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>. <. 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. 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. 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 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 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;{, ',-. 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, 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, 2u4. 295 Lampon t>. Corke. 437 ur CAHBH. LuMim n t'neiunatif Tube i'o. r. I'l.illipH. 452. 457 LuncHMhire ;iniiv<'(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>i. 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'.. :\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 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 .<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 aMtcni 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'. Lon7. 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'. Iti', 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»tti4 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..'>, 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. 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 ., 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. 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 .<. 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. ■^••<r»tion, 436 — — '•• Moxoii. (18.5 r. I'ttiw, KM. in,, Howlttliil, .V.U P. Soot I. .5o«, «40. HUl '' ''fumfonl, 403, 418 S 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 .SH — ^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.. 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. . 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, .>»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. 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 («) Jr< 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'/" 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«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 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., 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) 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 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, «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 uning 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. ,Srot.{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 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. 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 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 EU.; 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
. 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™*'' tira, 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. nierlal '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 (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«ra{ 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, ; 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 . p. Ch. 875. 329; Curriers' Co. T. Cor6ai,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) 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. 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 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- ierly 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. Saunmis(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) 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. {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 llmttatir 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. /«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(mltrmatio»t. Chap. X. (") Fmrant v. Lnvtll, 3 Atk. 72. [j-) .I/(is..)i V. MaMii, Fl. & K. 42'J; .Ve 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. 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
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- frr. 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^). 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 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) 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»>)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. (- («) 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 i9 ; 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 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). (— 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 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 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). 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; !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'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*'rj>orat., 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>arany 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. (- 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 () riiHini/ y. Lniidoti, Clmlham, ami horer Hailnny Cii., .'i D. J. & S. im : .» Ti. .1. Ch. 505. (o) Mar'„., 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 ; »>. 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) 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. (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 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. 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:.,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>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, / 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, 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 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!. 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. 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, mirell 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 Brymbok, 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$- y. WutmitMler Vorforation, (1901) irirt Couneil v. Williammm and 2 Ch. p. 334 ; 70 L. J. Oh. 679 ; Snni, Ltd., (1896) 2 f a rival company, whtcl) does not allege that it has sustained dome private injury by such excess, though the act complained of may be injurious to the public interest (n). The right of prosecution given to the Home Secretary by the Act 21 k 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 31, does not supersede the right of persons aggrieved by a nuisance to have an injunctim (o). V. Faddinyton Corporation, (1911) 1 De O. £ J. 212 ; S8L. J. dt. 1A3 ; K. B. 868, 974; 80 L. J. K. B. 131 B. B. 80. 7.39. (m) Att.-Qm. T. Tkamt$ Cimier- (i) Aa.-am. Forbt$, 3 11. ft vaton, 1 H. ft M. 1 ; Att.-Gen. t. C. 123 ; M B. B. 18 ; iMtau r. De Metrcpolitan Board of Worki, ib. He:d, 2 Sim. N. 8. p. 151 ; 21 L. J. p. 313. See Bxddulph v. St. Oeonje's Ch. 153; 89 B. E. 245: Att.-Gen. Vestry, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33 V. United Kingdom Electric Tele- L. J. Ch. 411 ; t7io;)/in5 ; John- 1 Q. B. 665 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. ftone V. I'nll, 2 1., 414; 25 621. L. J ■ '2: H'i 296; Bell (i) Semple v. London atid Bir- v. L uand Bai' n. , \Q C. B. mingluim BaUwoj/ Co., 9 Sim. 209; N. a W7 : SO . . C. p. 273; Me Thorpe v. Brun^/Ut, 8 Ch. 6S0; Jtiek*enr. Dnk$^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 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. ^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%!«Auration, 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. (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, (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. 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'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) 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»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 Ele. 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,-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 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. ('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?*** ) ISeo ll2(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 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';. -Mii ; 74 li. J. Ch. 621 ; Kine v. (1905) 1 Ch. p. 487; 74 L. J. Ch. ./'.