CORNELL UNIVERSITY LAW LIBRARY The Moak Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14, 1893 IN MEMORY OF JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN FIRST DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daughter A. M. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS Cornell an Library KD 1949.U55 1 iii UNDERHILL’S LAW OF TORTS. LONDON: PRINTED BY C. F. ROWORTH, BREAM’S BUILDINGS, CHANCERY LANE. PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. celleins Tue fact that a thousand copies, constituting the First Edition, of this Work were sold in less than five years, and the Second Edition in little more than two years, renders it no longer necessary to apologize for its existence. Although so short a space of time has elapsed since the Second Edition was issued, several important changes have been made in the law, particularly in relation to Statutory Torts, and to the doubt thrown by the Court of Appeal on the law relating to Felonious Torts. The Employers’ Liability Act, 1880, has also been passed. These matters have all been treated of in this Edition, and all leading cases decided since the last Edition was sent to press (amounting to over 150) have been noted up, and the whole book carefully revised. Many of my friends and clients have expressed sur- prise that an Equity and Conveyancing Counsel should have written a treatise on the Law of Torts. The Vi PREFACE. answer is, that every lawyer, whatever his speciality may be, ought to know the principles of every branch of the law; and, in my student days, my endeavours to fathom the principles of the Law of Torts were sur- rounded with so much unnecessary difficulty, owing to the absence of any text book separating principle from illustration, that I became convinced that a new crop of students would welcome even such a guide as I was capable of furnishing. The result has proved that I was not mistaken. Indeed, however useful the great treatises are for the practitioner (and to him they are invaluable), they are almost useless to the student. In the first place, to his unaccustomed mind they present a mere chaos of examples, for the most part unexplained, and, in the absence of explanation, seeming very often in direct contradiction. What student without careful explana- tion would grasp the difference between Fietcher v. Rylands and Nichols v. Marsland for instance ? In the second place, the men are few indeed who can trust to their memories to retain the contents of a large treatise with accuracy, and if they do not remem- ber with accuracy, they had better forget entirely. For these and other reasons, I am led to the belief that if a student will thoroughly master this work and the excellent companion volume (written on the same PREFACE, vil plan) by my friend and former pupil, Mr. Claude C. M. Plumptre, of the Common’ Law Bar, he will know as much of the principles of the Common Law as will suffice to make him a competent general practi- tioner, and to pass him through his examinations. I do not assert for one instant that it will enable him to answer every case that comes before him, but I am not acquainted with any man whose mental stock enables him to do this. In the vast majority of