo v. Vanhiiuh,
tupra. See Von Eckhardtttin v. Von
Eckhardittin (1907), 23 T. L. E.,
where the Court refuaed to stay •
wife'* eoit fw jtidwidi MpuatioB,
her huriMud having inbMqiMntly
token prooeedinge in Oermuiy for
divorce for " wifely diaobedieaee."
(z) In re UawUlay, Son* and
FitU, (IMO) t Ok. «»i « L. J.
Ch 34" ; and see Dtrwent IMling
Milh Co. (1904), 21 T. L. B. 81.
701.
(a) Catron Irmt Co. v. Madamt,
5 H. L. C. 416; S4 L. J. Ch. UO ;
101 B. B. 229 ; Budlow \. Dukh-
Rhaiith Railway Co., 21 Beav. 43 ;
He Boy-t, U 0. D. «92; 49 L. J.
Ch. 689.
618 INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
Ch«p. XI. be cases in which the Court will restrain a foreigner domi-
ciled in another country from proceeding to obtain payment
of debts according to the law of the country in which he is
domiciled, but a very strong case must be made out (h). In
interfering to restrain actions prosecuted in other countries,
the Court will be very cautious as to extending its jurisdic-
tion under the colour of carrying out its principles. Where
the case made out is simply one of interference by a stranger
(who is within the Court's jurisdiction) with the property of
another, upon an assumjjtion of right, in a mode which is
warranted by the law of a foreign country, although it may
not be warni» led by English law, this constitutes no founda-
tion for the interference of the Court (c). To do so would be
to assume a jurisdiction to prescribe the Courts in which
parties should bring their suits, without there being anything
to affect 'he conscience of the parties, upon the simile ground
that the suits were such as in the opinion of this Court ought
not to be maintained, and thus to bring under the decision
of the Court the question whether suits in other Courts could
be maintained, a questicm which it is for those Courts and
not for this Court to determine (d). Where, therefore, a
debtor became bankrupt in England, having real estate in
Scotland, a creditor who had not proved under the bank-
ruptcy was not restrained from proceeding in an action against
the assignees in Scotland for the purpose of recovering out
of the real estate there an amount equal to the dividend, which
would have been payable aa the debt (e). In a cose where
an intestate's estate was the subject of an action in Madeira,
the Court would not restrain the agent of the administratrix
in England from sending over mcmey of the intestate to
Madeira (f), on the ground that the Court must take it f<w
grunted that the Court in Madeira would do justice (</).
(/.) Mwlaren v. Siai .ton, 2R L. J. O. 126 : '.>•.> L. J. Ch. 409 ; 98 B. R.
Ch. XiL 78.
(<■) I'tHitell V. lioy, 1 1)e O. M. & (Jl II a//(«e v. Campbell, 4 Y. & C.
a. p. 139; 22 I- J. Ch. 416; 98 167 ; 54 11. E. 461.
li. B. 78. fe) lb.> 4 Y. 4 C. p. 168 ; 44
(d) Ib. B.B.464: imAmmUv. Jby.SD*
(e) iViM«({T. A>y,3 De O. IC * 0. ]f.* a. p. 140; 83 L. J. Ch.
INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
619
Under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (k), the Ch«p. XY.
Court may ut any time after the presentation of a petition to Power of Court
wind up a company, and b«i(aB a oompnlsory or Bapervisioo JS^,%oc««i.
winding-up order has been made, stay any action or proceed- »'>«»»K»in«t
ing ugamst the company pending in the High Court or Court liqaid«tioB.
of Appeal in E ^land or Ireland, and restrain any other
action or proceeding pending against the company, on such
terms as the Court thinks fit.
When an order has been made for winding up a company
tompulsorily or subject to supervision, no action or proceed-
ing can be proceeded with or commenced against the com-
pany e-xcept by leave of the Court, and subject to such terms
as the Court may impose (t), and where a company regis-
tered in England or Ireland is being wound up by or subject
lo the supervision of the Court, any attachment, sequestra-
tion, distress, or execution put in force against the estate
or effects of the company after the commencement of the
winding up is void (k).
The Court may also stay or restrain actions and proceed-
ings against a company which is being wound up volun-
tarily (/).
Accordingly, when a company is in liquidation, the Court
has power to restrain by injunction actions and proceedings
against the company in the inferi(Hr Coarte(m), in Scot-
417; 98 B. B. 78; Fhkher t.
Bodgen, 27 W. B. 97 ; Dawkint r.
Simoneiti, 29 W. H. 228, W. N.
{l>iSO) ; Varihj.iilo v. Vardo-
inth (190y), 25 T. L. li. oI8.
(/i) 8 Edw. 7, c. 69, ss. UO,
200. By sects. 265, 270 actions
and proceedings tigaimt cuntri-
butoiie* of • company registered
under YII. oi the Aot, and of
uDregistersd emnpuiies, may be
st ayed or restrained. As to stay of
|iiocpcdings in bankruptcy, see
naiikruptoy .\ct, 188a, s. 10 (2).
(t) » lulw. 7, c. 69, !«. H2,i203 {1).
As to companies registered unaar
Part TU. ot tke Aot, aad the eon-
trtbatoriea (rf sncli aranpaiuw, and
of nni^jttered onmpanies, we
sects. 206, 271.
(A-) lb., sect. 211.
(/) lb., sect. 193, and see In re
Keyneham Co., 33 Beav. 123 ; 8 1.. T
687 ; lure Sabloiiicre Hotel Co., L.U.
3 Eq. 74; 15 L. T. 298; Jn re
Dry Dock Corporatiun of London, 39
C. D. 306 ; 68 L. J. Cli. 33 ; 7(1 re
Boundwood VoUttriu Co., (1897) 1
Ch. 373 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 186 ; Citme
V. Cvniolitlateil Kent Culliti ies Co.,
[Um) IK. I!. 134 ; 75 I,. J. li. li.
Wi).
(m) Sect. 140, sub-s. (b).
5'
&20
Ciwp. XZ.
Preeeedinga by
ioeanibnnctr uf
conpuf.
iDjuDction
to rotnin
pnwBUtion of
wimling-ap
pelitiOB.
INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.
land(»), or Ireland (o), and, when the claimant is within
the jurisdictkm, actions and proceedings against the com-
pany abroad (p).
But an incumbrancer on immovable property situate in a
foreign country, who has instituted legal proceedings in that
country for the purpose of enforcing his rights, will not be
restrained by injunction from prosecuting such proceedings,
even though the mortgagor is a company in course of wmding
up (q). So also, where, prior to the commencement of the
winding up of an English company, a creditor had arrested
property of the company in Scotland jurhdictionis fundanda
catud, and had followed this up by bringing an action in
Scotland and making an arrestment on the depmdence of the
action, it was held that he had become, subject to his obtain-
ing a decree in such action, a secured creditor, and ought not
to be restrained from continuing his action (r).
The Court will restrain by injunction a person claiming
to be a creditor of a company from presenting a petition +0
wind up the company, where the debt is bond fide disputed and
the company is solvent (•). 80 also if a petition has not
been presented in good faith and for the purpose of obtain-
ing a windmg-up order, but in order to put pressure on the
company, the Court will restrain the advertisement of the
petition, and stay all further proceedings upon it (t).
L. J. Ch.]367,; and see / . re Der-
(n) See Mct 180, and In re
Thurto New Gat Co., 42 C. D. 486,
493; 61 L. T. 351.
(u) See sect. 180, and In re
Iiiteruativml Pulp and Paper Co., 3
C. D. o94 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 446.
(/;) In re Oriental Inland Steam
C<i., 9 Ch. 657 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 699 ;
In re Central Sugar Faduriei Co.,
(1894) 1 Ch. 369 ; 03 L. J. Ch. 410.
(fy) Moor V. A ni/lo- Italian Sank,
10 C. D. 681 ; 40 L. T. 620.
(r) In rt Wtit Cumberland Iron
and Steel Co., (1803) 1 Ch. 713; 62
went Soiling Mills Co. (1905), -.>1
T. L. E. 81, 701.
(s) Cadiz JVattrworks Co. v.
Bamett, 19 Eq. 182 ; 44 L. J. Ch.
629 ; Cercle Ileitaurant Citstiylioue
Co. V. Laiery, 18 C. D. 655 ; 50
L. J. Ch. 837 ; Xii/er MerchanU
I'll. V. Capper, 18 C. L>. 557 n. ; 2S
W. B. 365 : New Travelten' Chant'
hen T. Cheeie, 70 L. T. 271.
(() In re A Qnnpang, (1M4} 3
Cli.349; 63 L. J. Ch. S60.
i i
CHAPTER XXI.
INJUNCTIONS TO RR8TRAIIT WHOXOFUL ACTS OPA SPf.CIAI. XATUHK.
Thk Court will upMj a sufficient case being nmde out
restrain an improper transfer of stock (a). When a transfer
is about to be made to wrong persons through mistake, the
Court will not grant an injunction ex parte against the defen-
dant to restrain the transfer, unless the plaintiff swears that
he believes the defendant will avail himself of the error, and
refuse to make a re-transfer (ft).
The Bank of England ia not bound to take notice of any
trust affecting public stock standing in its books ; all that it
has to do is to look to the legal title, and therefore if the
person having the legal title applies for a transfer to himself,
the Bank must permit sach kansfer accordingly (c). The
interest of any stockholder dying is transferable by bis
executors or administrators, notwithstanding any specific
bequest thereof {d).
The Banks of England and Ireland respectively before
allowing any transfer of stock may, if the circumstances of
the case appear to them to make it expedient, require strict
evidence of the title of any persons claiming a right to make
the transfer (e).
An injunction may be had under 39 k 40 Geo. III., c. 36,
to restrain the Bank of England from permitting the transfer
of stock or paying dividends (/). It is not necessary, as a
CImp. XXI.
InjanoUMn to
restnia tkt
tnuuf«r«(
itoek.
(o) See .S<«i</ V. Chy, \ Buss.
•'..W; G L. J. (0. a) Ch. 138; 28
U. R. 16!t ; Gtoitt V. Marshall, 15
Sim. 71 ; Lord Chtii worth v.
Kdwardt, 8 Vm. 46 ; 6 B. B. 212.
(6) ArkwHghi j. Gryln, 13 L. J.
(X. S.) Ch. 303.
(f) See Bank of England v.
MogtA, 3 Bio. 0. 0. 2M; « Tm.
(364 ; trauklin y. Bavl- of England,
1 Euss. 575; Adam v. Bank tf
England (1908), 62 S. J. 682.
id) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 71, 8. 28.
(e) lb. sect. 24. See Pro$*er r.
Ban* of KngUmd, 13 Bq. 611 ; 41
L. J. Ch. 327.
(/) Roit V. Shtrtr, 3 Madd. 468 ;
Injonetiou to
rMtnin the
Bank from
permitting
truufer of Itoek,
I
it r
632
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
■ I
■ I
^f??! '^*> to make the Bank a party (g). The application may be
made upon notice, or ex pirfe on affidavit verifying the
urgency of the case (li). If after giving notice to the Bank,
the plaintiff does not apply for an injunction, or take further
procccdiDg8, the defendant may obtain an oidcM- tliat tlie Bank
peiinit the transfer on a given day, unless in the meantime ui
injunction shall be granted (i).
By 5 Vict. c. 5, s. 4, the Court may upon motion or petition
of the party iiitpi cstcd, in a summary way without a writ of
summons issued, restrain the Bank or any public company
from permitting the transfer of stock in the public funds, or
any stock or shares in any public company, standing in any
names in their books, or from paying any dividends due or to
become due thereon ; and the order is to specify the amount
of the stock or the particular shares, and the names in which
the same may he standing (k).
The application may be made ex parte by motion or
petition (/). supported by an affidavit verifying the grounds
upon which it is made (hi). The motion paper or petition
should be entitled in the matter of the Act and of the
person applying, and if the applicant is a trustee, the
proceedings should be also entitled in the matter of the
trust (n).
The order must be served on the Chief Accountant of the
Bank of England, if that Corporation be restrained, or upcm
the Secretary or other proper officer of any other public com-
pany restrained by the order by delivery to the persons served
•f an office copy of the order (o).
(r/) 39 & 40 Geo. .3, c. 36. 8ee
E<iri<>ye v. Edridye, 3 Madd. 386 ;
Temple v. Bank of EngUtpd, 6 Ve«.
7G9.
(/() flitmnsimil v. Munrnhell, 6
Vea. 7T2 a. n. ; IholUtle v. Walton,
I Dick. 442.
(i) Bom v. Sherer, 6 Madd. 458;
OMadd. 1.
(k) See /n re Blakdey'B TrtuU, 23
0. D. 649 ; 48 1* T. 778. AQorm-
ment annuity is within the clause ;
Ki parte Wattt, W. N. (1871) 20;
19 W. E. 400.
(') See Biakslei/'e Traits, tiipra ;
Be Pike, W. N. (1902) 42.
(m) Ex parte Field, 1 Y. &C. C. C.
1 ; In re Hertford, 1 Ham, 684; 11
L. J. Ch. 317.
(n) Be Blakaty'* Truth ; Be Pike,
$upra.
(o) Dan. Ch. Pr. 1379.
ACTS OF A SPECIAL NATUBE.
The rMtraining order under the Act (p) is, it seems, only clMl^ IXI.
intended to be for interim purposes, namely, to protect the
stock until the party ciniming it should have an opportunity
of asserting his rights by action in the ordinary way (q).
Any person intorcstid may apply to disoharge or vary the
order (r) ; the application is made liy motion witii notice to
the person by whom the order was obt^iincd and should be
supported by affidavit («). On the hearii^ of tiie ai^Iication
the Court may discliarge or vary the order and avard such
costs as to the Court may seem fit {t).
The transfer of stock or shares, or the payment of dividends Ractnining
thereon, could under the former procedure be restrained by Jl»ture"of*Il*
writ of distringas, which under 5 Vict. c. 5, s. 5, could be '*'**"«^"-
issued against any public company, whether incorporated or
not, in whose books any stock or shares might be standing in
which or in the dividends of which the applicant claimed to
be interested. But under the present procedure no writ of
dittringtu is to be issued (u). Any person however claiming
to be interested in any stock (x) standing in the books of a
company {y) may, on making an affidavit in the prescribed
form (z), with such variations as circumstances may require,
and on filing the same in the Central Office or any district
registry, with a notice in or to the effect of the prescribed
form (o), and on procuring an office copy of the affidavit and
a duplicate of the filed notice authenticated by tiie seel of the
Central Office, or any district registry, serve the office copy of
the affidavit and the duplicate notice on the company (ft),
(j>) 6 Vict 0. S. riuuM, Mcuritiea, and dividendi
(9} In re fferl/ord, I Ha. 584, thereon ; ib. r. 3.
50O; UL. J. Ch. 317. (y) The word company
(>■) fi Vict. c. 6, 8. 4. includes the Gtovemor and Coin-
(s) Ex parte Amyot, 1 Th. 130 n. ; pnny of the Bank of England and
In re Hertford, 1 Ha. p. 590; 11 any other public company whether
L. J. Ch. 317. incorporated or not; ib. r. 3.
(<) In re Hertford, Ilia. 5H4 ; 11 (z) See 1 -o form, E. S. C,
L. J. Ch. 317. Appendix 1 , Pt. II., No. 27.
(u) Ord. XLVI. r. 2. Sect. iS of (o) Ib. No. 22.
5 Viot 0. 6 haa beoi lepealed Ij {b) Ord. XLVI. r. 4. See Adam
the SUtute Law Beviiioa Aot.1892. r. Ami ^ Knglatid (1908), ii 6. J.
(r) The Woid "Block" inclodee «8t.
«24 INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
. nnd the service of flic office copy of the affidavit and of the
duplicate of the filed notice will have the same effect against
the eomi>any as if a writ of distringas in i-espect of the stock
bad been issued under 6 Vict. c. 6, s. 6 (c).
There must be apjM-nded to the affidavit a note stating the
person on whose beiialf it ia filed and to what address notices,
if any, for that person are to be sent (rf), and all such notices
shall he deemed to Imvo been duly sent, if sent through the
post by a prepaid letter, directed to that [mson at the address
so stated or at any substituted address, whether the person to
whom the notice is sent is living or not (e).
If, while the notice is in force, the company on whom it
has been served receives from the person in whose name the
stock is standing, or from some persm acting on his behalf or
representing him, a request to permit the stock to be trans*
ferred or to pay the dividends thereon, the company is hot by
force or in consequence of the service of the notice, authorised
without the order of the Court to refuse to permit the transfer
to be or to withhold the payment of the diviaends for
more tght days after the date of the request (/). The
compan. on receiving such a request should serve a written
notice on the person on whose behalf the notice was given
stating that an application has been made for the stock or
dividends and that nnkss an acti<m is brought and an injunc*
tion obtained and served on or before a specified day (usually
within the eight days above mentioned) the notice will be no
longer regarded. A motion having been in such a case made
for an ex parte notice to restrain the bank from permitting
the transfer or paying the dividends, it was held to be the
proper course to grant an interim injunction over the next
motion day and that notice of the order must be served on
the legal owner of the stock (g).
A notice filed under the preceding provisions may be with-
er Ord. XLVI. r. 8.
(•0 lb. r. 6.
(e) lb. r. 6. See m to altentioii
of ttddnat, ib. r. 7; and as to
rmrading th« dcacriptKm ot atock
xefeired to in tlie filed notioe, aaa
r. 11.
(/) Ord. XLVI. r. 10.
(S) Re BlMty'i Truitt, M C. D
M9; 48L. T. 770
L
ACTS OF A SPEOIAL NATUBB.
m
drawn at any time by the person by whom or on whose behalf OmhXM.
it was given on a written request signed by him, or its opera-
tion may be made to cease by an order to be obtained by
motion on notice or by petition or by sammons at ehambers
duly served by any other person claiming to be intereeted
in the stock sought to be affected by the notice (h).
Where monies or secarities are standing in Court, a person stop arJ«n.
interested therein may obtain a stop order, the effect of which is
to prevent the payment or transfer of the same without notice
to the applicant (i). Any person applying for a stop order is
not required to serve the parties interested in such pwrts of the
monies or securities as are not sought to bo affected (k).
The Court will, on a proper case being made, interfere to injunction*
prerent a sale. Thus trustees have been, under the circnm-
stances of the ease, restrained from selling until it should
hare been ascertained what would be most for the benefit and
welfare of the ceatuis que tnutent (l). So also where a vendor
had power to sell, but it was qaestionable whether the sale
was being made properly in pursuance of the power, the sale
was stayed (m). So also a company was restrained from
acting upon a resolution for the sale of its undertaking under
sect. 192 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, to a
foreign company (n). So also where a foreign vessel was
driven into Plymouth by stress of weatiier, an injunction
was granted, at the instunie of the supercargo and part owner,
to prevent the master from selling the cargo (o). So also
where the representatives of a mortgagor had obtained the
mortgage deeds from the mortgagee by fraud, an injunction
wiis granted to restrain the defendants from selling or mort-
gaging the estate (p). So also an infant who had obtained a
lease of a furnished house on a representation that he was of
(A) Oi-d. XLVL r. 9.
(i) lb. r. 12.
(k) lb. r. 13.
(0 Wilet T. an$ham, 1 £q. Bep.
48 ; Manhall r. Sbtd^, 7 Hb. 428 ;
4DeG.SSm.468; 19 L. J. Ch. 57 ;
82 R. B. 159 ; and see ante, p. 521.
(hi) Ilaivesw James, 1 Wils.Cb.2.
(ii) Thomai v. L'niled Butter
' ^mpattm nf Front*, (1909} 2 Ch.
K.I.
484 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 14 ; see sect. 285
of the Act of 1 908 as to definitioii of
••company." Under sects. 161,1 " '
the Companiee Act, 1S62, u.
sale might be made to a foreign
compuiiy : III re Irrigaivjn Oi. nf
France, 6 Ch. 176 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 433.
(o) Iklafield y. Ouanabtut, Dan.
Ch. Pr. 1362, 7th ed.
(p) Wallii y. WallU, ib.
40
INJUNCriUNS TO RBSTRAIN WBONOFUL
full uge, WU8 ordered to deliver up possession of the pre-
mises, and was restrained from parting with the furni-
ture iq). So also where the defendant had iigreod to give
tha plaintiffs the " ftnt refusal " of certain property, the Court
restrained the defendant from selling pioporty witJiout hnving
first offered it to the plaintiffs at the price that an intending
purchaser was offering (r). So also any rezatioos aliena-
tions during the progress of a suit will be restrained (»).
In an action by an equitable moitgagee for sale or fore-
closure the Court granted an injunction to restrain the mort-
gagor from dr; iling with the legal estate, there being ground
for 1)elieving that tiie mortgagor intended to part with the
legal estate pendente lite (t).
Pending an appeal the Court will sometimee stay the sale of
jnoperty directed by the ■ ree to be sold, but if the property
consists of personal chattels remaining in the possession of
the ai)pollunt, he must give ample sec -ity for the value (»).
In a case in which a wife had obtain<.d a decree nisi for the
dissolution of her marriage, and an order had "x>en made that
the husband should secure a sum for her ma..itenance, and
that for such purpose it should be referred to one of the C(m-
veyancing counsel to draw a deed, the Court granted an in-
junction restraining the husband from jjarting, or otherwise
dealing with his interest in certain property until the execu-
tion of the deed (s).
Trustees for sale will not be restrained from selling because
(2) Ltinpriert y. Lang, 12 C. D.
676 ; 41 L. T. 878 ; see 8todc$ v.
)r>7«>N, (191») 2 K.6. p. 242; 82
L. J. K. B. p. 602; Leilie y. SIM,
(I'.iVi) 29 T. L. E. 554.
((■; Manchester Ship Canal Co, v.
Manchester Raceconrse Co., (1901)
2 Ch. 37 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 468.
(•.) /',»•(.« V. Il'n;//!', 7Beav. 441;
Beiifut V. Bullock, 7 £q. 391; 20
L. T. 166; Hart y. Htrwig, 8 C!h.
860 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 447. After an
order for (on. -^ren^ti, and before
the order is mudo absolute, the
mortgagee cannot sell without the
leaye of the Conxt, 10 M to confer
a good title on anyime other than
a b<m4 fide pwohaaer for value
without notice : Sfmetu r. Thtatru,
Lt,l, (1003) 1 Ch. 857 ; 72 L. J. Ch.
704 ; llalkett {Karl) v. Dwlltij, (1907)
1 Ch. p. 603 ; 70 L. J. Ch. p. 337.
(t) London and County Bankiiaj
Co. V. Lewie, 21 C, D. 490 ; 31
W. K. 233. As to restraining salee
by mortgagees, aee ante, p. 539.
(u) Utrat y. fiNmaiMt, SSom. M;
2fi H. B. 12.
(oc) Newton r. Newton, (1896) P.
36; 65 L. J. P. 15; and see
WaUrhovite v. ^yattThou^e, (1893) P
284 ; 62L.J.P.nO; ti.BwmttUr
AGT8 OF A 8PE0UL NATUBE.
they ciiruiot aliow a good title (y). A truMtee for sale may not C>*»XXi.
avoid a fair and unobjoitionahlo contract by eotering into »
Bubgequent contract for a higher price (z).
When the thing «boat to be lold is in the nature of a ipeeifle
chattel, which cannot be the Hul)j('et of adwiuiitc compcnsution
liy damages, the defendant will be restrained by injunc-
tion (a). So also when a chattel necessary for conducting a
particular business is in the possession of iM'rsons who claim
a lien upon it, and threaten an inniiediate sale, (he Court has
jurisdiction to interfere by injunction and prevent irreparable
injury to the debtor by giving him an opportunity of re-
(loeniinR it (7;). A man, however, wlio has put a fixed price
on a specific chattel, cannot be heard to say that damages at
law would not be a sufficient remedy (c).
If a fiduciary Jelation exists between the pai ties, the rigiit
of a man who entrusts goods to another to be protected in the
beneficial enjoyment of his property in specie is not confined
to articles possessing any peculiar or intrinsic value. What-
ever the description of the chattels may be, the Court will
interfere to prevent a sale either by the party entrusted with
the goods, or by a per on claiming under him through an
abuse of power (d). An egent, accordingly, was restrained
from parting with the possession of furniture and household
effects by which the plaintiff's title to the same would be em-
barrassed (e).
If a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of being entitled
to a vendor's lien, the Court will restrain the purchaser from
selling the property until tiie hearing (/).
If goods have been wrongly seized by a sheriff, the Court
V. Bitrmetltr, (1913) 1'. 78; 82 v. /^"^niiJ, 17 Eii. p. 139; 43L. J.
J. P. 65. th. 2y>.
(^) Sobertt y. Bozon, 3 L. J. Ch. (6) Sorih v. Gre^ yorthtrn Mil-
(O.S.)n3. u«yCb..3aiiI.64 : 29L.J.Ch.301.
(t) Ooodwin r. Fiddtng, 4 D« O. (t) Dowling y. B^emann, 2 J. ft
M. ft O. 104 ; 102 B. E. 39. H. 644 ; 10 W. B. 574 (a picture).
(a) Tmniiu v. Front, 1 Dick. (./) !tW v. Ajh c/ i/c, 3 Ila. 304 ;
387 (diamonds) ;fl('(/i/» a//v./W-f/ r<, 13 L. J. Ch. 293; 2 Ph. ,382; 17
4 Ila. lOG (u sbip) ; and see Fairhe 7,. J. Ch. »3 ; (H i{. 1{. ;i(Ki. ijee
V. (hatj, 4 Drew. 651 ; 29 L. J. Ch. /Wcy v. Ihhld, 14 Ueav. 34.
28; 113 It. K. 493 (china jars) ; (c) Woal \. Itowcliffe, tui,ra.
Xutbrown v. ThortOon, 10 Vee. 169 (/) BlaMeg v. Dmt, 13 W. B.
{i^oAmhaa); nim»Fi4hergia 663.
40—3
INJUNCTIONS TO RE8TR4IN WBONOFuL
XXI.
InjaoctioB
a^init the
urgotiation of
Mcaritiw, kc.
will, u|N}r. u proper case being made out, renti^in him from
remuining in poHsession or selling the goodH (ij) • but the
usaal course is for the sheriff, after receiring notice of con-
flicting cluims, to take out an interpleader •aminont, and tor
i\u> r'mhiH uf tho parties to be determined upon the bearing
of Huch Hummons (li).
The Court may, under 32 i: 23 Vict. c. 81, s. 5, restrain a
liusbund against whom u decree of divorce hm been obtained
from selliug or incumbering real estate comprised in a post-
nuptial settlement («).
Where a ressel has become unable to proceed on her voyage
without ropnirM, the ownerH of goods shippo<l on board tlu'
vi<H8ei muy obtuin the assistance of the Court to restrain
the captain from selling the cargo. But before the Court will
grant sucli assistunco, the plaintiffs mu^»t show their titl*' to
the goods, and must settle with tho captain for what is due to
him, and must exonerate the captain from his contract to
deliver the goods at tli« place of destinatioa, and iron ail
liability on the bills of lading (k).
Where the sale of a mortgaged estate has been effected
under the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdictimi in
a colony, and no c.;se of [mud is miido out, equity baa no
jurisdiction to interfere by injunction (l).
If tiiere is danger that a negotiable instrument fraua. lently
or improperly obtained, or which ought not to be negotiated,
will get into tho hands of a botid fifle holder without notice,
to the prejudice of the maker or acceptor, or persons interested
in the same, the Court will interfere to restrain the negotia-
tion, asKignnient, or endorsement of the instrument, and will
order it to be delivered up (m).
{</) See BUliard v. I/aiuon, 21
('. 1). 69; :n W. B. 131; Jyhrin
V. i:i;ini, o > L J. Ch. 105 ; 4" L. T .
N. S. 568.
(A) Ord. LVU. ; HUIiard v.
//oRMm, ai C. D. 71. 72 ; 31 W. B.
ISl.
(i) WatU y. WatU,24 W. R. 6^:).
(/) ItagM V. BmediH, 10 I... J.
Ch. 297.
(/) WhUe T. Uall, 12 Te«. 321.
Cf. Lord Cmnttoien r. Johnttm,
3 Veg. p. 182 ; 3 R. K. 80 ; and
see liank of Af rial v. Cvlitn, (19091
2 Ch. p. 140 ;" 78 L. J. Ch. p. 780 ;
llrili/tli Noiiili Al'rira Co, v. lit
Jlrera Contoliilateil Mi net Co., (1910)
2 Ch. pp. 513, 514 ; 80 U J. Ch, p.
77; revened <m otlwr ground*,
(1912) A. C. 42; 81 I.^ JT. Ch.
137.
(m) Hood T. Aibrn, 1 Bum. 412 ;
ACTS OF A SPECIAL NATUBB.
In fiank «f KinjUtitd V. AniUrm»i(,m), an iojanetion wnn Oar- XIL
granted at tin* ^«uit of tlu Bank to reatnia • braking cow-
panj, carrying on biuincm within the diitenea (rf aiz^-flTa
miles from London, from uccciiting a bill of exchange
pnyable at Ichs than aix months from the time of giving euch
accttptance (o).
An injunction may, upon a proper raae being made out, be
obtained restruining the dcfcndtint from parting with docii
ments in his po88et»Hion l)elonging to the plaintiff, and from
preventing the plaintiff and his solidtor from having aeeaaa to
tba documents nt reasonable times after leosonable notice (p).
In GUitne V. Marahall (q), the East India Company were
restrained from paying over the principal and interest secured
upon East India Bonds to a person who had wrongfully
obtained possession of them, or to any ottier persm than the
lawful owner.
The Court will not grant an injunction to restrain a man l^jiuietivB
who is alleged to be a debtor tnm parting with (r) or dealing Staf y J i w rt i . '
with («) his property as he pleases. Where no order has been
made by the Court for the payment of money, the Court has
no power to make an order to restrain a man from removing
his property out of the jurisdiction or otherwise dealing with
it (t). But if an order has been made for the payment of
money, the Court will reatrain a man from dealing witti his
{HToperty so as to put it out of the control of the Court (u),
25 n. R. 9.t; Gmii v. PMger, 3 wai/ of Bmho$ AyfmO».,6Ch.9Sl ;
lla. m ; ThinlertMnn V. Ool'limiilt, 23 L. T. 719.
1 DeO. F. 4 J. 4; 8 W. R. 14 ; (<) ifev'ton v. Xewion, 11 P. P.
m B. B. 324 ; Haivkin* v. TroHy, U; 66 L. J. P. 13; BurmttUr v.
•T.L.n.m; Dag r. Lonshunl, Biirmmkr, (1919} P. 76 ; L. J. P.
(18M) W. 3 : 68 L. J. Ch. 334. 66.
(») 2 Kem, 538 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.) {») Siin$g T. Sidntjl, 17 L. T.
Ch. 265 ; 44 R. R. 271. N. S. 9 ; (JiUttt T. OilUlt, 14 P. D.
(o) See Hank- o/£„<jland y. Booth, 158 ; 68 L. J. P. 84 ; Wairrhouie r.
2 Keen, 46« ; 7 1* J. Ch. 261 ; 7 WaterhoHH, (1893) P. 284 ; 62
Cl. & Pin. 509 ; 44 B. R. 27. L. J. P. 116; Xewton r. Xeirtoti,
(P) OMdah r. CMMe, It aim. (IMH>) P. 36; 65 L.J. P. 15;
316. decided on cect. 32 of the Matri-
(j) 15 Sim. 71. monial Causes Act, 1857, now
(f) Rubhuait r. Pkkmng, 16 the Matrimonial Caoaes Act, 1807,
C.D.pp^661,e6S; ML.J.Gh.WT. 1 and 3. and Cmmihm t.
(«) lb.; Milk v. Sorthtrm Bag- iWUw, (1899) 1 Ch. 16, 90; 68
680
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
Cb«p. XXI.
Appoihtiiient of
nceirer by way
of «qaiUbt«
execution.
Dispute as to
appointment of
adminintrator.
Acts of foreign
garernment.
and will restrain him from receiving money due to him from
third persons, and also restrain then from paying it to
him (x).
Upon an ex parte application ' v a judgim nt . > . ditor for
leave to issue a smnmons for thr >,.v,' inlDU'ti of ft receiver
of the judgment debtor's properly ■ > \ v oi' . quLable execu-
tion, an injunction restraining the judgment deiuor from deal-
ing with his property until after the hewring of the application
is not prantcd iis a niiiKcr of course, i)ut only if tiic Court
is satisfied that thero is some danger of the property being
made away with by the judgment debtor (//).
Where there was a (hsi)uto as to tiic a|i|)ointment of an
administrator, liie Couii restrained one of tlie |)arties who
was in possession of the personal estate of the deceased from
disposing or removing any of the estate of the intestate (z).
Altlioufjh the r'ourt hiis no jurisdiction to interfere with the
sovereign acts of a foreign government, or to make a decree
against a foreign ambassador or public minister who does not
submit (o till' jurisdiction («), an injunction may be had
restraining a third party from handing over to a foreign
ambassador a fund, tlie right to which is in dispute (b), or
restraining the apent of a foreign government from parting
with securities, which dUL'ht to be deix)si(ed in this country
a& security to bondholders (c). A foreign sovereign may
submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts here, but such
submission cannot t:il;e place until the jurisdiction is invoked.
The fact, therefore, that a foreign sovereign has been residing
in this country and has entered into a contra'-t here, mider
an assumed name as being a private individual, does not
amount to a submission to the jurisdiction, or render him
liable to be sued for breach of such contract (d).
L. J. Ch. p. 59 ; linUni v. liuUm,
(1910) 102 L. T. 399 ; 26 T. L. R.
3dO; we also Sturgtt v. IVarwirk
{roHtituM of). (1913) .10 T. L. n. ll:t.
(r) BuUut T. Buliiia, nijirii.
{;/) I.h.yiU Bank v. Mnlicni
I'jtpfir yny{,in(inji Co.. ( \<H}!i) 'J K.
;iu!i: 74 L. J. K. K 831. See
B. S. C. Ord. L., r. 15 (a), App. K.
Form No. 01 (•).
(«) Bran<i y, MUmm, 24 W. B.
524.
(a) .l)ife, p. 8.
(//) (llmhtmie v. Mnitnriis Bei/, 1
II. & M. 4!».) ; »> L. J. Ch. 155.
('■) FiTeiiin lloiiil/itililirnv. Fallot,
\\r -R lo'i; :\\ I, 'r. 5<;:.
('/) .VujIkU v. Siiltaii of Ji,har«
(1894) 1 a B. 149 ; 83 L. J. Q. B.
498. Sm BMham r. aMAom m»d
ACTS OP A SPECIAL NATURE.
681
The Court will not, aa a rule, restrain a party from pro- cui.. xxi.
ceedine with an arbiti ation in a matter beyond the agreement Injonctioni
to refer, although such arbitration proceeding may be lutile ,rbitratora from
and vexatious (e). But the Court may restrain a party from
proceeding with an arbitration if an action is pending
impeaching the instrument which contains the agreement
to refer (/). Moreover, the conduct of the parties may found
a sufficient ground for the interference of the Court (g). An
injunction accordingly may be had to i cstniin an arbitrator
from proceeding with a reference on the ground of corrup-
tion (ft). So also if it is discovered in the course of the
iirliitration hv one of the parties, to whom it was at fust
unknown, laat the arbitrator has an interest in the subject-
matter of the award, or if the arbitrator has misconducted
himself or has ceased to be a free agent, so as to be obviously
unlit for the exercise of such functions, the Court will restrain
him from acting (i).
The rule, however, which applies to a person holding
judicial office, that he ought not to hoar cases in which he
might be suspected of a bias, docs not apply to an arbitrator
named in a contract to whom both parties have agreed to refer
disputes. In order to justify the Court in saying that such
an arbitrator is disqualified from acting, circumstances must
be shown to exist which establish at least a probability that
ho will in fact be unfairly biased in favour of one of the
parties in giving his decision (A:). Accordingly, where a con-
the Gad-war of Barala, (1912) P. Btidd, 2 C. D. 113; 46 L. J. Ch.
1>. 94 ; 81 L. J. V. p. 34 ! /« « 271.
Reimhli,- of Hotina Kr),U^ion («) B<ddow V. B«J<tou), 9 C. D.
Syndicate, (1913) W. N. ;!29. 89 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 588 ; Jacktm v.
(e) \frth Limlon lUnbrmi Co. v. harry Rnilwny Co., (1893) 1 Ch.
ilrtat NMhem Railway C.,., U 238, '249 ; C8 L. T. 4T'.'. Pee
Q,B D 30 - 62 L. J. Q. B. 380; Blucku^ell A Co. v. Ikrhy Corimra-
and««nWv./;t7/.M,61L.J.Ch. «on, (1911) 75 J. V. 12'.); BrM
158- FofTor v. Cb*p*r, 44 0. D. Corporatvm v. Aird, (1913) A. C.
a23 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 806. 241 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 684, where the
( f ) Kittt V. Moore, (1896) 1 Q. B. Court wftwed to rtay actiona under
263 ; 04 L. J. Ch. 132. sect. 4 of the ArlHtrwtum Act, 1889,
rc> !-au.< v. O.irrett, 8 C. D. 26. and refer them to arbitration.
■.i-;t Kirrlmer V. (Irubmi, (1909) 1 (A) K-lfrtley v. M'criey Dock*,
Ch.419,422 ; 78L. J. Ch.p. 118. (1894) 2 Q. B. 067; 71 L. T.
(») Jftrfntfihify JToflMwy Co. r. 808; r« « Hirigh ourf Imtdem crwi
fi32 INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
. contained ^ pion.sion lefening disputes to the engineer
of the employers, and disputes liaviiig arison the contractors
brought an action for the purpose of having the same
detennined, the Court ordered stay under sect. 4 of the
Arbitration Act, 1889, notwithstanding the fact ib&t the
engineer would, in substance, be acting as a. judge in his own
cause; no suflScient reason having been given for suspecting
that the ei gineer would act unfairly (I). So also where a
contract contained a clause providing that all disputes should
be referred to a certain barrister, and during the proceedings
a charge of museonduct was made against a firm of solicitors
who were clients of the barrister, the Court refused to stay
the aibitration, there being no charge of incompetence or bias
against the barrister (m).
Dnipire. Where an umpire has been irregularly appointed, the Court
will restrain him from acting (n).
Ltw«a hu.b«nd '^^^ » ^«sband from disposing of or
udwife. infermeddiing with his wife's separate estate (o); from
entering her house, not for the purpose of consorting with her
as his wife, but in order to deal with it as being his own
property (p) ; from molesh'ng or interfering with her in a
business which has been assicrned to her separate use (^) ;
from assigning or dealing with property to which she
has become entitled, pending a suit by her to enforce her
equity to a settlement in respect of the same (r) ; or from
IIV<,'(Tfi II I, •! I hint IIVs/<)7< ttriirtkm <\i., siiiirn.
Railwaii Cmimiiiis, (1896) I Q. B. (b) Petcod v. PetcodJim) W N
649 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 511 ; Bright 2; 48 L. T. N. 8. 76.
V. Iliver Plate Conttruction Co., (o) Grten Ormn, 5 Ha. 400 n. :
(1900) 2 Ch. 835; 70 L. J. Ch. 71 R. R. 131; ITood v. Wood. 19
SB; Freeman awl Sons v. Che»ttr W. E. 1049; Si/m.-iuh v. Hallelt, 24
Jiural Council. (1911) 1 K. B. C D. .TIO ; 5,i L. J. ( .i. 60.
783. 791; 80 L. J. Q. B. 095; (y,) .Si^mimih v. Mlett. ^ijira ;
BMw/l ,t Co. V. Ikrhy Caryora. Wih.,1 v. Wml, 19 W. B. 1049-
ii-m, (1911) To J. 1'. 129; liiUtol IleW.ji v. De liaihe, 14 Q B D*
CriioraiioH v. A,r.l. (1913) A. C. p. 343; 54 L. J. a B. 113; cf."
241 : 82 L. J. K. H. 684. See Oayn-r v. Oaynor. (l»l) 1 L R.
Hnlmnit li C». v. Jlobert*, (1913) 217.
