This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ... Pjatonv. 'Mercer. also that the defendant did cause and make filthy water to 7 Hardres, 60. Volume run into the plaintiff's messuage, which water did pierce the walls of the plaintiff's dwelling and percolate into his cellar, to the plaintiff's damage. After judgment for the plaintiff it was moved in arrest ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ... Pjatonv. 'Mercer. also that the defendant did cause and make filthy water to 7 Hardres, 60. Volume run into the plaintiff's messuage, which water did pierce the walls of the plaintiff's dwelling and percolate into his cellar, to the plaintiff's damage. After judgment for the plaintiff it was moved in arrest that trespass would not lie upon the state of facts shown in this declaration. The point was undoubtedly well taken. The judges seemed to be of opinion against the plaintiff and advised the parties to agree. Thereupon the matter was referred to arbitrament, but the reference proved ineffectual. Finally, "after great J.KPJ?per wavering in opinion and arguings pro and con," judgment trespass. allowed to stand against the defendant. The court here evidently strained principle somewhat in order to sustain the judgment. The cause of action was evidently based on the idea of the defendant's responsibility for the consequences of harmful agents. But the point was somewhat doubtful after all, and later Lord Raymond explained the decision by saying that the allegation that the defendant made the water to run was the same in effect as if it had been said that the defendant poured the water upon the plaintiff's premises.8 This is certainly a rather strained inference, but it brings the tort within the conception of primary trespass and rationalizes the decision. In Reynolds v. Clarke (1725),9 an action of trespass was brought under these circumstances: The plaintiff was owner of a certain messuage and the defendant was the occupier of adjacent premises. The defendant had a right under the terms of his deed to have the rain, which fell from his eaves upon the land of the plaintiff, carried off over the said land; but it did not appear that the...
Read Less
Add this copy of The Foundations Of Legal Liability: Common-law Actions to cart. $25.72, new condition, Sold by Ingram Customer Returns Center rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from NV, USA, published 2023 by Legare Street Press.
Add this copy of The Foundations Of Legal Liability: Common-law Actions to cart. $35.17, new condition, Sold by Ingram Customer Returns Center rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from NV, USA, published 2023 by Legare Street Press.