cases the prac- titioner who has any regard for his own reputation will turn to his digests and his reports, for however well he may understand the principles of the law, it is only very long practice indeed or the intuition of genius which enables him to apply these principles to parti- cular complicated facts with ease and certainty. To the student who reads this and the companion Work above referred to, my advice is to learn the rules by heart, and, where he has a law library at his dis- posal, to read in the reports all the cases referred to in the text. If he will do this intelligently, and not merely in a perfunctory manner, I promise him that at the conclusion of his labours he will have no mean knowledge of our Common Law. It only remains to render most grateful thanks to my friend Mr. Claude C. M. Plumptre, who has once more kindly taken upon himself the sole burden of revising Vili PREFACE. the whole of that portion of the Work which relates to particular Torts, with the exception of the Chapters on Nuisances, Trespasses, and Infringements of Trade Marks, Patent-right, and Copyright. By his labours mine have been greatly diminished, and the utility of the Work materially increased. ARTHUR UNDERHILL. 23, SoutHampron Burtpines, Cuancery Lane. March, 1881. op CONTENTS. —~+— PAGE PREFACE . : ‘ ‘ 5 . : 5 @ oF TABLE OF CASES CITED . F ‘ : , ; . Xi PART I. OF TORTS IN GENERAL. CHAPTER I. OF WRONGS PURELY Ex DELIcTO ‘ 3 4 a MB CHAPTER II. OF Quast TorTs. > . . . ‘i a . ot CHAPTER III. OF THE LIABILITY OF A MASTER FOR HIS SERVANTS’ Torts . $ 7 : 3 ‘ é 3 . . 41 CHAPTER IV. OF THE LIMITATION OF AcTIons Ex DELIcTo . 3 - 70 x CONTENTS. CHAPTER VY. OF THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS OF TORT . CHAPTER VI. Or Insunctions TO RESTRAIN THE CONTINUANCE OF Torts PART II. OF RULES RELATING TO PARTICULAR TORTS. CHAPTER I. Or DEFAMATION CHAPTER II. OF MAuicious PROSECUTION CHAPTER III. OF FALsE IMPRISONMENT AND MaALictiuus ARREST CITAPTER IV. OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHAPTER V. OF BODILY INJURIES CAUSED BY NUISANCES PAGE 90 . 108 » 123 . 12. - 150 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VI. OF NEGLIGENCE ‘ z F ‘ 5 3 ‘ ‘ CILTAPTER VII. Or ADULTERY AND SEDUCTION . CHAPTER VIII. OF TRESPASS TO LAND AND DISPOSSESSION CHAPTER IX. OF PRIVATE NUISANCES AFFECTING REALTY CHAPTER X. OF FRAUD AND DECEIT CHAPTER XI. OF TRESPASS TO AND CONVERSION OF CHATTELS CIIAPTER XII. OF INFRINGEMENTS OF TRADE Marks AND NAMES AND PATENT AND COPYRIGUT F : ‘ ‘ CONCLUSION . xi PAGE 163 . 179 . 190 . 229 « 238 i eS TABLE OF CASES. ——~~—. iA PAGE PAGE | Ball, Ex parte..............29, 31 ApporT v. McFie ......00008- 169 | ——v. Ray...... d aidiienal davies 151 Acton v. Blundell ...... «es. 220 | Balme v. Hutton ........... . 242 Adair: YOUNG. sicaiossaus os 262 | Bamford v. Turnley ....... - 205 Addis v. Westminster Bank .. 233 | Barnesv. Ward.......... 150, 159 Aldred 7. Constable.......... 239 ) Barry v. Croskey ............ 37 Allen v. Howard ....... vs... 50 | Bartonshill Coal Go. ». Reid 42, 58 — 1. New Gas Co. ........ 58 | Barwick v. English Joint Stock Allsopp v. Allsopp .......... 111 Banke. iis dense otaarn matics Alston v. Grant............06 151 | Baseby v. Matthews Alton v. Midland Rail. Co. .. 