A. C. 229 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 878. (,) Ihmnetty y. Donnellv. 31 Sol.
(<) ami Barker v. ITillan; J. 45; (iaymtr v. Oai/nor, si,,ra
(1894) 2 Ch. 478 ; 63 L. J. Ck 521. (r) SoherU v. Robert,, 2 Cox, 422 ;
(»») Br^M T. Rimr JKat* Cdw ElUt t. £ai$, 8 Coof. 0. 0. SM.
ACTS OF A SPECIAL NATCU!.
dealing with property to which she was entitled at the
(lute whnn she went through the ceremony of m;irriiigp with
the defendant, pending a suit instituted by her in the Divorce
Court for declaration of nullity of such marriage (s). So
also the Court will enforce by injunction legal and jHDper
covenants in a separation deed (t).
A wife who has divorced her husband and obtained an order
for alimcmy to be payable out of his then present income until
furtlier order is in the position of a judgment creditor ; and it
lias been held that in such a case the wife may, iu an action
against the husband and the trustees of a settlement, under
which the husband has a life interest, obtain an injunction to
restrain the trustees from acting upon any consent given liy
the husband to the exercise of the power of advancement in
favour of children contained in the settlmient («). So also,
if an order has been made for the payment of alimony, the
Court will restrain a husband from getting rid of his pro-
perty or putting it out of his power (x). So also where an
order had been made for payment by a husband of his wife's
costs in divorce proceedings, the Court granted an injunc-
tion restraining the executors of a will from paying, and the
husband from receiving a legacy (y). But the Court has no
jurisdiction, where there is no subsisting order for alimony,
to restrain a husband who is respondent in a matrimonial
suit from removing his property out of the jurisdiction or
mortgaging or disposing of it (z).
Where it appears that an infant ward is about to make a injuneUoM
marriage without the consent of the Court, an injunction will inCwtvwdiot
Govt
(») Sealeij v. Oaston, 13 W.' H.
677.
(() HamitUM v. Htcior, 13 Eq.
611 ; 6 Ok 701 : 40 L. J. C9t. 698 ;
Btiant T. Wood, 13 C. D. 605 ; 48
L. J. Ch. 497 ; Marthcil Mar-
tliall. 5 P. D. 19 ; 48 L. J. P. 49 ;
Mlriiige v. AUridge, 13 P. D. 210,
•Jl l; 68 L. J. P. 8. See A'em.«<7y
v. Kf,:r:f,hj, (1907) P. p. 61 ; "fi
r.. J. p. p. 36.
(h) Olivtr V. LovHher, 28 W. E.
S81 ; 43 L. T. 47.
(r) Sidney v. Si'litey, 17 L. T.
N. S. 9 ; Waterhi.itse v. Water-
houte, (1893) P. 284 ; 62 L. J. P.
US ; Ntu4oH T. Newbm, (1896) P.
36; 65 L. J. P. IS; Buttm r.
Bullua, (1910) 102 L. T. 399; 26
T L. B. 330.
(;/) Jliillut V. BiiUut, siqira.
[z) Xnoton v. Xiwton, 11 P. T>.
1 1 ; T;. J. P. 13 ; Bumtitrr
V. BurmttUr, (1918) P. 76, 79 ; 83
L. J. P. fi4.
634
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
be granted not only to restrain the marriage, but also all
commiinicntion with tho infant, and all intorcoursc, either
personal or by letter; and if the guardian is suspected of
countenancing the intended marriaj^e, he will be restrained
from permittinis; the niairiage or giving his consent without
the leave of t^e Court (a). If Iho infant about to contract
an inipr(.p€'r marriage lias no property, or is not a ward of
Court, his parent may, by settling a small sum of money for
his or hor benefit, in order to give the Court jurisdiction, and
bi inging an action for the execution of the trusts of tlie settle-
ment, obtain an injunction to restrain the other parly with
whom marriage is coiitemplated from marrying or having any
communication with the infant (h). Hut after a person who
has been a ward of Court has attained the age of twenty-one,
there is no jurisdiction to restrain such penon from marry-
ing, or settling, or disposing of his or her property in any
way desired (c).
Injunctions The Court may also, on a proper case being made out,
«ftt«.','^''.'o ^''^'I'^r in c:is« of immorality, cruelty, or ill-treat-
Humn"''f ^^S^^ right to the custody of his children (il).
chiiJren. " Children will not be removed from their father merely because
he is poor, or unable to" maintain them (e). Mere acts of
harshness or severity of a father, or the fact that he has
a somewhat passionate temper, are not sufficient ground for
removing the children from his custody. To warrant the re-
moval of children from the custody of their father, a case is
generally required to be made out either of moral turpit-ule,
or of cruelty, so as to render him unlit to have the manage-
meat of them (/). The fact that a father is having immoral
/>(• MatinevilU, 10 Ves. 52 ; 7 E. E.
;M(); IlumiUon v. Ilertm, fi Ch. p.
705; ii) L. J. Ch. 692; Smart v.
Nmor^(1892) A. C. 425 ; 61 L. J.
r. C. ;tS : Reg. V. 'lynqall, (1893) 2
Q. B. 232, 239; 62 L. J. a B. M9 :
In ft yeti)Um, (1896) 1 Ch. 740, 7M ;
65 L. J. Ch. 640.
(f) lir Fijvy,, 2 De O. * a 457 ;
79 B. B. 284 ; He CuHii, M L. J.
Ch. 418.
(/) Bt Curtit, »mpra ; Afafa v.
(a) Smith V. Smitli, 3 Atk. ;i07;
Penrte v. CrittrhfidJ, 14 Ves. 206;
KaHn v. York, 19 Ves. 454 ;
Snrrii v. Ormnnil, W. N. (1883) 58.
(A) finrsimv. Tlwmpiion, }2X,.T.
N. S. 17S. See Hyimv. Gilbard, 1
Dr. & Sin. 357.
(c) BoUoH V. Bolton, (1891) 3 Cb.
270; 60 L. J. dl. 689.
(d) Shelleif T. Weithronl-e, Jac.
266 B. ; 23 B. B. 47 ; Anon., 2 Sim.
N. a M, 69; /)( MmmttUh r
ACTS OP A SPECIAL NATURE.
686
intercourse wiUt a woman is not in itself a sofficient ground Chap xxi,
li) induce the t'ouit to deprive him of the custody of liis
iliiid, where the child is not brought into contact with the
womni, and no misconduct on the port of ihe father is
>hnwn with reference to the management uid education of
llio C'liild in).
I'lio (iuiirdiiinsiii|) of infants Act, 1m86, made f_,reat altera- (inaniiaiisiiipor
tions in the old law in regard to the custody o, .iifants. By iMa.***'*'
Mcl. 2, ui)On the dci>*h of the father, the mother liccomos tiie CuhKmIj
-ii irdiun, either alone or jointly with u guardian apjwiiiltd
hy the father. By sect. 5 the Court may, upon the applica-
tion of the mother of any infant, make such order as it may
(liink fit regarding the custody of such infant, and the right
uf access of either parent, "liiiving regard to the welfare
of the infant and to the conduct of the parents, and to the
wishes as well of the mother of the father" (h) ; and by
sect. 6 the Court may, in its discretion, on being satisfied
that it is for the welfare of the infant, remove from his
office any testamentary guardian, or any guardian appointed
or acting under the Act (().
Under sect. 5 of the .\ct of 1886 the Court has, aftei : -ning
into account the various considerations mentioned in that sec-
tion, full jurisdiction to entirely override the common law
l ights of a father in relation to the custody of his infant
children (A:).
It is now well settled that in questions concerning the Welfare of »b«
... , . , infant ia the
custody of infants, the mam consideration to which regard main eonsitlera-
will be had ia the welfare of the child. As laid down by the
Court of Appeal ({) in a case which raised ^e question of tiie
W'lilliiruKrt, 7 L. T. O. S. 515; 415; see also the Custody of
Ifaimltmy. Hector, 13 Eq. 611; 6 Infants Act, 1891 (64 Vict. c. 3),
Ch. 706 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 892 ; Smart b. 3, and the Cbildtea Act, 1908
V. Smart, (1892) A. 0. 426, 482 ; 61 (8 Edw. 7, o. 67), » 21—23.
T,. J. P. C. 38. (t) In re A and B (in/«m*»),
(7) nail V. Ball, 2 Sim. H.) ; fit re (1M7) 1 C3I. 786 ; 66 L. J. Oh.
.V,irah. L. R. 1 P. & I). 438. 892.
(/i) See fn re A ami B (/»/a«/«), (/) In re Mcilrath, (1893) 1 Ch.
(iS97) i Ch. Teo; Of) li. J. Ch. 592. UA, 14S ; 02 L. J. CL. 2i)H ; uud
(1) See In re MHlrath, (1893) 1 see Stourton v. Stoiirton, 8 De O.
Ch. 143; 62 L. J. Ch. 208; F. v. M. & O. 760, 771 ; 26 L. J. Ch.
F., (1902) 1 Ob. M8 ; 71 L. J. (%. SM. 8»7 ; Rtg. t. OynfM, (IflM) 2
636
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
Cbip.
KducatioQ of
Ii^unctioua to
rtMiain karial.
XXI._ cuatody of u pciiniloss child under the care of a Ipgal guardiai
who was ablo and willing (o miiintuin and fdiu-ute the fhii(
at his own expense, " The duty of the Court ia, ia our judg
ment, to leave the child alone, unless the Court is satisflet
that it ia for the welfare of the child that some other course
should be taken. Tht dominant matter for the consideratior
of the Court is the welfare of the child. But the welfare of u
child ia not to !)« iiuiiHured by money only, nor by physical
comfort only. The word 'welfare' must be taken in it-
widest sense. The moral and religious welfare of the child
must be considered as well as its physical well-being. Nor
can the ties of affection be disregarded."
So also, although, with reference to the religious education
of an infant, the Court will as a rule have regard to and
enforce the wishes of the father {m), neverttieless, the para-
mount consideration is always the welfare of the child; and
accordingly, if a sufficient case is made out in the infant's
interest, the Court may disregard the father's wishes with
refei ence to the religious education, e?en tfiough the father
be still living (n).
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain the incumbent
of a parish from burying in the churchyard without tiie con-
sent of the chui-chwardens or parishioners of the parish, the
corpse of a person not being a parishioner of the parish (o).
The Court will restrain the owners of a cemetery from using
for burial any part of their ground within one hundred yarvls
from a dwelling house without the consent of the owner,
lessee, or occupier of the house if such ground has not been
already used as or appropriated for a cemetery (p). But the
Q. B. 232, ; 62 L.J. Q. K 559 ;
F. v. F., (1902) 1 Ch. 088; 71
L. J. Ch. 415 ; Jn re 11'., (1<H)7) 2
Ch. pp. 566, 667 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p.
152; Hex V. Walker, (19X2) 28
T. L. B. 342, comiwcnniaed on
•I^Mal. p. 379 (nutody of illegiti-
mate diild}, ud Me bIm m to cus-
tody of an tUegitimafe cliild ilex
T. New, (1904) 20 T. L. R. 583.
(to) In re Scanlan, 40 C. D. 200;
•7 L. /. Ck. 718; In r$ MeOndk,
(1893) 1 Ch. p. 148 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
p. 211 ; In re W., (1907) 2 Ch. S66;
77 L. J. Ch. 152.
(») In re Sewtm, ( 1896] 1 Ch.740 ;
64 L. J. Ch. 640; wid see /« re
mpra.
(") Att.-Gen. v. Strong, 1 Set.SSO.
(;>) Buriul Act, 18": (18 C 19
Vict. c. 128), g. 9. See (freenwwl
V. iVtifltmrrtli, 16 E<i. 288 ; 43 L. J.
Ch. 78 ; Lord Cowley t. By<u, 5
0. D. 944; Wright r. roOniqr
ACTS OF A SPECIAL NATURE.
6t7
consent of the owner, lessee, or occupier of a dwelling-hoase ClM^ XXI.
to the user of hind for burial within one hundred yards of his
dwelling-house is not now required if the house was erected
after any part of the ground has been used as or appro-
priated for a burial ground or cemetery (9).
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction the Injunctions
ci wlitor of a solvent company, whose claim is disputed, from JJwiBd'opI"""
presenting a petition to wind up the company (r). Moreover,
w liere a petition against a company is presented, ostensibly
for a windinfj-up cider, but in reality for anotiier purpose,
such as putting pressure on the company, ti)e Court has an
inherent jurisdiction to prevent such an abuse of process, and
will do so (ujwn appliciitioii being niiid(> to the Court in which
thi' petition is pending) without requiring an action to be
brought, by restraining the advertisement of the petition and
stiiying ail pioceedings upon it (»).
An injunction will not be granted to restrain a person from Aimniitiga
assuming a name, the patronymic of a family, there being no * ""**"
property in a name except when it has been exclusively used
in connection with a particular business (O- Nor will an
injunction be granted to restrain the fomer wife of a peer
who has obtained a divorce from him and subsequmtly married
a commoner, from continuing to use the title she acquired by
her first marriage (it). Nor will an injunction be granted Ami.
to restrain a person from bearing any arms he pleases, pro-
r.oral Buanl, 18 Q. B. D. 783 ; 06 18 Ch. 1). 557 n. ; 25 W. E. 365 ;
L. J. Q. 13. '259 ; Goililm v. Hi/the i'erde Restaurant Castiglione Co. v.
Unrial Board, (1906) 2 Ch. 270 ; 75 Lavtij, 18 C. D. 555 ; 40 L. J. Ch.
I.. J. Ch. 595, where the plaintiff's 837 ; Sew Travellers' Chamhr*,
house was erected after the defend- Limited v. Chute Jt Green, 70 L. T.
lilts had aequired the land for 371.
burial puipoaae. (a) lure A Company, (1894) 2 Ch.
('/) Burial Act, 1906 (6 E<lw. 7, 349 ; 63 L. J. Oh. M6 ; and im /n
c. 44), 8. 1 ; and see 2 Edw. 7, c. 8, re Oold HittMintt Co., 33 C. D. 210;
>*. 5, which provide!* that no crema- 49 L. T. 66.
torLi shall l)e constructed within (<) Dii Itoiday v. Du lUmlay,
•M) yards of a dwelling house with- L. B. 2 V. C. 430 ; 38 L. J. P. C. \W, ■
out the consent of tlx owner, I g a it C . fmi'leu {Karl) v. C'ji'-h'i (Countest),
or occupier. (1901) A. C. p. 460 ; 70 li. J. P. 89.
(/•) Cadiz Watenvoritt f:„. v. (») Cmotty {Karl) y. Cou^
HaneU, 19 Kq. 182 ; 44 L. J. Ch. CW«m, (1901) A. C. 4M ; 70 L. j.
539 : Nigir MtrtkaHW Co. v. Capjptr, P. 13.
688
INJUNCTIONS^ TO RESTRAIN WRONGFUL
CiMp. XXI.
Tdcgmiiliiu
Injunction
aj;ainst opening
letUn.
vided he does not interfere with the rights of others or de-
.five tliem (.t).
All injuiu tioii will i.ot he (^nintcd (in tiit' iibscrifc of fiiiudii-
lent intent or tlit- liive) to restruiri u mun from adopting as thu
name or designation of his house or land a name for a long
time usscd liy >i ii('if>iil)Oiir to dcsifiiiatt' iiis lioiisi' or lutid (//i.
Nor would the Court grant i'li ijiju'iction (o restrain ti bunii
from registering at the Post Ofiire as u telegraphic address
an ubhreviation used for many years for tlie same ijurjiose
by tiie plaintiffs who were canyiiig on tlie i)usiness of adver-
tising agents, there being no fraud, but merely inconvenience
to the plaintiffs (z).
All injunction may be had to restrain a mun from ojiening
letters addressed to another (a). Prhnd facie all letters ir ist
be taken to be intended for the person to whom they are
a(l(liesse<l, but if the person to whom they are addressed is
the secretary of a comi)any, the conipa'iy may open sucii
letters as appear from some other inuicution than the
mere address to be intended for them. Letters not bearing
any such indications may not be opened by tbp company
except in the presence of the person to whom they are
addressed (ft).
A man who has been dismissed by his employers has iiu
right to give a notice to the Post Office, the effect of which
would l)e to hand over to him i. lers, the greater part of which
probably relate only to the business of his employers. In
such a case the Court will, if necessary, grant a mandatory
injunction comjielling the defendant to withdiaw his notice,
the plaintiff being put on an undertaking only to open letters
addressed to the defendant at certain sj)ecifi6d times with
liberty fur the defendant to be present at the opening of
them (c).
(..) In re Croxon, (HKH) 1 Ch.
p. 258; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 172.
(i/) Day V. Droiunri'iij, 10 ('. I).
306 -. 48 ii. J. Vh. VA.
[z] Sfntty. I'uinii llitiik of .-yain,
30 C. D. 15(i; 5j L. J. cii.
(a) Scheit v. Jirukeli, U W. B.
796; EdgingtoH t. EigtHghm, 11
L. T. N. S. 299 ; Stapi/Uon v.
Forei'jn Viiieifard Aitocialioit, 12
W. It. 97().
IJi) Sliitilelnn V. fnreinn Vintgord
Auociatiim, li W. 1{. 97(i.
(e) Utrmann l.txuj v. Itean, 26
CD. 306 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 112*.
ACTS OP A SPECIAL NATURE.
689
The prosecutoi b, in u tiucle uiurk cuse, offered no evidence Clmy. X.\l.
againat the offender and he was acquitted, he giring a letter Kaiwatad pabli-
of Bjwiogy with uutliority to the prosecutors to make such use ty^!^
of it ii8 they might think necesst ry. The prosecutors pub-
lished this letter by advertisements and continued to do so
for nciirly two months. It was held that tiic urrangcnieat as
to the apology was not void us made under dure^js, and tliat
the prosecutors could not be restrained from continuing to
publish the letter {d).
The Court luis the powev to prohil)it the j)ublicalion of Ii^iuwtiou to
proceedings which are i>ending in all cases where the interests tlra'of'pro^cJ-
of justice are likely to be injuriously affected by their publi- iXiTMumof
cation (e). But it is .n each case a matter for the discretion
of the Court whether or not it will interfere. The Court will
not restrain every rejiort in tlie columns of a newspaper
which may appear to be unfair in any respect (/). If, how-
ever, the case is one in which the Court feels it ought to
interfere, it is no excuse that the publication may have been by
defence, and in answer to similar publications by the other
side, although it may excuse the party sought to be restrained
from the costs of the motion for that purpose (r/). In Macketl
V. Commissioners of Heme Bay{h), the Court restrained a
minister from jxreaching a sermon upon a subject having
reference to a pending action, and also frmn issuing jdaeards
announcing his intention to preach such a sermon.
The misrepresentation by a party to an action, of the
result of the proceedings, to the prejudice of his opponent,
is a contempt of Court which will be restrained by injunc-
tion (i).
In a case where a petition was pending for the compulsory
winding up of a company, it was held to be u contempt of
Comt to issue a circular to the shar^olders of the company
containing misreiaresentattons with intent to obtain a reaola-
((/) FIther d Co. v. Apollinaris (/) BntJt V. MvtOU, 38 L. J. Ch.
Co., 10 Ch. 297 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 500. OIG.
But see Win,!!,iU Local R:^.rd of (jt) rr.hrr.r.y. v. WfM ffortfepoe?
Health T. Vint, 46 C. D. p. 359 ; 69 Railway Co., 8 W. B. 734.
L. J. Oi. p. 613. («) 24 W. B. MS.
(e) B. V. CUnmt, 4 B. ft Aid. (t) OillHIe Safety Razor Co. v.
219 ; 33 B. B. 300. Oamage <£ Co., (1907) 24 B. P. C. 3.
11
i
ii
640
in Mmtr4,
Injanction
against commit*
ting contempt
of court.
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN WRONOFUL
tion of the company for volontury winding-up, and thereby
misload tlu! Court as to the real view of the shareholders (Ac).
But where a sliareholdci applied on behnn of himself and
the other ohareholders of the ComiMny for the removal of the
liquidator in the voluntary winding up, and before the hearing
of tho application sont a circular to the other shareholders
netting out his allegations against the liquidator, and asking
for their support, the Court diemissed the liquidator's aj^iica-
tion for an injunction to restrain the issuing of the circular
or the committal of the shareholder for contompt of Court,
on the ground that the circular could not in any way inter-
fere with, or prejudice, the due trial of the matter (I).
The general rule is tliiit legal proceedings should be in
public ( in) , but to this rule there are exceptions. Thus when-
ever it is reasonably clear that justice cannot be done unless
the case is heard in camera, whether it be a patent action,
or a case relating to a secret process, or a matter in
Chancery relating to a ward of Court, or where a public
hearing would disclose wluit it is the whole object of the
action to keep concealed, then the Court, by reason of its
inherent jurisdiction, has power to order thai the case be
heard {m cameri, and when the Court has so decided, it
is a contempt of Court to att^pt to publish an account of
the proceedings (n).
It is competent for tiie Court, where a contempt is
threatened (o), or has been committed, to take the more
(i) Re 8tj)Hmiu Panmage and
a., LPL, (1801) 2 Ch. 424; 70
L. J. Ch. 706.
(/) In re Neii' Oohl Cixist Ki pUira-
iiun Co., (1901) 1 Ch. 860 ; 7(» L. J.
( h. -iao.
(i/i) In re MaHindaie, (1894) 3 Ch.
p. 200 ; 04 I.. J. Ch. 9. Soe ScM
V. Sctttt, (1913) A. C. 417 ; 82
L. J. P. 74 ; Mooehriitjijer v. MtiM-
brngf/er, (1913) 29 T. L. B. 658.
(n) See Ogle t. Brandling, 2 B. ft
M. 688 (waids of Cuurt) ; Antlrei"
T. Raebum, 9 Ch. 522 ; 31 L. T. 73
(puUkatioii of lettan); MtUnr v.
rW^.SlCD.M; ML.J.CI1.
942 (oonfidmtial information) ;
Badivhe Anilin ttnd Sixia Fahrik
V. Leiinateiii , 24 C. D. ; 52
L. J. Ch. "04 ; Itedilaway v. FIi/hh,
(1913) 30 B. r. C. p. 17 (seci-et pro-
ce«8) ; Be MartindaU, (1894) 3 Ch.
2(M), 201 ; 64 L. J. Cn. 9 (ward
of Court) ; and .«co« v. Scott, (19U)
A. C. pp. 437, 438 ; 82 L. J. F.
83, wlMie bearing m eamei^ is
diecuMed.
('>) Kiteat \. Sl,ar)f, 32 L. J. Ch.
134; 31 W. M. 227.
A0T8 OP- A BPECUL NATURE.
641
lenient course of granting an injunction, innteatl of inukiag Ch«p. XXI.
an order for comiuittitl or MquMtntkm (p).
Tlic Court hits juriHdiction on ti proper ciise Iteing mtule out I^ioMliM
to restrain u solicitor who has not taken out his certificate for Jf^USfcUT**
Beverul years from renewing his certificate without leare of ^
Iho Court (q).
It a good equitable ca«e can be made to ajipear, the Court InjimetiM
will grant an injunction to restrain a local Board from ^j^i^I!,'
enforcing a rate until the opinion of the Court as to the
validity of the rate has been taken, the plaintiff paying the
amount of the rate into Court (/).
Where a man has made out his right to an easement to .uUoa
fix a «ign-board on the house of another, the hitter ^viU ilSIJSljff^
be restrained by injujictiou from pulling down the sign-
board (»),
A receiver appointed by the Court is an oflicer of the l»junction
Court, and any interference with his iwssession of the pro- l^Sj^'^wI"
perty of which he is receiver, without the leave of the Court,
may be punished as a contempt of Court (<) or be restrained
by injunction (u).
A person who ia prejudiced by the proceedings of a re Penwupreju-
etiver appointed by the Court should not bring an action to ^i^fwi^u
restrain the receiver from acting in derogation of his rights,
hut should apply for relief in the action in which the receiver
was appointed (7).
Where a receiver had been appointed by a mortgagee under inurfertne.
sect. 19 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, the Court restrained
inortfftMf,
(l>) IHimften t. SpiUer, 4 C. D. 449 ; 30 li. J. Ch. Ho.
286 ; J. and P. CoaU v. CliaJwick, («) Attoii v. J/ernn, > M. & K.
(1894) 1 Ch. p. 349 ; 03 L. J. Ch. m ; 391 ; 'link v. Ilumlle. 10 Beav. 318 ;
fhllette Safety Jlazor Co. y. Oamage 76 B. R. 139; Amti v. Truettet of
* Co., (1907) 24 n. P. C. p. 0. Itirkmhead Dock), -JO Beav. 333;
('l) Re Whitehead, 2d CD. an ; 24 L. J. Ch. 540 ; 109B.B. 443:
54 L. J. Ch. 796. IMxon v. Dixon, (1904) 1 Oh. 011 1
(r) Athworth v. HMen ISridg* 73 L. J. Ch. 103; Inn MaidOme
Local Board, 47 L. J. Ch. m ; 37 PuUitt of Vtttidim Co., (1909) 2 Ch.
li. T. 496. See ante, p. 594. 283. 286 : 78 L. J. ( 'h. 739,
(-.) .»oo<ly V. Stegylee, 12 C. D. (x) SearUv. Choate.-ioC. 1). m ;
201 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 639. 53 L. J. Ch. 506. In re MaultUnu
{I) Helrmve v. Smith, 36 C. D. iWoc« of VarietieB Co., $upra.
649
WBONOFUL ACTS OF 8FECIAL NATUBB BESTRAINBD.
Ctop. XXI. th« mortgagor from interfering with the rwcim in his col-
lection of the rents (y).
liijiiiMtkNi to In a casr where a loeul Miithni ity Hprved an owner of dwi U
nMmia (kiiDij ^.jjjj „ ^.[(jsiug order under sect. 17, >ul>-iieti- i
of the Housing and Town Planning, kc., Act, 1901*. piohtkil-
ing the use of his houMcs until he had rendered Ih ni fit far
hunmn hahitution, but thv order did not contain a note iniant-
ing the pinintiff of his right to appeal to the Local (iovvm-
nient Moard, the Court granted an injunction re>rt4'»itMng the
local authority from i)rocee(lin(; to enfor. i the i<"iU'< on ^he
ground tliat the "note ' was a material part of ffi. statutory
form, and tiiat its (Mnission invalidated the proceedings of
tlie lociil authority
Injunction Wilure a landlord on th.' ! ath of his tenant intestutu
•ntiri'ng entered his house and seized hie goods, the Court, O'
dieMiirl t«Mnt'> J, J. p,irfe application of the sole iiext-of kin liefore lettei.- .,
administration had i>een obtained, granted un iujunition re-
straining the landlord from entering the house and interfering;
with the deceased tenant's property la).
Deiuiwof r.«im The (Ifuiise of a room Imunded in i)art hy an oiit.sidp wiill
lioundcil in part .... , • ■ . ■ ,
by oaui.i« w»ii, prima facie comprises both sides of the wall unless there lie
Cstod^h^ an oxcepticm or reaerirstion in the oontext to exclude it.
•id«o(wall. Acc( rdingly, where a first floor of a l)uilding was demised, and
tliu lessees covenanted to keep the inside of the demised pre-
mises in repair, the Court refused to restrain the lessees from
attaching flower hoxes to the outside of their windows (h);
so also the Court under a similar demise restrained the lessor
from affixing advertisements on the outside wall of the
demised premises (c).
NatiomJ An injunction will he granted to restrain an approved
mi?°" sof ietv under the Isational Insurance Act, 1911, from restrict-
ing rights of its monbers to sieknew benefit ondor the
Act, e.g., insisting on the certificate of a panel doctor on an
application for sickness benefits (d).
(y) Bayly v. Went, 61 L. T. 6« ; 2 I. B. 427.
(1884) W. N. 197. See WooMmi v. (A) Hope Urotlieri, 1,1 v. Coivaii,
Kott, 1 Ch. T8S, 791 ; 69 1.. J. (1913) 2 Ch. al2 ; »2 U J. vh. 430.
Oh. 36S. (r) G„hl/ot4 T. Wekh, (WW)
(2) Haynrr y.Stejmey Corporatiun, W. N, 357.
(1911) 2 Ch. 312; 80 L. J. Ch. 678 (.i) Hear.l v. l:Mor,ie, (WW)
(a) In the Ooodt o/Cattvly, (1904) 3 K. B. 299 ; 108 L. T. 818.
CHAPTER XXII.
riucTici.
-h< TKiV ].— IN UllAI MAN.VKIl INJUNCTIONS Altl, ill) r\|NI,I),
Thk writ of injunction under the farmer procedure Uiiued Chap. xxil.
8wt.l.
pursuant to order, but under the present procedure no writ of
injunction is to issue. An injunction is by judgment or order,
ttiid such judgment or order hus the effect which a writ of
injunction jweviously had (a). An injunction will not in iimiacUoi, m
Reoeral be grunted, except after a writ of summoiu I»» J~I^^''JJ2*
issued (b). In un urgent case, however, an injunction may be
grunted before u writ of summons luia issued (c). In such a
case the aflSdavit should be intituled in the coiitemplated
action (r/j. So also where, on account of the offices of the
Court being closed, the issuing of a writ of summons has been
delayed, the Court may grant an injunction before a writ of
summons has issued, upon the undertaking of the party apply-
ing to issue a writ of summons immediately (e). A plaintiff
should endorse his writ with a claim for un injunction, when
obtaining it is a substantial object of his action (/). But
leave may be obtained to amend the endoisomont by inserting
a claim for un injunction (y). The nulun; of the injunction
claimed should also appear from the endorsement on the
writ (h).
(a) B. S. C. Old. L. r. 11.
(b) Savcry y. Dyer, Arab. 70;
Mitf. PI. 55. See Carler v. Ffi/,
(1894) -i Ch. 541 ; (13 L. J. Ch. 723.
((•) Thornrloe y, Skoines, 18 Eq.
126 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 78S. See Chaiiocli
y Ihrtr. 4 T L. E. 3-31.
'd) See Toung y. BroMty, 1 C. D.
277 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 142.
Carr r. Mark*, 16 £q. 129 ;
42L.J. CIt,78'; Canpanay. U'tbb,
22 W. B. 622. See ChaHock y.
ffertz, lUjirn,
{/) R. S. C. Onl ill.; CoU.
houriie V. Ctililt •me, 1 C. D. 660;
45 L. J. Ch. Vt't.
(y) r. ( -!. XXVIII. r. Ij
Cottbmimt V. CoUtuumt, I C. D.
690; 46 I.. J. Ch. 746.
{») B. a C, App. A., Pt. 3. •. 4;
41-2
614
PRACTICE.
ch^^XXll. A writ of summons, or notice of a writ, may be allowed by
'—- — the Couit to be servi>d out of the jurisdiction, when an
8«rTic« out of . ■ . . , . , . , , ....
tbvjiiriMlietioa. injunction is sought as to anything to be done within the
jurisdiction, or any nuisance within the jurisdiction is sought
to be prevented or removed, whether damages are or are not
also sought in respect thereof («'). The Court may give leave
to serve notice of motion with the writ out of the jurisdic-
tion (k). To obtain leave for service out of the jurisdiction,
the plaintiff must satisfy the Court tiiut his claim for an in-
junction is made in good faith and that there is a probability
that he will obtain an injunction. A mere claim for an in-
junction is not sufficient to justify service on a person resi-
dent out of the jurisdiction (I).
Injuoctiou
At the trial of the action an injunction will sometimes be
p»ui«™»uiiou)jb g'^'anted, although not claimed upon the endorsement of the
b^writ**' '^"^ ''^^^'^ judgment, parties to the action, or
persons who have come in under the decree, will be restrained
from violating the spirit of or taking proceedings that are
contrary to the decree, although an injunction be not claimed
upon the writ of summons («). The Court will also, under
similar circumstances, interfere to prevent injury to property,
either by the parties litigant or others. Thtis, if after a
decree to account, the mortgagor attempts to cut timber, the
Court will enjoin him, though an injunction was not
claimed (o)
Jie Myer$' Patent, 26 S. J. 371 ;
Carter y. fey, (1894) 2 Ch. p. 545 ;
63 L. J. Ch. p. "25.
(0 E. S. C. Old. XI. r. 1 (/).
{k) See Ord. XI. r. 8a ; In re
Bullen Smith, 67 L. T. 924 ; Overton
v. Burn, 74 L. T. 776 ; Htrmg T.
I'ouii^, (1894) W. N. 187.
(0 8m /to BmtaiHr. Nm Tcrk
StrtM, (18»3> 2 Q. B. »7. n ; es L. J.
Q. B. 38A ; Chtmitche Fabrik Sandtx
T. Jiwliuhe ^\nilin SoJa- Fahrik;
(1904) 90 L. T. 733; 20 T. L. E.
652 ; n'atvm v. Daily Record Co.,
(1907} 1 K. B. 863 ; ;6 L. J. K. B.
448 ; Alexander & Co. v. VaUMim
<t Co., (1908) 26 T. L. E. 29.
(in) ReyneU r. Spri/e, 1 l)e O. JI.
4 G. 680 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 663, 664 ;
91 E. E. 228 ; BUMinJield v. Eyre,
8B. 260, 269; 14 L. J. Ch. 260 ; 68
B. B. 87; Onodman v. Km, 8 B.
379.
(■•} (kuamt^ Stnxlt, l Sua.
ft St. 381 ; Orand Junction CanaJ
Co. V. Dime*, 17 Sim. 38 ; 18 L. J.
Ch. 419.
(o) Wright v. Atkynt, 1 V. 4 B.
313; 13B.B.1W.
IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ARE OBTAINED.
64S
The application for an injunction must be made by a party Chap. XXIL
having sufficient interest (p). A man who has no personal — ^^^^ —
interest in the matter Ciinnot more for an injunction, even
though he may have been made a party to the action (q). If
the act complained of affects the public interest, the action
should be brooght by the Attorney-General at the instance of
a relator. Private persons may sue alone, if their proprietai y
rights are affected or if they have suffered special damage from
the wrongful act (r).
Where a pa .ty wrongfully claims a right to do a thing, even ci»im of right
though he says he has no present intention to do it, there is a *"
ground for making him a party to an action for an injunction
to restrain him from doing it (•). A man who has assigned or
disjwsed of his interest in the subject-matter should not be
made a party to the action (t). But tlie parting by a defen-
dant with his interest after the bringing of the action does
not disentitle the plaintiff to an injunction (u).
Where there is a case for an injunction, and the injunction AbMrnol
will operate for the benefit of parties not before the Court, the i*^"*-
absence of those parties will not [mrent the Court tnm inter-
fering. It is enough that the property sought to be protected
is in danger (x). In cases of injunction the Court frequently
sets for parties in their absence (y) ; but where the injunc-
tion would injuriously affect the rights of persons not before
(p) Hynne t. Lord Ifewborougk, BaUingtr and t'hOtenham JtmnU
1 Ym. 1S4 : Leake t. Beehm, 1 DiHrict CotmtU, (1904) W T. L. B.
T. * J. 339 : 30 B. B. 794. p.Ml(afllanB^*«l <»qnMt><»irf
(q) Hunttr T. Kockelde, 18 L. J. eostt, 21 T. L. B. 632) ; Dictene v.
Cb. 320. National Telephone Co., (1911) 78
(r) So/fai»T.Z)«^reW, 2Sim.N. R. J. P. 687; rhornhill v. »«**,
1.33 ; 21 Ti. J. Ch. 183 ; 89 K B. 248. (1913) 1 Ck. 439, 444 ; 82 L. J. Ck.
See ante, pp. Ill, 150 ; and see also 299.
Att.-den. T. Gamer, (1907) 2 K, B. (() IlawMni v. Oanliner, 1 W. R.
480, 487 ; 76 li. J. K B. 9fid ; AU.- 348; dementi v. ITeUet, 1 £q. 200.
Om. T. Pititttpridd Walermrlti Co., Cf. Ewuu v. Daviee, 10 C. D. 747.
(1909) 1 SaS, 77 L. J. Cli. («) Bird t. Lake, 1 H. * IC.
237. p. 121.
(i) Tipping v. Edfrtie;/, 2 K. * J. (r) Conet v. Harr!*, 1. k E. 814 ;
p. 270 ; Ilert v. GUI, 7 Ch. 699, 711; 24 R. B. 108 ; Erani v. Coventry, 8
41 L. J. Ch. 761 ; Siia/iov. livkkow D« G. M. & 0. Hlfi; //nin/i r.
<<r Co., 34 C. D. 728, 728 ; 38 W. B. AoUnion, 3 I)e O. J. & a p. 1(K).
Ml; gdW aii yi wi Q nuvtm Ck v. (y) Cunt r. Harr:*, T. * B.
646
PBAOnCE.
^^^£cui"' ^ '"^ ordinarily and without special
— necessity interfere (z).
An injunction will not in generul be gninted except the
Ad injunction party against wlioin it is claimed is a party to the action (a).
— wliencxteiuled m. , ,. ... .
to penona not -Lhere are, however, exceptions to the rule. A man, for
pwtie* to action, example, who has purchased under a decree will be restrained
from acting contrary to the spirit of the decree, although not a
party to the action (6). So also a tenant holding under a
receiver will be restrained on motion, though not a party to
the action (<■). The defendant's attornies, agents, servants,
and workmen may be enjoined, although the statement of
claim and notice of motion may mily ask for an injunction
against the defendant (d), but the injunction will not be ex-
tended to the defendant's tenants (e). As to punishing for
contempt of Court persons, not parties to tiie action, who
aid in committing a breach of the injunction, see later (/).
Where an injunction forms a substantial part of the relief
Uotion for an claimed in the action, the usual course is to move for an
iMjwMtioa. interlocutory injunction until the action is disposed of.
Notice of motion may be served at any time after ap])earanc«
has been entered or (g) after the time limited for entering an
appearance has expired and liie defendant has made default
in appearing; or, by leave of the Court or a judge to b*
obtained ex parte, notice of motion may be served with the
Trit, or after service of the writ and before the time limited for
514: 24 B. B. 106; Evan$ t. (h) Ciuamajor y. Strode, 1 Sim. A
Tdiwitry, 5 De O. M. * 0. 911. St. 381.
{z) Hartlepool Oai and Water Co. (r) Walton v. .lohitton, 15 Sim.
V. Wat Hartlepndl Harbour and 352 ; 74 R. B. {»9.
Jlailicay Co., 12 L. T. N. S. 366. (<f) Seatoard v. PaOrxm, (1897)
See .M' Heath v. Jiaven$cm/l, 8 L. J. 1 Ch. p. 661 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 2b8 ;
(N. 8.) Ch. 208. See Metropolitan Brgdgur. Brydgt*,{l90a)F.p. 1»1|
Dittrirt Jlaihaay Co. v. Earh Court 78 L. J. P. 100 ; HhUot^ t. Wood-
Co., (1911) 56 a. J. 807. JMd, (1918) 87 a J. 729.
(o) Ivtmm t. Harrit, 7 \om. 256. (e) Hodtm t. Cojppard, 29 Bear.
See Brydget t. Brydgtt and Wood, 4 ; Metropolitan District Jlailway Co.
(1909) P. p. 191 ; 78 L. J. P. p. 100 ; v. Earli Court Co., (191 1) 55 S. J.
Metropolitan Dletrict Raihmy Co. y. 807 (sub-leMee).
KarU Court Co .(1911) .5.5 S. J. 807 ; (/) Porf, pp. 691, 692.
Itan^m y. Piatt, (1911) i K. B. (f) B. 8. C. (M. UL r. 8.
p. 307; SOL. J. K. B.p. 1148.
IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ABE OBTAINED. 647
appearance (fc). In such cases the notice must state that it ^^''^^^j^"-
is by leave (i); and where a party obtains leave to sei'v^ —
short notice of motion (fc) the iiotioo must expressly state
that such leave has been obtained
By B. 8. C. Ord. L. r. 6, an application for an injunction Wbo mqr h^j.
may be made to the Court or a judge by any party. It the
application be made by the plaintiS, it may be either cx parte
or with notice ; if by any other party, then on notice to Hie
plaintiff, and at any time after appearance of the party making
the application.