//ent v. Aueiion Mart Co., (I90U;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, (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 (!• . 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) 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. irr 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»'< >\)er\y t-ad to .m xp^cta- tion is »ii ( anvpyed, th more i itfut n on tite part oi tho purchabi to buil uptm ■ not i<iivej. land with the buildinga erwAtd upt n it, the rig'it ' in< of he houses r/e /nf 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. .fed 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*« . 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; )> 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';) 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«itiUhirt 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 commut;»« 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 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. (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$iett CorponOion, 14T. L. B. 908; Att.-(irn. v. CorjioratioH of Man- ekattr, (1893) 2 Ch. 87 : ti2 L. J. Ch. 459: AU.-Oen. v. Corjnralion of .\, tiiii3)iiUtl Board, (1904) 1 Ir. B. 161. (o) Att.-Otit. V. CoTfcratioit ,r.MMmt,{int) T%i,p,„y, 11 H. L. 0. G42 ; 36 L. J. I Ir. B. 321. U. B. 66 ; Stiiri/e$ 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; 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) 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 ; 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$t Leigh merdmd, (1904) 2 Ch. p. 446 (n.) ; Collirry Co. v. Timnulifie * Co., 73L. J. Ch. 338(n.); BuUtrknowle (1908) A. C. p. 30; 77 L. J. Ch. rullieri/ Co. ▼. liithop Autklanl 102. huU'ttrial Co., (1906) A. U. pp. {*) Badkoutty. Bonomi, 9 B..luC. ti. 14 210 MUISAMCBB TO SUPPORT. cbkp. VI. damage oeenn by th« ramoral of the aupport MHliar th* eara — *' — and skill with which the works may have been carriad on, nor tlie unstable nature of the aoil, nor the difficulty of pcoppiog it up, will form any defraoe to an actioQ (a). The Mfttato ) Uarkhoutt V. BoHomi; Wt$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 (' 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>. p. 767 ; Sfw Sliarlttmi Cullitriet Co. v. Karl of nVa. 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) 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 ; 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. 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«< 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. (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 \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 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. 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 prof^np(»; 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/or2) 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. (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) 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. (■ ^ 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) 1 Ch. pp. 652,668 ; 71 L. J. Kx. 3.3; 105 R. R. 567; and see < h. ;t9b ; and see Whitmortt {E. 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. ;«»«; n7nGi,:;,,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 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 .'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.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) 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/, 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. (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.iirhr, 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.-r >\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 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 (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 ''..)•/...) 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. SeeaatothisdecHionjut,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. ur('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* made iu proceedings irijiimtion in»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 lil 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.- )■', ■■ \)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 ■<: 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. (ster v. WHrblinyUm Vrhan I •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 "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,arprwte 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 (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 unity of possestion, will not prevent the Court frtnn luriding tliiif a now riglit of wiiy as appurtenant to tiw UM 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. (;reI> 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. (, 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. i 1 ciiri iugp niul horsAs ,»nd tli»' ordinary traffic ^'^»t ^ t- < 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. 59(); 44 L. J. Ch 685 ; l^oiiiersft V. (Inat i\'f$terii liaihraii Co., 46 L. T. 884; H7,ioAm* ^^^^^ circumstsnoes as will satisfy the provi8i) Dand v. Kingirote, 6 M. ft W. 174; 9 U J. Ex. 279; Pnmd v. naU$, 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. ( 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 ; Uarritining 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. H7n„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' 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 Lyminon 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<). 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) 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$tmt Bait. K.I. p. 38; Afarfin v. Liberty ,t Co., (1»03) 1 Ch.p. l-2(i; 72 L.J. Ch. 63 : Central London BaUway Co. r. City of London Land Tax Com- miuionert, (1911) a Ch. pp. 473 474; (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. pp. 26 27- (1913)A.C.3M; 88 L. J. Ch. W (d) Thomfm T. Hitknum, (1907) 1 Ch. 660, AM ; 7« L. J. Oh. 264. (e) In re White', Churltiet, {mi) 1 Ch. p. 666 ; 67 L. J. Ch. p. 433. (/) Doe V. Pearny, 7 B. ft 304 ; 31 fi. E. 209; Orot, y. Wml 7Tauiit. ;J9; 17 B. B. W; Db. t, Ilamptim, 4 0. B. 387; 17 L. J. C. P. 226; atmpem y. Dmdy, 8 O.B.N.8.4S8; Curti, y. Ke,te, en County Council, 45 C. D. 604 ; 60 li. J. Oh. 103 ; Counteu of Bilmore V. K«U County Council, (1901) 1 CSi. 878 ; 70 Ifc J. Ch. 601. See 806 NUISANCES TO HIGHWAYS. Ckaf. VI. of (rrouiul botwucn the fences, and not merely to tb« {mH — ^atll — which may be metelled (g). Rtl^ilavMr Hi'iiif,' owners of the soil f 11 highway, the adjacent pro- jj^jjj^ prittun* htivo a right to all oiainary remedies for the free- hold, nnd may maiotain actions against any panoo iriw djfs up till Hoil or cuts down trees growing on the side of tha Nad, or left there for shade or ornament {h), or who exoaeda til* ordinary and reasonable user of the highway (i). The frea* hold und all tha iHR^ta of the soil belong to the owners of the Boil. ! 'm y may carry water in pipes under the highway, and have every use and remedy tliali is consistent with the right of passage in taToar of the publio and the provisitms of the High- way Acts and police regulations (k). If trees growing hij tha Kiisf V. llerkihire ('minty t'uiinril, (l!U2) 10« L. T. «4; 76 J. 1'. 3ft; Att.-Om. V. Lindtay-Huyij, (1912) W. N. 178; 76 J. P. 460. (y) Am T. Wright, 3 B. * Ad. Ml ; I L. J. (N. a) M. 0. 7« ; 87 B. B. A80 i /leg. T. Vniltii Kittf- uk$ 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 ), 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. 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 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»««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.- 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 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 ). 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 ( 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 declaratit, 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, 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 ( 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 y„a. L. J. P. C. p. 89; Glamoryttii ' oZ tive Htotietnasons, (ly02) 2 K. B 88 ' 0. V. .So«.