36 | Baseley v. Clarkson.. es American ClothCo.v.American Battishill 7. Reid ........ sine Leather Cloth Co. ........ 252 | Baxter v. Taylor ............ Ancaster v. Milling .......... 80 | Bayley «+. Manchester, &c. Anderson v. Oppenheimer ... 205 Rail. CO... csesice ves sees s » 47 Anderson v. Radcliffe ........ 194 | Bayliss v. Fisher ...-seseee es 86 Angus v. Dalton. .52, 154, 213, 214 v. Lawrence ........65 108 Arcedeckne v. Kelk.......... 216 | Bear rv. Stevenson .......... 233 Armory v'. Delamirie ...... 87, 243 | Beard v7. Egerton............ 249 Armstrong v. Lancashire and Beaver v. Mayor, &c. of Man- Yorkshire Rail. Co........ . 167 Chester 5. senwns es Werians 2% 192 Ashby v. White ............ , 8 | Beckwith v. Philby.......... 130 Asher v. Whitlock........ 194,197 | — v. Shoredike....... . i Ashwix v. Stanwix .......... 61 | Beddingfield 7. Onslow ...... 227 - Aslatt v.Corporation of South- Bedford v. M‘Kowl ...... 75, 188 BIMPlON: csv cacianra.d omsine Bell 7. Stone........ . 105 _ Aspden v. Seddon ——v. Walker.... 267 Assop ?. Yates os ccaxeons ssi Benjamin v. Storr ...... a Atkinson v. Gateshead Water Bennett v. Alcott............ 184 COs, daisies Lavesrnaeic eet 23, 25,27 | Berringer v. L. & S. W. Rail. Attorney- General v. Mayor, CO: sinks sonnei tac 36, dh 182 &c. of Birmingham ........ Binks 2. 8. Y. and RB. D. Aynsley v. Glover ..... +. .92, 216 COn wetiwes ts siaedesie gongs bay 108 Bird v. Jones...... cece eee ee 129 — r. Randall.............. 184 Birmingham Corporation v. AMON: x sieversisre tes waessatieniesie 4 210 B. Bishop v. Trustees of Bedford CATILY css cad geeisiss waters . 180 Back v. Stacy ..ecccceeen eee Blackman 7. Bryant ........ 114 Backhouse v. Bonomi Black v. Hunt ........ 114 Badcock v. Lawson Blades v. Higgs..........6005 146 Bagshole v. Walters . Blake v. Lanyon. bi 4 waeaER . 183 Bailey v. Walford .......... —— v. Midland Rail. Co. . 80 Baldwin v. Casella ........ Bloodworth v. Gray ....... . lt XiV PAGE Blyth v. Topham............ 159 oe v. Birmingham Water 6 dU Siets owen aaa TES 163 Bee v. Houlston .......... 264 Bolingbroke v. pen Local Boulnois v. Peate...sseeecses 254 Bower v. Cook ....... eidahsiers 196 ®. POate scsissses 52, 154 Box v. Jubb ........0006 . 16, 205 Boyle v. Tamlin ........... . 190 Bradshaw v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co......... Braham v. Beachim.......... Bramley v. Chesterton ... Brassington v. Lewellyn Brewer v. Dew.... v. oes se wee ences COs cays ouara bs bedceigvet si etorersieeatooate Broad v. Ham ...... Broder v. Scullard Brook vy. Asbton ........00- Brown v. Boorman . ». Dawson.. v. Robins .. YM. Watson ...ccccccase Bullen v. Langdon .. Burgess v. Burgess v. Gray...... Hesoanle v. Bayne Bury v. Bedford ............ 255 Butcher v. Butcher .......... Butt v. Imperial Gas Co. Byrne v. Boadle C. Calcraft v. Harborough...... 181 Calder v. Halkett 136 Campbell v. Scott Can v. Lambert....... new aa Canham v. Fisk............66 1 Capital, &c. Bank v. Henty .. 106 Carlyon v. Lavering ........ 220 Carpenter v. Smith .......... 260 TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Carr v. Clark....... wisesmnae LBS —— V. Hood ......