Under this rule, a defendant may before judgment apply Applic»tioB fcy
for an injunction or a receiver; and he may do so, notwith-
standing that the plaintiff has already served notice of motion
for the like purpose (m.). A defendant may apply for an
injunction against the plaintiff without putting in a defence
and counterclaim, or issuing a writ in a cross-action, provided
that the relief in respect of which the injunction is claimed is
incident to, or arises out of, the plaintiff's cause of action (n).
Aecwrdingly in an acticm in which both tiie plaintiff and the
defendant relied, from different points of view, upon the same
agreement, it was held that the defendant was entitled to apply
for an injunction as soon as he had entered appearance in the
action (o).
A plaintiff's notice of motion should be served upon the SwrietefBetiet
defendant. If there are several defendants, but the motion
only concerns one of tiion, he al<me should be served. If all
the defendants are interested in the motim, all ^ould be
served (p).
The notiee is served either personally on the party, or on
his solicitor if he has appeared by a solicitor; and if it is
m.i'l' out to the satisfaction of the Court or a judge that the
(A) B. 8. C. Ord. LIL r. 9. 45 L. J. Ch. 2n«.
(0 CiW»iii»«f»v.r«f»ta«,WW.B. (n)C<.rferv./'-«y.(1894)'2Ch.541;
1 100. 63 L. J. Ch. 723 : CoUimm r. Ilarrea,
{k) I.e., le« thui two dMtr teyn, (IWl) 1 Ch. SIS ; 70 L. J. Ch. 382.
Ord. LII. r. 6. («•) CW/«oii t. Warrtn, (1801) 1
(0 Dawion v. Btrxm, 22 C. D. Ch. 812 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 382.
604 ; 62 L. J. ( !i. 663. (.p) Se« Senkt V. OMtaMHia, 9
(m) Sargant v. Stad, 1 C. D. 600 ; Jur. 367.
PBACTICE.
°''fl&tf"' servico cannot be effected, an order will be made for
substituted service or for the substitution of notice for
service (q).
Where a defendant has not entered an appearance, or
having appeared has omitted to give an address for service
as required by the rules, a notice of motion may be served
on such defendant by filing the same with the proper
officer (r).
If on the hearing of a motion or other application the Court
or a judge is of opinion that any person to whom notice has
not been given ought to have or to have had sucii notice, the
f'ourt or judge may either dismiss the motion or application
or adjourn the 1: > aring thereof, in order that such notice may
be given upon such terms, if any, as the Court or judge may
think fit to impose (f).
U^^H^C^" ''nj unction may be applied for at any stage of the pro-
dnriag faoatNa. ceedings (t), and as well in vacation as in term, and whether
the Court is sitting or not (i/). But it is not the practice in
the Cliancery Division to grant an injunction in chambers
when the Courts are sitting (x).
iDjnaeUou No motion should be made without previous notice to the
parties affected thereby. But the Court or a judge may, if
satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary
way wouM or might entail irreparable or serious mischief,
mrVe an ordei for an injunction ex parte (y). In very
pressing cases an injunction may be applied for ex parte
before service of the writ of summons (z), and even before
issuing the writ (a).
In a case in which application for an injnnetioo e* parte
i'l) R. a C. Ord. liXVII. r. 0. tiong are frequently granted in
(r) B. S. C. Ord. LXVIT. r. 4. Chambers in the King's Benoh
(.) E. S. C. Ord. LTI. r. G. Division.
(0 liaeon v. Jone$, 4 M. 4 C. 433, (y) B. a 0. Ord. LIL r. S.
(») CMournt v. CoMoume, 1
(i.) Lane r. Barton, 1 Ph. 363; CD. 61)0; 4.5 T,. J. Ch. 749 ; /?r„„,/
13 L. X (%. 35 ; Chappell r. Darid- r. Mitton, 45 L. J. P 41 • 24 W B
»on,2K. 4 J. 125; 110B.B. 1.34. 324.
(r) Engluh y. Vttry tf Camber- (a) See antt, p. 643.
vM, (1875) W. N. S5fl. Injuw
IN WHAT M ANNEB INlimCTIONS ABE OBTAIMED.
649
was made after the olosiag of the office for issuing the writ,
the injunction was granted upon the applicant filing the writ —
by handing it to the Registrar who was in Court, and the
affidavit wa« allowed to be filed in the same way. The
injunction was to extend over the following Monday when
motions were to be continued (6).
If an ex parte injunction is applied for against a defendant
who is oat of the jorisdiotion, and the Court considers that it
is a proper case for an ex parte injunction, the order which
givee leave to serve the defendant with a writ of summons
may also direet that the injonctkm do issue from and after
the issuing of the writ (c).
If, upon an application ex parte, the Court thinks that the
case is not so urgent as to require its immediate interference,
it will order notice of the applieati<m to be serred on the
defendant {d).
If the defendant has appeared, he must, as a general rule,
be served («). A defendant who has had notice of motion for
an injunction which he is willing and ready to meet ought
not to have that injunction issiud against him ex parte, and
if f r«a otiier engagemeots of counsel or the pressure of o^er
business oa tiie Court the jdaintiff cannot bring on his motion,
the inconrenience of this should fall on him, not on the
defendant, who would be punished as a wrong-doer without
the opportunity of being heard (/).
In cases of extreme urgency the Court may grant an in-
junction ex parte even after appearance (_(;). The affidavit in
support of the ai^licatitm slKmld, however, state the fact of
appearance; otherwise it is irregular (h).
(h) CkmutA V. Htrtt, 4 T. L. B. (/) nraham j. CamptO, 7 0. D.
331. 470, 493 ; 47 L. J. Ch. m.
(c) Yminy v. AraMty, 1 C. D. S77 ; (g) J Hard v. Jonei, 15 Ves. 605 ;
45 L. J. Ch. 142. Ilarritmi v. CorkertU, 3 Mer. 1 ;
(rf) See Lord Byron v. Johntton, Petley v. Eatteni Countitt Railway
2 Mer. 29 ; 16 R. R. 135. Co., 8 Sim. 483 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 209;
(«) CoUard v. Coopfr, 6 Mndd. Acmman v. Britlol Dork Co., I
190 ; Perry v. WeUtr, 3 Ru88. 519 ; B. ft M. 321 ; £eU t. HhU and 8«lhg
LangJmm v. Oreat Nerthtm SaUwuy Stt&witg Co., 1 Ba. Ch. 6^
Co., 1D«Q.*&M7; 16L.J.CII. (A) J7afH«M v. OffaKlt. 3 Mm*.
487; 7SB.B. 174. \ \ Bamian y, CummeM BuUm^
860
PBACnCE.
Ofc^Xll, A notice of motion must be properly entitled in the cause in
Foma(MtiM~ und f^hoiild state on whose behalf the
motion is to be made. If notice of motion be given in an
information, it must be on behalf of the Attorney-Oeneral,
and not on behalf of the relator (k).
The notice of motion must state the day on which the motion
Service. is to be made. Unless the Court give special leave to the
contrary, there most be at least two clear days between the
service of a notice of motion and the day named in the notice
for hearing the motion; provided that in applications to
answer the matters in an afBdo vit or to strike oS the rolls, the
notice must be served not less than ten clear days before the
time fixed by the notice for making the motion (Z). In the
computation of the two clear days required (in an ordinary
notice of moticm, Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday
are not to be reckoned (m).
If a proper case can be made out, leave may be had to serve
short notice of motion. The leave must be stated in th*
notice (n). A notice of motion is not bad by reason of its
being given for a day nut in the sittings (o). In a case where
there has been irregularity in obtaining leave to serve, and in
serving short n»tice of motion, the Court may, nermrtheless,
if the party served has not been injured by the irregularity,
exercise its discretion, under R. S. C. Ord. LXX. r. 1, and
disregard the irregularity and hew the motion on its
merits (p).
Coaii. The notice should state clearly the nature of the order asked
Co., 8 L. J. Ch. N. S. 252, 2 short notice of mokkm cannot, ia
Coop. 0. C. 169 B. ; Buittm j. Mum- vaeatloB my mon tlun during the
/ord, ib. 171 n. ; Mtxiam Company sittings, be giren by a master in
of Londm t. Maldmm'io, (1890) the Chancery DiviBion, but must be
W. N. 8. given by the judge in person.
(») Emvlaa T. CalMl, 2 Ha, 186. Conacher v. Cnacher, 29 W. R.
(*) AH.-Oen. v. Wright, 3 Bmt. 230; (1881) W. N. 2.
447 ; 10 I-. J. Ch. 234. (e.) In re CvulUm, 34 C. D. 22 ; 60
(/) B. S. C, Ord. UI. r. 5. L. J. Ch. 312 ; WiOimm^. BmHIk,
(m) B. S. C. Ord. LXIV. p. 2, 17 a B. D. 180.
(») Harrtt V. Ltvnt, 8 Jur. 1063; [p) DemM v. Bmm, 22 C. D.
Dammm t. Omim, 82 C. D. fi05; «0S ; 62 L. J. Ol MS.
U li. J. 863. Lmv* to wnw
IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ABE OBTAINED.
051
for (9). Costs may be giTen thongh not Mksd lor by th« ch*i>. xxiL
notice (r), provided Uiut the respondent ajqwan HfOn the — ^H^tll —
hearing of the motion («).
An ex parte application for an injunction may be made at Time for uwking
any time aecording to the urgency of the case. If the moti<m ***'***■
be upon notice, it must be made upon one of the duys appro-
priated for the hearing of motions. Every day in Term is,
strietly speaking, a motim day ; but it is not the imctice of
the Court to hear motions except on seal days. If a man
desires that a motion should be heard on a day not appro-
priated to the hearing of motions, he must obtain leave of the
Court, and then give notice to the other party (<).
Every application for an injunction must be supported by AM»Titt.
affidavits, so as to show that on the face of the evidence the
application is well fonnded. If the aiqdication be e* parte,
the affidavits must fully and fairly state the case within the
knowledge of the plaintiff, so that the Court may see that
primd facte ttie thing is fair in tite aspect in whlcii it is
presented to the Court. There must be no concealment or
misrepresentation, but all the facts must be brought before
the Court which are material to be brought forward (u).
The tems upon iHueh an «s parie injnnetkm is granted Dfaekusiaf u
must be strictly complied with. Where an ex petrte order ^jM^te.
was made upon condition that the writ was amended by adding
a party who would give the usual undertaking, and this was
not done until the opposite party had moved to discharge the
order, the Court dissolved the cx parte injunction {x). If
upon the hearing of a motion for an injunction, or to continue
(9) Broun V. RdberUon, 2 Ph. Livtrpool, 1 M. & C. 210 ; 43 R. B.
173. 176; Catfelti v. Cook, 7 Ha. p. 94 ;
{r) Clark t. Jagmu, 11 fiwT. 18 L. J. Ch. 148 ; Ai^/M t. Jarvit,
623 : Bmikr T. OanitiMr, 13 Bmt. 2 Mm. A O. p. 243 ; 20 L. J. Ck.
m. 47fi; 86 B. B. 83; &AmMm t.
(<) Pratt T. ITottKr, 19 Bmt. FmM*, (1893) W. K 64 ; Boyrt
261 ; 106 R. R. 133 ; but SM th« t. OiB, 64 lu T. 824.
Judicature Act, 1890, s. 8. (x) Spanith Omeral Agency Ci>r-
(0 Chaffert v. Baker, 2 W. H. 546 ; poration v. Spanith Corporation,
6 be a. M. & O. 482 ; KM B. H. Ltd., 63 L. T. 161 ; (1890) W. N.
173. IM.
(u) Att.-Qtn. T. lidj/or, <tc., «/
PRACTICE.
OMaXXII.
8m*. I.
an interim order for an injunction already obtained e* parte,
it appears that the interim order was irregnlnrly obtained
in consoqiii nct" of a suppression of facts, the Court may dis-
charge the ex parte order without any cross notice of motion
for that purpose (y) .
•o^Tito '^^^ affidavits in support of an ex parte injunction should
■mIiImv. always state the precise time at which the plaintiff or those
acting for him became awar? of the threatened injury (a).
They most show either that notice to the defendant woald be
mischievous, or that the matter is so argmt that the injury
threatened would, if notice were served on the defendant, be
experienced before the injunction could be obtained. If tlie
aflSdavits fall short of this, the motion will be ordered to stand
over and notice to be served on the defendant (a).
By wImid msiie. The main affidavit is usually made by the plaintiff him-
self (b), but it may be made by any person acquainted witii
the facta (c). If, however, there is no affidavit by the plain-
tiff personally, and no sufficient reason given why there
should not be such affidavit, the Court may on that ground
AMkvite •bonid refuse the motion (//). The affidavits should not be sworn
M^*^t ^^^^ °f summons has issued (c). No matter
what the merits might be, an injunction founded on affidavits
sworn before the filing of the bill could not under tiie old
practice stand (/). But under the new practice upon an
undertaking by plaintiff to have the affidavit resworn and filed,
an interim injunction extending over the next motion day
was granted in an action where the affidavit in support of the
application had been sworn two dija before the issue of the
writ (/jf). Moreover, an affidavit may be allowed to be used in
{y) noyee v. mil, 64 L. T. 824 ; (,7) Sefi Lord liyron v. John,tcmt,
(1891) W. X. 108. 2 Mer. 29 ; 16 H. B. 1.35 : SpaWny
{z) Calvert v. Grey, 2 Coop. C. C v. Kttly, 7 Sim. 377 ; Sratew v.
1"' <ln>'T.j, 1 2s. 99 ; 11 L. J. Ch. 98.
(«) Seo 1 Ti. J. (O. S.) Ch. pp. 3, 4. (e) Frtmcom v. Frwmmt, 11
(/.) Molhit V. Enequia, 2d Bmt. Jva. N. E 123; 11 L. T. 767 ; Ftn-
609 ; 119 B. E. 368. mU t. Brown, 18 Jur. 1051.
(<■) ir«mM)KAyT..4Mira«r,3M«dd. (/) fT.ffianu t. Jiavif*, 2 Coop,
/MO; Lord Byron v. Johnttont, 2 C. C. 172 n.
Mer. 29; 16 B. B. 135; Hamilton {</) Qreen v. Prior, (1886) W. N,
T. Board; IN. B. 379. so.
IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ARE OBTAINED.
658
tin intended action in which the writ ha« not yet been cw. .xxil.
iasued (h).
An tiffidavit most be intituled in the cause or matter in Tiu« o(
which it is sworn (i). It is, however, sufficient if it was •"^'^
correctly intituled when it was sworn, although the title of
the cause may hare been subsequently altered by amend-
ment (k).
All affidaviU are to be drawn up in the first person (i). Form of
AlBdarita are to be confined to such facts as the witness is gltlmu
able of his own knowledge to prove, except (m interlocutory <»> >"f<»^
motions in which statements as to belief, with the grounds i^i^^lta
thereof, may be admitted ( m) . The grounds of the deponent's "^"''^
belief must be stated so as to show that he has some reason-
able and proper cause for making the statement, and lias not
sworn merely to raise an issue. Accordingly, an affidavit
stating infonnati(m and belief, and not stating the source of
such information or belief, is irregular and inadmissible as
evidence, whether on an interlocutory or on a final applica-
tion ; and a party or his solicitor attempting to use such an
affidavit will do so at his peril as to costs (n).
Hearsay evidence is admissible on interlocutory applica-
tions as putting the opposite party to answer it, and if not
expressly denied will generally be assumed for the purposes
of the application to be in accordance with the facta (o).
An affidavit cannot (except by leave of the Court or a judge) Affid»»ita
be used unless it is stamped with a proper filing stamp and ""•♦'•W^
has been duly filed. An office copy of the affidavit may in i^l
_(/.) roung V. broMeg. 1 C. D. («) /» „ To,,,,,, M<„.,./a,iuri,„,
. ; 43 L. J. Oh. 142 ; lee ante, Co.. (1900) 2 Ch. Toa ; 69 L. J. Ch.
868 ; and oee In re A ,itho,,u Ulrnll
(O B. a C. Ord. XXXVIII. r. 2. Veur^ t &■ Co., (18W) 3 Ob. M ; W
But aee Blarney v. Ulamaj, (1901') L. J. Ch. 444.
W. X. 138. („) Bird V. Lak,, 1 H, & M. 118 ;
{k) Haivt» V. liam/,rr,l, 9 Sim. 8 L. T. 632. Bui aee S4amf$ r.
liirmiHglum, WvhtrMmuitm and
(/) R. S. e. Ord.XXXVin.r. 7. Sfcmr Toffq, BaOwag Co.. 7 Ha.
Hut as to affldavita sworn alnmu], m. 2W; In re AiOkeav BtrrOl
«ee mntty v. JBiamtjf, (1902) W. N. Peurce d- Co., (1899) 3 M; W
^^f- . _ L. J. Ch. 444.
(m) B. S.O.(M.XXZVnLr. 3.
654
mCTICE.
C'lup. XXII.
Mat. 1.
OUti e e p tw,
Time of filing
eoaiwM
cases be used, the original affidavit having been previous!)
filed and the copy duly authenticated with the seal of tht
office The office copy should be in Court iit the timi
of making the motion (q). In prcNfing cases, however, where
there is not time to get the affidavit filed before the injunction
is apidied for, the Court will grant an injundsm apon an
undertaking to file the affidavit (r). Sometimes, in vacation,
the Court has taken the affidavits into its custody and acted
upon them as if they had been filed («) .
An affidavit used on a motion, but not filed until afterwards,
may be entered in the order as read, even though the fact of
its not having been filed has not been brought to the notice
of the Court, prorided that it does not interfere with the dat«
of the order, as where the filing is on the same day (t).
Affidavits to be used on motions may be filed up to th«
laat m(mi«it before the hearing (u). Bat the Court will not
allow a party to gain an advantage from filing affidavits at
the last moment (z) ; but will in such a case direct the
motion to stand over to enable the defendant to answer the
affidavits (y).
Except by leave of the Court or a judge, no order made
ex parte in Court founded on any affidavit shall be of any
fbroe unless the affidavit on n^ieh the application was made
was actually made before the order was applied for, and pro-
duced or filed at the time of making the motion {;).
In the case of an ex parte application for an injunctioii,
the party making the application most deliver copied of the
affidavits upon which it was granted upon payment of the
(p) R. a c. Old. xxxviii.
r. 15.
(j) Jaduim T. Viuti'hj, 10 Sim.
326 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 336 ; Eltey v.
Adamt, 4 Giff. 398.
(r) Nitimii V. Harris, (18701
W. N. 6.
(«) Alt. -den. V. Ltwit, 8 lleav.
17fl; farr v. Maritf, 1« Bq. !25:
42 L. J. Ch. 78".
(<) III re Kiiiy Jt Co.'i Traik
Murk, (1892) 2 Ch. 462; 82 L. J. Cb.
1A3.
(•'« S* parte Ltienter, 6 Ves. p.
Munro v. }yii-eiihf)r, ifr.,
llailwayOo., 4 De 0. J. i S. p. T.'6 :
.2 L. T. 362.
(r) Cartw V. ratti, 1 W. E. 11.
(,'/) lb. ; see Btsnnrret v. Utu-
merea, Kay, App. 17 ; 23 L. J. Ch.
10 ^ ; 101 H. R. 850.
(i) E. & C. Ord. XXXVIIL
r. 19.
IN WHAT MANNER INJUNCTION^ ARE OBTAINED. «M
proper charges, iiDrucdiutply upon the receipt of a written CfcyXXII.
request by the purty requesting nuch copies, and hi-. uncU i - -^^^^i —
taking to pay tlie proper ohargee, or within nich time as
may be specified in such request, or may bare been directed
by the Court or u judge («).
After the motion is opened no new evidence can be offered KTid«M**{tar
except with the ioiive of the Court (6). Tlie Court mny, how- "w"****^
ever, admit affidavits after the ease is opened, if a fniiuii' of
justice is likely to occur by reason of their rejection or if great
inconvenience wouh! ensue (c). The Court may take notice
of matters given in evidence in previous proceedings in the
cause and may refer to notes made by the Court on such
occasions (d).
Upon appeal from an order granting or n-fusing an inter-
locutory injunction, fresh evidence may be adduced in support
of or to discharge the injunction (e). The rule thai no new
evidence can be adduced on a motion after it is opened extends
to the case of documents which it is proposed to verify vied
voce by the attesting witness (/).
If on the bearing of a moti<m the Court or a judge shall be amin oi
of opinion that any person to whom notice has not been given '
ought to have or to have had such notice, the Court or a judge
may either dismiss the motkm or adjourn the hearing thereof
in order that such notice may be given upon each terms, if
any, as the Court or judge may think fit to impose (g).
Whether or not the Court will grant an application for an
interlocutory injunction depends mi the merits as collected
from the affidavits. If a sufficient pritnd facie case be made
out, ti, 'Jourt will consider the case sufficiently proved, unless
(a) B. 8. C. Ord. LXA I. r. 7 (j). (rf) L„ler v. Leathtr.S Jur. N. 8.
(i) Smith T. Swaneea Dock Co., 9 433 ; 5 W. K. 550.
Ha. App. 20 n. ; Bird v. Lake, 1 (e) Pule v. Joei, 2 Da O. ft J
II. * M. 118 ; 8 L. T. 632. 285 ; 119 B. B. 133 ; .ad leo CbiM*
(e) Ka*t Lanoixhir* Railway Co. r. Ban, 2 Bom. 1« ; and tee lAao
v.Hattfl»loy,8U«.p.86; MB.B. B. 8. C. Ord. LVm r. 4.
215; An4erim v. Yain, 1ft Jar. (/) Bird v. Lake, I H. & M. Ill •
tS3 ; JfunrD v. Wvm»hm, 8 L. T. 632.
BnUway Co., 4 D» O. J. ft 8. 726 ; (y) II. S. C. Ord. LU. r. 6
M PBACnCE-
Ajj^UIi. the rfofmdant f1 >• an sffidavU denying if {k}. TIm afd&ril
' ■— — must t' ivorso i the facts m whif-h ike pldintiff's ' juity
(Ji-pcnds A II • (^cnei.i! ' nul ' r,r-- mif- mt (i). If the
uflidtiviu of tlx' pluiuti'' .il 1 deiHQdaiii ue uliugether
eoidieting (k), or if the Kilancf of evt^Mtoe ia ia favoor of
tlu' (Irffiidii; tlif luotid;. inay t~< 'isiriased or Ordered to
stand ov' The 'ou> t or a juiig oju) <ti the application
of eithei { . . der th^ atf » • itwce tt -ex t ion of
thcpf'rson ikingtl uffida^ ^
Hut 'he Coil . ' " y p'" iRi; ' 1 such
cvidei; asaiuyi n- leitu t tiro* 'ujjf on, and
as may appear n«eeitBa< to meet <h« i t^r 'tb -p. The
Court wi!' not w il -if! 1 to : > all<
witnesaes to bf \ ;in( if it - la jiicati
is made fo! tbt :n: i>. >f cr- delay (m), that tli
evidence k >9kiuut to ^ ,ttU« it - . / >^ ' sfactorily with the
motion (n)
c«ac>uMi«Mt If 4 statt , ' ut oi ,i>. til 1 deiivered, the case made
"^Sim affidavit-T on tfa*^ ao. n must correspcmd with
Seller*"* iw'ions i t^he sti^t^ ^nt of claim (o). If a man
biiugs om. J ftwwan! ^ d relies upon a given cast-,
the Court vtH ' allow ii ' he shoirid faQ in that case,
lu Hj-^ i o '- anoihw nr le tght have framed his
(•use - as to tthow a ne d asked (/>). A man
«ho »uplttin8 of ir peculiar and special kind
cHfinoi be ai?' ' v; >'Vi-.*»nce of another injury of
! ' at kteti A injimetion is only granted on a
* I'ui t •J.(0. IS.)
uii : ■f«k«,, L.J.Ck
IV
G. T B. -
V. trr fiok Coll. 5b
{k) JM TiMet V. Borden f, Jac.
31. WCurdy v. Nook, 17 L. J. Ch.
l«o
( ii. a. L . Ord. XXXVIII. r. i.
( yormanvtik T. fi(amt<tt|ri 10
U. j^fg. 20.
(h) J/ai/fr V. Siieiift, IJ. & H. 87.
(«) UiirioH V. JUaktmi-f, Jur.
(/<) ]\'liitu:<>rth V. Uniii/aiu, Cr. &
Hi. 3:25 ; lU L. J. Ck 317 ; C'MtcUi
T. Cook, 7 Ha. 8»; 18 L. J. (A.
p. 14t».
(>/) //(Tfz T. rViion Bank n/ Loii-
dv„, 1 Jur. (S.S.) 127; 3 W. B.
•!» ; aud Bee .4«.-(>rH v. Urocert'
Co., 1 Keen, 506 ; Jviiet v. Latimer, 1
J ur. 980 ; ea«(<j<t t. CWr, 7 Ha. 89.
IN' WHAT MANimW INJT OTIONR AilK OBTAIN ?,D.
687
n< vci- gnwK .jjjuiHtiooM on
apecillc c«8e. The Court
pciicial i-oinpUinta (r).
liistr.Ml of iss.iin^T injunction in tli.- Ii,.si ni.l.iiicr m,..' I,
( ourt will ofl,.a gmnt un interim ordi-r la tli. imtur- of an
injunction, by which the defendant is re«tn.in(Kl until after
a piirticuliir duy nurn.d. Tlio usuhI pinptif- u to extend fh«
order mvr the npxt motion d.iy, in okIim t!,„t !ho piai- -iff imy
serve, by leave of the Court, th- (lefMidant w,th notice of
motion for an injunc*,. n for thki *iy. Thw le, however, no
tb;«l rule on tiiP M! of. If it ir fl,ut the d..fendHnt
!il be oppressed b> . xttnding the order over the whole of
ne«t motion d»j, tiie Conrt will either name a day short
-1 lat day. giving tli. pla. iff Wve to serve the defendftlit
with notic of motion for a,, injunction for that day; or els«
th* Court will extend the order over the next motion day,
but give the defend-mt le«v*> to raeve aomier to diiehargt
'he order on notic, , Aith liberty to tke ^ntiff to mor«
miiltaneously for an injunction v*
Jn many respeete there is i eonvenienee in proceeding by
order instead -f granting an injunction. Amimg
> ' conveniences the defendant is not put to the necessity
''ing to the Comi to discharge the order (t). Where an
order is granted over the neit motion day or mitil
order, it si^.' ities that the injunction may be dissolved
li- iiftt day. It does not mean that the injunction is to go
on after that day or imtil farther OTder, but that it is to stop
.ailier if the Court shall order (it). Interim orders are
generally granted upon ex pirte application, but they may
bo granted where the motion is upon notice. Where the
application is ex parte it is necessary that the Court should
be inf(mne(> of all material facts («).
Ckap. XXII.
1.
(r) JItrtt V. Vmm Bonk of Lon-
Jm, iitpra; BurdHl v. /fay, 4 De
O. J. & a 41; L. .! CIi. 41 ;
.IfunroT. Wivtiihoe.etr., Itathmy Co.,
4 De O. J. 4 8. 723 ; 1;J W. B. 880.
{>) Framr v. ifhaUey, 2 H. ft M.
10. ^^,Mtof(wmciloiisr, IBst.
507.
K.I.
(t) FMter. Tartar, 8" T,. .t c\_
.■576.
(ii) PuUim V. I
Board, 7 I . L. D.
461.
(x) See tmtt, ,
f W0H- T. Tinier,
91%,
ess
PBACnCE.
*"'alL.\'"'" Where an inlerhn order is soiiaht, there should be no delaj
in making the application. If there has been delay, th<
Court will not grant the application, but may give the plaintif
leave to serve short notice of motion for a day fixed, notwith
standing appearance not entered (y).
Where an interim order has been obtained, and simuita
neous applications are made on the pai-t of the plaintiff for ai
injunction in the terms of the order, and on the part of thi
defendant to discharge the order, the plaintiff has a right U
begin (z).
On the hearing of the motion the plaintiff is usually satisfiei
if the defttidant gives an undertaking in the terms of thi
notice of motion, the ])!aintif[ on his part giving the usua
undertaking in damages (a).
Saving k raotioa. The tsotion, if not brought on upon the day for whicl
notice has been given, sho Id be saved ; a motion may be savec
by the agreement of the parties without the leave of th*
Court (b). But a motion by special notice can only be savet
by motioo or by leave of the Court (o). A uotion which ii
neither brought on nor saved wi I be treated as abandoned [li)
and : in such case the respondent may apply (not latej
than the next seal day) tor the costs of the motioD (<). i
pnotion may be saved at any time before the Court riMi
although the motions may have been finished (/).
OidarnuutooD Upon the motion being made, if a sufficient case for th(
^Wce'ir' motion is made out upon the plaintiff's affidavits, and th(
dtrfradaat^daw defendant does not appear, the application is gi anted oi
affidavit of sen ice (;/). The order which is made on affidavi'
(jl) tiretr v. Brittul Ttiniiin;/ Co., re lianwen Ir- n Co., 17 Jur. 127
S B. P. C. 268. Hinde v. Puutr, (1913) W. N. 184
(x) Fnutr v. IIV.a/%, 'i 11. & M. (e) Woodmek v. Oxford, ttc, Bail
10. tray Co., 10 Ha. App. M; Dm
(a) As to the undertaking in Ch. Pr. 131S. 8m Hktd* T. /Ww
dnniigM, SM «0>a. (191&) W. V. 184.
(t) In r* Ahmpm /PM Co., 17 (J) Com Aai'Iry, Smith, Ch. Pi
Jur. 127. 248 n. ; Yapp t. Waiianu, (190?
((•) Arthur V. ruu'vll'htffl Kent W. N. 91.
CV/t?r<»««:'n,. (190.1) 4» S.J, 4f. (g) Davidson v. Ltilit, 9 hen
(>/) C'thhtrt V. Fanf, 1 Jur. 890 ; 104 ; AMfiir V. Mt^ S W. B. W.
Tumtr V. Tumtr, 16 Jur. IIM ; In
IN WHAT MANNEB INJUNCTIONS ABE OBTAINED.
688
of aenriee is in the tenn« of the notice. The order is liable cUp. MIL
to be discharged if there be any irregularity in the notice (ft), — —
or affidavit (») on which it is founded, or if it adds to (*) or
departs from the terms of the notice (l).
Where an interlocutory injunction or an interim restraining 'fidtrtAking »»
order is applied for, the Court will require the plaintiff, as a ''"'^
condition of its interference in his favour, to enter into an
undertaking to abide by any order the Court may make as to
damages. The undertaking was formerly required only in
cases where the application was ex parte, but the present
practice is to require the undertaking as well, where the
motion is on notice, as where it is ex parte (m). When an
undertaking is offered by the defendant and accepted by the
plaintiff, a cross undertaking in damages by the plaintiff is
inserted in the order, unless the contrary is agreed and ex-
pressed at the time (n). If the plaintiff is not within the
jurisdiction the undertaking of some responsible person within
the jurisdiction is required (o). An undertaking as to
damages can be giren by a married woman (p) ; even though
she has not sufficient separate estate to satisfy the damage the
opposite party may sustain by the injunction (q).
In tile case of companies the practice used to be that an
undertaking in damages must be giren by a direetnr or other
(«} jr<i«i^T.JIirUtf\^17L.J.Cai. (») Practice Note, Chanceiy
24; 11 Jmr. ML Mvirion, (1904) W. N. 20a ; and
(•) Stdamem r. SMmm, 4 Bmt. see Ohtrrhtinitcht MetaUwtrke v.
243 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 327. Coch,, (1906) W. N. 127. In Hcwar 'd
(A) /Vo«v. ira/i«r,19B€ay.261; Pnit Prinleri Co., (1904) 74
105 R. E. 133; Ex parte Car,w, 23 L. J. Ch. 100, the Court of ApfiMl
L. J. Ch. 761. hod decided that there was bo
{I) JIuttonv. Hej>tB(irtli,6'HA.3l5. general |«MtiM that when an
(m) Uraham v. Campbell, 7 C. D. antetddaf wu <dbrad by a de-
4»0; 47 L. J. Ch. 693; Ftnntr y. imdant a cro-w undertaking in
Wihon, (1803) S CIi. p. SM; 83 damage* by the plaintiff was im-
L. «r. Ch. 984 ; Att.-Oen. t. Albany plied.
HeM Cb.,(1896) 2 Ch. p. 699 ; 66 (o) Hamilton v. Buavl, 1 N. B.
L. J. Ch. 885 ; Ilt wanl v. I'rut 379 ; 1 Set. 610.
PritUen Co., (1904) 74 L. J. Ch. 103. ( p) Hunt r. Hunt, (1884) W. N.
106; In re Hailstone, (1910) 102 243; 64 L. J. Ch. 289 ; Re Prynnt,
L. T. p. 8S1. S«.. to form of (1885) W. N. 144 ; 53 L. T. 464.
order, Fenner v. Wilton, (1893) 2 (j) Pikt r. Cm*, a L. 1. Ok.
Ch.p.6Mi «3L. J.OkSM. ta?: 6IL.1LM0.
42—2
660
PBACTICE.
Cl^^MU. officer of the company, who was required to sign the Begistrar's
book, the undertaking of counsel on behalf of the company not
being deemed sufficient (r). But the undertaking of counsel
on behalf of a ocMnpany is now considered soffieient (»).
When a company is in liquidation, the Court may grant an
interlocutory injunction without requiring a personal under-
taking in damages by the liquidator («).
SSiS^taB '^^ infringement of a patent, the defen-
diipMMdviik. dants having obtained an injunction restraining the plaintiff
" until judgment in the action " from issuing advertisements
threetwiing legal proceedings, it was held that tiie defendants
were not bound to give an undertaking as to damages, the
order not being one which it was intended that the Court
should in any way review at the trial of the action («). In
granting an interlocutory injunction at the instance of Hut
Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown, the Court will not
as a general rule require an undertaking in damages to be
given (x) ; but it is otherwise where a Secretary of State
is the party applying for an injunction (y).
rnaiiM^i"' "^^^ Undertaking remains in force although the action
ibratbi^ dismissed (z), and the Court at the hearing determines
M(i«idiniMd.that tiie plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction. The
defendant is entitled to the benefit of the undertaking even
though it should be decided tliat the injunction was wrongly
granted owing to the mistake of the Court itself (a).
Court c«anot The Court, however, has no power to oomDel a nartv
compel under- ~ " V
takiag to b«
ffimt. (r) Aixjlo-Daiitthian, etc., Co. V. (") Fennery. Wilton, nsaS)»Ch.
RogfTion, 10 Jur. N. S. 87 ; and see 666 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 984.
Eait Mole$ey Local Board v. Lambttk («) AU-Otn. v. Atbang HM Co
WaUrvtOTk* Co., (1892) 3 Ch. p. SCO. (1896) 2 Ch. 696 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 885.*
(•) Bvt MdtHH Local Board v. (y) SecrHary of StaU /or ]f'ar v
XiimMA roterwerfa Co.. Mpra; Chubb, iS L. T 83 ; and see Atl. -
MaHckmtirBanking€o.w.Parl!inion, Qen. v. Uhany Hotel Co., (1896) 2
^^"^ Ch. p. 704 ; 63 L. J. Ch. p. 889.
(0 HoaingA oduarantee (i) Xewhv t. Ilarriton, 3 De O.
and Triut Co., .) 41 S. J. P. * J. 290 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 863.
255. See WeitmiH.. Auociation y. (o) OriJUh y. Blak*, J7 D
Cinoard, 24 8. J. 690, where an 470; M L. J. 988; Bmat v!
und^aking wM oitnd by the Bunt, M L. J. Ch. 289; JnreJffmB.
ikme, (1910) 102 L. T. p. 880.
m WHAT MANNER INJUNCTIONS ARE OBTAINED. 661
applying for an injunction to give an undeitiiking us to Cb.p.xxil.
damages ; but if the applicant refuies to give the undoitakiiig —^^^
in a case in which the Court considers that it oi^ht to be
given, the order for an iniiinction will not be made. Or if
pronounced it will not be drawn up (6).
The undertaking in damages is not confined to the d images BzMrf
which the persons restiaincd I)y the injunction may sustain, "■*»*^'
but applies to damages which any of the opposite parties in
the action may sustain, although one or more only are
restrained (c).
As, on the one hand, the Court mny require the plain- Terms impowii
tiff, as the condition of its interference, in his favour, to JoV^fJiS!
enter irfo an undertaking as to damages, o:-, in some
cases {e.(i., where it is sought to reitrain a landlord from
distraining for rent alleged to be due [d), or to restrain a
mortgagee from selling (e), or a company from forfeiting
Hhai es for non payment of calls (/)), to pay money into Court;
so, on the other hand, it may require the defendant to
enter into terms as a condition of withholding an injunc-
tion (jf).
A motion for an injunction may by consent be treated as the Motion f«r
trial of the action, a time being fixed for the plaintiff to file biSSJuItt*
any sfBdaTits he may desire, and also for the defendant to *^"'*'»
file affidavits in answer, and either party being at liberty
after the cause has been set down to apply to have the
case advanced (h).
Whenever an apidication is made befwe trial for an injune- ttlj m.
(h) Tucker r. Af» BruH$tciek p. 224 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 642 ; .Vnr/m/ v
Trading Co., 44 C. D. 249, 2o2 ; 59 Jm,e,, 24 C. I). 289 ; 5:i I,. J. Ch. 145.
T<. J. Ch. 551 ; Att f/t... v. Alhani/ {/) Umh v. Snmhn, fM,l^r el,-
//irff/ CV, {1S9G) 2 Ch. p. 7(Ht; 65 fV... (1<M)8) 1 Ch. 845; 77 h. J.
J. Ch. 885; JlowanI v. I'rt»» Ch. m); Jontt v. I'acaya /tnUtr,
I'rinter, Co., (1904) 74 I,. J. Ch. etc.. r.,., (mX) I K. U. 4M • iO
lO-'- L. J. K. E 144.
(<•) Tnektr y. New Bmtuu-irk (y) AnU, ff. 28, SB.
Trading Co., enpra. (/,) WHkime,m v. CHmmin*, II
(rf) Skme T. Sari o/ Jtneg, 4 Ha. »43; AtlaU v. ('orpanaiim of
C. P, 1>. allnniog 48 I,. J. Rm!ihf>r>j4r^ , 10 ('. I). HI, 130; m
'■■I'- L. J. Ch. M. See .\>,,-,-,„' v.
(«) Whitu orth T. Rhadei, 20 I,. J. Ptruitr, 27 C. 1». p. 69; 33 W. B
Ck IM ; rafMr t. Jmi^ » 0. D. U»,
662
PRACTICE.
'^""slwfc tion or other order, and on the opening of such application, or
at any time during the hearing thereof, it appears to the jodge
that the matter in controversy is one which can be most con-i
veniently dealt with by an early trial, the judge may make an
order for such trial accordingly, and direct such trial to be
iicld at the next or any other Assizes for any place, if from
local or other circum. tances it appeals convenient so to do,
and in the meantime may make such order as the justice of
the case may require (»).
Sa«pension of When an injunction is granted the Court will sometimes
injnnction ... ,.
l>eiidiD( appwl. suspend its operation pending an appeal; and, on the other
hand, where an injunction is refused, the Court may nererthe-
Icss prevent a fund in reference to which the injunction is
claimed being dealt with pending an appeal {k). An appeal
does not operate as a stay of execution or of prrceedings
under the decision appealed from, except so far as the Court
appealed from, or any judge thereof, or the Court of Ai>peal
may order [1).
Where oa appeal an injooetion is granted bat its operation
is suspended, the Court of first instance, upon subsequent!
application to it, has jurisdiction to extend the period of
suspension (wi).
The Judicature Act, 1894 (n), which requires tibe leave of
the judge or Court of Appeal to the bringing of an appeal
from an interlocutory order, expressly excepts (inter alia)
cases of granting or refusing an injunction.
TwiMotUw The tei-ms of the order granting an injunction should be
such that it is quite plain what it permits and what it
prohibits (o). An order which merely prohibits a man from
doing what he has no authority to do, without showing him
what are tlie limits of his authority, and leaves him to find
out what is forbidden and what is Hllowod, is irregular (/>),
Fern •! order. The orders immoonced by the Court upon af^lication for
(0 11. S. C. Ord. L. r. lA. (;/) .Sect. 1, «ub-s. 1 (b) (ii.).