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 wie 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. 3o(t. Hut see Kjiaul v. Monojiole ( 'yde Co., (1906) 2 t E. P. C. 647; Jiurl^yay. IIaiil V. Motiojiole CjfcU Cb,, aiiirni, and >""(. Sect. fl. (<•) lkr(jme 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^ . 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 ; Jiroyh<-. 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 <^ 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>,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 (., (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 .•) 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 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. >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- (<•) iriumdmimfO»., w.p.c. lao. i8B.p.o.m (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>/./) 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. \. {ildin. 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 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) 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. to ptope rty is a trade mark, mo Bwrhwr^t t. Cording 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, (190f ion. liy doing ho he would b.. sub ■lantinlly representiiif,' tho goosum(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* 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, 19ct 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'. . ,,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 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 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, 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 |>. 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 ) 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 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 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 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 eoDseotin 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 . !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 100 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 284 ; Ntwman v. (m) 1 1 Ha. p. 87. Kii-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) 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 '»"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 LimiiatiiM 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 mann v. Forrtter, 24 C. D. 231 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 946 ; Upmatm v. BlktM, 7 Ch. p. m ; 41 L. J. M8; ir« 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. 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 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;/ 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 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 > 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. Lct 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 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. 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 >*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 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 ier$ v. Drown, 6 W. R. 352; IloUen v. v 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«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 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. 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 ; () 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- ) 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. ( 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 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, $»pra; see niso Perli v. Saal/eld, iiipra. {<>) StiiilhaTd V. Lft, 3 B. ft 8. 3t>4 : 32 L. J. Q. B. 75. ( t>) Kemp V. Bird, 5 C. T>. 974 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 828 ; Brigg v. Thomtom, (1904) 1 Oh. 388, 395 : 73 L. J. Ch. 301. ('/) As to meaning of " adjoin- iiifr," soo Care v. Horsell, (1912) 3 K. B. 533 ; 28 T. L. R. 543 ; Derby Motor Cah Co. v. CrompUn, (191-3) 29 T. L. R. 673. (r) Itriaq v. Thornton, (1904) 1 Ch. .395; 73 L. J. Ch. 301. («) Wright v. Berry, (1908) 18 T. L. R. 3W. id! i COVENANT OR AGREEMENT. 4W There most be words in the inatrament capable o( aoatain- ing the raeai ing wliich is sought to be implied from thorn (/). . If tho Court is nble to collect from the language of the whole instrument taken together an agreement between the partiea that a certain thing ahail be done, there is sufficient to enable tlic Court to say that n covenant is created (w). It is not toinpetent for the Court to import a covenant which does not arise by necessary implicatimi from the language of tiie instrument («). When a man covenants to do a certain tiling, it is necessarily implied that Jve will not wilfully in- capacitate himself from doing it (»/). I£ he enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an im- plied engagement on his [wvrt that he shall do nothing of his own motion to put an end to the state of circamstanoes, under which alone the angomcnt can ho operative (r). A covenant by a purchaser of land that he will before the commencement of any building, submit plans for the approval of the vendor, involves the negative w enant that no building (() church irard v. T}f;i., L. E. 1 U. B. 195, '.Ml ; MiiUiind Railwmi I'd. v. Lmdnn nnd N> L. T. 201 ; Hol/ord v. Actim I'rUu, rH$trKt CouneO, (1898) 2 Ch. 240; 67 L. 3. Ch. 6S6. (m) Ri^ T. Oreat We*Urn Rail. n-a04) 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 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 Urha«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 ) . 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. (/<) Dnhy, (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 () 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. .ifiS; 63 L. J. Ch. WH; Do>,-9S ; Snnh'iifrlf V. Majriin- %tr 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. , 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!^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«, (1900) W.N. .S3. (•) /leiiily V. //enilerivn, II Exch. 194 ; 24 J. Ex. 324. (A) Uoimrd v. ll'eedwr. 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»ine»H {f), were held resaonable limito, and lo was a corenant not to retail milk in the " neiglibuurhuod " of u cortiiiii iihiii- (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'.> 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/) 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 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) 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 . 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 V. Uritish Aiittmohile Com- mercial S;/„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 .lr5) 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- .' .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 stipulatit 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'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/.», 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 (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.-') Maumelt t. Midkmd, Onat Wttlem ifaOwoy Cb., 1 H. * M. p. IK ; 32 L. J. Ch. 513. (ft) Lumlrif y. WittIioim (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<7n T., .1, Ph. .'174 : krfman, (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 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,;'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>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 v. Qomm, SO 0. D. y. MS; SI L. J. Gb. in n l^Mtt and Ao2 ; In re y-'M and PutW C./MfT. />«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. 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 ) 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 58; 61 L. J, Ch. 188. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST BREACH OP ti/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 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 (/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 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 Sodd, 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 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) 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. 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,.le,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 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 ( 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 '«;«««, (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 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«^ 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|,(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 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 \ / > 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}>. 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.- ) 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. 471 ; 49 (m) See (Ireen v. Ifmoell, (U L. J. Ch.26S ; r,irmuh49. 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. _ckhip 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'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 (»ooiii'>; 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 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'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<„„/,'iiitioii 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. Tlie»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) ()ieirnti,iii v. ///ir 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..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; 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.-. 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 . 77; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 143. Cf. (n) y/i .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 Ening 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 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>iM\ 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.nit,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. 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 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 ; Flitcrre«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 . 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, 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;.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. 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. Roam*»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 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 ,mi., (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 Hniouhaics 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 frre 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, :. 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 purpwe to attend thi meeting, and the pecuniary interest 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«« ; (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 ; ««««. 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,/t (o., 2 Uh. 319 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 727 ; Fi,.e (1912) >S f. h. R. :171» ; King,t,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'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/.« 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/ .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'. 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; /■;»i>iic bodin Public bodiea, tneoqjorsted by statute for a pubKo purpose, withiatMr **■' |>"'iiii ; 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/«. 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.-^' ^'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.-'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.-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. >lret(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 . 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/) 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 '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. (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' 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 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, ,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 (., 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; 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" : '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 •.> 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 C1 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 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 Eye 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 actien 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*»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 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 ) 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.. ( \ 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 !-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) Buriul Act, 18": (18 C 19 Vict. c. 128), g. 9. See (freenwwl V. iVtifltmrrtli, 16 E 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*. 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(liesseending 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, (-.) .»ooul>-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 <»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. < 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. 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 motir- (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, '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 { >"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• 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) 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(amtrth 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«( . 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 («} jrtB(irtli,6'HA.3l5. general |«MtiM that when an (m) Uraham v. Campbell, 7 C. D. antetddaf wu . 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 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., 8 U. ! . 1'. iWt; 51 L. J. riay V. Friillipi . 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 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 (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. 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., (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 (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»tin- - 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 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. 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 (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-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 : 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 ) 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'ostraiiicd 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 govprnetition, 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 «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 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 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 < 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 iuorA( 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 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, tiuroperty, 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<«truliii, 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, .lrtgi>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 Tolf 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«traineiiiing 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»'«wyright • ".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>.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>"'' 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 ■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 ^ , 487 ( 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 Settleta 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.