-eeeee geaves 121 Carslake 7. Mapledrum ...... 14 Cary v. Kearsley ...... wee 265 Cave v. Mountain .......... ‘ Chandler 7. Robinson..... wee Chapman v. Pickersgill ——— v. Rothwell ...... Charles v. Taylor............ Charlton v. Hay .........04. Chasemore v. Richards.... Chatterton 7. Cave ....... hes a6 Chearin v. Walker .......... 255 Chester v. Holyhead Rail. Co. 1 Chinery v. Viall ....... eeees Christie v. Cowell...... wie is Christopherson v. Bare +43, 144 Churchill v. Siggers 1 Cibber v. Sloper City Cinmieones of Sewers Wis GG ASS ati as “SS cone gb elaine Clark v. Chambers ....11, 18, 165 v. Freeman ........ 95, 105 v. Molyneux ...... 118, 120 Clarke v. Adie .............. 258 v. Clarke .......... 98, 180 Clay v. Roberts........... -.. 105 Clements v. Chivis .......... Cliff v. Midland Rail. Co. Cobbett v. Gray Cockroft 7. Smith Cocks v. Chandler .......... Coggs v. Bernard ............ 39 Colley 7. L. & N. W. Rail. Co. 27 Collins v. Evans ............ 230 v. Midland Level Com- missioners ......... aisftiesantse 81 Compton v. Richards ....... - 217 Cook rv. Wildes...... «. 119 Cooper v. Beale... 146 v. Booth . 128 v. Hubbock ........., 216 v. Marshall .......... 227 v. Willomat ...... 239, 242 Corkery 7. Hickson ......... - 74 Coster v. Hetherington ...... 148 Couch r. Steel............0. 24, 25 Coutts 7. Gorham............ 218 Covell v. Laming............ 144 Coward v. Baddeley ........ 144 Cowles v. Potts....... -- 121 Cox v. Burbidge . -- 170 = Oy GIVE) ai creas eaeitinn « 194 0, WCC asin sie pe aeer scene 105 ——v. Mousley ..... Besattseers 194 TABLE OF CASES CITED. “XV PAGE Coxhead r. Richards ........ 120 Crane 7. Price ..........257, 259 Crespign Pe Wellesley ...... 117 Cresswe *. Hedges....... -.. 195 Croft v. Alison ag ZONE Rae a esa ceagia 43 Crossley +. Lightowler ...... 220 Crowhurst. Amersham Burial Beards iou4 snes aas cou 20, 165 Crump v. Lambert 11.11! 151) 208 Cubitt r. Porter ............ 196 Cundy v. Lindsay............ 240 Curriers’ Co. x. Corbet ia tisha. 93 Curtis v. Platt ....... ceseeee 261 Cuthbertson v. Parson - 55 D. D’Almaine r. Boosey ........ 266 Dalton v. South Eastern Rail COs s vemaesicvas airstos 80, 175 Dandi: 0’: Sextonieiey eis:e sagas 018 209 Dangerfield 7. Jones ....... . 258 Dansey 2. Richardson........ 192 Davis t; Eley oisassvxaeawe ces 137 y. London and. North Western Rail. Co... 83 @. Mann isc53. tdcasaves v. Marshall .. em vy. Russell ...... ieigisia aes v. Snead v. Solomon v. Williams Dawkins v. Lord Paulet . ‘118, 134 v. Lord Rokesby .... 119 Dean r. Peel ....... canzsiaue U8 Degg v. M. R. Co. ......-4.. 64 Delaney v. Fox.........000- 198 Dent 7. Auction Mart Co ..92, an Dere rv. Guest ........ ake Derry r. Handley............ “ue Dickenson v». Grand Junction Canal Co. ........ 219 ——— 1. North Eastern Rail. CO’. sicereieecd aeesaasecs 174 Dicks v. Brooks .........605 265 Dickson v. Hilliard.......... 118 Digby v. Thompson.......... 104 Dixon v. Bell ............ 79, 164 Dobell v. Stevens..........4. 230 Dobson v. Blackmore ....... . 227 Dockwray v. Dickenson...... 87 PAGE Doe d. Carter v. Bernard .... 198 —— d. Johnston v. Baytup .. 199 —— d. Knight v. Smith..... . 198 ——d. Marriot v. Edwards .. 198 ——d. North v. Webber .... 