(/.) Scoa/i^Mip. ;H,:12. (.)) Att.-lltn. y. StaffonUtir^
{/) R. S. C. (»ril. LVllI. r. !(!. Coiiutii CmuHl, (1906) lCh,f.9M*
(m) Sliel/tr v. ( i<y »/ Lotulou '4 L. J. Ch. p. 16d.
Electric Liyhliny Co., (18M). 3 Ch. {p) Cothtr T. Miihmd BMwa^
388; 64 L. J. Ch. 73«. On., 2 Ph. p. 479; 17 L. J. Oi.
IN WHAT MANNEB INJUNCTIONS ABE OBTAINED.
interlocutory iujunctiona have varied at different times (g). '^JJ^f"
Under the former practi.ce the form usually adopted waa ' — •
" until the hearing of the cause." Under the present practice
it is " until judgment in this action, or until further order,"
to show that the mjunetion is not to extend beyond the date
when judgment is given, unless then continued, nor until
judgment if discharged previously by order of the Court (r).
Though an injunction restraining the act complained of is
claimed against the defendant alone, the order will, if neces-
sary, he extended to his servants, workmen, and agents ; and
it ii> of course to insert these words (s).
An wder for aa injunctim hairing been obtained, it should, Dmviog ap af
unless otherwise ordered, be drawn up and entered within "^^ction.
fourteen days from the date thereof (<)• In cases where the NoUm of
matter is ao argent that the object of the injunettcm might be ^"^f""^
defeated it the party were bound to wait till the order could be
passed, the practice is to sei^e the party personally with
notice in writing that the injunction has been ordered, and
that it will be sealed aoA served u soon aa it can ^ passed
through the ofSces, or else to procure a transcript of the
minutes of the order signed by the registrar, and to serve the
same personally by delhr«ring a copy of it, showing alt the same
time the original transcript so signed (u). In country cases
the terms of an injuncticm can be communicated, as soon as
it is granted, by telegraph to an agent at the place where the
defendant i«, with imrtnietimu to give htm mtice ol the
order (a;).
236; lffir</en of Dover Harhour v. 349; 13 B. B. 116; Vanmndan v.
London, Chatham and Dover Rail- Bote, 2 J. & W. 264 ; 22 H. B. 114 ;
II ay Co., 3 De O. F. & J. p. 564 ; M'Neill v. Garratt, Cr. 4 Ph. 98 J
•M L. J. Ch. p. 479 ; Lorn r. ImtM, 10 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 54 B. B. 223 ;
4 De O. J. * & p. 295. Oooeh v. JtfarMb. . 8 W. B. 410.
(f) Lm4 T. NtmUgoU, 10 Yml (x) See /« r» Bt^ant, 4 C. D. "5 ;
193; 7 B. B. Mt. K L. t. m; Mt pmti LmtgUf,
(r) 1 Set 808. 13 C. D. 110. lU; 49 K J. Bk.
(») lb. 71 ; Tht Straglin, 10 P. D. p. 121 ;
(<) B. C. Ord. LXII. r. Ua. 54 L. J. Adm. 76; D. t. A. d: Co.,
See In re Empire and Guarantee (1900) 1 Ch. p. 487; 69 L. J. Ch.
Jiiiurance Co., (1912) W. N. 92 ; p. 384 ; Curtice y. London City and
56 S. J. 444. Midland BanJe, (1908) 1 K. B.
(h) Kimfton v. £m, 3 Y. * B. p. 297 ; 77 L. J. K. B. p. 344.
664
OUp. xxti
S«et. 1.
Serrie* of
nstrnininf
ardtr.
dalMtUiitad
Notiei hAn
CmtA wliere
defendant hut
oU'cml to
■about.
PRACTICE.
The order wlien drawn up shonld be senred, and such
- service should ho personnl (i/), and is effected hy delivering to
or leaving with the person enjoined a true copy of the order
indorsed in the manner before mentioned, and at the same
time exhibiting to him uii authenticated office copj thereof (z).
If it Ciiii be Siitisfactorily made to appear that the dufendunt
is keeping out of the way, the Court may make such order
for substituted or other service, or for the substitution of
notice for service hy letter, public advertisement, or otherwise,
as may be just (a).
A man whose legal right has been inraded is under no
obligation to make an api^ication to the defendant before
bringing his action for an injunction. He may on discover-
ing that the defendant has violated his legal right issue a writ
and serve defendant with notice of motion for an injunction.
He is not under any obligation to give the defendant notice
and ascertain whether he will do all that is needed, it is
immaterial that tiie defendant may hav« been acting in the
maUer without any fraudulont intent (ft).
If, however, the plaintiff give notice to the defendant
that he is violating his legal right, and the defendant, on
the receipt of the notice, offers to enter into an undertaking
or submit to an injunction, tho plaintiff if he proceeds with
the action will not have his subsequent costs (c). But if the
defendant on the recupt of the notice do not off«r to the
jtlaintiff t^e redress to whidi he is entitled, the {rfaintiff may
(v) I'anianilou T. Roie, 2 J. 4 W.
264 ; 22 B. B. 214 ; Ooack t. Mar-
$haU, • W. B. 410. See, bowever,
peH, pp. 686, 667.
(i) B. 8. C. Ord. LXVII. r. 1.
(n) lb. r. 6.
(/.) lliirijtMt. urn, 26Beav. 24 J ;
28 I,. J. ( h. :{&6; ( jimaiiti v.
fWetter, 24 C. I). 2;J1 ; 62 L. J.
eh. 94fi; (nx^lliart v. Iftjrtt. 25
C. D. 182; 53 L. J. Ch. 219;
Wilmau V. UpptHk im, 27 C D.
360 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 56; llVnyorini
T. Bayer, (1005) L. T. p. SIS; 82
B. P. a p. 3W (tnde iMi^). See.
howeror, Amiriean Teioere Co. t.
OuMt, (1892) 1 CIt. 630; 61 L. J.
Ch. 242; Burberry* v. n'atk-i,i,cn,
(1906) 23 B. P. C. 141. As to coets
Pee also the I'ublic Authorities
Protection Act, 1893, s. 1 (c). (d).
(r) Jenkins v. Hope, (1896) 1 Ch.
2:n ; 65 L. J. Ch. 249; Slazenger*
Soni v. Spalding liroiheri, (1910) 1
Ch. 257, 261; 79 L. J. Ch. 123;
John Brinmmmd * Co. v. Hkmley
Brintmtad and WtMuigtemt (1913)
39T.Ii.B.SS7.
1 V: •: j
i Iff i^-- I
IN WHAT MANNIiR IKJTTNCTI0N8 ARE OBTAINED.
665
go on with the action and " ill be entitled to his costB (d). Ch»^ xxii.
In ii case where tlie dofcndant iiinoceiitly infringed the plain-
tifis' registered trnde mark, but offered to submit to a per-
petun' injunction in the terms of tlie plaintiffs' notice of
m ■ 1 ..nd to piy a sum of 102. by way of nominal damages
ni up to d itf, but tlio plaintiffs pioceedod with the
t.ctioi. ;or an account of profits or an inquiry as to damages,
the Court held that the plaintiffs were wrong in proceeding
witli their action for an account or inquiry, and gave the de-
fendant tlie costs of tiio action after tlie date of liis offer, and
the plaintiff costs up to tliut date, with the usual set off (c).
Causes or matters assigned by the Judicature Act, 1878, if o4* of tiU.
to the Chancery Division are to be tried by a judge without a
jury, unless the Court or a judge shall otherwise order (/).
The Court has in such cases a discretion to direct a trial
with a jury ; and where a judge ha«, in the exercise of such
discretion, directed a trial by a jury, the Court of Appeal will
not interfere with the discretion of the judge, unless it is
clear that his discretion has been wrongly ezmrdsed (g).
Under this rule (h) the Court will not order an action to be
tried before a jury unless there is a simple question of fact,
the verdict upon which woaM de-nde the issue in theactim (i),
and even in such a case it is a matter for the discretion of the
judge whether the case should be heard before a jury (A;).
(d) Upmann y. Elkan. 12 Bq. (/ ) E. S. C. Ord. XXXVL r. 3 ;
140; 40 L. J. Ch. 47S; Ootptrr. aw OMf* t. Her^/ortMirt ComUg
WlUmigkmm, 1« 0. D. p. S06; 49 ammeO, (1M9) 9 Cb. p. M7 ; TS
L. J. dt. 752 ; Fennetty r. Day and L. J. Ch. p. 571.
Martin, So L. T. Ifil ; Srhtetin</er {;/) See Orr.fvd v. Talnurrtlen
V. Turnrr, 33 L. T. 764; Henri/ Milt C>., 8 U. ! . 1'. iWt; 51 L. J.
riay V. Friillipi <t Co., (1910) 27 Q. B. 348; AU.-'l< i). v. ryiif , 38
S. P. C. 508, where defendant W. B. 195, per Fry, L.J. ; Jenkitu
offered to submit to an injunction v. Bitthby, (1891) 1 C9k 490 ; 90
and pay costa, but on oondition L. J. Ch. :264.
that the otder should not be (A) B. 8. C. Old. XXXVI. r. S.
adTtrtiaed. Of. Widter r. Sttin. {(j OarJimin t. CardiiuM, 25
hopff, (1892) 3 Ch. 4S9 : 61 L. J. 0. D. 772 ; 6S L. J. Ch. 636 ; Mot*
Ch. 621. V. Braibmn, 32 V,'. B. 368.
(e) Sfasenger Jt Sont Y. Sj><i:,..ttg (i) Oardntr v. Jay, 29 C. D. 60 ;
flrothert, (1910) 1 Ob. 257 ; 79 64 L. J. Ch, 762 ; She^^ T.
L. J. Ch. 122. OHmore, 34 \\ . fi. 179.
6M
PRACTICE.
GImZXII.
fMwItkMt
Aetions for infringement of patents are to be triad withoat
- a jury unless the Court otherwise directs (l).
The Court or a judge may, if it appear desirable, direct a
trial withoat a jury of any qne«tion or issue of fact, or partly
of fact and partly of law, arising in any cause or matter which
previously to the passing of tiie Judicature Act could, without
•ny consent of parties, have been Wed without a jury (m).
The words " question of fact " in this rule refer to a queetion
of fact upon which the title to relief depends, and not a quee-
tion as to the amount of damages (n).
The Court of Appeal will not interfere with tiie discretion of
the judge in ordering a trial without a jury unless it is satisfied
on very clear grounds that the discretion of the judge has not
been ecmrectly exercised (o).
The Court or a judge may direct the trial without a jury of
any cause, matter, or issue requiring any prolonged examina-
tion of documents or accounts or any scientific or local inves-
tigation which cannot in their or his (^nion conveniently be
made with a jury(p).
This rule merely preserves the old practice of the Common
Law Courts. There was always power in such actions as are
referred to in the rule to order a trial without a jury. The
rule has no application to actions whidi apart tmn it are
properly triable without a jury (g).
In any other cause or matter, upon ttie a[^ication (within
ten dcys after notice of frial has beon given) of any party
thereto for a trial with a jury of the cause or matter or
any issue of fact, an order shall be made for a trial with a
jury (r).
The words "other cause or matter" mean other than the
causes or matters which are not provided for by the previous
(0 Patents and Designs Act,
1007 (7 Edw. VIL 0. »), ■. 31,
•ab.-8. 1.
(«) B. S. C. Old. XXXVI.
r. 4.
(tt) FrmtieMy r. Clark, 37 C. I>.
184, 187 : 57 L. J. Ch. 398.
(o) JiurgoiHt v. lUariag, 8 P. D.
p. 208 ; 62 L. J. P. 77. See D*
Frryne {Lord) v. JohnOoru, (1804)
20 T. L. E. 464 (H. L.).
(/.) B. g. 0. Old. XXXVL 1. 1.
(9) Jtnhin$ V. AMUy, (1881) 1
Cb. p. 490; aOL. J. OL SM.
(r)B.S.O.Oid.XXXYLr.&
MODE OF TBIAL.
667
rules («). In cssea which under the former practico could,
without coDJwnt, be tried without u jury the Court has a -
discretion as to ordering a trial with a jury, and those who
aak the judge to exercise Uie discretion must show the judge
a reason for his doing to (f) ; and in the exercise of this
discretion the Court will not allow the matter to go before a
jury unless in cases where there is a question to be decided
which may be conreniNiUy and better decided by a jury than
by the Court withoot a jorj («).
In every cause or matter, unless under the provisions of
K. H. C. Ord. XXXVI. r. 6 a trial with a jury is wdered, or
under r. S of that Order either party haa aigniflad a daaire to
hare a trial with a jury, the mode of trial is to be by a judge
without a jury ; provided that in any such case the Court or a
judge may at any time order any cause, matter, or issue to be
tried by a judge with a jury, «■ by a judge sitting with
assessors, or by an official referee or special referee with «r
without asseesors (z).
This rule aj^ies to all aettoos in the High Court, except
those in which either party has a right to trial by jury, and
has insisted on such right in the mode prescribed by Rules 2
or 6 {y). The mle allows a judge in his diseretioo to direct
that a party may have a jury in oases in which parties had
formerly no such ri^t («}.
(«) Lt., rulM 3, 4 ud S <rf Ord.
XXXVI.; Jenkint t. Btuhby,
(1801) 1 Ch. p. 489 ; 60 L. J. Ch.
p. 256. See Baring t. N. 11'. of
I ruguay Railway Co., (1893) 2 Q. B.
40e, 411; 69 li. T. 740; KtHnmrd
{Lord) V. FieU, (1905) 2 Ok. p. 8W;
74 L. J. Cfh. p. 690.
(0 Tha Tmtfk Bar, 11 P. B. «;
M L. J. P. I ; CM* Fngr 18
0. D. 117 ; M L. J. Ch. 884; i'M-
T. London, He., Dairy Oh, S8
C. D. 73 ; 36 W. E. 418.
(k) Ruattm V. Tobin. 10 C. D. 563 :
40 L. T. 111. See Su<iy y. SUber,
1 Q. B. D. 362 ; 45 L. J. U. B. 460 ;
Wttt T. While, 4 C. D. 631 ; 46
L. J. cat. 333; JhnKar t. BmrrM,
ft 0. D. 014; 46 L. J. Ch. 612;
Powell v. Williamt, 12 C. D. 234 ;
40 L. T. 679 ; Clarke v. Skipper, 21
C. D. 134; 51 L. J. Ch. 519;
Cvote V. Ingram, 35 C. D. 117; fltt
L. J. Ch. 034 ; Timton y. mimt,
38 C. D. 72: AOL.!. 76.
(«)B. & 0. Oite XXXVL
r. 7 (•); and Nt Wmt t. mite,
Bordier v. Burr^, Clark* v. Skipper,
mpra.
(y) Jenkin* v. Bmhhy, (1891) 1
Ch. p. 490 : 60 L. J. Ch. '264.
{z) The Temple Bar, 11 P. 1). 6 ;
55 L. J. P. 1 ; Coote V. Ingram, 3i
C. D. 117; »6L. J. Ch. 634; JVm.
668
CUp. XXII.
8«rt. 1.
Arliitia'ion Art
188D.
TfW of nUoa
PRACTICE.
The Arbitration Act, 188&, proTides that. Bubjett to rules of
Court iind to an> riRht to Imve ptirticular oases tried by a
jury, the Court or a judge may rpfor any qiiostinn firising in
any cause or matter (other tlian a criminal proceeding by the
Crown) for iii(,uiry or report to any official or special
referee (a). The rejwi t of an officia! or Hjm'lnl referee may
be adopted wholly or pirtially by tl.o Court or a judge, and
if so adopted may be enforced as a judgment or order to the
same offcct (b).
This Act ilso provides (c) tliat in any cause or matter (other
than a criminal proceeding by the Crown)— (1) If all the
parties interested who are not under disability consent; or
(2) if the cause or niiittor r -quires any prolonged examination
of documents, or any scientific or local investigetion which
cannot, in the opinion of the Court or a judge, eonreniently
bo made before a jury or conducted by the Court through its
ordinary officers ; or (3) if the question in dispute consists
wholly or in port of matters of account, the Court or a judge
may id any time order the whole cause or matter, or any
question or issue of fact arising tiierein, to bo tried before a
special referee or arbitrator respectively agreed on by the
parties, or before an officiaf referee Or offiCCT of the Court.
An action in tiie Cbiincery Division, as well as an issui or
question tiierein, may be ordered to be tried ..t the assizes (d).
Where in an action commenced in the Chancery Division it
is expedient to have all the isauc^ tried by a jury, and there is
nothing to render it necessary tliat the matter .slumld come
back to the Chancery Division, tiie most convenient course
is to transfer tiie action altogeyier to the King's Bench
Division (e).
The Judge in Chambers may, in such vay as he thinks fit.
Scientific
orultDca, , . ,
•xp«rt<, ke., kc. ^««w>". tie.. Dairy Co., 38
CD. 73; 36W. B. 418.
(a) Sect. 1.-), aub-B. 1.
(/.) Sect. 13, Riib-B. 2.
(«■) Sect. 14.
(■/) JVa^l V r/.-.::;!Jff, r, c. I).
113; 47 L. J. Ch. 1 13 : see Coati v.
Ifere/orJuliire rnunly Council, (1909)
2 Ch. pp. 686, 587 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
p. 371 ; and see Ord. L. r. 1 (a).
(') It nut V. Chamltri, 20 C. 1).
363 ; 51 I,. J. Ch. 683; Xtaiiyan y.
Afel. KIrrtrir ,<^„i,,,ly Co., (1891) 3
Ch. 551 ; 06 J.. T. 202 ; Forretttr
V. Janet, (Ism*) W. N. p. 78; 43
!<. J. 646; and aee B. a C. Ord.
XLIX. r, S.
TRIAL OP QUESTIONS OP LAW AHD PACT.
689
obtain the • mtanco of ueoountHnts, merciiunle, engineeiH, or XXII.
other scientific iM istHis, the hotter to enable »ay matter at -
oncp to he dotennincd. and ho inny act upon thr cortini-atf of
uny Kueh person (/). If upon tlic trial of an action there i»
■ueh B eonfliet of ertdence that the opinion of an independent
sin veyoi or f^cifntific expert hecoines necessary for the Court
to come to u conclusion iis to ijuejdions of fact, such questions
may be referred for inquiry and re|)ort to ao official or special
referee (</). A surveyor so appointed acts in a fiuut- judicial
capacity, and is not suhject to exnniinntion as a witness (h).
The Court of Ap^R'al may, without the consent of the parties,
refer any question arising on the appeal to an expert to
inquire and report (i).
Where a plaintiff hua proved his right to an injunction
against a nuisance, it is no part of the duty of the Court
to refer it to an expert to rei)ort as to the best mode of
abating the nuisance, though where there is a serious difBculty
in remoring the injury to the plaintiff, the Court will sus-
j)end the operation of the injunction for a time with liberty
to the defendant to apply for a further extension of
time (A;).
By B. 8. C. Ord. L. r. 8, power is given to the Court or Dtiention,
a judge upon the application of any party to >x cause or matter, JrT'^'uon
and upon such terras as may seem just, to make any order oivvtj-
for the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property,
being the subject of such cause or matter, and tat the purpose
aforesaid to authorise any person or persons to enter upon or
into any land or building in the possession of uny party to
(/) K. S. C. Ord. LV. r. 19. (A) Bro,ltr v. SaillarJ, 24 W. B.
(tf) CoK V. MiiUand Railway Co., 4i6.
27 Ueav. 347 ; VartmrigM ». Lait, (») See^tf.-Ow. BimM^Aam.
' avtn V. Kay, Sat 401, 403; Tarn*, ^c, Draatagt Board,{\9\fi)X
Braitr Sailbird, 3 C D. p. 6M ; Ch. 48 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ; varied
4« L. J. Gh. 414 ; Baditekt on appeal, (1912) A. C. 788 ; 82
Anilim, He., Fahrik T. Lurinttiin, K J. Ch. 45.
24 C. D. p. 168 ; as L. J. Ch. 704; (i) Ati.-Gtn. y. Coluty Hatch
ArHtration A'-t; 1889. 13: and AvAata. 4 Ch. Hfi ■ !9 T,. T TW
ttee CotU V. Home and Colonial See Itlington Vutry v. Uornuy
8tore$, (1904) A. 0. IM ; 73 Crkm OmmO, (1900) 1 Cfc. 70e,
L. J. Ob. p. 492. 707.
ero
PRACnCB.
^'fc^xxil. aneh nuae or matter, «nd to authorise any aamplea to be taki
'• — or any obMrratioa to bo made or experiment to be ti if
which may ho nriTusiiry or pxpodiont for the puriKwc of ol
taining full irifoniiiitiuii or ovidonce (/). The rulo extitu
to every oiiha where the Court eoniiders tint Bomethii
should lio due for the eeeurity of the property in quei
tiun (m).
Under this rale the Court baa granted an interim injani
tion to rpHtntin a defendant from eeasing to pump water oi
of a mine, in order to preserve it from injury («), and ht
restrained a party from dealing willi a fuird [lending n
appeal (o).
Owllwaiwi An appi' ition for an order for inspection may he mat
oTilnpH^!' ''y ^^7 V^'^y to ^ cause. It may be made by ttie plaint!
after notiee to the defendant at any time after the issue t
the writ. If ii be nuide hy any other party, it must be mad
on notice to the plaintiff and after appearance by the part
making the application (p). The application nuiy be mud
by motion or summons (q). It i» usually made on appliei
tion for an nterlocntory injunction, but ; imninterial t
what stage 01 he proceedings th* applicatiui. rt^^. Und(
the rule the Court has granted leave to a P' l;: . . • •^trii
to entet upon the defendant's land and exc. i . roil fc
the purpose of inspection (r1.
The application for an order for inspection should ordinaril
(i) Sm lm€g Jt Co. T. Caaing^am, T. L. It. S86.
(1908) 1 K. B. p. 84 ; 77 L. J. K. B. (-.) Strelhi/ v. Pearton, U 0. |
p. 6" ; and as to cogt», Mitchell v. 113 ; 49 I.. J. Ch. 406.
Jfarlfi/ MainCJliery Ci>.,lOQ. 11. I). (..' '■./.«< v. f/rny, 1? '■. B. 4;ii
447 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 394 ; A»l,woril, 443 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 41
V. Enylith Curd ClMimj Co., (1904) (y.) R. S. C. ( )rd. !., i r..
1 Ch. 702 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 274. As to (}) See Hnd/onl Corj-vratioH <
th*po^r«r<rfthe judge beforeiriMnk Ftrrand.WL. 1,491,
acaaseormattarMbmTd.toiiMiiMt (r) /vaini v. AmkimM, 1? C. ^
any property or thiay ooiieemiiig 366; 93 L. J. Ch. lUI. Cf. Brn .
wUch any queetioii may ariae fori CorporeMim t. Ferrand, lupu
therein, aee B. S. C. Old. L. r. 4 ; where an interlocutory order wt
and London OfneT^'^ ^^mnihn* r?fus*d. silso Sennfft v. Whih
Lavtll, (1901) 1 Ch. 134; 70 L. J. Ch. Iioutt, 28 fieav. 119 ; 29 L. J. a
17. 32« (imn s Ban ol a^j^aii^ aaiM
(m) CKofliH T. Barnitt, {mi) 28
TRIAL OF QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
m
U on notice (»), but under special circumstances it may be '^''J^^"'
MMk tm fori* <l). '—
The Court of Chancory httd no inherent power to .iscortain AMMt»
ti)« amount of damages sustained by reason of tortious sets
umttended with profit to the wrongdoer. But the juriadietkm
to give and assess damages in rcHpect of such acts wm con-
ferred on the Court of Chancery by Lord Cairns' Act, 21 I: 82
Vict. c. 27. It was declared by sect. 2 of that Act that in
■U OMMt in whMi Gonrt of Chftnoery has jorMktimi to
entertain an application for an injunction agaiiuita breach of
any covenant, contract, or agreement, or againtt tiie commis-
sion or eontinoanc* of any wrongful act, or for the spoeifle
performance (rf any eoroiant, contract, or agreement, the
same Court may award damages to the party injured, either
in addition to or in substitution for such injunction or specific
perftomaofli, ud audi daaoagM may ba aaiomd In audi
manner as the Court shall direct. Though this section cf
Lord Cairns' Act was repealed by the Statute Law Revision
Act, 1888, 8. 3, the jurisdiction waa preserved by sect. 5
erf aame statute (u). It is not, however, liecessary to have
recourse to Lord Cairns' Act, for the High Court of Justice
ha-i now full power under the Judicature Act, 1873, to give
cither an iojimotion or damafea (•) ; and the Coart'a power
■s 1 11 ■;or than the power it possessed under Lord Cairns' Act,
r< '. uiider Lord Cairns' Act the plaintiff had first to make out
tiuit he waa entitled to an eqoitaMe remedy before he ooold
obtain damages {y).
Tn determining whether it shall grant an injunction or Dnu^nm
damages in lieu of an injunction, the Court exercises u dis-
wetioB. Boi tiiia dberetion moal be a jndiMri d iae w tiop
(«) Sse B. & a OtL L. r. «; 1 Ch. 3*7; 64 L. J. Oh. »«;
Ord. XXX. r. 3. Cmuper y. Laidler, (1903) 2 Ch. p.
(t) Hennem/ T. Annnaii, (1877) 336 ; 72 L. J. Ch. p. S79; In re h.,
W. N. 14 (1906) 1 Oh. y>. m; li L. J. Ck.
(h) Sayen v. Callyer, 28 C. D. p. 423.
\m ; .54 T. J. Oh 1 ; Drta/-^: v. (x) Ih.
iVruftan f/iiano C'o.,42 C. D. p. 73; (y) Elmort v. IHrrir, SI L. T.
62 L. T. ai8 ; Skd/er r. City of U8.
Limii<m m»etrk UgkUng Co., [im)
PBACTIGE.
XXII.
1.
exercised according to something like a settled rule in such a
way ns fo pipvrnt a man doing a wrongful act and thinking
that lie Clin pay damages for it (:). if the injury complained
of is a breach of a negative covenant (a), or cannot fairly
bo compensated by a money payment (/*), or is of a very
serious nature (<•), or if the defendant has acted in a high-
handed and unfair manner (d), the plaintiff is entitled to an
injunction.
Damages may be given instead of an injunction when the
following requirements are found in combination, viz., where
the injury is: (i.) small; (ii.) capable of being estimated in
money; (iii.) capable of being adequately conipen8at3d by
a small sum; and (iv.) when an injunction would be oppres-
sive (e).
{z) Smith V. Smith, 20 Kq. ]\
505 ; 44 L J. Ch. Cno ; h'rehl v.
Bnrrtll, 7 C. I).5.jl ; 47 L. J. Ch.
?A3 ; 1 1 C. I), p. 148 ; 48 T,. J. Ch.
2S2; Ilollaud v. Wvrtey, 26 C. D.
678 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 288 ; antnwM»l
T. Hornity, 33 C. D. 471 ; M L. J.
Ch. 917 ; MaHitk y. Prie*, (1894) 1
Ch. 276, 28S ; 63 L. J. Ch. 209 ;
Cim-iHr T. Laiiller, (1903) 2f Ch.
p. M\ : 72 T, J. Ch. p. 680 ; CV, v.
Ilnme mill Cilimial Slirrrt, (1904)
A. ( '. p. I'.Cl ; 7:1 r,. J. Ch. p. 492 ;
Saitith/ V. /.I iiiliti {Old) Water Cimi-
mintintim, (190(i; A. C. pp. 115,
1 1() ; 75 }j. J. 1*. C. p. 27 ; and see
Jvna V. Tanktrt-ilU iEarl), (1909) 2
Ch. p. 44<{: 78 L. J. Oi. p. 676 ;
Uilliiig T. Gray, (1310) 27 T. I^. B.
40.
(a) Di'hirtit V. AUm'tn. .1 A. ('. p.
7^0; ;i9 I,. T. p. l:iO; .»/. AVi- An/ «
V. C /<,.)), (1902) A. ('. p. 107; 71
L. .1. 1'. ( '. p. 21 ; Formhfi v. 'I,irke--,
(1903) 2 Ch. p. Sol ; 72 L. J. Ch.
p. 721 ; EUutoi, V. Beacher, (1908)
2 Ch. p. 39A ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 628 ;
AU.-Ot}i. V. Walthamrtow L'rbaH
Ootauil, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 351 ; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 209.
(i) Ct4lt V. Home anil Culoniat
St„rc3, (1904) A. C. p. 19.3 ; 73 L. J.
I'h. p. 492; Jonet v. TankervHlt
(Karl), (1909) 2 Ch. p. 446 ; 78
li. J. Ch. p. 676.
(r) Kreht v. Jliirrell, 7 C. D. 561 ;
47 L. J. Ch. 363 ; 11 C. D. 146; 48
L. J. Ch. 262 ; Holland t. Worltg,
26 C. D. 678 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 268;
Orrenwoody. Homtty, 33 C. D. 471 ;
55 L. J. Ch. 917 ; Martin v. Vrirt,
''894) 1 Ch. 27(;; (« L. J. ( h.
209; Shiirer v. Cilij of I imdon
V.lertrii- l.iiihliiiii ('•>., (I89.>) 1 Ch.
287 ; 64 J. Ch. 21(i; Voirperj.
f.aidler, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 341 ; 7S
L. J. Ch. p. 680 ; Kim r. Jolly,
(1905) I dtp. 604; 74 L. J. Ch.
p. 183; SaHnhf r. London {Out)
U ater (^mmUiii.iiert, {1906) A. C.
pp. 115, 116; 75 L. J. P. C. p. 27;
■fiwi V. Tankerville {Karl). (1909)
2 Ch. p. 44fi ; 7N L. J. Ch. p. 676.
(-/) SMj'.r V. I'ity 0/ l.imdvn
I'.ltttric Lighting Co., (1895) 1 Ch.
p. 323 ; 64 K J. Ch. p. 229; Kint
y. -lolly, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 603 ; 74
L. J. Ch. p. 183 ; Jona t. Tanker.
HUe {Earl), tuf ra.
(r) Shelfer v. dt^i i f /.nnil,m
Ehrtrii- l.iijhtiiiij (■„., (1N9,>) 1 Ch.
p. 322; 64 L. J. Ch. pp. 220, 229;
DAMAGES. d7d
In a case of continuing actionable nuisance, damages Clup-XXIL
instead of an injnnetion will only be givm in rery exceptional — ^Zli: —
circumstances (/) ; but there is no jurisdictiwi to give damages
in respect of a threatened injury, where no wrongful act h im
been ecnnmitted (g).
Acquiescence is one of those cir imstances whieh tiie Court
takes into consideration in deciding whether it shoakl give
damages or an injunction (A).
In order tiat damages should be an adequate sabstitate for
an injunction, they must cover the whole area which would
have been covered uy the injunction. They must comprise as
well the damages for wrongful acts continued up to the time
of trial as for those which had taken place before the issue
of the writ (») . If the wrongful act has come to an end before
the trial, the Court has jurisdiction nevertheless to assess the
whole of the daniages accrued (*).
Where there is no difficulty in assessing damages, the judge
will a8.>e8S them at the trial, and thus save the expense of an
inquiry (I).
In a i»roper ease the Coort wiU grant an injonetion to bimuom
m '
Cowixr V. Laidkr, (1903) 2 Ch. v. Laidltr, (1903) 2 Oil. 3M. 341 •
p. 341; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 680 , ColU 78 L. J. Oh. p. 480. '
V. Homtand Colonial 8kru, (1904) (») St^ t. C,%fr. 28 C D
A. 0. ^ 193 ; 73 L. J. C9». p. 493 ; 10. : 54 L. J. Ch. 1 ; Shel/er y
KiM V. JMjl, (1905) 1 Ch. pp. 4W, City o/Lot^don Electric Liyhtim, Co
496 ; 74 L. 3. Ch. p. 183; SiUy y. (1895) 1 Ch. p. 322; 64 L. J. Ch.
I/a'i/ax Curporatioii, (1907) 97 L. T. p. 229.
278 ; 23 T. L. E. 613. (,) tnh v. IIob.on, 14 C. D. 543 ;
(/) SM/i- V. City of London 49 L. J. Ch. 321 ; Chapman v.
Electric Lighting Co., (1895) 1 Ch. Auckland Uiiiun, 33 a & O 394
2S7, 319; 64 L. J. Ch. p. 227. See 298 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. fl04 ;* wd
Couiper v. Laidltr, (1903) 8 Ch. pp. B. 8. 0. Ord. XXXVl r. 68 ; Hole
339. 841; 78 L. /. Ok «7», t. Chmrd Uni,m, (1894) 1 Ch. 293-
aSO; OWmjr V. <»r*r, (1910) 87 83 L. J. Ch. 469.
T. L. B. 40; JonM v. UtmwryH (t) Fritzs. Hobmi.tupra; Davtn-
Urban Cuuncil, (1911) 1 Ck. W3, }H^t v. Hyland, 1 Ba. aSS: M
411 ; SO L. J. Ch. 145. L. J. Ch. 204.
{g) Orey/u* y. Peruvian Omno (l) Crawford v. Uorntta Steam.
Co., 43 C. D. 316 ; 62 L. T. 618 ; .tc, Co., (1876) W. N. 133 ; UMimi
Martin v. J'rice, (1894) 1 Ch. pp. v. Worky, 38 C. D. p. MT • M
284,386 ; 63L. J.0h.209; C!ni7«r L. J. Ch. 3m.
K.I.
48
674
PRACTICE.
CiMtp. XXII.
llMfgniglit.
Inquiry as to
ilaiuattvii.
Dot be spcciti-
restrain a repet'tion of the wrongful act, and give damages
in respect of the past injory (m).
In an action for infringement of copyright a plaintiff is
noi. entitled to any remedy but an injunction, if the defendant
alleges in his defence tiwt he was not aware of the nistence
of the copyright, and also proves that at the date ot the in-
fringement he was not an-are and had no reasonable ground
for suspecting that cojjyright subsisted in the work (a).
An inquiry as to damages will not be directed in a patrat
action in addition to an account of profits (o). Nor will an
inquiry an to damages be directed where the plaintiff has
opened a case of uubetantial injury entitling him to an injunc-
tion and damages and has failed to prove any substanticl
injury (p). When the plaintiff discontinues his action (q),
or fails on the merits at the trial, the defendant is entitled
to an inquiry on the piaintiff'8 undertaking as to damages
sustained by him by reason of the interlocutory injunc-
tion (r) ; unless there are special circumstances disentitling
him to such inquiry («).
To entitle a party to damages, it is not necessary that
dumagei should be specifically prayed for. Damage may be
had under the prayer for general relief (0. A man who has
brought an aeti(m for relief and damages does not lose fait
(in) aUhng r, Orty (1910), 27 (</) Newromtn v. O nltim, 1 C. D.
T. L. R. 40. 764 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 4i"J.
(n) Copyright Act, 1911, s. 8.
See ISyriM v. ThebtoUut Co., (1914)
30 T. L. E. 254; W. N. 37. As
to exemption of ianooent infringer
ci a pcttet ftom liability to
daamas, ■•• Brtmti ud Uengni
Act, 1907, sect 83.
(o) NtOmny.IklU, L. B. H.L.
1 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 317 ; Dt Vitrt v.
Uttt», L. R. 6 H. L. 321 ; UnUed
Ilorttahiir Cn. v. fiteimrt, 13 A. C.
p. 112; M L. T. 561; Saccharin
Cor jii, ml ion v. ChemiaU$ and Drug
(•■:, (I'JOU) 2 Ch. p. MS ; 0» L. J.
Ch. p. 821.
(j)) Kinc T. BntOtin, 6 C. D. IM;
ML. J.Cli. 807.
(i ) Kino V. Kiiilkiti, tuprn ; /fixs
V. Buxton, (1888) W. N. 55 ; Griffith
V. niake, 27 C. D. p. 477; 53 L. J.
Ch. 066; Inn HailUoM, (1810) 102
L. T. p. 880.
(«) Bmitk Dtv, 21 C. D. 421 ;
48 L. T. 94 ; Oriffith y. Stake, iiipra ;
and 660 Bingley v. Marthall, 9 L. T.
144 ; 11 W. E. 1018 ; Ex i>arteHaU,
23 C. D. 644 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 907 ; and
see jiost, beet. 5 uf this chapter.
(() CvMori V. Wyld, 32 BeaT.
266; BttU V. NtilsoH,:i Clk.y. 441 ;
37 L. J. Ch. 321 ; Lady Stanley v.
Lord Shrtwtbmrf, 19 eI}. 81«; 44
L. J. Ob. aw.
DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION.
678
right to damages because performance has been obtained xxu.
from the dtfeodant Man tiie Boit oomes to a hearing («}. — ^'
SECTION 2.— DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION.
An interhwBtory injunction may be dissolved at any time
before judgment in the action, A defendant who wixhes to
have an injunction dissolved must serve the plaintiff with
notice of motion for that purpose. If other parties are
intoreated with the anpltoant as co-defendanta, it may be
necessary to serve them also with the notice of motion (i).
Where an interim, order has been obtained by the plaintiff,
and simultaomiis ai^lid^ioas are made tot an injunction,
iind to dischaige the order, the plainUff is entitled to
liegin (y).
An injunction cannot, on the motion to dissolve, be sus-
tained on grounds not raised by the statement of claim («).
Nor is it competent for the i^aintilf, on the motion to dis-
solve, to make a now case (a).
Unless the Court gives special leave to the contrary. Nrt«. .f
there must be at least two clear days between the service of
notice of motion to dissolve, and the day named in the notice
for bearing the motion (6). If special leave be given by tiie
Court, the leave must be stated in the notice (c). Tb» notice
should be given for one of the day< appropriated to the
hearing of motions (d) ; but, if a case of urgency be made
out, leave ii»y be had from the Court to give notice of motion
for a day not appropriated to the hearing of motions. The
notice should state that the motion is with leave (e). The
plaintiff is someHmes required by the interim order to under-
take that he will accept short notice to discharge the order (/).
The motion to dissolve should be made before the Court hy
(h) Cory y. ThmM* Iron, Ac. Co., Railway Co., o Ba. Cu. 401.
(A) K. S. C. Ord. Lir. r. 5.
{r.) Dawson y. litetun, 33 C. D.
804 ; 48 L. T. 407.
(«/) SUmiman v. JPielt, 11 Jnr.
US.
(*) Ahsmn y. Bmim, turn,
(/) 1 BH. 507.
11 W. E. S9».
(x) Stnice v. Cattanida, 9 Jur.
3(i:.
(y) Fraaer v. malUij, 2 U. & M.
10.
(j) BnrdtU V. Mag, 4 De O. J. «
33 L. J. Ok 41.
(a) Btrlmr v. JTmU Mq^wdbM*
monoE.
Chap. XXII. wbieh ihe injunction was granted (g). But if the cause has
'■ — been transferred to another branch of the Court the applica-
-'on may be made to that branch of the Court to which the
cause has become attached (h). Where, on appeal, an injunc-
tion was granted but its (^ration was suspended, it was
held that un application for the further susjxjnsion of the
injunction might have been properly made to the Court of
first instance (t).
iTidMHxoB Upon motion to dissolve, the plaintiff has no right to insist
motion shall stand over in order to give him time
to cross-examine witnesses who liave made affidavits for the
defendant (k) : afiBdavita filed in support of statements intro-
duced by amendment after injunction granted, and tending to
support the injunction, cannot be read on motion to dissolve
that injunction (I).
Motion to If, on the motion to dissolve an ex parte injunction, it
iayim^u/.'''^''' "PP*"'" that the plaintiff has misstjited his case, either by mis-
representation, or by the suppression of material facts, so
that an injunction has been obtained which would not haTe
been obtained if a more accurate statement of the case had
been made, the injunction will be dissolved on that ground
alone (frt). The plaintiff will not be allowed to maintain it
on the merits then disclosed (n). Nor can he be heard to say
that he was not aware of the importance of the facts so
misstated or concealed (o), or that he had forgotten them (p).
{g) Atrnfet V. lizardi, 9 Beav. 01.470; 86 B. B. 83; Bom v.
490. See HitmmtMd v. SmUh, U JtNsfaH, (1888) W. N. 55; Jkyctw.
L. J. Ch. 40. aUl, 84 L. T. 824 ; (1891) W. N.
(/.) .Sturgem v. Hoohr, 1 De 0. ft p. 108 ; S( AmiMM v. Foatt*, (18M)
S. 484. W. N. 64.
(i) Shel/er v. (.'»<(/ of f.dinlim (n) Att.-Gen. v. Curiiornliuii nf
Kltrlric LiyldiiKj Co., (1895) 'i C'li. l.iftr{Xiol, 1 M. & C. p. 211; 43
■■m ; til L. J. Ch. 736. E. E. 170; Cathlli v. Cool.; 7 lla.
(A) Xiirinani ill'' v. Staum'iiy, 10 p. 94 ; JkUylith v. Jarvie, 'i Mac A
lla. App. 20. U. p. 238 ; 80 L. J. dk 475; M
(/) Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 11. K. 8.J.
Uac. * 0. 25, 47 ; T9 B. B. 307. (») iJalyliih v. Jarvit, 2 Ihc. ft
(m) Broum t. tTewall, 2 M. & C. G. p. 241 ; 20 L. J. Cll. 475; 86
p. 5(0; 6 L. J. Ch. 348 : Caitflli v. E. E. 83.
Cook, 7 Hi.. 1). U 1 ; Dahjiuli v. ( /,) Vlijtw, v. lloMtmn, 18 Baav.
Jamie, 2 Muc. & U. 231 ; 20 L. J. 355 ; 96 E. E. 171.
DISSOLUTION OP INJUNCTION. 917
A motion to discharge an ex parte injunetkm on the ground Chgk^nif.
of its having been obtained by misre|H«aent»ti<m is proper, '■
though the injunction is about to expire (q).
But even though the affidavits on which the injunction wus
obtained may not have stated all the facts, there may not
have been such misstatement or suppression as to lead the
Court to grant the injunction (r). The i)lintitiff is only bound
by the facts which he states, and not by his statements of the
legal eonseqamoea arising fnMn the facts stated (t). He is
not bound to stat* facts supposed to raise sor.n^ point of Inw
in reality untenable (<). Nor, indeed, may his ignorance of
the feet, Ouki th« aet of which he omnplained was being put a
stop to at the time when he applied for the injunction, amount
to such a misrepresentfltion as to lead the Court to hold that
the injunction was improperly obtained. It is enough if the
facts were stated as they were shortly before the bringing of
the action, and that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact at
the time of the application of any farther fact requiring to be
stated (»).
The Court does not deal witii the same severity and strict-
ness in the case of an injunction obtained on notice, as with
an injonction obtained ex parte,- but the circumstances of the
ease amy be soch as to eidl upon tiie C&ari to visit tiie {riaintifl
with the same severity (x) .
A man who has obtained an ex parte injunction which is ntnejtpaiu
afterwards dissolved on the ground of concerimeiit of material diiZiindr
facts, is not precluded from niakiog»B applieation for another
injunction on the merits {y} .
If an injunction has been granted against two or more Who mast BOTe
persons, eadt of tiiem mnst nwve to dieaolve. If only one of ** ^^'^
•
(7) WimbUoH Local Bemd v. 43 L. J. Ch. 123, 127.
I'royilon Saniiar$ AmtktrSf, t$ (h) .S<;m;i/« v. I.ouilon ami Hir-
C. D. 421. minyham Raihray Co., 1 lU. Oa.
(r) Brown v. Xeivall, 2 M. & C. 493.
p. 677 ; « I.. J. Ch. 350 ; Caitflli v. (j-) Madaren v. StainUm, 16 Be«v.
' 'ook, 7 Ha. 89, 94. 290 ; 96 R. B. 132.
(«} Brmon r. Ntwott, 2 II. * C. (y) Fifth t. BothfoH, 18L. J. Ch.
p. 67«: SlkX.CLpL Ml. m,
(0 Wmkm V. AntM, » Ol lOM;
878
PBACnCE.
Clmp. XXII.
Swt. 2.
Motim to
iiiieluu|t aa
trdar for
IiTcf uUritjr «f
hyunetiM aaj
Arqnioiccnce
••d«r tb* onlar.
the defendants applies, the injunction will not be dissolved
as against the ot.hoiH(c).
Whei P a stranger to tlio action is affected by an injunction,
he luay apply to have tlie injunction set aside (a).
The Court will not, on an application to discharge an order
for irregularity, suslii-ii it on the merits (ft). Where an order
has been made on inotiou and affidavit of service in the
aheence of parties, the Court will, on proper application, give
the absent jwrty leave to move to discharge (c). An injunc-
tion granted on affidavit will be discharged, if the plaintiff
fails to appear before an examiner to be cross-examined on
hia affidavits So also, where an ex parte injunction was
granted upon tlio plaintiff undertaking to amend the writ by
adding a party as co-plaintiff, so that an undertaking as to
damages might be given on his behalf, and ther« was oa-
reasonahle delay in mak'i^ the amendment, tiie injunction
was dissolved (e).
Although an injunction may have issued, irregularly, the
irregularity may be waived by any act of the defendant
affirming the subsistence of a regular injunction (/),
After long acq uieacenQe under an order for an injunction, an
appli (»tion for diseolving it will not be readily entertained ( g) .
Where an order for an injunction had been made in a case
iHiere the Court had no jurisdiction. Lord Westbury would not
diBoharge the injunction on tiie ground of the acquiescence of
the defendant, but allowed it to stand, on the plaintiff entering
into a certain undertaking (h).
(i) Braimetll y. Haleomb, 3 M. ft
C. p. 741 ; 45 K. E. .378.
(a) Se« lioiirhniid v. Unnrliaiid, 12
W. R. 1024.
(4) ISrook) V. Piirion, 4 Beav.
494 ; St. Viclur v. Dftereur, 6 Bmt.
684 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 102.
(e) Mapf V. Bltotk, 22 L. J. Ch.
707.
((Q O'CalUghany. Barnad, (18*5)
W. N. 37.
(f) Tht Spaniih flmiral Agency
Cvrporation v. 7'he Sjianiih (\r-
foratitm, Ltd., 63 L. T. 161 ; (1890)
W. N. 168.
(/) Tmvert v. Lord Stafford, 2
Vc-8. S. 20; f'ijian v. Morilock, 2
Mer. 476.
{y) OIntcvtt V. Ia7uj, 3 M. & C.
451 ; liirk/urd v. Skewfx, 4 M. & C.
p. 600 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 188 ; JtHnings
T. Urighttm, <fce., fkwer Board, 4
De O. J. i 8. 747 n. ; Bell v. Hull
and Selby Railway Co., 1 Ea. C«.
616.
(A) Cardinall v. Molyneux, 4 De
O. F. * J, 117, 128.
DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION.
879
A party who hu deliberately eonsented to a perpetual in-
jtinction cannot be permitted to withdraw his consent merely '
CoBHDt to U
beeauae he has subsequently discovered that he might have a injnnetioB
good defence to the action (*). ^tUawB.
SMTIOH 8.— smOT or OIBTAIN PBOOnOtKOB 021
IMJONCnONS.
Under the former procedure un injunction was not dis- JA
solved by the abatement of the suit in which it had been
granted (A). Under the present practice an action does not
become abated by reason of the marriage or death or bank-
ruptcy of any of the parties, if the cause of action survive
or continue ; but an order may be obtained that the hnsband,
personal reiweaentatiTe, tnutee or other successor in interest
of such party be made a party to the action, or be served
with notice thereof (2).
A plaintiff nmy, after obtaining an injmietion, obtain an nM«l
order to amend without prejudice to the injunction ; and the '
injunction, even if not expressly saved, will be unaffected,
unless the record is changed, or the equity on which the
injunction was obtained is displaced or materially altered by
the amendment ( m) .
If the action is dismissed the injunction is ipso facto dis- Di,BiaMao(
charged (n). A motion or order for its dissolution is not**^
necessary. But the dismissal of the action does not prt-vent
the plaintifi from bringing anothei: for the same purpose
under a diffnrent state of circumstances (o), or upon new
facts (p).
(t) ELiit V. mihami, 84 L. J. (m) Harv'jf T. iTaR, 11 Eq. 31 ;
Ch. 330 ; 52 L. T. N. S. 39. Se«, 23 L. T. 391.
aa to judgmeuts by consent, Jin*- (n) Oreni v. I'ul^^trd, 3 Bmv.
worth V. WiUiHg, (1896) 1 Ch. 673 ; 70 ; 50 B. B. 102.
65 L. X Oh. 432; Wilding t. San- (o) of Liverpool t. Charley
dtrtm. (1887) 3 Oh. 534 ; 66 L. J. Waltrwtfriu Cb., 3 De M. & O.
Ch. 684 ; h r« W»dge$, (1908) 98 852, 8«6 ; 95 R. B. 347.
L. T. 436. ( r) Ait.-am. y. ShtJiM Oa$
Ferrand T. Hamer, 4 M. ft C. f^o., 3 De O. M. ft Q. 341 ; 83
p. 147 ; H L. J. Ch. p. 97. L. J. Ch. 811 ; M B. B. 151.
(I) B. 8. C. Ord. XVU. r. 2.
PRACTICE.
If a matioa tot m injonotkm has been reftued witii eotts,
a seeond motion for the sumo object cannot be made until
thoM eosts have been either paid or secured by payment into
Court (g).
SCCTIOV 4.— OOKTlNUIXa OR ORANTIXO IMJCNOTIOXB AT THH
■i&Biiro.
An injunction which has been granted upon an interlo-
cutory application is superseded by the judgment in the
action. If it is intended that it should remain in force it must
be expressly continued. Injonetions are eontinned after tiia
trial of the action either provisionally or permanently.
Injunctions are made perpetual at the trial for the purpose
of protecting the plaintiff, when his right has been estab-
lished, by putting an end to harassing and vexatious litiga-
tioii, and preventing the repetition of illegal and unauthorised
actf, or wherever a perpetual injunction is the appropriate
remedy to give the plaintiff the complete relief to wfaidi he
may have shown himself entitled (r). Where the plaintiff's
right is of limited duration, as in the case of copyright, the
injunction should not be in form perpetual, but until the
expiration of the plaintif's right (s).
An injunction will be granted on judgment in the action
when it is necessary for the purposes of complete justice {t),
although it is not claimed in the writ of sommons («).
As a general role injonetiim is only made perpetual at
(9) 014/teU T. Cobbttt, 13 Beay.
•1 ; U B. B. 28 ; Bunhll v. Hay,
38 Beav. 189. As to staying pro-
ceedings until costs of former pro-
OMdin<,'s for a similar object have
been paid, see Martin v. Earl
lieawhamp, 25 C. D. 12 ; 63 L. J.
Ch. 1140; U'Cabt t. B«mk </
Ireland, 14 A. C. 413 ; ML. J.
P. C. 18; Md we alw B. a C.
Ord. XXVI t. A ; In re Wirlcham,
34 C. D. 272; 66 L. J. Ch. 748;
OroAom t. SuKon, Cardtn i£ Co.,
(1897) S Ch. 967 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
686.
(r) See ante, p. 32.
(«) Sarory v. Oyptican OU Co.,
(1904) 48 a J. 673.
(*) Dickitimm v. Grand Junction
Carnal Oo^ It Bmt. 371 ; 9S B. B.
410.
(u) Rtyndl y. Spnjr, 1 De O. M.
4 G. 660 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 633 ; 91
B. B. 228 ; Blomfield v. Eyre, 8
Beav. 280 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 260 ; 68
H.B.87. Se«B.S.C.Oid.L.r. 12.
CONTINUING OR OBANTINO INJUNCTIONS.
m
judgment in the aotion (x). But an injunction may hj eon- Wit
Mnt b« mad* perpctaal on motion (y). — —
Where the inconvenience to the defendant from granting Dteimtloa el
an injonotion will be Tery serious, the Court will in a proper fj^^*|{{y^ •*
eajw, whare an immodiate injunction is not esaential for the
plaintiff's protection, merely make a declaration of the plain-
tiff's right to relief, and give the defendant a reasonable time
to remedy the wrong complained of, with liberty to the plain-
tiff to apply at tiM aspiration of the time for an injunetion
if his rights Are then being infringed (z). In the case of
actions to restrain nuisances by public authorities this course
is freqnently adopted by tiie Court owing to the inconvenience
to the public which would arise from an immsdiate injunc-
tion (a). So also where the defendant gives an undertaking
and there is no probability that tho wr ngful a<:t will be
repeated, the Court will often xailn a • slaratioii of the
plaintiff's right, with liberty to apply tor an injunction if
required (&).
If the nniaanoe aought to be reetrained haa ceased before ai k nila uo
the trial of the aotiOD, tiie Court wiU not aa a rule grant an ml;X^f'';j;!r
injunction (c). b«for.tri.i.
When an injunction has been granted, the Court will in a Supmuod of
(«} Ztey V. Bum, 8 Y. * B. 171.
(y) Mara v. AamM, IS Beav.
284.
(z) See Iilington Vtttry t. Hortuey
Urban Council, (1900) 1 Ch. tt96,
707 ; Smith r. Baxter, (1900) 2 Ch.
138 ; 69 L. jr. p. 4M.
(«) lb.
(i) 8«e Smith v. Baxtrr, (1900) 2
Ch. 138, 148 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 442 ;
WUeat T. sua, (1904) 1 Oh. 321.
22fi; 73 L. J. Ch. 2M; Brifft v.
W o mto i , (1904) 1 (%. 886, 394;
73 li. J. Ch. 30«; AU.-Gtn. y.
Birmingham, Tame, <tc. Drainage
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. pp. 60, 62; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 144 ; Hanbury v.
Ltan/reehla Urban Couneit, (1911)
76 J. P. p. 308 ; BMaln LUmdudno
Trim Ootmaa v. Wood, (1899) 2
70S ; 68 L. J. Ch. p. 62A ;
Bedford v. Letdi Corporaiion,
(1913) 77 J. P. 430, 434; and
Behrtnt v. RiehanU, (1905) 2 Ch.
p. 622; 74 L. J. Ch. 615, where
the Court made a declaration of
thepUmtiif' a right and gare in the
latter onse nominal damagM, the
matter cou^ained <rf b«ia|t triviaL
(e) DHnmi»$ v. Oroovtnor Mrim
Oc, (1900) W. N. ?65 ; W .* 0».
T. Bath Oa$ Co., i\ i$S, v. ; Atf.-
Oeti. s Squire, ! 1 9»)ti) 5 L. tf. R. 99 ;
Bobin on v. Z »it/^ Ge.iarcl Omni-
bu« Li (19iri, ift r L. B. 2:M.
Cf. L'f'in tf Ohetter v. SmeU.uy
Corporaf Um, ^i901) W. N. 179 ; 85
L. T. 67.
688
PRACTICE.
"SSitV cfls"* HUH|M<n(l its ()iK»rntion 80 a8 to onalile the defi>n-
- dant to remove the citiise of the piaintiff'it romplaint (il).
So hIso the Court will suspend iin injunction ponding iin
uppeal («), and when- the defendtuit is alwut to opply to
Pu-liament for power to do Uie aet cmnplained of (/).
When the Court of Appeal has granted an injunction, and
has suspended its (^ration, an application for a further
BURpenaion can be made to tlu> judge of the Court to which
the action wiis attached (<;).
puehsrge of The Court of AppenI has jurisdiction to discharce an in-
injanctiM bjr. i
CoBrtof AjipMU, JXDCtion which has been granted to restrain a public txxiy
'SbH^S 'i^*" committing a breadi of a paUio ^tote, and can accept
in lieu thereof, its undertaking not to oODUait any further
breach of its statutory duties (gg).
BRCTION' 5. — INQCIRT AS TO DAMAOKS WBBRI IKJUNOTIOR
DISSOLVED.
Though an interlocutory injunction has been granted on the
imdertaking <rf the plaintiff as to damages, the Court is not
(./) See Colli ell V. St. I'unrnii
Jtoroiiiih r'oHiitil, (1901) 1 Ch. 707,
713; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 279; l'ri,e $
J'attnt Candle Co. v. London County
CouMil. (1908) 2 Ch. p. 644; '«8
L. J. Ch. p. 8 (public weltm);
ijtt.-0M. T. OUh, (laOB) 9 Ch.
p. 279; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 528; AU..
Ota. V. Birmingham, Tame, d-c.
Drainayt /hard, (1910) 1 Ch.
pp. 60, 02 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137;
(1912) .V. C. 788 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 43 ;
Stiinriiinb T. Troiehridijt l'rl<aii
Cvviuti, (1910) 2 Ch. p. 191; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 419; .l«.-0«i. V.
Ltu)t» CorponUum, (1911) 3 Ch.
p. 909 ; lOS L. T. p. 701 ; Yeatman
V. IlomUrgrr d- Co., (1912) 107
L. T. p 46, 742 (on appeal injunc-
tion dihcharpH by consent).
(«) Hhtlfer V. City of London
FJtctrir r.iylititig Co., (1896) 2
Ch. 3SH; VA L. J. Ch. 736;
Sihweder ?. Worthing Ua$ Light
and Cok$ Co., (1918) 81 L. J. Ch.
p. IM.
(/) BtlUrU T. Chmrfimi Diitfitt
Oomica, (1S99) a Ch. p. 616 ; Att.-
Oen. T. South Stajtordihire Watrr-
mrh* C,,., (190!)) 25 T. L. R. 408
(applications to Parliament) ; Hide-
ford I'rban Cvuncil v. Hide/iird
Westward Ho .' Hailway Co., (1!M)4)
68 J. V. 123, 123 (application to
Light Bailwky CommiinoneTs).
(g) Skt^ftr dig «/ £oMdM
SImlrit Lighting Ot., (189S) S Ch.
388 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 73A.
((/;/) Att.-Qtn. v. Birmingham,
Tame, itc. Drainage Board, note («l),
Hipra.
INQUIRY AS fO DAMAGES.
688
bound to grant an inquiry as to damages in every case in Clw^XMI.
which the injunetion is dissolTed, or the action is dismissed ^—
at the trial, ^e Court has n discretion, und bofore it will
grant an inquiry as to damHK<M it iniiHt hv sutlHAod that the
injunction was iminroperly obtuincd and thitt iinder all the
oirmuastUMM of tiic cm* damsfes ought to be given. It
iniiy happen that an interlocutory injunition i". diHSoIvcd for
delay, or for some cause which disentitles the plaintiff to an
interlocatory injunction, thoof^ not to relief by way of in-
junction at the trial. The Court in such a case has a discre-
tion whether under all the circunistnnces the defendant ought
to have damages in respect of the interlocutory injunvHion
having been granted. Moreover, the Court will have regard
to the amount of damage; if it be trifling or remote, the
Court will not direct an inquiry as to damages (A).
The api^icetion for an Inquiry as to damages should as a Application for
general rule be made either at ttie time the injunction is to&Mik
dissolved or at the hearing of the cause. But it may be made
by motion subsequently to the trial. There is, in fact, no
absolute rule as to tile tune within which the application
should be made ; but, as a genera) rule, the Court ought to be
asked to enforce the undertaking within a reasonable time
aft«r it is aseeiiained tiist Hu injunctim has been imi»operly
granted (/). Thus an inquiry has been directed afl-er four
months {k), and special circumstances might induce the Court
to allow even a greater delay; but a spedal case must be
made out (I).
Where an interlocutory IP; iuction had been granted iiy the Dirition to
Probate Division on the usual undertaking as to damages, rirn'rii^M'^
it was held tint an applieatioa to enforce the ondertaldng
(ft) SmHh V. Dag, SI C D. 4» ;
48 L. T. M; Bx parU Halt, S3
C. D. p. 6i2 ; 52 L. J. Ch. p. »I1 ;
and lee RoUn^on v. London HtntnU
Omnihui Ot., (ItlO) S6 T. L. B.
233.
(i) Smtih V. Day. 21 C. D. 42! ;
48 L. T. M; £x parU Hatt, 23
CD. p. OSS; 32 L. J. Ch. p. 911 ;
I* r« ffailttone, (1910) 102 li. T.
877.
(h) Xeirbi/ V. Harriton, 3 De O.
F. & J. 287 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 863.
(0 Smith V. Day, 21 C. D. 421 ;
48L.T. »4.
684
PRACTICE.
^'"sL'^b"' ^^^^^^ ^^^^ *° *hat Division, and not to the Chancery or
~ — King's Bench Division (m).
^^bi.. ^ '^"^ damages must be confined to the loss which is the
natural consequonce of tho injunction under the circum-
stances of which the party obtaining the injunction has
notice at the time when he makes his application (n).
Defendant The defendant is entitled to the benefit of the undprtakinff
entitled to ^
(laniagM tiiougii as to damages even though it should be decided thai the
'>vrCg7y°^nte.l '"junPtion was wrongly granted owing to the mistake of the
Court itself (o). Where an injunction has been wrongly
granted, an undertaking given by the plaintiff is equally
enforceable whether tbe mistake was in point of law or in
point of fact. In Fuch a case the Court will not as a rule
refuse an inquiry as to damages, unless the damages alleged
would be too remote, if the defendant was suing in respect of
tiiem upon a breach of cmtract (p).
granted Xie '^^^ Court will Hot grant an inquiry as to damages where it
Court aatufied Can Satisfy itself without such inquiry as to what is the
utoMMwt. amount of such damages (q).
SBCIION 6.— OON8EQUBKCE8 0» THB BBBACH OF AN INJUNCTION
OB BB8TBAININ0 OBDBB.
An order for an injunction must be implicitly observed, and
every diligence must be exercised to obey it to the letter (r).
However erroneously or irregulai ly obtained, the order must
be implicitly observed so long as it exists. A party affected by
it cannot disregard it or treat it as a nullity, but most have
(/») Tn re HaihUme, (1910) 102
L. T. 877.
(n) ftmith y. Day, supra ; Hchl's-
inger v. Beil/onl, (ISft.'i) W. N. 57 ;
9 T. L. R. 378 ; see In re Pemherton
and Cmi^, (1913) 1((7 L. T. 71(i.
{") Orijtth V. Itlahe, 27 (.'. 1).
474; 53 L. J. Ch. 966; Hunt v.
Ilioit, 54 L. J. Ch. 289; /// re
Ilaihtone, (1910) 102 L. T. p. 8S0.
As to the measure of damages
whers au iaquiiy i« dinctod, •■•
Mantdl r. Britith Lintn Comftmy
Bank, (1892) 3 Ch. IW ; «I L. J.
Ch. 696; Hchlainger T. Bt^enl,
(1893) W. N. 37; 9T. L. H. 370;
/« re I'imhertim ami Cooikt, m/.m.
{)>) Hunt V. Hunt, 84 L. J. Ch.
289; (1884) W. N. 243.
(v) draham v. CampMI, 7 C. D.
490, 494 ; 47 L. J. Ch. p. 396.
(r) Hanling v. Pingey, 12 W. B.
684 ; 8p9kti v. BmbHt^ Bwd o/
CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OP AN INJUNCTION.
688
it discharged on a proper application (s). A man who does ciMp.xxiI.
not obey it to the letter so long as it exists is guilty of con- '■ —
tempt, unless there be something to mislead upon the idain
reading of the order (/), or a pressing emergency should make
it impossible to comply with the order (u).
An undertaking entered into with the Court is equivalent to, Breach of
and will have the effect of an injunction so far that any
infringement thereof may be made the subject of an applica-
tion to the Court (a;). But where a party had by mistake
consented to a more extensive undertaking than he intended,
the Court refused to enforce the part of the undertaking which
had been given by mistake (y).
A judgment requiring any person to do any act other thtm
the payment of money, or to abstain from doing anything,
may be enforced by writ of attachment, or by committal (z),
and it is usual in the notice of motion to ask for attachment
or committal in the alternative (a) . The proper method of
enforcing an undertaking given to the Court, whether the
undertaking be affirmative or negative, is committal, not
attachment (6). The notice of motion for committal must
be personally served, but service of the order in whidl tiie
undertaking is embodied need not be effected (c).
(«) SuMell V. Eatt Aii'/lian Rail- re Eia.ia, (1893) 1 Ch. pp. 259—263 ;
"•ai/ Co., 3 Mac. & O. p. 11" : and D. v. .1. * Co., (1900) 1 Ch.
20 L. J. Ch. 261 ; 87 K. K. 30. p. 488 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 384 ;
CI. Daw V. Eley, 3 Eq. p. A09 ; 36 Taylor d- Co. v. J'linaton, (1911) 2
L. .T. Cu. 485. Ch. 608; 105 L. T. 613.
(0 ajpokt$ V. Banburg Board nf (6) D. r. A. * Co., (1900) 1 Ch.
Ilealt!,, 1 £q. 48; 35 L. J. Cb. IM. p. 489 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 384 ; aud
(«} Adair v. Yoang, 12 C. D. «ee /n re Launder, (1908) 98 L. T.
1'- -1- 554. Ab to the jurisdiction of tho
(.(■) LontloH and Uirmimjham Bail- Court to compel a solicitor, who has
vay Co. y. Grand Junction Canal giveu an undertakiug as solicitor to
<'o., 1 Ba. Ca. 241; Milhurn v. a person not a client, to carry out
Xewton, (1908) 52 8. J. 317. his undertaking, whether it was
(y) Mallins v. Uowell, 11 C. D. given in the oouise ot' leg»I pro-
763; 48 L. J. Ch. 679; and we eeadingi ornot, aee UniM Mining
Scott V. Maam, 81 L. T. 774. Co. r. Becker, (1910) 2 K. B. 296 ;
(«) B. e. 0. Ord. XLIL r. 7. 79 h. J. K. B. 1006 ; compromised
(o) See CaUow t. Yoitng, 66 L. T. on appeal, (1911) 1 X. B. 840 ; 80
147. For Vb» difference betwom L, J. K. B. 686.
eoBBittal mmI •tta^neat, mo In (e) D. v. A. A Co., (1900) 1
686
PRACTICE.
order iiol in all
OHM wnntial
^''^'ct'e"' punish for breach of un injunction or
yobr«»ehtiii •■estraining order, unless it be clear that the party
BotiM of alleged to be in contempt knew that the injunction had issued,
imanetioii. ^j. ^^^^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^ y^^^ made((0- He ought, strictly
speaking, to be served with the order itself in the manner
Actual Mrvice of dlieiidy pointed out (e). But if the matter is very pressing,
the service of the order itself will be dispensed with, and
service of a copy of the minutes of the order, or of a notice of
its having been obtained, will be suflBcient. An injujiction
operates from the dut€ of the order, and not from the time of
sealing. If, after seivice of the notice or the copy of the
minutes, the party enjoined acts in opposition to the order,
he in guilty of a contempt, and may be committed (/).
When an injunction has been granted restraining an act,
a committal may be ordered whei-e neither the order nor
the minutes of the order have been served, nor any personal
notice given, but the party enjoined was in Court at the
time the order was made (g), or received notice of the order
by telegram (h). If, indeed, a man remains in Court until
the order is about to be made, he cannot, by leaving before
the order is actually pronounced, avoid it^s consequences (i).
It is sufficient that a man has clear notice, however given,
of the order, and knew that the plaintiff intended to en-
force it : and this rule is not limited to eases in which a breach
is committed before there has been time for the plaintiff to
get the order drawn up and entered (A;).
Sufficient if
dcfondant bas
oiair notice of
enlcr.
484, 487 ; 69 L. J. Ch, 3S2 ; /;/ re
Launder, (1908) 98 L. T. 554. Cf.
IMfurd V. Hurdy, 81 L. T. 721.
[rl] Carioir V. Ferritr, 17 L. T.
N. 8. 536 ; 37 L. J. Ch. pp. 671,
673.
(e) AnU, p. 664. As to ita not
bnng necessary to serve an order
for the purpose of enforcing au
undertaking embodied in it, .'ee
nf)te ((•), supra.
(f) M'Xeill v. Car rait, Cr. &
Ph. 98 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 64 B. R.
223; Oooch v. Marthall, 8 W. B.
410.
(?) Anon., 3 Atk. 567; Skip v.
Hanoood, ib. 664; UaU v. Trigg
* Co., (1897) 2 Ch. 219, 222 ; 66
L. J. Ch. 661 ; and see D. v. A. *
Co., (1900) ICh. p. 487; 69 L.J.
Ch. 5; In re Tmk, (1906) 1 Ch.
pp. 695, 696 ; 75 I;. J. Ch. p. 497.
[h) 1). V. .4. <t- Co., (1900) 1 Ch.
p. 487 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 384.
(») Hearn v. Teiinant, 14 \m,
136 ; 9 B. B. 253.
(*) Heywood v. Wait, 18 W. R.
200; Avofgr. Andnmt, 30W. B.
CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF AN INJUNCTION.
687
Where an order has been made directing un act to be done
within a limited time, the order must be personally served
before committal or attachment can be obtained, except where
an order for substituted service has been made, or where in
the opinion of the Court, the service has been evaded (I).
The Court will not commit a man for breach of an injunc-
tion, if it be doubtful whether, owing to the conduct of the
plaintiff, he may not have been drawn into the idea that it was
not the intention of the plaintiff to enforce the injunction ( w) .
Where, for example, in consequence of the order not being
drawn up and served, the defendant might very fairly con-
sider that the plaintiff did not intend to proceed at all, it was
held necessary before the plaintiff could obtain a committal
that he should serve the defendant with the original order ( n) .
So also, a man who has acted in breach of an injunction will
not be committed for contempt, where he swears that though
he had received notice of it by telegram, he bond fide believed
that no injunction had boon granted and the circumstances
show that such belief was not unreasonable (o). If it is
sought to commit for cont«npt a man who after receiving
such notice disregards it, the Court must decide upon the
facts of the particular case whether he in fact had notice of
the injunction, and it is the duty of those who ask for com-
mittal to prove this beyond reasonable doubt (p).
The order for committal is obtained upon motion, notice of
which must be served personally upon the party committing
the contempt (q). The terms of the notice should be that the
party " may stand committed to Hollcway prison for breach of
S64; dl L. J. Ch. 419; United {») Jame» v.Downei,li\ea. 622;
TelephoM Co. V. Dak, 26 CD. m-, 11 B. B. 247.
53 L. J. Ch. 295 : D. r. A. «fc Co.,
(1900) 1 Ch. p. 487; 69L. J. Ch.
p. 384 ; In r« LemndHr, (1908) 98
L. T. 555.
(l) In re Tuck, Mnrrh v. Lootemore,
(1906J 1 Ch. p. 696 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 497.
(m) Jamu v. Downe$, 18 Ves.
622; 11 B. B. 247; United TtU-
plumt Co. T. Dah, M C. D. 778 ; 63
Chap. XXII.
Sect. 6.
Uriltr to do
act with:n
Umitwi tim*.
ffo oonmitUl
tor bnaeh,
where bondjidt
and reasonable
belief no
injunction
gnatod.
ApplicatioB
to commit, bov
obtained.
L. J. Ch. 285.
(o) Ex parte LeutgUg, 13 C. D.
110 ; 49 L. J. Bk. 1.
(P) lb.
(j) Anijerttein v. Hunt, 6 Ves.
48H ; Hojie v. Carnenie, 7 Eq.
p. 260 ; Mander v. Falcke, (1891) 3
Ch. 488 ; A'e/»oH v. iruramm, (1890)
W. N. 216 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 3 ; D. \.
A. Co., (1900) 1 Ch. p. 487 ; 69
L. J. Ch. p. 384.
PRACTICE.
Otup. XXII. the injunctioa" (r). If the breach haa been committed by a
1^ — person not named in the order, tiie notiee of motion mast be
that he may be committed for his contempt in knowingly
assisting in the breach (a). The Court has undoubted
jurisdiction to commit for contempt a person not included in
an injunction, and not a party to the action, ho, knowing of
the injunction, aids and abets a defendant in committing a
breach of it(t). There is a clear distinction, however, be-
tween a motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction
on the ground that he was bound by the injunction, and a
motion to commit a man on the ground that he has aided
and abetted a defendant in a breac! of an injunction. In
the former case, the order for committal is made to enable the
plaintiff to get his rights ; in the latter case, the order is made
because it is not for the public benefit that the course of
justice should be obstructed (u).
If it can be satisfactorily shown that personal service of
the notice of motion to commit cannot be eSected, the plaintift
may, on a proper case being made out, obtain an order (x)
for substituted or other service or for the substitution of
notice for service by letter, public advertisement, or other-
wise, as may seem just, and upon affidavit of such service
an order for committal of the party guilty of contempt may
be made (ij).
Grounds of A notice of motion for attachment must state in general
CattafhrnentT *he grounds of the application, and where wjy such
motion is founded on evidence by affida' it, a copy of any
affidavit intended to be used must be served with the notice
of motion (s). Upon a motion to commit a copy of the
(r) 1 Set. 430. («) lb.
{») Lord WaMey v. Karl of (x) Stein re A Bolkitor, (1893)
Moritiiiyton, 11 Beav. 180, 181 ; 83 W. N. 22.
B. E. 136 ; Seairar'! v. Patrraon, (//) E. S. C. Ord. LXVII. 6; /»
(1897) 1 Ch. 54.) ; 66 L. J. Ch. 267 ; re Luxmore, (1888) V,'. N. 63.
/lomli V. Simins Manufadaring Co., {z) E. S. C. Ord. LII. 4. See
(1909) '25 T. L. E. 419. J'etty v. Daniel, 34 C. D. 172;
(<) Reaivard v. I'alerson. (1897) 56 L. J. Ch. 192; Hipkisi v.
1 Ch. M5 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 267 ; aud Fdlowi, (1909) 101 L. T. 701 ;
sec Bovh V. St'mmt Mana/tteiuriny Taylor, Plinitm ifc Co. v. J^imtoH,
Co., (19ud) 26 T. L. B. 419. (1911) 2 Oh. 605, 60* ; 108 L. T.
CONSEQUENCES OF 3BEACH OP AN INJUNCTION.
689
affidavit upon which the motion is founded need not be served Cbmp. xxil.
with tiie notice of motion (a). ***■*'
The affidavits, copies of which have to be served with the AMaHta.
notice of motion, include the affidavit of service of the
order granting the injunction (5) ; except in cases where
service of the order is unnecessary, e.g., where the defendant
was in Court and personally consented to the order (c). The OrderXU.r.5.
affidavits served with the notice of motion must state thai
the order when served was indorsed with the memorandum;
pointing out the conseqrences of neglecting to obey it which is
required by R. S. C. Ord. XLI. r. 6 (d) ; unless the order is
purely prohibitive (e).
In a case (/) where the plaintiffs moved to commit the
defendants for breach of an injunction which had been granted
to restrain a nuisance, and the Court by reason of the con-
flicting nature of the evidence ordered the motion to stand
over in order to be heard with witnesses, it was held that upon
the adjourned hearing the applicant oculd give evidence of
breaches of the injmiction not specified in the affidarits they
had filed, notwithstanding R. 8. C. Ord. LII. r. 4.
It seems that the defendant may take advantage of the
objection that R. S. C. Ord. LII. r. 4 has not been complied
with, ewea thoa^ he has answered the afBdarita (g). Bat
the objection may be disposed of by adjournment (h).
It ia no objection to an application to commit that the
idaintii! is moving to commit erne only of several co-
defendanta (4).
616. As to service of copies of the
exhibit!, bm Carter v. Robtrtt,
(IMS) 3 Ol 313; 73 L. J.
m.
(a) Taiflor, PUnOm A Co. r,
Plinttim, note (f), lunra.
(6) Hall S Co. V. i'rigg, (1897) 3
Ch. 219; 66 L. J. Cfc. 6«1.
(c) Hall * Co. V. Trigg, (1897) 2
Ch. p. 222 ; 66 L. J. Ch. p. 653.
(-0 Stockton FootbaV Co. v. Qatton,
(im)lQ.B.4d3; ««L.J.aB.
338.
(e) SeloM V. Croydon Rural Saiti-
tary Authority, 63 L. T. 209 ; Hud-
>on V. Walker, 64 L. J. Oh. 20< ;
Murphy V. Wtihodu, (1911) 1 L E.
403.
(/) Doan n/ Chettir v. Smelting
Corporation, W. N. (1902) 6.
{g) Taylor v. Roe, 68 L. T. 213.
See Jejriea v. Jeffrie*, (1907) SI
S. J. 372.
(A) Rendell v. Grundy, (1896) 1
Q. B. 16, 20; 64 L. J. Q. B. p. 137.
(») Jrnmt» V, fiin^, 10 Jur. 463,
44
!1
11
690
PRACTICE.
Proof of brtieli
mnrt b* dtar.
ch%]>. XXII. An order for committal La strictissimi juris, and cannot be
" sustained, unless it can be shown upon the clearest eridence
that there has been an actual breach of the injunction (A:).
The general terms of an injunction will not, however, be
restricted by reference to the particular injury complained
of in the fiction, if the injunction has been in spirit vio-
lated (l). But the Court will not allow an injunction to be
used for the purpose of oppression or vexation. It is not
because a man has an injunction restraining y < >ighbour
from causing u nuisance to him that there shoi j a motion
to commit the defendant by reason of some trilmig thing being
done in the ordinary course of bminess, which has not caused
any real mischief (m). In determining whether there has
been a breach, however, the Court will have regard to the
circum .ances under which, and the objects for which, the
injunction was obtained (n).
Whtteonttt' An intention to violate an injunction is immaterial unless
fajSrtir''"* the breach be actually carried into effect (o). Thus, where
an injunction was granted restmining a man and his servants
from stopping, impeding and obstructing the passage of boats,
tc, along a canal, the placing of a bar which was capable of
being easily moved across the canal, and the stationing of
persons at a bridge on the canal to give notice to persons
passing along that they were trespassing, without however,
attempting to stop them, were held not to amount to a
breach (p).
Where an injimction was granted against a husband and
wife, and a breach of the injunction was committed by the
wife, who was living separate from her husband, it was held
that the husband could not be ctnntuitted for ecmtempt (9).
(A) Harding V. Pingey, 12 "W. E. p. 118. See Ru»Mn v. Ea$l Anglian
68.-. ; liaw^onM. Pavtr, 6 Ha. p. 424 ; BaUieay Co^ 3 Mao. ft O. 104 ; 20
16 L. J. Ch. 277 ; 71 B. K. 188. L. J. Ch. 261 ; 87 B. B. 30.
[l) Att.-Uen. V. Oreat Xrrthern (oj Qrand Juntiian Canal Co.y.
liaiUray Co., 4 De O. & S. 75 ; 87 Dimu, 18 L. J. Ch. 419.
H R 294. ^ ^*
(m) Baxter v. Bouer, 44 L. J. Ch. (?) Hope v. Carnegie, 7 Eq. 2S4,
. 628.
(») Lodtr v. Arnold, 16 Jwr.
260.
CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF AN INJUNCTION.
691
if a plaintiff who haa obtained an injunction misrepresents cb*i>. XXII.
to the public what has been done by the Court, and the *'
defendant, to correct thiit misreprcsentutiou, does an uct
which in strictness is a breach of the injunction, the Court
will not entertain any complaint against him on the port of
the plaintiff for such a breach (r).
Persons not nainwl in the order are not liable to be com- Wbethw i«rtt«.
mitted for breach of the injunction itself (a). Thus, where an 3^ JJS^Ji b,
injunction restrained only A. B., and did not in terms extend ••wi'**^-
to " hLs servants and agents," the Court declined to comuit
an agent of A. B. fur breach of the injunction, inasmuch as he
was not expressly enjoined (t). The agents, however, of a
man against whom an injanction has been amused, although
not named in the order, may be committed for contempt, if,
having knowledge of the injunction, they uct in contravention
of the order of the Court («) . Moreover, any person, whether
an agent or not, who, knowing of an injunction, aids and
abets the party enjoined in committing a breach of it, is liable
to be committed (x). In such cases the committal is not,
technically, for breach of the injunction, but for a contempt
of Court tending ^o obstruct the course of justice (i/).