199 —— d. Oliver v. Powell..... . 199 Doswall v. Impey............ 133 Dublin, &c. Rail. Co.1. Slattery 167 Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Co. 212 Durrell v. Pritchard ........ 98 Dyner v. Leach..........6058 683 E. Eager v. Grimwood...... seve 188 Eardley v. Earl Granville .... 191 Eaton v. Johns..... sawnaiss xe LOS Edwards v. Clay ei ———_ v. Crock...... veces 181 Elliotson v. Feetham ....151, 208 Elliott, Exp. 2 Sracgparaes eayers orate 31 CMP .....eee eee ae —v. iisttus Iron Co. .. —— v. Sheffield Gas Co. Elsam v. Fawcett Embrey v. Owen ........ Erskine v. Adeane .......... Evans v. Edmonds .......... VEVANS, siscte0. tai vy. Walton .......0005 Every v. Smith.............. Faldo v. Ridge ....... esac’ Falvey v. Stanford Farley v. Danks ....... _ Feltham v. England ........ Fenwick 7. East London Rail. Og. sors aiahansid etaseiacel mara reset 91 Ferguson v. Earl of Kinnard.. 108 Fetter v. Beale .............. 83 Firth v. Bowling Iron Co...156, 165 Fitzjohn 7. Mackinder....124, 125 Fletcher v. Rylands...... - 28, 205 —— v. Smith............ 205 —— v. Snell ............ 234 eee wn eee xXvV1 PAGE Flight v. Thomas............ 20 Fordham v. L., B. & S.C. B. COs aa al siea sews vehemas 6 166 Foster v. Foster sas J8t v. Stewart....... ..- 183 Pouldes v. Willoughby ...... 238 Foulger v. Newcombe........ 114 Foulkes v. Met. Dist. R. Co... 40 Fox v. Broderick ............ 108 Brance ¢. Gaitdlet seas ceraaes 77 Francis v. Cockerell.......... 55 Franklin v. South Eastern Rail. COs saw amare eras ow sites 79, 175 Frearson v. Loe .. Frewen v. Phillips Fritz v. Hobson ...... G. Galway v. Marshall.......... 1l4 Gardiner r. Slade............ 120 Gathercole v. Miall.......... P21 Gauut v. Fynney.. 151 Gautret 7. Egerton .. «.. 159 Gayford v. Moffat .......... 222 Geddis v. Bann Reservoir.... 27 Gee v. Pritchard ............ 95 ce Omnibus Co. v. Lim- Gal sian cicaw'a Rasere vais 44, 46 Goes and Richard, the ..23, 174 Gibbs v. Cole... ... ccc eee eens 261 Gilliard vr. Loxton ‘ Gilpin v. Fowler ....,....08. : Gimson v. Woodful.. Pie Gladman v. Johnston . voy, LE Glave v. Harding............ 247 ayer v. South Western Rail. iia SaMSIy) arcualg ale eBighete wes 79 Gea v. Great Northern Rail. COs caiwdaks tecmecs iawn. f Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells SO rssicaractiaus ceuiehe Dave Wave crore 4, 97 Goodtitle v. Alder 10, 195 Cs, Gorris v. Scott . Gott v7. Gandy ‘ Gourley v. Plimsoll.......... lot Grainger v. Hill ............ 129 Granard v. Dunkin .. 1.0... 96 Grant v. Secretary of State for Unda). scsi G tesa ewe sens ae 118 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Gray v. Gray Great Western “Rail. ‘Co. 2. Bennett 212 oo v. Faweett 159 Greatrex v. Hayward....... . 222 Green v. Britton ...... . 110 Greenslade v. Halliday ...... 228 Greensland v. Chaplin ...... 168 Gregory v. Piper........ 49, 190 -—-—~-v. Williams ........ 80 Greville v. Chapman ....... - 105 Griffin v. Coleman ...... 130, 147 Griffiths 7. Gidlow .......... 63 —— ¢. Teetjen.......... 185 Gwinnell v. Eamer ...... 153, 167 H. Haddesdon v. Gryssel........ 239 Hadley v. Baxendale ........ 89 Qs ST BYlOP ss serdar x crecanieais Hall». Johnson ............ Hambleton . Vere Hamer rv. Knowles .. Hammack vr. ENY Seeceucnsae Vecten pases I4 Hancock v. Somes .......4.. 148 Hankinson v. Bilby.......... 105 Hannam r. Mockett.......... 191 Hardcastle v. 8. W. and Y. D TRAM © scesecsiese:& ésesevnyy acaseinincate 153 Harding r. King ............ 148 Hardman v. N. E. Rail. Co... 151 Hardy: ©. RYE s sicisscee soe ve Harrey v. Maine Harris v. Butler -9, 11, 18, 165 v. Mobbs . Harrison Anderston Co. .. 259 ——v. Bush ........ 108, 117 ——. é Taylor ...... 252, 254 Hart v. Humpack............ 118 hs Welln sei se desrere Garena -. 108 —v. Windsor ............ 156 Hartley v. Hindmarsh ...... 148 Harwood v. Great Northern Rail. Co Hawkesley v. Bradshawe .... 117 Heather v. Farden .......... 1dl Hedges rv. Tagg.............. 186 Henderson +. Broomhead 120, 134 —————— v. Maxwell ...... 264 Henwood v. Harvison........ 11s TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAGE Heslop v. Chapman.......... 124 Heydon and Smith’s case .... 87 Hide v. Thornborough ...... 214 Ut Bryans. acces. g sis oxsei siete 258 —— v. Metropolitan Asylums Board: ess as evista isa cs eaas sie 205 Hinks rv. Safety Lighting Co... 261 Hinton v. Heather .......... 124 Hiscox v. Greenwood ........ 241 Hodgson v. Scarlett...... . 119 Hogg v. Ward .. . 131 Hole v. Barlow.......... a 207 Holkert. Port «...06.¢028 vee 221 Holloren v. Bagnall.......... lit Holmes v. Goring............ 222 v. Mather ............ 164 eee Co. .... 159 v. Worthington ...... 63 Holt v. Scholefield bm aces wits 113 Hooper v. Gruscott .......... 108 Hopper v. Reeve ............ 144 Houlden v. Smith............ 135 Houldsworth v. City of Glas- gow Bank ................ 233 Hounsel v. Smith ‘ Huckle v. Money.... Hughes 7. MacFie .. Hull v. Pickersgill Humphreys v. Brogden Humphries 7. Cousins .... . .202, 210 151, 156 Huntley v. Simpson.......... 124 Hurdmanv.North Eastern Rail. OOo eaasetspataee slatecaits 18 r Ianson r. Stewart .......... 104 Inchbald v. Robinson ...... 204 Indermaur v. Dames Irwin v. Brandwood .. Iveson v. Moore ..........6. J. Jacobs v. Senard ........ 195, 244 Jamond v. Knight .......... 218 Jeuner v. A’Beckett ........ 115 J6b G: Potions vsyseciwratsas 195 Joely, Morrison. .acccccsiaes 54 Johnson v. Emerson ....... . 123 —— 4%. Steer ccissesesene 88 U. PAGE Johnstone v. Sutton ......128, 125 Jones v. Boyce ........eeeee - 7T ——v. Chapman ............ 194 —— v. Herne: sivsssevcx 113 —— v. Stevens........ iste: eiese 84 Rant, digg Keene v. Reynolds Kelly v. Mid. G. W. Rail. Co. 126 —v. Sherlock .......... 75, 84 v. Tinling .......... 118, 121 Kemp v. Neville ............ 134 Kendillon v. Maltby ........ 115 Kennedy v. Panama Mail Co. 230 Kidgell v. Moore King, ?). Rosi. . sdicsiee seen cies Kino 7. Rudkin ............ Kirk v. Gregory Knight 1. Gex .......2.eeeee Knott 7. Morgan L. Lacy 7. Rhys ......eeeeeeee 269 Lafond v. Ruddock .......... 73 Lamb v. Walker .......... 82, 83 Lamine v. Dorrell .......... 247 Lancashire Waggon Co. v. Batzhu ghee ces cc eeaees 242 Lancaster Canal Co. v. Par- TBDY® s vicsisrs spa bieciote evens 159, 160 Dan grace v. Levy ....38, 929) 230 Latham v. Latham and Gethin 180 Latimer v. West. Morn. News 121 Latter v. Braddell 144 Laugher v. Pointer Laughton v. Bishop of Sodor.. 118 Lawless v.