In a case where a purchaser of part of a company's busi-
ness obtained action restrsining the company, its
servants and , soliciting its former customers, and
the company a . , ^ voluntary liquidation and transferred
it« undertakint; to h new company of the same name which
solicited the purchaser's customers, it was held that no breach
of the injunction had been committed by the new company
as it was an independent body and not the servant or agent
(r) BarfiM v. NiekUtem, 2 L. J. 419 ; Seaward v. PaUrtou, (1897) 1
(0. S.) Ch. 90. Cb. MS ; 66 L. J. Oh. 267 ; uidMe
(«) Ivuan T. BanU, 7 Ves. 256. JSokA v. SimtM Manufacturing Co.,
See Brydgtt v. Brtfdtm ami Wood, (1909) 25 T. L. B. 419. See Scott
(1909) P. p. 191; 78 L. J. P. V. Sco«, (1913)A. C.pp. 456— 459;
p. 100. 82 L. J. P. pp. 9.3—95.
(0 Lord Welluley t. Lord Mom- (i) Seaward v. I'aterton, (1897) 1
inytun, 11 Beav. 180; 83 E. E. 136. Ch. 545; 66 L. J. Ch. 26". See
(«) Lord Welletley v. Lord Mom- Seott y. Scott, (1913) A. C. p. 457 ;
i»tjtim, 11 Boav. 181 ; 83 E. E. 136 ; S2 L. J. P. p. 91.
Avory t. Andnwi, fil L. J. C!h. (y) Staivard v. iMtrion, tupra.
U-i
693
PRACTICE.
Chnv. XXII.
Kreatli o(
iiijiiiirtioii bj
MrranU or
aftBtt.
Attacbment of
officer of
corporation.
of the old coiniwny, the moustruction of the old company
hating been carried out bond fid* for the parpoM of obtain-
ing fio»ii ciipit^il and not in oidor to oviwlo Iho injunction {:).
If no blame am bo attached to a man |)cii,onally, tlie Court
will not commit him for contempt because his servants (a),
or his agi'ntr. or his wife, who is living m piiiuto and
apart from him (c), may have committed a breach of the
injunction.
If the party guilty of a breach of an injunction or under-
taking is a company or other corporation, the proprr course
is to move that a writ of sequestration shall issue (</). A
corporation such as a locd authority, which can only act by
its servnnts or agents, is liable for a breach of an injunction
or undertaking though committed by its servants through
carelessness, neglect, or even in dereliction of t^eir duty (e).
Where a corporation has been guilty of a brc b or its
undertaking, but is honestly ondoiivouring to fulfil its obliga-
tion, the Court will order the writ of sequestration to issue
but to lie in the office for a certain period, and not to issue
from the office if within the time fixed the corporatiim carries
out its undertaking (/).
In addition to the remedy by sequestration, an injunction
against a corporation may be enforced by attachment against
(j) l!ofh V. Simm$ Maiu^aHmr- com* v. Trowbridg$ Urban Council,
iny Co., note (k) $tipra,
(n) Raiitzen V. Roth$ehUd, 14
W. E. 96; 13L. T. 399.
(h) Er parte Ltmylri/, 13 0. D.
121 ; 49 li. J. lik. p. 6.
(<■) IIoj>e V. I 'arneyie, 7 Eq. 254.
(cf) See Spi'Kes v. Uahhury Board
of HtaUh, I Eq. 42 ; Selotii v.
Croydon Board of llmllh, W. N.
(1885) 105 ; Bt Hooky, TO L. T.
706 ; Fairdoiiyh v. Manrh«$Ur SAtp
Canal. "W. N. (1897) 7 ; AU.-Otn.
V. WaWiameUrw L'rhan Cvvncil, 11
T. L. B. 533; Mtters, Lt<l. v.
Miiri'iMivi flat Mttnx, Liih,
(1907) 51 S. J. 499; Milburn v.
Ifewlvn CiAliety Co., (lOOSj 52 S. J.
317 (hwacholundotteking) ; Stan.
(1910) 2 Oh. 190, 194 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 520; Darii y. Bhayadt Oranitt
Co., (1911) 131 L. T. Jo. 79. 8e«
E. S. Ord. XLIL r. 31;
Ord. XLIII. r. 6. As to iemie of
writ without service of the order
digoboyed where the defendant i«
evading service. Bee Rex v. IViyaml,
(1913) 2 K. B. 419; 82 L. J. K. 1!.
736.
(e) Stancomb T. Trowbridge L'rbaii
CouneU, $upra.
(/) See AU.-Oen. v. Waltham-
$tou) Urban Cnunril, 11 T. L. E. 683;
f.ee V. .tyleahnry Urban Council,
(1902) 19 T. L. E. 106 ; Stancomb
TriW>-ri'l'jr Trh:>:i ('■■mncil, (1910)2
Ch. 197 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 621.
CONSEQUENCES OF BRKACH OF AN INJUNCTION.
698
the directors or other ofiicers (r;) ; but in such a case the CUp. XZtL
director or other officer sought to be attached must have
been ptraimaHy terfed with the order granting the in-
junction (h).
If, upon hearing the affidavits on both sides, the Court is of Cmu.
'opinion that the defendant is guilty of a breach of injunction,
it makes tin order for his comiiiiltul, and lie will not bo
discharged unless he jmys the applicant's costs (t). But
where the breach is not wilful or contemptuous, or if the
defendant baa endeaTOored to set himaelf right, or expreases
his regret for whnt hi> hiis done, and promises to obey the
injunction, or if the plaiatiS does not press for committal, the
Coort is generally satisfied by merely making him pay the
costs of the application of bringing the breach under the
notice of the Court (A:). The costs may be directed to be
luid aa between solicitor and client so as to indemnify the
plaintiff against tiie costs of the proceediigs ({). Though
the motion to commit may be refused, ic will generally be
without costs, if the party against whom it is sought or his
solicitor has been to blame in the matter (m). Bat theConrt Friraiou
will not encourage motions to commit where no real case for "mmu *°
committal is made out, but only an apology and costs are asked
for, and the party so moving ought not to be allowed his
costs (n).
An order for committal for breach of an injunction must FenaW onl«r
far ewimUul.
(H) B. S. C. Ord. XLII. r. 31. Davi$ y. nhayadtr Onmitt Qiittrrk*
(h) McKtow* T. Jobtt Stock Ih- Co., (1911) 131 L. T. Jo. 79.
ilifuU, Ltd., (18W) 1 Cli. 671 : 68 (m) Oarroti- v. Ferrirr, 1" L. T.
L. J. Ch. 390. 838 ; flow v. Mey, 7 K<i. 49.
(i) I'rire v. lliikhium, 18 W. B (n) I'latiiig Co. v. Faniuharmn,
201; !» Kq. p. 53". 17 C.I). Ji), 56; 60 L. J. Ch. p. 108;
(/.) l.iHifT V. TliiDiii'snn 2 Bcav. Metrojiolitan Miisii- Tlall ('o.\. J.nle,
Vi\> : 50 R. I?. 124 ; Lane v. Steri,.\ (iO L. T. 749 ; and see 7fc;/. v. I'aijne,
3 Cliff. 629; lit Bryant, 4 C. ]>. (1S9(>) 1 (<. li. p. 681 ; 05 L. J. Q. B.
p. 100 ; 35 L. T. 489 ; Plating Co. p. 428 ; In re New QoU Coatt Ex-
T. Farquhanen, 17 C. B. 49; 60 ploration Co., (1901) 1 Cb. p. 863 ;
L. J. Ch. 406. 70 L. J. Ch. p. 347 ; Seott r. Scott,
{I) Leev.AyleiburyUrhan Council, (1912) P. p. 248; 8tTi. J.P. p. 117;
(1902) 191.1.^106; filanromh v _ rovor8«yl on npp<>al on other
Trowbridge Urban Council, (1910) 2 grounds, (1913) A. C. 417 ; 82
Ch. 196.197 : 79 L. J. p. 6» ; L. J. P. 74.
6M
PRAOTIOE.
Chat. nil. iTcitc the afHduvit of service of the order granting the injune-
— — tion, and either the affidarit of :«rTiee of the notice <rf motioii.
or the ftppenrnnce of the defendant personally, or by counsel,
upon the motion (o). The order ought in strictneBS to be
prefaced by a declaration that the act oomplained of ia • oca-
tempt, but the absence of such a declaration is not a gnmnd
for discharging the order for irregularity (p). It is not
irregular to engraft uiion the order a direction that the party
committed shall pay the costs of his contempt, but, if the order
extiMids to charges find expenses as well as costs, it is to
that extent irregular (9).
Conrt niiiy direct If a mandatory order or injunction be not complied with,
JS^MUb*/"' the Court or a judge, besides or instead of proceedings against
MUMo<^«f tin disob'^dient imrly for contempt, may direct that the act
required to be done may l)e done so far as practicable by the
whMit Um.
' party by whom the judgment or order hat been obtained or
by some other person appointed by the Court or a judge, at
the cost of the disobedient party, and upon the act being done,
the expenses incarred may be ascertained in such manner as
the Court or ,a judge may direct, and execution may lasas for
the amount so ascertained and costs (r).
An appeal— An Order to commit may be appealed from without leare,
the liberty of the subject being involred («) ; but an order
refnsinri an application to commit cannot, since the Judica-
ture Act, 1894, came into force, be appealed from without
the leave of the judge (J).
(o) Stephen* v. JVorkman, 8 L. T. and the Judicature Act, 1W4,
232; n W. R. 603. s. H.
(;>) Ex parte Van Hundau, 1 Ph. («) sub s. (1) (b) (i) of s. 1
<>Oo ; 15 Ik J. Bk. IS. of the Juilicature Act, 1894.
(,,) lb. (0 Bowden v. Yoaudl, (1901) 1
(r) B. S. C. Ord. XLII. 30. See C9l 1 ; 70 L J. Oh. 6.
Mortimer v. WiUm, 33 W. B. 927 ;
INDEX.
ABATEMENT OV AOnOK, V79
AlUTEifENT OP NUISANCB, 308
ACC'lil'TANCB,
of UU of wbaagt, iqjnnotioa ■gaiiut Um, 939
ACCESS,
of light to windows, 177—181
of air to windows, 107
to a highway, 307, 311
to the sea-ahon n % lunrig^U* river, 360, 870
ACCOUNT,
aa incident to on injunotioii to rwtrrin iha Ti«d*ti(« of « ooomon
law rifbt, 38, »3-»«
limitad to nmiiM aetually itoMTed, and prdita actiwlljr made^
38, 90
no account, if acta unattendad by proBt, 38, OS
limited to profita for six jmn More aotioa brought, 38, 97
exception, 97, 146
right to, often waived, 38, 417
not granted where injury trifling, 3S5
delay and acqoieacenco, oa a bar to the applioaUon, 38, 97
diaoovery for pnrpoaea of, 38
of watt^0»-97
in cauM of tratpan to minaa, 148—147
in oopjT^i oaMi, 410, 416, 417
in trade-mark caaea, 384—388
tenant* in common between, 95
moenc remainderman f.'>r lifo not entitled to, 96
ACCOUNTANT. Bee Ineorporattd Aceounttmt.
nnauthoriaed nae of lettera "C. A." natcuMd, 369
ACQUIESCENCE,
pnnciple of, 20
wkat ia neoeaaary to constitute, 20—23
■tronger oaae required to justify refusal of perpetual, than of
interlocutory injnnotion, 24, 36, 174
Buqr praelnde a party from all remedy, 34, S81
dittingniihed ftram Mmy, 85, 36
cases in which principle does nut apply, 21—28
as a bar to an interlocutory injunction, 24, 173, 347, 382, 43S
696
INDEX.
AOQJJIESCKHCI^-coniinued.
M a bar to relief at the hearing, 25, 36
oaaes in which the principle applies mo«t tbtongly, 21, 174
extent of expenditure to a certain degree the meMore of, 21
of agent binds the principal, 22
b i n ding on corporation as well as individual, 22
circumstances, &c., excluding, 22, 23, 382
conduct with others may constitute, 22 433, 43-t
under order for an injunction, effect of, 678
ACTING,
injunntion to restrain an actor from, 482
ACTIONS AT LAW,
injunction* to reetodn, abolished, 13
ADJOINING,
meaning of, 438 (<2), 443 (z)
AD^^NISTRATOR,
restrained from ooUecling assets, 619, 630
AFFIDAVITS. See Evident.
application for injunction must bo supported by, 641
when admitted after case is opened, 655
contents of, 6?2
on ex parte application, 651, 662
in support of motion to ccmimit) 689
by whom made, 652
when sworn, 662
title of, 663
form of, 663
statement* based on information and belief, 663
must be filed, 663
time of filing, 654
deliver}- of copies, 654
ofliec copies must bo in Coiirt at time of maln'ny Uie motion, 664
hearing the motion on, 655, 656
admission of, after opening the motion, 666
AGENT,
lending himielf to tho perpotration of a fraud restrained, 877
principal bound by acquiescence of, 22
restrained from disclosing- confidential communications, 503—508
AGREEMENT. SeeCovetwnt.
construction of, 436- 440, 4(il— 404, Addenda 436(2)
implication of, 438—440, 473—477, 47!), 480
injunctions against breach of, 428 et »eq.
interlocutory injunction against breach, when granted, 428, 429
general principle* a* to specific performance of, 428
building contracts or agreemrats for parwrnnl aamoe* not
generally enforetil, 431, 432, 477, Addenda 432(0, 476 (rf)
for sale of chattels, 478
for cultiraUon of laiid, 478
for working of mines, 478
for loan, to subscribe for debentures, 431
conduct of party, who seeks to restrain broach of, must be con-
sistent with equity, 432, 435
illegality, uncertainty, 432, 460, Addenda 459.
rights of tliird parties, 436
acquiescence, 433, 434
delay, 433
not to do a thing enforced by injunction, 440, 441
negative quality may be Imported into affirmative, 473 ei seq., 480
negative quality when not imported into sffirmatiTe, 476 «< taq.,
Addenda 476 (_d)
containing both negative and affirmstirB stipnlations, 481
not to apply to Parliament, 471
not to oppose Bill in Parliammt, 473
ultra viru on the part of a company, restrained by inj auction,
648 et »eq., AiiemU S54 (»)
in part legal, in part illegal, restrained by injunction, 572
in part legal, but illegal in purpose, restrained by injunction, 672
between landowner and a railway company not affeetad hf Lands
Clauses or Bailway Clauses Acts, 118
no aid given to either of the parties to an illegal, 672
not enforced through illegality not pleaded by defendant, 459,
Addenda 459
injunctions pending suit for specific perfonnance of, 500
against alienation, 60O
parpetnal injonctions against braadi of , 4M «( leq.
m an d atory injunctions against breach of, 499 M seg.
damages for breach of, substituted for injunction, 500
by traders to keep up prices, 458, Addenda 458 (o).
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS,
provisions of with regard tu flztorea and compensation, 99
oMidition as to hi^MT xtKA ia oaaa of breaoii of oorcoant, 460
AIR,
passage of, to windows, 197
passage of, for trado purposes, 199
right to purity of, rule as to, 199
injunctions to restrain pollution of, 900, 301
various nuisances to, 200, 201
ALIMONT,
injonotion to restrain hosband from defeating, 633
wife who has obtained an order for, is in the position of a judg-
ment creditw nt bar hosband, 633
ALMANACKS.
eopyright in, 391, 392
piracy of, 403, 406
688
ALTERATION OF PROPERTY,
waste by, 51, 62—64
in breach of covenant in lease, 64, 65
AMBASSADOR,
no jurisdiction over, who does not submit, 7, 8, Addenda 8(i).
injunction to restrain a man from handing over monies to an,
630
AMENDMENT,
effect of, on injunction, 679
ANCIENT LIGHTS. See Lighi, Kuhance.
APOLOGY,
repeated, publication of not restrained, 639
APPEAL,
injunctions to restrain tiie Tiolation of a legal right pwding, 31,
injunctions to stay sale pending. 626
suspension of injunction pending, 17, 31, 355, 682
APPEAIIANCE,
service^ of notice of motion before, 61" — 648
service of notice of motion after, 648
injunction ordered on affldarit of serrice for want of, 658
APPREHENDED INJURY,
injunction when granted in case of, 17, 157, 430
ARBITRATION,
when a party will be resbrainod from proceeding with, 7, «32, 631,
632
ARBITRATION ACT,
reference directed by Court under, 668
ARBITRATOR,
not restrained by injunction from making an award, 631
except in special caies, 631, 632
ARCHITECTS (SOCIETY OF),
"M. S. A." use of letters, 370
ARITHMETIC BOOKS,
copyright in, 391, 401, 405
piracy of, 405
ARM.'^,
no injunction to restrain use of, in absence of fraud, 637
ASSIGNMENT,
of a share in a patent. 330
of copyright, 397—399, 411
INDKX.
699
ASSIOI'fMENT— CO n.<;nHcrf.
of the right to use a trade mark, 377
of negotiable instarument reBtrained, 028
oorenantf agtinst, breach of, 449, Addenda 449 (o)
ASSOCIATIONS. Sea Bodaty.
ATTACHMENT, 685, 688.
of officer of corporation for disobedience to injunction, 692
ATTOKNEY-GBNERAL,
absoluto discretion of, 550, fiSO, 687
delay in actions by, 25, 36
Bues if act complained of affects the public interett, 110, 111, 150,
Addenda 110 (e), 586, 645
injnnoUons at suit of, to restrain trespass, 110, 111
nuisance, 150
purprestures, 268
a company from going beyond
the pnrpoies for which it was
incorporated, 169, 170, 660.
661
iiijunctions at suit of, to restrain a corporation or public body
from 1 lisapplying its funds, 586, 587
not a poi'ty if acts complained of do not affect the pnUio interest,
686
not entitled to injunction as a matter of right in every oaae where
breach of statute, 170, 587
AWABD,
no injttnotion to retrain arbitrator from making, 631
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE. See Convenianoe.
BANK OF ENGLAND,
injunctions at suit of, to restrain a banking company from accept-
ing a bill of exchange, 629
restraineil by injunction, 621
restraining ordw i^^nst, 682
transfer of stock restrained, 621—436
BARRIERS IN MINES, 146, 254
BEEB,
oovaaant to buy f nmi vendor, lanor, 469
BELL RINGING,
injunctions against, 149, 203, 204
BBNEEIOE. See Ftow. , .
BENEFIT BX7ILDIN0 SOCIETY,
BHiban boaad bjrralM, MO
700
INOBX.
BESETTINO, 324.
Sec TraJc Dispuic^s.
UILL IN PAELIAMENT,
expenacs of, j86
BILL OP EXCHANGE,
injnnctioiu against negotiation of, 628
injnnotions againat acceptance of, 629
BILI. OP SALE,
holder of, restrained from selling, 539
BISHOP. Seo Erclrs!a.stical Persons.
may not open minp-i, 81, 82
injunctions against, 82
restrained from presenting, instituting, or collating, Ml, SOS
interfering with vicar, 598
BLASTING OPERATIONS,
injunction against, 208
BOOK. See Copyright.
copyright in, 389 e< aeq-
of an immoral, indecent, aeditioas, ftc, nature^ no oopTright in,
413
copyright in
calendars, 391
catalogues, 391
directories, 391
price sheets, 392
list of brood mares, 392
telegraph codes, 392
time tables, 392
translations, Addenda 392
no copyright in
ordinary tiUe of book or play, 392
list of probable winnon of horae nee, 392
BREACH,
of covenant or agre«neat. See AgrMment, Covenant.
of injunction, 684—694. See Committti.
what constitutes, 690
no breach (ill notiee (if injunction, 686
service of order, when necessary, 686
Jtttachmeiit for, 685, 688 et $eq.
committal fur, 685 pi seq.
seq.iestration for, 6^2
costii, 693
of andertaking, 685. See Committd,
BREWHOUSI"),
not necessarily a nuisance, 201
INDIX.
701
BMCKBTIRNINO,
injunctions against, 200
UROOD JIARES,
list of, copyright in, 392
BUILDIXO COXTIJACT,
court will not generally cnfoice, -131, -132
BUILDING LINE, 143.
ulatiituiy provisions euforcol by injunction, Addenda 43(«)> H3
BUILDINU OPERATIONS,
early, restrained, 209, Addenda.
BUILDING SCHEMES, 434, 486 ct seq.
public bodies purchasing, land subject to restric'-'ve covenant,
492
BmLDING SOCIETY'. See Benefit Building Society.
BUILDINGS,
waste in, 64, 65
equitable wasto in, 83, 84
alteration of, with respect to rights of light, 180, 195, 190
right to support for, from adjacent iuid rabjacent soil, 212, 213
from adjacent buildings, 214, 215
mandatory injunction to remove, 49, 48, 105, Addenda 45 («)
mandatory injunction to rebuild not granted, 100
BUBIAL,
rights of, mortgagee of burial ground bound by, 82
injunction to restrain, 636
BYE-LAWS,
enforced by injunction, 143, 144, Addenda 40 (•)
"C. A.,"
unauthorised use of letters, reatrvned, 369
CABS.
whistling for, after midnight, restrained, 204
OALENDABS,
copyright in, 301
cascebA,
proceedings in, 640
CANAL,
fooling a, 249, 250, 263, 264
abstraction of water from a, 250
oMcment* in a, 248, 249
power of canal company to gnu^ eaacBMntt, MS
nuisances to, 263
702
IHDKX.
CAN AL— CO ntinucd.
rights, Ac, in artificial wat-eruoarM attach to a, 249
ordpr rPfltrnining ihn kroping of a, out of repair, 496
CHAPEL.
injunction to restrain a man inipijperly appointed from officiating
ns rainistor of a, 524
injunctions to restrjun a, from being enjoyed by persona not
contemplated by tho doxl of foundation, 525
trustees of, retrained from mortgaging, 521 (a)
CHABTTABLE CORPORATIONS, 595-597
injunction to restrain misapplication of funds by, 697
CHARITY COMMISSIONERS, 526, 597.
scheme of, not interfered with by Conrt nnlosa authoritv exceeded,
696
CHARTER,
improper surrender of, restrained, 686
CHARTER-PARTY,
injunction to restrain acts inconsistent with, 480
CHATTELS,
injunctions against selling specific, 627
CHILD,
injunction against fath. r witli rcsiK>< t (o custody of, 634—636
injunction to restrain son from entering parent's house, 106
CIIIirXEY,
riglit of passago of air to a, 198
obstruction of, 205
CHURCH,
injunctions to restrain acts in nature of waste to, 82
injunctions to restrain a man, improperly appointed minister,
from performing divine service in a, 624
trespass in, 83
CIIUROHWAY,
mandatory injunction to restore, 83
niURCHYAHD,
timber in a, 80
diBtarbaneo of, 82
injunctions against waste in a, 82
righta of burial in a, 82
trespass in, 83
CLAIM OF RIGHT TO DO ACT,
gronnd for an injnnrtion. 18, 646, AMrnda 18(»)
708
OLAT,
wuto by digging, 97
Mtoren of, 99
right of copjriiolder of inheritonos by cnstom to dig, 80
CLERK,
restrained from communicating, or making public papers, docu-
ments, &c., of his oraployer, 503, 50 J, 507, .WS
CLOSING ORDER (UNDER HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING
ACT, 1909),
injunction to reatrain, 642
CLUB,
expulsion from, injunction against, 600—604
alteration of rules of, 004
COLLUSION,
waate by, 91
COLOURABLE IMITATION,
of a work protected by copyright, 405
of a trade mark, 381
of a patent, 341
COMBINATIONS OF WORKMEN, 320
COMMISSIGNEBS.
eooleaiastioal, action by, to rwtrain vast^ 82 '
of sewers,
powers, fto., of, 139, 272
COMMIT,
motion to, 687 et aeq.
notice of, 687
swrioa of, 888
affidavits in support of, 689
costs of, 693
frivolous motions to, disoooraged, 693
COMMITTAL,
for breach of injunction, 685, 690
ordered after notice of order, 686
to warrant, proof of breach must be clear, 690
notice of motion to commit, how obtained, 687 et seq.
frivolous motions to commit discouraged, 693
no, against parties not named in the order, 691
no, where bonii fid« and reasonable belief no injunction granted,
687
no, against persons not personally to blarney 690, 692
form of order for, 693
costs, 693
appeal. 694
704
iMDn.
COMPAMIBS. 8m abo Dirteton, IHvUmtit, Prtftrtnv Sham,
Sharfholder,
restrained from doing ill(>gal acts. 517 et icq.
not restrained when acting witliin theii puwcri, huwcTl^r in-
jnriout, 161 ei $eq.
reitrainod from using narao calculated to deroivc, 581—583
exist only for (ho ourposi>s for which they nrn incorporated, 517,
557, 501
incmoranilum nf ii>siM iul ion nf, loiislrui tioii of, 570
.igi iiry iiF, liniite-l tn «hat is ilotincd liy the Ir^islaturo, 518
ciupowi'iivl 1i> take 1:ich1, must excrciso Itmiii fiilo iKiwcr, 116,
117
i'ostraiiic<l from remaining |,n potsesoion of land, 115
restrained from exceeding the limits of tJiMr authority, 112—114,
158 ei leq., 047—056, S61, 06ft-572
at suit of Attorney-General, suing «^n behalf of public, 110,
IM, fiSO
no substantial damage need be shown, 550
at suit of private pc-raon, who can show special damage, 110,
150, 551, 561, 5«2
re^<trict«>d in tho user of land, taken under statutory powers,
553—557, Addenda 554 (x)
rrsf rained from doing illegal acts as against individual members,
551, 557—560, 562 et leq.
restrained at suit of a shareholder suing on briialf of liifni^nif
and all other shareholders, 8M— 560, 962
or suing in his own name, 557, 558
from misapplying tlio funds of tho company, 558, 562 et scq.
from entering into improper contracts and engagements, 568
from infringing rights of preference shar^ioldflr, 565
who may sup, 558—560, 578
defendants to suit, 560, 580
company, not shareholder should sue for wrong to company, 678
exceptions to rule, 578, 579
delay and acquiescence as a bar to an action, 560
may apply funds to a purpose legitimately connected with the
objects of the company, 568—571
may not purchase own shares, 564
may not issue shares at n discount, 564, 565
9CCUS company govprne<l by Companies Clauses Acts, 565
not interfered with in matters of internal regulation, 872 — «.76
unless in e;:ceptional cases, 675 — 578
creditor not entitled to injunction to restrain company dealing
with its assets, 553
company may not be registered or carry on business under a
name calculated to deceive, 367, 368, 580—583
superfluous land, sale of, S90
winding up proceedings against, restrained, 9, 610
winding np p<>tition, prep'tntation of, restrained, 620
moBX.
70S
OOlfPlKSATIOK,
under Landi ClauK* Act, for laad>t taken or injuriously aSectod
by works authorised by Statute^ 122, 1:5, HS, 106
landowner not bound to prove damage before seeking, 167
need not bo tendered before commencing workSj 167
injunction to restrain a man from seeking, 167
ia what case* not giren, 166
CONDUCT,
of applicant for injunction must hare been free from fraud, Ac,
20, 413, 434, 43«
vt parties, when ooniidered, 34, 432-436, 494, 6S0, Aidnda
433 (o)
CONFIDENCE,
injunctions against acts in breach of, S02— 508
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS,
injuBotions against the diadosnre of, (02— SOS
not protected from disdorare^ if there be fraud or an illegal
purpose, 004, fi06
CONSENT TO INJTJNCIION,
cannot be withdrawn, 679
C0N8EEVATI0N,
xi|^t of, in narigable tidal waters, 268 */t wq.
00N8PIBACY AND PBOTBOTION OF PBOPEBTY ACT, 1873...
322
CONSTRUCTION,
of covenants or agreements, 436—438
of works authorised bjr statute, 117, 1S8, 162—163, 168
must be &oii4 /Ms, doing as little dsjaage a« possibly 108—
160, 162-163
CONTEMPT, 691
injunotiona against doing acts, which, if don^ would be^ 639,
640
in acting in contraTantion of injunction, 691
CONTINOENT BEMAINDEB8,
injunctions at suit of trustees to presarre^ 71
CONTINUING INJUNCTIONS, 680.
CONTRACT. See Agreemoni, Covenant.
made abroad, when not enforced, 10, Addenda 10 (z).
CONVENIENCE ANT) INCONVENIENCE,
balance of, when taken into consideration by Court, 27, 34, 104,
182, 613
X.I. 4S
706
COPARCEXEHS,
injunction! against wa«t6 between, 72
COrVnOLDER. Seo Lord of a Manor.
mny rcatriiin waate hy copyholder tor Uf% 7ft
c&n restrain waste by lessee, 79
can restrain trespass by lord of manor, 01
can reatrain wait« by lord of manor, 75
lord of manor can restrain waste bjr, 75
interMk of, in tma, 54
in mines, grarel, clay, Ac., 60
in coprolites, M7
COPYRIGIIT, 388-421, Addenda 389-418
now depends on Statute, 389
action for infringemmt of, 410 tt ttq.
arckitectnrok reatriction on nmady, 410
art, in works of, 300
aMignment of, 396—308
anther, who is, 304, Addenda 394 (m)
agreement of with publishers, 398
books, 390
calendars, 391
cardboard patterns, 992
catalogues, 391
compilations, 391
conduct of plaintiff in action, 419
costs of action, 418
damage need not be proved in action for infiin(«B«it, 414
damages for infringement, 410, 415, 416
definition 390
delay and acquiescence, 41!?
delivery of lecture, 391
delivery up of infringing copiM, 418, Addenda 418 (Jk).
designs in, 421—427
directories, 391
dramatic and mosical works, 990, 406
iuration of, 392—394, 306
oncyclopaedia, 391
engravings, 394
made to order, 395
extracts, 404
fair use of prior work, what is, 40 2 1 07
gasetteers, 391
Government publications, 395
infringement, 399—410
acta vhicb aro, 999, 400
acta which are not, 400—402
injunction to restrain infringement, 410 it Mq.
when not granted, 410, 413, 414
iNDn.
707
OOPTBIQHT— roii//iw«rf.
inaooeiit infringer, remedy agMiut, 413, 416, AMemh 410 (f)
intwaatiMMl, 430
j iat utbora, 993
tow nporta, 404
leetwca, 400
letten, right« of writer ami rpceivcr of, 408
limitation of actionn, 419
literary works, 389, iOi—UH
mechanical instrumrats, 393, 394
musical and driuuaUc works, 300, 400
newspapers, title of, 374, 401
novel dramatiaing, S91, jUit»da, SOI
orifinalitjr, 391
ownardUp, 8M •« »eq., Aiitmit 904 (m), 3M (h)
lerforming riglit, 390.
photographs, 407
piracy, 402 et leq.
plate*, 394
political apeechea, 401
poethomon* works, 390
pretumptioa of plaintill's, ownership of, 412
prioe dMeU, 992
pn^ta, aooonnt of, 4i7
pablioation, 391
pupils, lectures to, 409
records, 391, Addenda 391(a)
registration abolished, 389 (n)
remedies for infringement, 410 e^ $eq.
royalties, 393, 398, 402, AUmtia 396(3)
acolptore, 400
■ p ee ch ea, 401
anbatitntion of rigbta by Act of 1911...39ft, 396
telegraph code*, 992
title of bode, ^y, W2
trandationa, Addenda 392
universities, 419
unpublished works, 380, 390
vm ti prior woik, vbat pacmiaaiblek 402—407
COPYEIOHT IN DESIGNS, 421-427
action for infringement of, 425 et seq.
costs, 427
damages, 42S
definition of, 421
drlivety np of infringing articles, 427
dnzatioBof, 421
injunction, when granted, 426
mm m original, 422, 423
46—2
708
iKsn.
COPYRIOHT XM DMlOVB-t^htud.
pstnnt and daiiga maf co wriit, 4t4
n giatraUon, 49S, dUtndm 4SI(»)
COPP0HATI0N8,
■tatutory and oommon law rorporat lOtM, HI, 584
powfr oommoQ law to diipoM of corponto property, 081
juriwlietioii of Oonrt to interfere if brMoh of tnut> AM
voiifined ttrietlx vithin tint limita of tluir powert, M7, SM
who thoulti no to reotraia aota uUra «<re*, 5M, 086
iliscrction uf Attorni>y-O*>nenkl| 887
Municipal Curporations, 587
TMtrainod from misapplying ooi;ponit* foadl, 8^4 0t M(.
dulay not matoriul, 5'Jl
ila^utory corporations,
m\ut act within the limita of their authority, 588
raatrained froa mia^p^yinc oorporato ftuida, 888 H —q.
elcemoaynary, 808
•qnttjr will not interfen with, niJaat tliera bo a iimA of
tmtt, 890
jurisdiction of visitor, 595, 506
spiritual or ecclesiastical, 596
(Hjuity will not interfere with, uuloss there be a breach of trust,
597
bishop restrained, when, 008
roSTS,
of motion, 601
commit, 693
ion, successful plaintiff as rule entitled (o, 38
{ iff, although successful in action, may be deiprived of OOito
onduct oppressive or the like, 39—42, 664
costs of prosecution of action after defendant baa oSered to
■ubmit, 39 et teq., 354, 387
in copyright caaes, 418, 419
in patmt oaaea, 304
in trade-mark caaea, 386—388
s. 116 of County Oourta Act, 1888, doea not ap^y whero main
relief sought is an injunction, 14
costs may be gina on higher aoale, 43
COUNSEL,
confidential oommonicationa to, c04
COUNTY rOTTHTS,
injunctions to ristrain proopodingg in the, 610
jurisdiction of, by injunction, 14
no jurisdiction in infringemmt of registered trade mark, 388
COURT,
injoBoUoa to rMtraia yblie t H o a af pwidim ptaowiUiit<h
OOVINAHTB. Sm A§mm»»t, LIqniittai Damagm, ?tMMjr.
«oiMtraeti«i of, 4W-~<38, 461, AUaitda 43«(t)
implication of, 438—440, 473
in restraint of truJn, 443— 44H, 461 ei irq. Soe Se*truint <if 7'rude.
with a penalty, 463 teij.
not to assign, broach of, ro8trui-i«il, 440
to pay increaaod rent on broacli, 468, 4M
not to apply to Parliament, 471
Boi to oppoM a bill in Parliament, 473
MOT of land, injunotiona agaiaat, 438, 443, 444, 449, 483
injonetions agaiut bnooh of, 438—800
qneation of oonvcnionco not in goneral conti(loro<l, 403—494
condact of party applying taken into conKidpratioii, 432-436,
404
a man who has been himsolf guilty of a brciu h imt a» u i iili>
i-iititlMl tu injunction, 433, 439, 436
ooquivecciico and di'Ioy u-< a bar to llio nppiiratioii, 433 -435,
400
righta of other purtiea taken into ooniideration, 436
negative enforood by injunction, 440 « »eq.
negative quality imported into afflrmatiTe, 474
negative quality not imported into a coTenant whinh eannot bo
fpecifically enforced, 476—478, Addenda 476 (rf)
rontuiniug affirniativo and nogutivo stipulations, 481
rrstrictivo coTcnants, oftu^t and I'onstruotioil of, 461 e( »fq.,
Addenda 448, 460 (u), 461 (m), 462
affirmative coronants, burden uf does not run with land, 402
reatriotiTe ooreoanta enfuroed against persons taking land with
notice, 483 et Mg.
natriotiTO ooTwanta in buOding lohamM, 488 tt tq., AtUe»ia
«4 (y)
mandatory injunctions ogainet breach of, 407—800
perpetual injunctions against breach of, 403
«l(imiig08 for broach of, substitoted for injonotton, 300
\ague, not enforced, 432
to rq^air not cnforoed by mandatofy injnnotimi, 63
ORIHINAT^ PH<)( KKDINOS.
no injunction to restrain, 8
CROWDS,
easiing to collect, a nuisance, 208, AiJetuUi (e)
CROWN,
copyright of, 393
right to foreiliore, 273
710
(JBOWS—eontinueg.
troepass by, 112
undertaking by, 660
OULTTVATION,
ooraaaat to onltirate Und not enforoed by mandatory injaiK)ti<m>
es
OTOTEST,
tenant by, may not commit waate, 62
CUSTOM,
of London, with regard to obstructing lights, 193
of the country to cultivate according to good husbandry, 63
DAMAGE,
irreparable or substantial, 18, 35, 44, 148, 153
prospective or threatened, 17, 49, 157, 673
special, 111, 151
temporary, 15 J
substantial, 148
from repetition, may bo substantial, 155
to rights in water, 229—240, 250—233, 260
in the construction of works, rightfully and properly done^ 161
«l leq.
wrongfully or improperly done^ 168—161
DAMAGES,
need not be specifically claimed, 674
given, instead of an injunction, 34, 35, 183, 350, 500, 671—173
Court lean* (owarda awarding damages inatead of an iajnnetion,
when, 49
inquiry aa to, 674, 682—684
inquiry aa to, not directed in addition to account, 384, 674
discovery for purposes of inquiry as to, 386, 417, 425
in case of threatened injury, 673
iiicquitablo waste measure of, 96
umlertuking as to, 659. 8eo Undertaking.
liquidated, 465 et scq. See Liquidated Ikmages.
inadequacy of 'lo remedy by, aa the ground for an {njunetton^
19, 35, 429, 672
injunction not gr^tad where damagea the proper remedy, 6, 672
right of action for damagea for waate not aangnaUe, 97
DANX'INO,
as a nuisance, 204
DEAN AND CUAPTEE. See Scrlesiattioal PerKm$.
• )EBEXTURE-HOLDER,
security of, protected by appointment of reoeiver, 849
DEBTOE,
not reitrained from dealing .with or removing his propwty, 829
unleM a propw eaae be mads out, 829
711
DEDI0A13ON,
at iuffianjM, 991—904
DEER,
destroying or reclaiming, 07
DELAY. See Aoquie»eenee.
may disentitle a man to an interlocutory injunction, 24, 173, 347,
350, 381, 499, 594
by Attorney-General, 35, 36
in cases of waste, not so material as in other cases, 49, 97
not material, so long as things renwin mi ttatu quo, 29
in coming for an account, 38
whether material where perpetual injunction claimed in aid of
legal right, 26, 36, 37, 3M
in case of ultra viret acts, 594
DENTIST,
company restrained from oanyiog on business of dentist who
h»d been atmck off register, 58.1
DESIGNS,
copyright in, 421—427
DEVIATION. See Way.
limits of, under Railway Clauses Act, l?l
land necessary for the proper purposed of the company may
be taken, though beyond the, 133
land may not be token, except for the proper purposes of
the Act although within, 133
injunction to restrain a railway company from (-xorcising tlicir
powers of, 134
party seeking to restrain deviation must show that he is injured,
13S
DICTIONARIES,
copyright in, 389, 390, 405
piraey of, 405
DIBBCrrORS,
restrained from excluding one of their number from acting, 037,
558
when not restrained, 573
DIEBCTORY,
copyright in a, 389, 390, 405
piracy of, 405
DISCLOSURE,
ot conidential communications, papers, trade leorets, tee., re-
strained, 003 et teq.
no injunction, if there be fraud, fto., on part of plaintiff,
504, 506
712 IMDU.
DISCOVEBY,
for purposes of account or inquiry aa to damages, 38
in copyright cases, 417
in trade-mark caaes, 386
DISMISSAL OP ACTION,
injunction discharged on, 679
another action may be brought notwithstanding, 679
DISSOLVING INJUNCTION, 67»-«79
DISTBBSS,
restrained by injunction, 103
DISTRINGAS,
orders in the nature of a, 623
DIVIDENDS,
improper pavmpiit of, by a company, restrained, 56S
no injunction against payment of, if capable of being sanctioned
by a general meeting of the company, 514
DIVINE SERVICE,
injunction to restrain a nn'nister or incumbent of a clupel im-
properly appointed from pprforming, 624
DOCUMENTS,
injunctions to restrain the parting with, 629
injunctions to restrain a man from preventing another from
having access to, 629
DOWRESS,
punishable for waste at common law, 92
DRAIN,
right of, 208
interference with, a nuisance, 208
DRAINAGE,
duty of owner to neighbour in draining land, 263
DlJAlXAdK SYSTK^r.
ni ;.'li'c l ti) pripvido ]>y lixal autliority, 202
DRAMATIC rii:( i:s,
ropyriglit in, ^Hii, ;l;)0, 391
jiiracy (if, ^0(j
DRAWINGS,
copyright in, 389, 300, 400
DRIP.
right of, 208
nun*
718
DBOWNXD MINE,
no lifjbi to n^port ima mka in, 211
EASEMENT,
right to, passes by implioattoa of gnut upon aeyeranoc o( land,
184, 212, 258, 276, 277
no implication of resenration of right to, on wverance, 188
extinguishment and xoteefet of, 194, 246, 292
abandonment of, 194, 246, 291
titk to, by prescription, 189, 241, 285
right limited by actual enjoyment, 243, 286
alteration in mode of user, 11)5, 244
owner of an, not entitled to notice to treat under Lauds Clauses
Act, 12'i
remedy i owner for interference, compensation, 123
interference with, restrained by injunction, 641
power of railway company to grant, W5
ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICE,
pre^^ntatimt to, reatrained, 098
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONEBS,
sanction of, to minii^ leasee, when necessary, 81
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS,
injunctions in aid of the, 82
no injanctiott where, have jnrisdiotiim, 83
ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS,
their powers of alienation at common law, 79
their rights of waste at common law, 80
restraining Statutes relating to^ 80
may out timbor for r^airs, 81
or for proriding ftiier timbw more suitable for repairs, 81
bnt not fbr general expense of repairs, 81
injunctions agunst, at whoae instance granted, 81
waste by, 80, 81
ELECTIONS. Sno Parliamentary Ehvtioim, 518.
ELECTRIC CURRENT,
liability for eai.ape ot, 2SS (»)
ELEEMOSYNABV" CORPORATIONS, m
BMSOBSSMENT,
of aecorities, injunctions ogainst, 628
ENGRAVINGS,
Oflfyrii^ in, MO, 994
714
iKon.
ENTBT,
•ttd inspeotion, mmdatory ordar for, Ml
EOmTABLE ASSIONMENT,
injnuctioni to enforce^ MS
EQUITABLE EXECUTION,
appointment of reoeiTer by way of, 630
injnnction, when granted in aid of, 030
EQUITABLE WASTE,
what constitutos, 83
Judioaturo Act, 1873, s. 25, gnb-e. 3.. .84
pulling down buildings, 84
cutting ornamontivl timber, 85—88
young troee and saplings, 89
underwood of insufficient growUi, or at unseaaonable timea, 89
wanton deetmotion or spoliation, 89
who arc within the principle,
tenant for life without impeushmcnt uf waste^ 83, 89—91
tenant in foe simplo with executory devise over, 74
tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct, 73
tenant by Icaso for lives renewable for eror, 74
truste<'s of term without impeachment of waste, 90
account of, 93—97
alterations in law by Settled Land Act, 1882...98
ESCAPE,
of water, 234 et teq., Addenda 254 (I)
electric current, 259 (•)
sewage, 253 (n)
ESTATE,
a timber, 63
injnnction to stay sale of an, 63t
ESTOVERS
of tree* 'i5
of minerals, clay, Ac., S9
of turves, 59
on ecclesiastical estates, 80, 81
copyholder entitled to, 66
EVIDENCE. See Affidavits.
on a motion, 651 — 655
new, after opening motion, 665
case made oat by the, tumA correspond with allegations of atate-
ment of olatm^ 660
on motion to dissolve, 676
sricutiao, ur expert, 166, 176, 183, 668
EXECUTOE,
injunction to restrain getting in assets, 619
injnaotieii to restrun parting with asssts, 619
INDIX.
718
EXECUTOR— codtiiiuerf.
injunction to mtraiit intonawMliin with Mtoto be&we prolMto,
fi20
iqjanetion to xwtrain pnymeat at m legiay by, 530
EXEOUTOBT DBTISE. Bt» Ttmmt I* Ft».
EX-EMPLOYEE,
reference by to service with former employer, 368
EX-PARTE INJUNCTIONS,
when made, 646, 648
time for making motion for^ 651
aiBdarits, on applioation for, 681, 6S2
motion to diaaolve, 651, 676
where diMolred, applicant muy a{;aiu apply, 677
EXPEBTS,
nlnenoe to for report, 175
discharge of iqjonotion by Court of Appeal on report of, 175
EXPULSION PBOM CLUB, THADE UNION,
in what cases rcetrainod by injunction, 601—605
FAIB,
injunction against htddii^ of, Addmtim 203(0, 204 (o)
FAKMING,
according to the custom of the country, 62, 63
FATHER. Seo Parent and Child.
restrained from having custody of children, 634—636
FERRY,
definition of, 311
natora of, 313
interferaios with, raatraiiied, 313—316
obligation of owner to maintain, 314
FIBEABMS.
range tot trying, near hoasa^ 206
FIB8T REFUSAL,
injunction to restrain sale without first offering to plaintiff, 626
FISHERY,
nuisance to a, 239, 264, 271, 2T2
injunction to resteain, though offence punishable som&arity, 230,
240, 364
shutting out the tide from a, 272
aalmon, interf«renoe with passage of, 236
l^iag fat with ddft mkt, StaC*)
71«
IMDIX.
FISH-POND,
waite in a, 56
FIXTTJRES,
at common law, 66
remo> 1 of, 66—70
set up in relation to trade, 66
let np for ornament, 67
right to M between landlord and tenant, 67
as between heir and executor, 68
as between executors of tenant for life and remainder-
man, 69
as botwoon vendor and purchaaer, 60
a.i between mortgiigor and mortgagee^ 69, 70, Addenda
'0 (,V)
as between successive incumbents of a benefice, 69
FLOOD WATEfi,
cannot be thrown on to land of neighbour, 296
FOOTPATH,
obstruction of, 206
FOREIGN CONTRACTS, 10, Addenda 10 (j)
judgments, whon enforced, 10, Addenda 10 (y)
FOREIGN COURTS,
injunctions to retrain proceedings in, 611—619
principles on which Court interferes, 611 "
after decree for administration, 611
after a decree in this country, 612
when suit abroad is not so well suited to the purposes of
justice, as the suit here, 614
limits of the jurisdiction to restrain suits in, 617
proceedings in, when allowed to go on, 618
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
no jurisdiction to interfere with aets of, 7, 630
no injunction to restrain parties from applying to a, 13
injunction to restrain payment to, 630
injunction to restrain agent of foreign government parting with
seonritiefi, 630
iiijiiiK tiuii <<i restrain apijlicutinn of funds of a ( onipany ill
il. f in\ iiiL' tlio expenses of an application to a, 567
FOREIGN LAND,
when Court will interfere in questions as to, 11, 1?
FOBEIGN LAWS,
interference in aid of, when refused, 10
niDBX.
717
FOhEIGN SOVEREIGN,
i^pliwtiim to, 19
FORESHORK. SfO Sea$liore.
primd facie property of Crown, 273
injury to, injonction against, 274
]?OBFSITUBE,
of Am» in publiu coiupaniea, restraiuiug, 658
for watte, 49
FOTILINU,
a natural stream or river, 239, 240
injonotiona againat, 260, 261
an artifloial wateroovm, 260
• wdl, 263
paradating .water, 263
a navigaUe tidal river, 271
right to fool may be acquired under the Preaoription Act, 240,
242
FRAUD,
by colourablo imitation, 381, 403, 416
right to prevent use of a trade marlc is lost by fraud, 377, 380
all parties who lend themselves to perpetraition of a, tukj be
restraine*! by injunction, 377
FRIED FISH SHOP, 201
PMENDLY SOCIETY,
oonvernon of, into company wiUt widw objects, reatrainad, 666
FUMES,
noiaanoe from, 206
GENERAL RELIEF,
injunction may be had under daim for, 644
GLEBE,
timber on, 80
Btinea under, 81
GOODS,
oonditiMM cannot be imposed by rotdor on retale ao aa to attach
to, 482 ,
GOODWILL,
no implied covenant by vendor not to compete on sale of, 461
Twdor may not aolimt old cnatonera, 461
benefit of covenant in restraint of trade passes to assignee of, 464
oa uIb of goodwill by trustee in bankruptcy, debtor can solicit
his old caat o mw ra, 373
718
msn.
QOOBWrUr-tonUitMi.
on Mie of goodwill tnuteo of dood of aMignownt for onditOM)
debtor ow wUcit, AMtnda 372
OOVERMUENT,
no interference with the pnblio duties of a department of the, 7,
598
no interfereaeo with the wvcroign acts of a foreign, 8
OBAKT,
conttruction of a, IS4, 237, 27t*
of lands and raiucH, uifuct of, 57
general words in, how restricted, 187
reservation from grant mart be expreaaly made, 188
derogation from, 180
implied grant of light, 184
GRAVEL,
waste by digging, 57, 58
pstovers in, 59
right of copyholder of inhoiitaiiop by pustom to dig, 60
in the waste of a manor, right of lord to tako, 61
GUAEDIAN AND WARD. S»m> Infant.
injunction to restrain guardian from acting, 635
injnnctioa to restrain guardian from permitting marriage of
ward, 833
HABB0UB8,
noiMOoe to, 374
HEAT,
ezoec«ive, from store*, 208
HEIR,
by resulting trust within principle of equit4ible waste, 74
HIGHWAY,
definition of, 295
modes of creating a, 298
dedication, 297—304
statute, 296, 397
not an easement, 304
ownership of soil of, 304, 306
of strips of adjoining waste, 305
boundaries of, 305
foundrous, 307
maintenance of by highway authority, 300, Add«md* 30B (c)
nuisance to, 308—31 1
Tit
HXOHWAT-«o««fott«l.
fMio nuiMnoe not le^ised by tim», Sll
injunotiona againat, 309—311
abatement of, 308
IrcapaM by laying pipes in, 107
injunotiona against, 107
right of accoaa to, 307, 310
injunotiuna against obatructing, 308
righto of publio in, 295, and note («)
maatinga 9a, 296 («)
OMT of highway by landowner in ooniMoUon witb hit piopoHy,
310
HOLDiKo orr,
08 partner, reatrainod, 530
HOUSE RACES ON SUNDAYS, 206
HOSPITAL FOB INFECTIOUS DISEASES,
not oMMMifly a nniMiiM, 901
HOUSE,
meaning of, within Landa Ciauaea Act, 128
a man not bound under Landa daaaea Aot to lell or eonragr
paH of a, 125, 128, 140
nr ?, no egrataaiTe right to^ apart frmn a bodneaa, 368
« yply of, i^joBctioB to rettiain entting oil, 284
HOUSj. ,
waate in, 84
HOUSE OF L0BD3,
injunction pending appeal to, 32
HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Alimony.
Injunotiona between, 632, 633
againat diapoaing of her aeparate eatate, 632
agaiut aaaigning, fto., her eqnitaUe iatereat, 833
againat molesting her in her buaineaa, 632
anforoing proper corenaato ia a Mparation deed, 833
ILLEGALirr,
of contract, whether neceaaary to plead, in defence, 459, AddenJk
4M
IMPEACHMENT OF WASTB. BmWMemi tmttaekmmtofWt^t.
DfPOBTATION,
of copyright worka reairained, 400, 410
DfPBOVEMEKT,
in patent, no answer to infringement, 339
790
msn.
INCORPORATED ACOOXJNTAMT,
uiiautliorited uM of Itna, rmtn\nuH, 909, 370
INCUMBENT,
of • paridi, natroinod from performinf divine unrice, 524
INFANT,
tenant iu toil in iiuKHivciiun, wuatu by guardiun of, 7U
uustoily, education and guardianship of, 634—430
leatraincd from niurrying, 033
INFORMATION,
to restrain treepuus, 110, 268
to restrain nuisanco, 190, 268
to restrain ooropanicfl from cxeooding their powers, 550
to restrain oorporationi from misapplying the corporate funds, 580
INFRINGEMENT,
of copyright. Sw* CopyrigM.
of patonta. See Patenti.
of trado marks. See Trade Markt.
INJUNCTION,
interlocutory and perpetual, 1, 2
meaning of interlocutory, 1, 2
general principle* on which granted, 2, 16—32, Addenda
18 («)
Judicature Act, 1873, sect. 25, sub-iee(. 8...3
ancillary to relief at the trial, 28, 183
not in gonoral granted, except a writ of smnmpna haa issued, 043
exceptions, 643
should be specifically claimtMi, 643
not in general granted, except against a party to the action, 646,
040
exertions, 646
may be obtained at any stage of the proceedings, 648
may be obtained during vacation, 048
by whom application for, should be made, 64S, 647
notice of motion. See Motion.
wlien obtained on ox parte applicaiion, 646, 048. See S* jwrfe
Injunctions.
interim order, 657
claimed must be cousisU nt with caso made out, 656
ordert.l on affidavit of service, if defendant does not appear, 658
terms imposed on applications for, 28 — 31, 661
'mdertaking for damages on grant of interlocatory injunction,
609-601
order for, should be specific and should declare the ri|^ta, 002
drawing up of order for, 663
waiver of irregular, 678
acquiescence under order for^ 678
ftl
INJUNCTION —continufd.
sci vii o (if iii)ti( o of order for. 603, 664, M6
operate* from date of order, 686
ontain in Unu, ihoald bi^ 49
operates im pw o mm , 11
doee not ran with th* land, IS, 175
efleot of amendment on, 670
diaohargcd upon facts on digniixsal of action, 679
diseolutioii of, 675—679
dimhargc of injunction by Court of Appeal on report of expert
and undertaking substitutod, 17*, MS
discharge of order for, 678
continuing at tho hearing, 680
declaration of right instead of, 83, 681, Mdtni* 84(0
consent to, cannot be withdrawn, 879
irregular, may be discharged, 678
not granted ns a rule if mischiof has coa.s.«l, 157, 681
perpetual, nuaiiing of, P Sto Perpetual I njunctiont.
not granti^'d as a r. Vforf tlio In uring, ^6, 681
granted though not claiincil by thi' writ, 6-»4, 680
granted after legal right established, 32, Addenda 32 (e)
not granted in trivial case, 7, bat t ^« A44«iida 34(f)
nor where damages the^pw raiBwdy, 7, 34
mandatory, 42—47
not in geiteral granted on motion, 46
must be implicitly obserred, so long as it exists, 664
suspension of. See Sutpentiom of injunetiom.
breach of, 684 et teq.
consequences of, 684 «l ttq.
costs, 693
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN PROCEEDINGS AT LAW,
jaziadiatioa ot Conrt of Ohaaoery by, abolished, 13
INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN PROCEEDINOS IN INFEBIOB
AND FOREIGN COURTS,
Lord Mayor's Court, 610
County Courts, 810
Special Triboaslt, 810
Foreign Courts, 811 -
principles on which th« Court interferes, 611
I If PERSONAM,
injunction operates in per$ontm, 11
consequence of this, II
injunction does not run with land, 13, 17i
INSPECTION* OF PROPERTY, 669, 670
of mines, oi'O
mandatory order for «ttijr and, 001, 689, Addmda 870 (0
7i8
INSPECTION OF PROPERTY-WHtinued.
«rte wm1« on intwloontorjr ^pUcAtioo, CTO
practioe and afidariU, 670, 671
1N8IITUTI0N OF PROCrKDINOS,
injanrticuH t<> rrxtrain itxt, 13
INSURANCE ACT, 1011,
society restrainxl from rattrictiag mwnbw't righta to nokiMM
benefit under, U42
INTERIM ORDER, 31, 657
lOi'Vi'iiii'ilic of lU'ori'ciling by, 067
practice, 657, 658, 670
INTEBLOOUTOBY INJUNCnON. 6«e Injunction.
IMTEBNATIOKAL COPTRIOHT, 430
INTERUUPTIOX,
under the Proecription Act, 191
INTIMIDATION AND PICKETINO, 323
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE,
nesninf- of, 18, 10, 155
on application for pcrpotual injunction, 36
IRRIGATION,
water taken for porpowt of, 236
JOINT TENANTS.
remedie* for wuto between, 72
JUDGMENT CREDITOR,
JBkjr hare an injunction to restrain the debtor Irom parting with
or di)«lia( with lui proptrty, 639, 660, 633
JUDICATURE ACTS, 1873 and 1876
Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 8, grant of mandamus or injunction, 3
jurisdiction of Court of Chancery transfuired to thelligh Court, 3
jurisdiction of Court of Chancery to restrain actions at law
abolished by, 13
juriadictioQ ot the High Court of Juttioe uodar the^ 3—16
priod^ oa which iajtuotioM sraatad, aol ■Itotad, 6
equitable wacte^ 64
JUNCTIONS,
between railway oompuiet, qaettiona relating fo, 137
JURISDIOTIOX OF THE HIGH COURT TO GRANT INJUNC-
TIONS, 3-16
juriiMitctiuii formerly confined to Court of Chaoovj, 1
Comitton Law Procedure Act, 1864. .3
joriidiotton traaiferrcd to High Court by Judieafare Act, 1673...3
IMMtt.
JVRisDionoK or tem moH ooubt to qsamt nrjiniD*
TIONS-cmMmmI.
«ffMt of 1. sa, rab-fl. (8) of Jadickturo Act, 1873
doc« not confer arbitrary diicrt'tion to grant iujuiu tion^, i
enablp* Court to grunt injunction* whore b«forc thi-y were
Jiut ill prwiici3 gnuiled, 4—6
in caaes uf Hbol, 6, SOa
where Bp(K.-ial tribunal provided,
where ipi-oial mnady by $Mnte, 9, 187, I«l, 390, 340, 264, 330
principle, on which joriadio^n exwdMd not altered by Jadic»-
ton Act, 6
BO jniudiotiMi to intetfM« with public dutios of Govornment, 7
no jniitdiction to interforo with nrts of foreign government, 7
no jurisdiction to prevent foreign Kovereign removing Iiis pro-
perty, 8
no jurisdiction to make dwreo against foreign AmboMador. 8,
Addenda 8 (/)
no jurisdiction in matters merely criminal, •
jurisdiction to restrain by iqjatwtim actiona pandinff in Hixb
Court aboliahad, 13 »
the iaatitation ot proceedings may be reatninad, 13
jurisdiction in reqieot of acts to be done abrondi 11
jurisdiction of County Court, 14
LACHES. 8«e ilogwteeeMea, Dthg.
LAND,
injunction does not run with, 13, 17A
covenants restricting oaer of, when aoiorcru, 438, 413, 444, 449.
See Covtmoml:
LANDLORD AND TENANT,
tenant restrained according to terms of his covenant, 78, 79
tenant restrained from committing waste, 78
underleesce riistraiuod from committing Wjwte, 70
right to Ugfat acquired against lessee binds tk« inheritance, 193
LANDOWNBE,
ri^ts of a, against tho promoters of public works, 115, 116
aot compellablo to sell in certain cases a partial interest I 'j
140, 141 ' ' '
clauses prohibiting a c wpaiiy from taking land without consent
of, 138
right of pre-emption of superfluous lands, reserved to, 130
LANDS,
injuriously affected by the exoeution of public wotka, 158 ct aeq.
' 138 "^"P"'*""''-^' ^^^^ "'"^■'^ ^'"'y "'»y be Implied, 115—117,
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 11»-131
compulsory powen of pnrohase m%y not be ezenised otherwiae
than for the porposea of the undertaking, 115—117
46—2
7M
IMOBX.
LANDS OLATTBES OOMSOUDATIOM AOS— continued.
ia exMviaing powera of ^ Ao( it* piOTinoas moat fa* itiuAly!
adhered to, 118
tho Act doee not over-ride or control an ezpnn contract, 118
the Act doee not apply to easements, 122
notice to treat, 119, 120
how far the relation ot vendor and purchaser created by, 120
—123
cannot be witiidrawu without landowner's consent, unless •
oonnter-aotioe served, 121, 122
company restrained from entering on land nntil monies awarded
have been paid or deposited, 123, 12-t
uwuer of cuscmout interfered with by exercise of powers dioold
claim compeiiiiatioii, not an injunction, 122
coiiipaiiy cannut insist upon taking part only of a house^ buildinff,
or mauufaetoj y, 125, 126
rights of mortgogeee, 127
rights of tenants, 128
term for oompnlsory pnrchase, 128—130
superfluous land of a company, right of pre-emption in regard to,
'30
LAW EEPORTS,
copyright in, 392, 404
LAWS OF A FOBEIGN COUNTRY,
interfetvaoa in aid of, when refused, 10
LEASES,
of ecclesiastical corporations, 704
covenants in, enforced by injunction, 438, 441 — 44ft, 450, 468,
470j 474, 497, 498
covenants in, when not enforced by injoBction, 478, 492
uuderlciisoo restrained from committing waste, 79
LEASES AND SALES,
Settled Estates and S«jttled Land Aula, as regards tindMr and
waste, 97, 98
LECTUEBS,
copyright in, 409
LEGACY,
payment by executor restraiaad, 020
LEOAL ESTATE,
parting with, restrained, 048
LEGATEE.
restraiiuxl from receiving legacy, 520
LE^sSEE. See Landlord and Tenant.
iKDn.
URIBB8,
eopjrri^t in autiior, 408
reoeiTer's right to posseesion of, ui,
no right to publish without
exceptions, 408, 409
injunctions against opening, 'd>i
mmdatory injanotion to with. n-v.
79S
r^l '-i COlltX^lj'i, 40>"
Fotioc to Pc^^t Office 838
LEVEL OP STREET,
power of local authority to alter, 295
ttmtif of adjoining ^wner, 295
LIBEL,
injunction to restrain the publication of, 6, 509- 512
trado lib^, fill
LICENSE,
to nae a patent, 330
to paUiih a book ia not an assignment, 308
LICEN8EB,
of a patent cannot ra« flor infringement, 330
infringement by, 338, 330
LIGHT,
ri^t to, how aoqaired, 177, 184, 187
implication of grant of, upon aeTOwice ot a tenement, 18fl, 188,
180
no implication of roaerration of ri^t jipon MTCcanoe, 188
exception, 188
right to, under the Prescription Act, 189 et teq.
right is absolute and indefeasible, 189
nature of right not altered by the Act, 190
right acquired against tenant, binds the inheritance, 103
agreement at to windows, 103
London, eoatom of, 103
ezyi^pdrinMBt of liglit-merger, 194
angle of 4S degrees^ 180
abandonment of right to^ 194
right to, not lost on altering or rebuilding a hmm^ 180, 108, 108
right to, cannot be extended on rebuilding, 195, 100
injunctions to restrain the obstruction of, 182—184
must amount to a nuisance^ 178, AtU»itda 177(<)» 179(A)
F>inei|dw en wkidk,gr|Uitad. 178—184
ytho ma^ im to iMtnin isimUnuM with, 177, 178
intarioontory injnnetioBs, 189
form of injnnotiona, 43 («), 196, 197
damages In addition to, or in substitution for injunction, 183
■easuro of, 184
reference to Ohambera aa to erection of buildup 107
7«6
IMDKX.
milTATIONS, STATUTE OF,
in nffionco to iuo<mnt in gf-nrral, 38, 06
ill referi o to ai cmmt in wx-^ti-. 'Mi
in rcfi'i'ciioo to iw cmiiit iii trospuss, UTi
(Iilay, t^hint of timo limit^nl by, 2a, ^7
LiaUIDATlCD DA>rA( ilCS,
us distingiiisluMl ficiiu a ixMialty. 405-170
no injunction against doing an lu-t ponnitted to bo done, on
payment of, 465
LOCUSTS,
right to protect laii<l from. 'J50
LONDON BUILDING ACT, 1891,
does not authorise interferenoo with casements, 181
LORD OF A MANOB. See Copyholder.
propi'rty of, in trees, 53
riglit of, to minerals in copyholds, 61
riglit of. to take gravel, Ac., in the waste of the manor, 61
riglit of, to approve against common of turbary and eatorer*,
61, 62
can have an injunction to stay waste by copyholder, 74
may not cut timber on copyhold tenement, 54
injunction to stay trespass by, 05
LUNATIC,
timber cut on estato of a, 56
MAGISTRATE,
injunction not a.s a ruli- i,-rantiil, whcro statutory remedy before,
9, Addenda 9 (p)
or to restrain procoodin^s to recover penalties before, 8
MANDAT(M{Y INJUNCTIONS,
principals on which granted. 42—17
may be graiitt<il in positive form, 42, 499
balance of coiiveiiii in o will be taken into aoooont, 43, 44
damages in lieu of, when awarded, 500
mandatory injunction may be granted alUiough work completed
before action, 44, 45, Aiiendm 46 (•),
where defendant hurries on buildings after iWTice of notice of
motion, 46
not Of a rule granted where there has bewi delay, 46, 499
when granted before trial, 46. Addenda 46 (e)
against trespass, 107—109
against nuisance, 260 — 263
sgains.t breach of covenant or agreement, 495—602
not granted to anfonw contract to do act i^ioh voaM lead to
brMch of peooet 499
iMDaz.
727
MAllDATOBY INJTJN TIONS-co»«if»uerf.
ordar for, sv-qpoidcii for a certain Ume, 47, 681
Implication xor farther raqpcnaion, 47
MANDATORY ORDER,
for entry and inspection, 501
ordered to be performed at co- <rf diaobedient party, 694
MANOR. See Lord of a Mmior.
MANSION HOUSE,
pulling down, 64, 64
MANUFACTORY,
T'"<^'«'''g of, in Land* Claasea Act, 127
MANUFACTURE,
within tbo meaning of the patent law, 335
MABXEI,
ri^t to, 315
extension of, 316
interference with, 316
injunction against, 316, 318—320
not excluded by statutory remedy, 320
power of local authority to provide, 320
MARRIAGE,
of infant, reatrained by injunetioB, 633
MAYOR'S COURT,
injunctions to restraii. proceedings in the, 610
MEADOW,
breddng np a, 62
MEDWAY CONSERVATORS,
liability of, for injury to oyster beds by wreck, 272
Baatings, hdding of on private roada reatrained, JMettia 109 («)
mbliorahnq waimx, si
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS, 141, 143
vesting of streets under, 141
boiUincUne, 143
MICHAEL ANOELO TAYLOR'S ACT, 13»
notice to treat under
when owner can retain part of house, 140
when local authority restrained from taking part of house,
141
po w ata of dmuniasioaMa of Sewers traaafwrad to Ooaunon
OovBoil ti OUf of LmidoB, 199 («)
738
INDKX.
See Minei, SachtMieti Ptrtom, Support.
1 rty in, 57, 58
wtongtvUy severed, 93
reserration and exception of, 59, 221
meaning of word, in a deed, 59
meaning of word in Motion 77 Bailway Clau^as Act, 1S45...22S,
224
damages fur wrongfoUy working, 14S
estovers of, 69
property of oopyholder in, 60
in copyholds, right of lord of manor to, 61
coprolitos beneath copyhold twement are minerals, 147
under railway, 222 et $eq.
MINES,
tenant for life may work open, 58
may sir.k new shafts to work open, 58
may not open new, 58
interest of oopyholder for life or years in, 60
right of (.opybolder of inheritance by onstom in, 60
right of customary tenant by custom in, 60
grant of, 57
on estates of eccl&siaatical persons, 81
account of waste in, 93, 94
drowned mine, no right to support from w^r in, 211
trespass on, 145, 146
working', out of bounds, 146
account of trespass on, 145
damages for trespass on, 146
working, so aa to lei down sorfaoe, 200 e(
drainage of, 253
barriers in, 140, 254
within forty yards of railway, 222 fit teq.
MINISTER,
of a ohapel, injunction to restrain a man improperly appointed,
from acting as pastor, 524
of a chapel, improperly dismissed, injnnotion from hindering ia
the discharge of his office, S24
injunction to restrain a, from preaching, 525
injunction to restrain a, from admitting to communion persond
not contemplated by deed of foundation, 626
MISAPPLICATION,
of corporate or other funds, restrained by injunotion, 668 — 660,
662—667, 589—593
MISREPR^ENTATION. 6» Fraud.
MONIES,
injunctions to restrain the payment, &c., of, 629, 830, 633
payment of, into Court, on obtaining an injunction, 31, 32, 662
iMon.
m
MOOBINO, 270. 273 (»)
MORTGAGEE,
may in gtmoral pui tmo aJl hin romedicit concui'rcutly, 538
may, on a proper coao being mado out, be deprived of the ri^t
to pursue all his romedies, 538
right to appointment of receiver, 544
restrained from exeroiaing power of sale, 638 — 540
interlocato> y injaiu>tKm genorally graatad on payment into Court
*^ mcttgagor, 640
where mortgagee aoUcitor of mortgagor, 540
mortgagee selling not a trustee for mortgagor, 041
mortgagee a trustee of surplus money, 541
restrained from parting with surplus monies, 541
restrained from presenting to a benefice, 543
restrained from dealing with a ahip in dorogataon of a charter-
party, 543
may not commit waste, if security be sufBcient, 75, 543
may tommit waste, if aeonrity be not anffioiient, 7S, 76
of burial ground may not oommit waate, 82
oommitting waste, pending rodemptitm sni^ 16
injunotions at suit of equitable, 944
int«rest of, in lands taken under Lands Clauses Act, 127
has right of aotion for trespass committed before entry into
poaaeaaion, M6
MORTOAOOB,
in possession may not commit waste, if security be insnfBcient,
76, 77, 542
may not oommit waste if bankrupt, semhle, 77
right to sue for injury to property, 545
injunction to restrain, interfering with mortgagee's receiver, 641
MOTION,
form of notice of, 660
service of notice of, 647, 660
time for making, Ml
saving, 668
hearing of, 066
eridaiiM on the, 661—666. See AgUavUt.
eaae made out must correspond with statement of claim if d»>
livered, 666
declaration of the rights of parties on the, 662, 663
for injunction treated aa the trial of tha aotion, 37, 661
costs of, 660, 680
to advance the caoaa^ 601
to dissolve, 676
aa part* injnnetkms, 670
wba ihoflid mun, 077
•iMtefMqr.OIS
780
mon.
MOTION— oon/inwerf.
to discharge an irregular order, 678
to commit for breach of injunction, M7 et
notice of, 087
form of, 6S7, 688
MOTIVl.S,
of instituting a suit somotimos roganlod, 152, 359
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS,
tiu<tc«' of borough funds, 587
luisapplleatiou of borough funds rettrained, 888, 698
lisrlit to defray out of borough fund* ootta of prot«oting cor-
porate i>roperty, 591, 693
ultra fire* acta by reatraiiied, 68* tt ttq.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MEETINGS,
right of Press to attend at, 106
MUSIC,
as a nuisance restrained, 204
MUSICAL COMPOSITION,
copyright in, 401, 402, 406
NAJIB,
mere nspumption of, no injunction against, 637
unauthorised u>e of, in advertisement, 512, 51J
name or title of book, 374
name of house, 638
name of newspapers, 374
telegiapliic address, 638
NAVIOABLE TIDAL RIVER,
rights of Crown to soU of, 267, 268
pnrpreetnn, 268
injunction to restrain, 268
nuisance to public right of navigation, 268, 269
injunctions against, 268, 269
fouling a, 271
^IOf■l•:^tf to, i'O
rights of riparian owner on banks of a, 269
NAVIGATION,
what included in right of, 270
nuisance to, 268, 270, 271
NEGOTIATION OP SECURITIES,
injunctions against the, 628
NEWSPAPER,
name or title of, 374
NOISE AND NOISY TRADES,
when actionaUe nttiaaace, l i , 177, 20»-^06, 207
iMon.
781
NOISE AND NOISY TBADES—ontimted.
injunctions to restrain, 154—157, 203—207, Addenda 203 (0,
204 (a) (rf), 205
right to make a noise may bo acquired by long user, 207
NOTICE,
brforc action as pciiciiil rule not necessary, 329, 344, 383, 664
of injuiictiun, G63, 664
of motion, 646
form of, 650
service of, 647, 650
short notice, 600
to commit, 687. Sm OommiUal.
to treat nadw Lands Olaoaes Aot, 119 et teq.
to treat undor Midiael Angelo's Act, 140
serveJ boforo ezpiratioa of compulsory power is snfBcient,
129
covenants mfoiwd ia oqoity against persons taking with, 483
et teq.
NUISANCE,
what it is, 148
(listinguished from trespass, 148
may be public or private, 149
diminution of value does not make an act a, 1 '^6
who may sue to restrain, 150—154, Addenda 152 (s), 153 (z;
right to injunction not superseded by rig^t of prosecution of
Home Secretary under 21 & 22 Vict. o. 104...U1
parties to action, 150—164
plaintilTs moiiTea may be ocmmdered, 152
threatened, 167
increasing, 165, 174
temporary, 154
cesser of, after action brought, 156
evidence of scientific witnesses as to, 156
intention of defendant, when material, 157
reasonable use of premises, no defence, 165
liability of owner of vacant land for nuisance, 154
arising fran acts of sereral persons, 154
arising from exercise of limited right in excess, 166.
pnrdtaser, who has not Moepted title, cannot rae for, 1S8
prescriptive right to OMise naiaance, 207
recurring, 155
coming to a, 207
injunction, when granted, 134 — 156, 169, 176
inoonvenience to public no answer to claim for injonctiMi, 169
del^ in applying fo» relief, 173, 174
no tim* will legi^ise a public, 202, 311
by private persons, prino^^ on whicb the Court SfoU 1- re-
781
iMsn.
WUWANOB— aw U i m iW.
by public companiM in Ui* ooMtevctiim of their works, IM— 167
by public bmlios, 168, 169
principli'K on which Court intorferos, 158 — 166
(imiponsatioii tlin romody wlicii aiithoridcd works properly cxe*
cutod, 166, 167
wlioro no pro\ision in tho statute for compensation, 166
right to compiMisation assignable, 166
injury to public need not be proved by Attorney-General, where
Statute infringed, 169
Attorney-General not entitled to injonotion •■ nutter of light
in every case of breach of ttstute, 170
to dwelling-houses and houses of business, 176 et »eq.
standard of damage required by the Court em a condition of
its interference by injonotion, 174, 177
who may sue, 177, 178
obstruction of light, 177—180, Addenda 179. See Light.
pollution of air, 199—202. See Air.
noise and noiqr tradeai, 203-207, AUemia 203 (0, 204 (a)
(<0, 200
interference with right of drain and drip, 208
various nuisances, 201 — 206
prescriptive right to cause nuisance, 207
to support, 209—229. See Support.
relating to water, 229—267. See River, Stream, Water,
to navigable tidal waters, 267— 274. See NavigMe Tidal Biver.
to rights of way, 275—295. See Way.
to ferries, 311—315
to righU of market, 315—320
to highways, 296—311. See Bighmty.
nuisances connected with trade diipatea, 330—327
various nuisanoea to air and dwdliiig^hoiuefi, 201—206
ODOUBS,
oitensive, restrained, 200, 201
OFFICE,
injunction against a corporation improperly declaring an office
void, 5
ORCHARDS,
waste in, 56
ORNAMENTAL TIMBER. See Equitahle Wa»t», Timber, Tree*.
PARENT AND CHILD,
injunctions against parents with respect to custody and educa-
tion of children, 634—636
injunction to reatrain a ton from entering his parent's houae, 106
m
PARK,
WMte in 87
nelainiac dMr, IT
PAELIAMENT,
covenant not to oppose a bill in, -173
no injunction in general to restrain a mau from apj^ying to, 12
agreement not to apply to, may be inforoed, 471
injunction to restrain a omnpony or oorporatioD from flying
funds in promoting or opposing WU in, 475, OM, W7, NI, WS
I'ABLIAMENTAEY ELBOT^-ONri,
ftdiie 8t«tementa aa to oaaJidatM rwitrunad, tlS
PAELIAALENTARY POWERS,
to take land, naiture of, 115, lift
peraona having, may take wliat they deem neoeMory, if tkera
bo bona fide; lift— 118
PARTIl^. See Attonu^-Chmtni.
application for injunction must be made by a party bavin'- buffi-
cient interest, 64fi
absence of, not material, if property be iu danger, 645
oat of the jariadiotioii, nrrioe of imt ma, M4, 849
PARTING,
with property, ducumeuts, Ac., injunctions to restraiu the, <19,
83^ ess
PARTNERSHIP,
effect of appointment of a receiver of a, 637
injunctions during or after disiolation of, 531
injunction, though dissdation not aought, 528
injuBotion to restrain a man from holding out that he is in, with
another trader, 536
at will, injunction when granted, 530
restraint of trade, covenant in, enforced on dissolution, 458
injunctions to restrain acts inconsistent with partnership agree-
ment or duties of a partner, 528, 529, 531 ,
injunctions to restrain exclusum from, 528, 535
injunction to restrain expulsion froin, 529
injunction against partner of nnaoond mind, 532
partner may in abeanoe oi agreement carry on sama boaiaaM
after disiolation, SS2
partner must not solicit former customers, 533
exceptions to rule, 533, Addenda 633 (a)
misconduct, quarrels, Court does not interfere in all cases of, 535
plainiiff'fl conduct may bar rdirf, 536 ,
plaintiifB aoquieacence, 530
reeeivHr, appointment of, operates as inj unction, 537
784
IMPKt.
PAHTNEBSHIP STYLE,
fraudulent uae of, 330, 337
right to, after diaMlaUon, 373, 933, 534
pa.-ses oil the us^ignffioni of the bosinew, 871, 372, 63i
I'ARTY WALL, 216
l'.\SSlNO OFF, 337—330. Boo Tradt- Same.
PASTUHE,
breaking up a, 62
PATENT,
application of the word, by owner of trade mark to an article
not in foot patented, 378
PATENTS,
principle* on which Court rettraina infringement of, 328
who may sue, 329 — 331
who may be sued, 331 — 333
M'hat is an infringement, 333, 33-1
intention immaterial, 334
innocent infringer, when not liable in damage!, 334
infringement by manufacture, 333
b"' experiment, 335
b w, 333, 330
b .poeore for sale, 337
by aale, 33»-338
by gale of materials, 338
by e-ale of parts to be put iogethar, 338
by repairs, 338
by taking part of an invention, 340
by ta'~ g port of combination patent, 310
1^ K- .8, 332
by !...n8ce, 338
by workmen, 330
not by delivery outside United Kingdom of infringing
articles by foreign manufaetarer, 337
improvements, 339
colourable variations, 341
bubbtitutiou of equivalent;^, 342
interlocutory injunctions ;igainst infringement, 343
cx parte injunction, 346
principles on which injunctions granted, 343 — 349, Addenda
343 (a;)
practice on, 343—340
where dtfendant is willing to keep aoooont, 548
deUy, 333, 347, 348
undertaking as to damages, 348
expediting trial of action, 349
perpetual injunction against infringement, 349 — 393
IMOU.
PATENTS— O-ynfiiiurd
perpetual iiijni\clion—<\mtiiiiied.
wlu ro ;;i.iutod, 34'J
when rufuaed, 350—352
delay, effect af, 350
dunagMi when awarded iiutMd of injunoiion, 350
inquiry m to dunafM, Ul
form of injunotimi, M2
enforcing obedience to, 353
;iiiii']Mliiu'iit uf Bpooiftention aftw injonctkon, 3A2
(Mi^ts, 3.V1. ■.io.'i
e'ay of i \c ( Utii)ii, 355
rc'titrictiouii attaulied to sale, ur liccuvu tu aau paU'iited articles,
33», MS, Aidmia m (o)
PATHOLOGIST, «3
PAYMENT INTO COURT,
as a cundition uf granting au injunction, 30
PENALTY. Soe Forfeiture.
as distinguished from liquidated damage*, 465—470
no injunction, if sum named be liquidated damages, 465, 470
if sum named be a, injunotion to reetnun hrnrli ot ooveaant is
not excluded by payment, 465
ittcxvMed rent, piqraUt on brwidi of oorrauit ia leaae^ MS, MS
PENALTY IMPOSED BY STATUTE,
doee not exclude remedy by injanotioxi, 9, 137, ISl, 399, 240
PERMISSIVE WASTE, 65
PEBPETUAL INJUNCTION,
principlee on which granted, 33 et $eq.
not frmted without cosscst till jwltawt, 37
granted, though not claimed by the writ of tummont, 044, 080
though no previous interlocutory application, 37
not granted as a rule if mischief has ceased before trial, 681
declaration of righ* instead of, 33, 681, Addenda 33 (i), 681 (6)
granted in general after establishment of legal right, 32, 33, 680
whore plaintiff's right of limited duration, 33
may not be granted, if damage be small, 34
acquiescence as a bar, 36
poctponed till after a certain period, 3S, 170
aooonnt as incident to, 38
costs, 38
PHOTOaBAFBB,
copyright in, M7
PIGKBXINO, 323
TM iMPn.
nO-8TTE,
• naiMiice, 201 («0, 906
PI£E-DBIVINO.
whtn mtnOiMd, AMmOa 904 (4)
PIPES
water company rostnuiioU from discunu»oting watac mfttf, 9M
PIRACY. Sco Copyright.
riSCABY,
drying ap» ftl
PLANS, ^ .„
covenant to •ubmit for apprortU before buUding, 4W
POOR LAW,
injoBotioiie relatiog to *^'>^ under, 594
POSSESSION,
taken under LaiuU Cluusos Act, 124
no injunction ufain^t parties continuing iiv 129, 138
PBEFEBENCE SHARES,
injunction at inatanoe of kdder of, MA
PEESCBIPTION ACT, 189 cl »cq.
caaes in wliich it does not apply, 190, 198, 202, Sit
"enjoyment" of light under tha Act, 190-192
"interruption" of light, meaning of, 191
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT,
to affect flow of water, 240
to cause nuisance, 207
PRESENTATION,
injunction to reatrain, 801, 543, 898
PBESUMPnOK,
of grant, 184, 2M
PRICES, . . .
agreement o£ trwtert to keep up, 458, Adi«»4a 458 (•)
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT,
principal bound by acquiesceooe o£ agent, M
PETVAOT,
loM of, by opening » wind-"' 181, 189
PROCEEDINGS, . .
pending in High Court, not restrained by injunction, 3
institution of proceedings may be reatrained by injunction, 13
in inferior Courts may be reaUained, 610
niBn.
787
PR0CUEI)1NU8— coHfiouerf.
•»«y of,
no injaaction to ttmy proc«cdings in TTit;li Court, fl08
injunction to mtrain inititution of prfH'txiiiiiiKg, 608
frivuloUM ami vi'x.itioii!) iu'ti<>n!i. tlO'.l, Oil)
pnwt'olini.-' iiu' iiii^t iiiiM|iiiiiy ill lo.nxK ot' wiiidttig up, blS
prfwiiliilii'ij « iiiiliiig-ii|p |M'titii>ii. H'i>t
conriiri'i'iit itiliiiiiii<«truli<in uitiniiit. t\l\i
proceedings in inferior Courts, iilo
in foreign ('ourtti, (ill vt teq. 8i-« fatftg*
Court I.
[lc'llilill'_'
I'ltoMUTKHS l)F I'UULIC VVOUKS.
rights and liabilitiM of, 115—118
l'UOI'i:i!TY.
(Ii'btor ic-Htraiiii-il t'liim parting with, ii;,'<J
PROSPECT,
shutting out s, 181
PUBLICATION.
of (loramonts. pain-ix. ftc, in brnach •<( ■iMifideace rasti '
in i iiiii'tioii. jO;i -.)l)7
(if li'cturiv, ri'sl raiiiiMl hv in j iirn I li>ii, 101, (09
•)t' li'ttri's, ri'sti'uini il li\ 1 ri i mil 1 iiin, MIH. In i
i>f piDcciKliiijjs pcniliiu' ln't'oi'i' '' i'lii "f ju.-itice r,'st ruined, 039
rUULIC AUTIIOUITIKS I'HOTKCTIOX ACT. 1893.. .172
PtBLIC BODIES,
injunctinns o^iiinHt troHpau by, 112 et <«jr.
injunctions against uaisanoe by, 198 et $fq.
prinriplcfi on which injunctions are grnnt«d againat, 112, I38,
A46, 350, 588
Pl'BLIC HEALTH ACT. 1875,
Testing of 8tri>ets in local anthority, 141
PUBLIC NUISANCE,
time will not legalise, 201
PUBLIC WORKS.
construction of, 133, 13-4, 158 — 165
compensation for lands injuiioosly affected by, 186
h(>r(< no provision in Act for eonpensiMion, 166
i'UfFlNti STATEMENTS,
not actionable, 512
use of doctor's name to promote salo of medicine, 513
cz-cmpio}^ adreftisiag his eraneeliaa with Ms lat^ em^oyer^
512
K.I. 47
738
IHDEX.
^""^^^^on before payment, retndned from committing wa.to.
wh" h.. not Accepted title o«»not «.e in rcpect of nuisance, 168
of a natural stream, 239, 260, 261
of an artificial watercourse, 250, 261
of a navigable tidal river, 271
of air, 199
PUBPRESTURE,
what is a, 268
268
not where it is also a nuisance, 268
injunction to restrain a, 268
QI ARRY, M
tenant for life, &e.. may work an open, 68
interest of copyholder in a, 60
ettovefs of a, 09
BABBIT WAEBEN,
breaking up a, 67
RAILWAY COMPANY. . ^/^H ^^^^^
^rS :»i=--n of Board of Trade.
r^S^ from selling it. permanent way. Ai^ 654(«)
working agreement, of, wHh anoth-r company. 671
of. to paw over another line, 136
agreement of. a. to passing over anothe. • ^'^
power ..f. to effect a junction with another line, 13.
power of. to grant easemontm 666
;t1uon!';ight to exclude per«n. from except Uu« uaing the
railway. 139
BAfLWWS fXAl SES rON80LIDATION ACT. 131-130
S 1i Elir tT^^ power, of d^ati^. must be given.
JSwner who ...ks to restrain a .ompany from deviaUon mu*
•bow that ho would be injured, 133
INDEX.
789
EAILWAYS CLAUSES COXSOLIDATIOK ACT-co)i<»«m«*.
land neccMary for working railwav fiajr be taken throogii beyond
limits of deWaUon, if aohedal. I m Act, 133
land may not be taken except for proper purpoaea of the Act,
nltliough within the limits of deviation, 133
company when restrained from exerrising powers of deyiatioa,
134
sidings, right of landowner to connect with railway, 135
interference with roads under the Act, 135
no injunction granted under s. 92 to compel railway company
to allow plointift to run carriages on line, 136
injunction granted under s. 115 to prevent engines being used
on railway unless approved by the company, 137
injunction to restrain onoke nuisance, 13?
injunction granted to enforce provisions of s. 11 7... 138
ow'ior's rights after possession taken b\- roiii|)!iny, 138
if purchase-money not paid, landowner may enforce lien, and
obtain appointment of receiver, 138
on recovering judgment to enforce lien, can obtain injunc-
tion, 138, 139
rights of mine owners and railway companies, in respect of
mines under railway, 222 et »eq.
RATE.
injunction against enforcing a, 594, 641
injoaetiim against flying rate fmr onaathoaaad pa r p o asa , W3
BEOETVBB,
debratnre holders, right to, 54S
in partnership cases, 937
mortgagee's right to, 544
mortgagor restrained from interfering with mortgagee's, 641
of rents of land, 544
equitable execution, 630
promoters of a company taking jand in poasession of a, 119
may have an injunction against mate by tenants for years, 79
effect of appointment of, 537
int erf w e nce with restrained, 641
course of proceeding where party prejudiced by reowver's acts,
641
disputes among directors of company, ground for appointment of,
ft?S
REFEKENCE TO CHAMBEHS.
on granting an injunction in lighc cases, 197
REGATTA,
kddiiv a, nnisaaee to iddng ri^ta, 206
BlOrniRAlTON. Saa fratf* Mmrh.
47—2
I
740
INDEX.
RBMAINDER-MAK. S.* Copi/fwlder, Revtriioner.
OUT not commit waste, 91
may not join in waste for his own imn.ofit, 92
h.ye an injunotion agai.ist wa«to l,y tenant for life. 48
for life may b»y» « iajunotion agaui»t
m«inc, may have an injunction againrt wagto, 71. 9B
but not an account, 96
of equitable e.Ute may have an injunction against wa*te 73
of ^rt of the inheritance may have an injunction against waste,
72
BENEWABLE LEASES. See Le^, Temni for Live, Senew
able for Ever.
*^^,^ant to not enforced by mandatory injunction. M
BBPAIBS. See £.#o*en., Oove„a»i, Forfeiture. Pem^ve IForte.
EBPEHTION OF WRONGFUL ACT,
injunction against, 16
wbm inferwd, 105 (•).
EBPOETS,
of .asos at Kw, -opynght in. 404
EBSTEAINT OF TRADE, 460 W
covenants in, 419 »eq., AMm»d» 449 (/), 460 W
total restraint, 449
partial restraint, 449, 480
divisibility of, 459
462-457, 461-4M 45.. 57 461-465, .l<We«da 460
construcUon and effect of, 451-45., loi ^o ,
.eZ^^lones., question of law for judge. 451. Addenda
451 (n)
benefit of, pas«»< with goodwill, 464
vendor of business, covenant by, *58
restriction, when reasonable, 482. 461-4M
release of covenant, 452
UE8TRICTIVE COVENANTS. See Covemtnt. Agreement.
"TrS'^i -«-,«..
"■^Tr/^ n.in-.n ^i,.,.
hs. no (0, 183 w.i <»(<»)
INDEX.
741
R£V£BSION£R-c»n^tiiue<{.
may hare an injunction against interferrnre with way, 293,
AMmtia 293 {g).
bound, if right to light is acquired against lesae?, 199
BIFLE RANGE.
a nuisance, 205, 206
RIGHT OF WAY. See Wa,,.
RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS,
ri^ts and liabilities of, 229 tt »eq.
injunctionii against diversion of water, 236
on banks of navigable tidal river, 269
cannot grant their water-rights, apart from their estate in tlM
land, 232
RIVER. See Stream, Water, Waiercourte.
rigiits of riparian proprietors in the bed of a, 229
ri^ts of riparian proprietors in the water of a, 22U «t tq.
diversion of course of, 231, 236
user of water of, for domestic purpo.^es, 235
user of water of, for manufacturing or agricultural purposes, 23S
right to affect ilow ariiuired by pri'si'ription, 240 M »eq.
injunction to restrain pollution, 2liO — 261
form of ord(!r, 261
navigable tidal, nuisance to a, 268 — 271
rights of Crown in a, 268, 269
rights of proprietors on bulks of, 269
powers of commissioners of sewers as to a, 272
private or exclusive right of lishery in a. 271
RIVERS POLLUTIOX PHEVEXTION ACTS, 1876, 1893.. .264-
267
BOAO,
public interference with or obstru< tion of a, by railway company^
135
construction of railways over, 136
snfaatituted, 136
ROYAL ARMS,
injuuetion to re«ti'ain unauthorised use of. 371
RUNNING POWBES,
of railway company over another line, 136
BYLAXnS V t'r.ETCIIEn.
rule in, 255
other cases where the rule is applie<l, 2S4 (/). Addenda 364 (I)
SALE,
injunction to stay by trustees and others, 521, 522, 62S
injunctions tu stay t xercise of power of by nv>rtgi>gpp, S3.S <■< ««^.,
m
Y42 IHDBX.
SALE— con^inif^-
injunction ,H;Hin,.. -.1 ,. al . state by voluntary
injunction against, by .slM riti' ol good, taken ""der /. /a., «a7
injunotion again«t, of .argo of a by the captain, 628
of bu8ine», right to uiie of name, j34
SALMON,
interference with passage of, 236
^^pyholder ot inheritanuo may by custon, have a right to dig, for
sale. 60
SAPLINGS,
cutting, 89
SCHOOL,
injunotion restraining carrying on or, 444
SCHOOL BOOKS,
copyright in, :W1
use of passages from literary works in, 401
SCHOOLMASTER, ^ /i\
injunctions against removal of, 525, Addenda o2o {k).
SCOTLAND, .
injunctions to restrain proceedings m, 612, 61d, «l»
SCULPTURES,
copyright in, 390, 400
SEA,
right of navigation, 270
fishing in, 271
discharge of sewage into, 271
SEA SHORE, • . u 1 H.O
injunctions against romoving part of the beach of the, 2.4
rights of the Oown in the, 267, 273
management c)f. (»)
encroachment on the, 268
injunctions against obstructing aecew to the, 2.0
rights of public in, 273
nniaance to, 274
SEA-WALL,
liability to repair, 272
^^^'JfSe, injuncti.... ag,dnst the disclosure of. 508, 504, »7. 508
Biotion for injunction heard <« camerd. (»"8
ntDBX.
148
secubihes,
injtmotion acaintt the negotiatioii, Msifiuamt, *o., of. 628
SEEDS,
sowing land with perniciolu, 63
8EOUB8TEATION,
writ of, for breach of injnnction, 892, 693
8EBVICE,
of writ of Bummona, 644
of notice of motion, 646, 647
out of jurisdiction, 644, 649
of notice of injunction, 663, 664
of order for injunction, 664
substituted, 664
affidavit of, 6SS
order for injunction inado on, if defendant do not appear,
65r
of notice Jl motion to commit, 686
BETTLEP LAND ACT,
alteration in law of waste by, 98, 99
tenant for life reetrained from mortgaging under, 546
from ■eOinf »inder, 522
SETTLEMENT. See VolunUrtf MOtmMt.
SBTTLOE,
waste by th^, 83
Tol<int«r7, aetttemento may be wtfoioed against, 628, M4
8EVEBAL FISHERY,
•ml of, 273 (•)
SETEBANCE,
ri^ta to eaaemeata by. See Ea»»m»nt.
SEWAGE,
discharge of, by local au.uOnty, X71
!yX.,1njum tSi not gr«»ted to tsompel local authority to pro-
vide proper, 262
SKWEBS,
etnmidMioners of,
power to erect def encea against sea, 272
power of, to detormino whether an obattttcUon to an am of
the sea, *c.. is justifiable, 272
power of, to take house*, under SGcharf Angrio Taylor's Act,
139
14*
IHDKX.
SEWERS— rowfJwufrf.
ncgloot f>f local authority to provide, remedy of aggripred pmon,
171, 262
8HAKEH0LDER,
injunctions at »uit of. suing on behalf of himself anil all other
niombcrs of tho company, against thv company, SSS— 560, 562.
,56;), 578
illegal suapeiisiou of. from his rights re«traine<l, 557. 558
preference, injunction at instance of, 565
SnERTFF.
injuiiLtioiis against sale by, 627, 628
SHINOLE,
injunction to restrain removal of from fori'shore, 274
SIGN-BOARD,
injunction against pulling down, 641
8KITTLK ALLEY,
restrained as a nuixauce, 206
SLANDER,
injunction to restrain, 6, SOU sfq.
on parliamentary candidate restrained, 518
nae of firm's name by ex-employee, when actionable, 512
SLANDER OF TITLE.
injunctions against, 511, 512
under sec. 36 of Patent* and Designs Act, 1907.. .513-517
SMALL-POX HOSPITAL.
not necessarily a nuisance, 202
SMELLS,
offensive, restrained, 200, 206
SMOKE.
injunction agaill^l disi liargintr, 200
injunction against smoke nuisance on railway, 137
SOAP BOILING, 201
SOCIETY,
. members of a, bound by the rules, 600
expelled member of proprietary, no right to injunction except
in special cases, 600
SOIL. See Support.
right to support for, 209 W segf.
in its natural state, 209—211
incumbered with buildings, 212
arising by implication on severance, 212 et teq.
746
SOIL — continued.
right to supi)ort— c<Hi/<irn*rf.
may bo qualified or waived by deed, 21»— 222
cffwt of clauses relating to mineral! in the Bulways ClaoM*
("onsoliilation Act. 222—228
subsiJpuee caused by excavations of predecesaor in title, 221
SOLICITOR,
lien of, prottK ted by injunction, 545
restrained from divulging cimtidential coniniunications, 504
reatrained from acting as, 506
restrained from r«jewing his certificate, tUl
SON, ,
restrained from entering his parent's house, 106
SOVEBEIGN,
no jurisdiction to interfere with acts of foreign (iovernmeut, 7
injunction at the suit of a foreign, 10
SOWING,
with pernicious seeds, 63
SPECIAL DAMAGE,
in cases of trespikss. 109 — 112
in cases of niuBance, 150—153
in cases of the broach of a statute, 151, 550, 551
SPECIAL REMEDV BY STATUTE,
jurisilic*-..! to grant injunction notwithrtanding, 9, 137, 141, 239,
240. 264, 320, Addenda 9 (p)
SPECIFIC CHATTEL,
enjoyment of, protected, 627
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,
injunctions pending action for, 500, 501
injunctions against alienation pending action fo , 500, 501
contract« which are not specifically enforced, 431, 432, 478, 553,
..IMeMb 432(0 «
SPIRITUAL CORPORATIONS,
restrained by injunction, 596
rcstrainiag statatca, 79
8PIBITUAL COURTS. See Beckmkutleal Court*.
STABLE,
noise of, a nuisance, 200
STATION,
ri^t of railway oompM^ to exdoie persms from, 139
746
IMDSX.
STATUTE. See Compaitie*.
proceeding* to enforce », M7, 448, WO
8TATUT0KY REMEDY, '
whether it exdadee remedy by injunotion, 9, 137, ISl, 339, i¥t,
204, 320, Addenda » (p)
STAY OP PROPKEDINGS. See Proet«diHg$.
STEAM ROLLER,
injury to pipes under highway, 310
STOCK,
transfer of, restrained, 6'21— 625
STOP ORDERS, 625
STREAM. See Water, Watercourte.
rights of riparian proprietors in a natural, 231-2J6, z.u
sourre of a. and accessions to, 238
flowing from uiidorground, 238
diversion of ("oursc of, 231
wuter from a, 236, 237
injunction to restrain, 236
fishing rights, 236, 239
fouling a, 239, 250
injunction to restrain, 240, 260 B< *e^.
order under Birers Pollution PrevenUon Acta, 264 et »eq.
STBEET,
altering level of, 295
v.'sting in loral authority, 141—143
SUBSIDEN'CE. See Soil.
SUBSTAXTLVL D.VMAGE.
in case of waste, 50
in cases of breoch of statute, 112—114
InSS^i'nll^^rJiri^a, 176, 178-180, 197. 200. 203
in oases of trespass, 104, 106
Subterranean water, 281
SUPPORT. See Soil,
right of,
for soil in natural state, 209—212
for buildings, 212 _ oio ««
right of, by implicaUon on severance, 212 «* se«.
in a rain.-r'al district 218 etteq.
may b. qualified by dec4 or Act of ParU«nont, 218
may bo tu quired by prescription, 212, 214
747
SUPPOBT— cairfiBurrf.
right at—eotUtmteb
mntiul, betwet Mlji>iiiing houses, 214, 219
owner's duty to «s«rciso tare in taking down home, 214, 219
support for sower, 238
right to support,
protected by injunction, 217
■ubvidoncc caused by predecessor's ox( avations, 221
PabUc Health Act, 1879... 228
Bailways Clausea Consolidation Act, 1849.. .222
Waterworka Claatf Act, 184? . 222
fiUSPBNSION 0^" INJUNCTION,
injunction whon suspendad, 17, 31, 32, 39, 47, 170, 399, 681,
Aide^nda 35 (/).
ptiiding appeal, IT, ai. li.jo, 662, 682
pending application to Parliament, 682
TOLECiRAPIIIC .VDDRESS,
no injunction to restrain use of, in aK««uee of fraud, 638
TELEOEAPH CODES,
copyright in, 392
TENANT. See Landlord and T»naitt.
TENANT HY TIIK CURTESY OR DOWEB,
liable for waste at common law, 52
TENANT FOR LIFE. See KWi^ert, l»'«w<e, Jf./M«aife ITas**.
liable for waste by statute, 52
property of, in timber, Ac, 52, 53, 98
may not foil timber, except for special purpoMS, 92, 93, 98, 99
may take estovers of timber, 59
may not open mines, 57, 58
may work open mines, 57, 58
atay work open limestone qiian ios, 58
may tJte estovers of minerals, clay, 5S)
may cut iarres for astoTers, 59
in remainder may have an injunction, 71
power of, to cut timber under the Settled Land Act, 98
mortgage by, when restrained, 946
sales by, when restrained, 922
TENANT FOR LIFE WITHOUT IMPBAOHMENT OP WASTE,
may not commit equitable waste, 83
pulling down mansion house, buildings, 4c.. 84, 89
eattirig nmumf-ntal timber. 8.5 — 88
trees planted for shelter, 86
nwy lUn oniMBental timbwr, fte., 88
748
IMDBX.
TEXAXT FOR T-IFE WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT OF WASTE
— roiifinni fi .
miiy nut ( ill yoiiii;,' tu t s or sapliiip". W»
111- uiidt'iwood of iiisiifficii'iit (fiiiwtli. X'i
niiiy not dciivf iin uikIu.' iidviinliit.'.' Ir'Hii ii (xiwor of Mle or
t'xcliunge, 91
reoriving pricf ot growinii tamlicr on a -iilo, U-
mny not commit wastf hv colluKioii.
may not authori«e wuBtf before his estate vumm into pon!«»sioii,
91, 92
inutle subject to trustee of a term. 1)0
HiiMlifietl by clause " exrepf volnntary Wiwtf," *C., 89
M ttlor of the estate. 83
in remainder, 111
right of, to tiinlMT wiiiiigfully ^i vi red. 112
ueeount iMjaiiisI, for tiinWr » roiifrfuUy severed, 1»3- 96
TENANT FDR LIVES KKNRWAHI.K I'Hl! EVER,
may commit nielioiatiiitr waste. 74
may not I'oiniiiit einiitahlo wa»te, 75
TENANT lOH YEABS,
liable for waste I'V statiiti', jJ
has no property in tiniK'r, Ac, 52
may take eetoyera, 55, 59
may work open mines, 57, 59
enjoyment of eaaement adTerae to, 198
TENANT IN ( OM-MON,
injunction to restrain wasto by, 72
of a patent, may sUe iJoiie for an infrinjjeiiicnt, 331
may sue alone for the piracy of a trade mark, 376
waste by, 95
TENANT IN FEE SUBdECT TO EXECUTORY DEVISE,
not liable for legal waste, 74
may not commit equitable waate, 74
TENANT IN TAIL,
in poMessiun, 72
dispunishable of watt«, 72
infant, 73
after poiaibility of issue extinct, 73
not liable f.)r legal waste, 73
may not commit equitable waste, 73
with reversion In thr Crown, 7-1
dispunishalde of waste, 74
and. r Act of Psrliauwrnt, which preelude? the barring of the
entail, 74
dispunishable of wa.ste, 74
sometimes restrained from committing equitable waste, 74
IMDBS.
749
TERM OF YEARS WITHOUT IMPKACHMBNT OF WASTS,
trttitt«e8 of, waste bjr, M
tSBMS,
imposfd M a condition of ffnatinf or vitbholdiiig u injunc-
tion, 29, 30, eel
of I'fder granting an injunotion, eeS
THAMES CON8EHVAXCY ACT. 141
THAMES KMBANKMEXT ACT, lU
THEATRE CROWD,
nninnoe CMUed l^, 20e, 309 (b), Addenda 309 (6)
THBSATENEO INJI7BV. Sta Apftrtkitded Infury.
THBBATB AOHOK,
injunction to reatrain throat* of logiii proceedings tur int'iiuge-
BMnt, 8X3— at:
TIMBEB. S«e Tnm.
what trees are, 52
property in growing, 52
rights of copyholder in, 54
rights of copyholder of inheritance by cuatom in, 51
waiite in, 52—56.
on ecclesiaatical estat^^a, 1*0, 81, '.15
property in severed, 1)3 <^t ii'<y.
cut under the direction of tli« Court, 92, 93
pioparty in, aevered on estate of infant, 73
Mvvrad on lunatic'a Mtate, 56
ornamental, what ia to be oonaidered, 85-88
property in, tovered wrongfully, 9e
power to cut, undw Settled Land Act, 98
TIMBER ESTATES, 63
TIME TABLES,
copyright in, 392
TITLE,
of a book, whether copyright in, 373, 374
of a plav. whether ,..|>yright • ".92
of a journal, name of editor .. necessary part of, 3(5
TOWING PATH,
injnnction to reatrain intwrferenoe with nae of, 307
TEABK.
tixtures Bet up for, 67-70, 99, 100 . , , - j
oomuit. in r*rtraint of, 449 t 8«. B»trmnt of Trode.
7M>
IMDUU
rigbi at eommon la* to n. on, without intMforoncp, 388
injunction* to rettrain i-mrr> atg on 444—441, 4«2— 457
int.rlo.ut..i.v I .inctlon to ri^traili following • tmJe. wh.i.
gmiteU, If, iU3
TBAT)E DTSPUTE8.
r.ni. iii . s ronnivtcd with, . .•-»r»in>.<l, aSO— 33T
i<>ii^| ir:u > . 320
iiitri.l.lutiiHi iii.kiliiig
wiiti liuif mill li.'-i-ttiiig.
THAIiK MltKI s, 5n-.'il3
TKAIM-; DISI'I TKS ACT, V>"'' <J-
iKihilitv ..I Inulc 111'- I '• ■•
liability ut ortniiUn of inn n, ;)::■:
UabiUt^ of triwtct* of uniun, 326
TKADE IIAHK
definition, -tSU
natuii of II. 'Mi'J—Mi
for pttitii ular goods, 363
sMignsblc only in , ..nn.-. tion with goodwill, .oO, AMtn'iii 3W <»
T«(iltrBtion of, 363, 364
m«wt be »«giitored, to suo for iufringctuf'nt, 360
remedr 5 owner of unregirtered Bark, 361
effwt of regittration, Ml
rf gi-triiblf marks, 361
ic^iiictiiins (tn registration, 363
rcgi^ti-ul 111!, nmy b< nn iifiiKl, 364
tennncy in (uniniun in. 376
right to, by afsigiinimt, 371, 372
right to, by ilt'volution, 373
right of Biitlior to title of hi* work as a, 375, 374
right of partner* in, 373 , . ^ ■ ■
right *o prevent the uae of a, founded not on iraad. bat on injury
(l.x, J to a right, 376, 383
abandonment and non-uwr of, 375, 3*2
what tonstitutt'S piracy of a, 381
lajuni tionf to restrain piracy of a, 375, 3M •* aeg.
notirc in-iov iasue of writ for not n onc at ar y, »S
,x ixirte, ;i.s2
who may t-u", 375, 376
wlio may 1" Mied, 377 , . , ■
plaintifr ntitl.Ml to injam>Uon « a rale tfcrongh infriBg.-
ment innocent, 383
reg;»ter not notice U) pabUv of r*«istored maik ^
delay and acquieacence, 381, 382
no reUef if there be iwarepreawitaUon by idaiatiS, "7 «* /
7»1
itijuBCttoBH '•omtimue^
we of ■<! " patout ' for •rttrlai ii^ fm u alm i ,
ivtlat*'' .iiinri-prMH'ntutimi by pWatifl, Hh*! of, SW
«art«tt r*f injunction tM
fDnn ■' injttni-tii'r ;i
Umitftl injoiki'ti"
«(|[t>iit». ictitraiiii
ar. .Hint, 3«,.
inqdiry a-- to dotiijigea. '>
diM-over)- fur puri^ r..^ >{ n -onai or inquiijr M to
liomagps,
• "Im for I 'nr>wd <■ uis »h iv-
cost '^'i ^ , 4<J« ••'<«' >87 (
TH ,i)E NAME,
uiw of own iiami sS*.
of articl. , wi h ■ t- lvnoin«' (rf)
o£ . Wip; 3RS
part> >-r«}i.
flnti ■im^, • inew, 379
M- ^yee, r. f *• hy i. 'h former employer, 368
rigb f*Mf S' ^ -.ainm. Sl-
ot ct>n.puty < -■■i«U- I t- ivf, SM— AM
" incorpoi!f««l ^leeosstar
iU}>roppr II of letl«tr» A. 3W (•)
.apror - u*- of lottor* »• A.," S70
ill. ncti. n »tra *urp of, 3a7
^ aerdup wci
TSADE TTKION,
aetiona f -r t«-' • '■inat, 32T
nn from, 609
ijunc '> r. »ti .1 nil .iipliiatkm of fnndt by, 666
- \: \' AC- 1871, m6...321, 322, 604
-ii. r> \" ACT, 1913... 666
rw \.\ R,
; .^tiv Mim tions to roatrain the, 626—028, 629
f ,.k rertrain the, 621—624
vA.N iTio:-
rop. right ill, . M iuUi, 392
TREES See riwber, TTaefe
other Aw timber, 33
752
iMon.
TRKES— (OH M'nii('(/.
exception of, 53
ornamental, 85- H7 ^ on
cutting young, .onus within prin. ipl.- of equitable warte, 89
property in dead, 54
OTerhanging iLemmon Webb, Smith v. Oiddy), 148 (c)
■preading root*, JMenda 148(c), 205 (»)
TRESPASS,
when iustiliaW.-, 106, Addimda 106 (rf)
iu what oases of trespass an injuncUou formerly granted, 101
effect of Judicature Act, 102
founded on possession, 109
principles on which the Court interferes, 103 et seq. .
injunction granted though not destructive, 103
not granted as matter of coarse, 104
not where triHins;, 104, 105
when granted for the removal of buUdings, 106
when granted to reetrun child from entering hi* paw«t t house,
106
if continuing trespass, injuiution as rule, 109
trespass by officials of the Crown, 112 , . . . ,,4
trespass by oompanies or bodies, incorporated by rtatate, US
et *eq.
principles on which the Court interferes, 112-115
where a company steps ont of the limite preser.b.'d by
no injunc'tion to restrain a company in powessittn under
a legal or equitable title from continuing in poMSMion,
115 „ ,
if th.- trespass affect the public interest the Attorney- Geoersa
must sue, 1 10
private persons may sue, if specially injured, 109-111
in what oases the Attorney-General need not ahow damage
to pubUe, 111, 112
account as incident to injanotiOM against, 144
limited to six years brfore action, 145
exception, if there be fraud, 145
of minerals, cliarg<>s, allowances, Ac, 145, 146
enquiry as to danuiijes. 14()
measure of damages, 146
interlocutory injunction agiiust, 104
perpetual injunctions against, 104, 105, Addei^ 106 (*)
mandatory injunctions against, 107, 108
TKIAI- OF ACriON,
mude of, 665-669
, oxp«liting, after motion for wjnnotion ntwi, MB, Ml
IMDIZ.
768
TBIAL OF A0nON-c»iif»Mi«f.
Mtly trial, 661
TBIAL OF QUESTIONS ON WHICH EIGHT TO INJUNCTION
DBFBNSS,
mode of trial, 686
TRIVIAL.
injanetion not grant«d in triri»l oaM, 7, 33 ; but see AM«»d0
34 (p).
TRUE AND FIBST INVENTOB, 346
TRUSTEES,
bre*ohe« of trust by, restrained, 524
improper sale by, rectrainad, 521
guilty of brsMh of trtnt, rMtratood from reoeivias trait fundi,
687
for public puiposea, injunctioM agmintt miMp^iaatioB of trust
funds by, S24
injunction enforced against new trustees, 523
under trust deeds for reli^ous bodies, injunctions against, 524
under trust deeds for '^;e purposes of nducation, injunctiooa
against, S24
of the fee, right and duty of, in respect to waste, 71
(rf a twn of yaara vithoot impeaohmeni <>f waste, 90
to praawva ooutingeat remainders, injunctions at rait of, 71
em
TUBBABT, W
VITMA VIBB8.
acts void at law, 568
doetrine i^idied reaaonaUy, 6«S— 670, 691
pf«waadlin«a to rwtMin br tiM AMaraagr-<3«unl, 6M, S60,
6S7
disoretian of AttonMy-Oeoeral aa to atdaff, 660, 6S7
diamtion of Court as to granting injunction, 660, 687
private person, when entitled to sue, 551, 569
acts cannot be ratified if ultra viret the company, 561
acts can be ratified if ultra vire» the diieotors, 661
acts restrained, instances of, 548—668, 66^
68»-6S0, AM«nda 664 (ir)
May in appUo^joB tat iajaaetiea, 684
UMPIRE,
injunction restraining him ftrom acting, 633
UNDEBLESSEE,
urtfaiiwrf tnm mwmitHwg
U.
li
764
ihdh.
UNDERTAKING,
with the Court hM the effect of an injunction, 685
as to damageB, 29, 30, 31, 66»-««l
i;iiti hr given by a married woman, 660
not rc-quirod from Attornoy-Oencral mting for Crown, 31, 660
hy company or corpDriition, 659, 660
by Secretary of State, t>60
extent of, 661
Court cannot rompul, 660 ^
breach of, 685
remains in force, notwitlistaniting dismissal of action, 660
enquiry aa to damages, granted on, 682—684
how enforced, 685
UNDERWOOD,
ri^t to out, S3
equitable waste in, 89
UNITY OF TITLE. See Eatement.
USER.
whii h may be made of lands taken by a company under sUtutory
powers, 553—856
of an invention amounting to infring^ent^ 335
USER OF LAND,
covenants restricting. See Covenant, Agreement.
VACANT LAND,
nuisance on, liability of owner, 154
VETEBINABT SURGEON,
company restrained from falsely representing its officer as quali-
fied, 58S
VEXATIOUS ACTIONS ACT, 1806,
order under, restraining institution of proueodings, 609
VIADUCT,
deviation by railway company in respect of. 132
VIBRATION,
nuisance from, 2U4, 206, 20T
VICAB,
interferwco with in benefici, restrained, 508
VIEW,
interference with, not restrained, 181
unless act in itself unlawful, 182
VISITORS,
exclusive jurisdiction of, over charity, 595 — 597
Court will interfere, if breach of trust by, 595—597
iHDn.
785
VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT,
of chattels or real estate binding on settlor, 688
injunction against defeating, 523
tnut for payment of debte, when binding, S23
VOLUNTABY WASTE, fll
WABD,
intercourse with, restrained, 633, 634
nuurriage with, rMtrained, 633, 634
WAKREN,
waste in, 57
WASTE. See Equitable Watte.
definition of, 60
meliorating, SI
Tolontaiy or permiuiire, SI
in what caaes punidiaUe at common law, 52
in timber, trees, Ac, S2, 83
what trees timber, 52
cutting underwood, when waste, 53
exception as to tiiuU-r i'stat«;s, 53
rights of copyholder in timber, 54
estovers, 55, 56
iu gardens, parks, warren^ &c., 56
in mines, clay, gravel, ttona, *c., S7— 69
attovera, 69
in tnrves, 60
minea, clay, gravel, Ac, on copyhold land, 60, 61
by alteration of property, 62
ploughing up meadow land, 62
coaverting arable land into wood, 62
covenant to cultivate not enforced by mandatory injunction, 63
injunctions to restrain, principles upon which granted, 48
not granted in trivial case, 48
unlesa intention to continue, 49
or right to commit, claimed, 49
delay" in case* of warte, not as a rule material, 49
aoqnieaoenoe, may be bar to iiynnctioiu, 60
action for damage* for, not aMig naM e> 97
by bad cultivation, 62
in buildings, houses, Ac, M
permissive waste, 05
removing fixtures, ($6 — TO
injonHi' igainst, at suit of remainderman, 71
. . .r.. (diMindcrmaii, 71
. . jermaa for life, 71
trSkidea to preserve contingent rwa a ind or a, 71
) bjr tMMBt Cor lif% 71
766
imobL
WASTE — .»titmed.
waste hv ti nan* 'n tail, 72
it'lT |)()99 ibilitv of issue extinct, 73
'.villi till' icvorHiou in tlir Crown, 74
b\ ti i,.iiit in (fi- will) ixi^iutoiy devise over, 7-k
by tonant un.li r l. as.- for lives perpetually renewable, 74
by coparceners, t< imnt« in common, and joint tenant*, 72
by copyholders, 7S
by lord of manor, T3
by ecclesiastical peraoni, 79—82
by niortgugee in poaaewrion, 76, 76
by mortgagor in poaaeaaion, 76, 77
if sc< urity be defective, 7tt, 77
by pur. ha.tcr in (lossesaion before payment of moniea, 77
by tenant, "t*, 79
bv collusion, 91
owner of rent-charge not entitled to injunction to restrain waate
by owner of land, 77
account as incident to injunction, 93—97
where injunction cannot operate, 94
Hmita of, 9»-97
between tenants in common, M
efftM t of delay on, 97
mesne remiiinilcrman, not entitled to, 96
waste, damages for I'qttitablc, 96
perpi'tual injunction against, 97
alteration in law of wast»> by .Settled Eatatea Act, 1877...»»
by Settle<l Land Act., 1882.. .98
by Agricultural Jloldings Act, 1908... 99
by SmaU Holdings Act, 1908. .100
WATCHINO AND BBSBTTINa. 324. See Trade tHfuie:
WATER. See River, Stream.
rights in rutuiing, 229 et leq.
not tiowiug in a defined channel, 241
Mowing from undergfoiiiid, 238
in mines, 253
aurfaoe, 2A0
anbterranean percolating water, 2S1
may be drained away from wdU, 261
may not be polluted, 262
drainage, 263
diversion of, 236
escape of, 254 e< »eq., Aidenia 254(1)
flood, 256. 257
deed of grant of, 267
im^cation of grmt of, on aereruioe, when, m 2W
IMDHX.
WATER— oon<jn«trf.
new rightH in. nut coBMotad with MtjoymMt of lond, not to b«
created, 232, 258
eM«&«>ta in, aoquired by prejicriptioii, e( »eq.
•Iteration of mode of user of, 244
abandonment of, 246
intermption of the acquisition of a prescriptive right to, 24*
injunction agaitiHt cutting off supply of, to a home, 264
WATEIKOL RSE. S.«- Hiror, Stream, Water.
detinition uf a, '. >1
artificial, 230, 248— 2S0
ri^ta and liabilities of partiea in an, 24»— 2W
oanid, 249
drains and gotten, 208
implication of grant on severance, 269
pri'Hcriptive rights i i, 240 — 245
abstracting water from, 236
fouling or obstructing, 23'J, 250
injunctions against, 239, 240, 250, 260, 261
entering upon land to repair a, 242
WATERWORKS COMPANY,
restrained from cutting off supply of water, 264
WAY,
mode* of acquiring tJie right to a, 276
grant, 275—218
parties entitled to ue viitow of gnat, 281
limits of right when aoquired hgr, 278— a»»
reservation, 283
prescription, 278, 284 — 286
limits of right when aoquired by prescription, 286
repair of way, 281
way of necessity, 287—290
direction of, 290
ri^t lost by abandonment and non-uaer, 291
Mtspenaion bjr, alteration of d«mufaHrt tenement, SM
extinguishment and mergar, 292
public and private way ovw same road, 292
injunction to restrain the obstruction of a, 293
locking gat. s, aji obstruction though keys offered, 294
reversioner, when can sue, 293
claim to private way, how pleaded, 293
deviation, right of, enforced by injunction, 283
tenant cannot acquire against co-tenant of lessor, 286
obatniirfioa of private, i^iatroetMA in paUic road, 394
■hat—IB* id, m
768
ownnr of land may nbstrart imbterMneaii water from hit neifli-
bour's, '251
but may not pt.llutf the subterraiwan supply, M2, 2M
WHARF. 8** Hurprettum. .''ti isane e.
injunction ugaiiist oliitrui'ting mneen to. 270
VVHISTUNU FOH CABS,
after midnight, T«itrailied, 204
WTNDIN(1-UP,
petitiMi for, injunction againat, t>20, 037
proeeeiingft afptiiMt company rwtnun** alter commencemaM < ,
i), 619
WINDOW. See Air, Light.
opening a new, invading privacy, 181, 182
sfaatting out u pleasant prospect from a, 181
ereoting dixagreeable objects in view of a, 181
altering »n old, 195
iigreement om to windows, 193
WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT OF WASTE. See Tettant for Life
Without Impeaehmtmt of Watte.
effect of this clause, 83, 84
WORKS, PUBLIC,
construction of, 110, 158
must be executed, bond fide, 116, 158
rule at law as to damage resulting, 168—166
WRIT OF INJUNCTION,
does not now issns, 1, 643
THE END.
Muowwv, unmm, fe oo. u>.. nuimuM, uHwiHi *in> itmsMtwc.