PrescriptionandCustom 10248899

PRESCRIPTION AND CUSTOM
ma
ix ga m
D el ivered in t h e O l d
d u r ing
Hila
Ha
f Lin co l n
Ter m 19 0 7
ry
ll
In n
B Y
T HO M AS
0f Linco ln
J O IN T E DITO R O F
Inn ,
H C ARSO N ,
.
f His
one o
a es ty s
CAR SO N S RE AL PRO PE RTY
TuD O R s LE AD IN G C ASE S IN
Co unsel ;
STATUTE S
C ON VE Y AN C IN
"
G
AN D
LO N D O N
SWEE T AN D M AX W E LL , LIM ITE D,

3 , C HAN C E RY LAN E ,
3 a h uh a hm
19 07
PRE FAC E
THE
followin g Lecture s w ere delivere d at th e requ est

O f th e C ouncil of Legal E ducation and a re publish e d
at th e re qu es t o f s everal o f thos e who h e ard th em
,
D uring th e deli very som e o f th e cas e s referred to in

th e following pages were stat ed at great er l ength ; but
otherw is e th e L e cture s are print e d substantially as th ey
w ere d elivered I may add here that sinc e th e delivery
o f L ectur e I V th e cas e o f A nkerso n v C o nnelly whi ch
is referre d to at page s 8 5 8 7 of that Lecture has been
afrm ed by th e C ourt o f App e al ( 19 07 W N
.
conv e ni enc e o f referenc e a full Tabl e o f

C ont ents and an Index o f C as es have b een add ed ; also
an Index o f subj e ct matt er which has b een prepare d
by Mr H F F G RE E N LAN D of Lincoln s Inn
For
TH O MAS H C ARS O N
.
6, N E W
SQUARE
M ay , 19 07
C O N TE N T S
PRE SCRI PTIO N G EN ERALLY

riptio n
PA G E
Mea nin g o f pres c

In
R mnl w
S tti h la w
In
Fren ch
In
co
N a rro w er
Via
to
la w
mea nin g in E n glish
la w
t in e un der w hi h de n ed p e
rt in pu el y in c
p e l he
do c
ce
title
or
fro m a ct s
res ul tin g
rs o n s a c u ir e
or a
o f u s er
title
ment s s u ch
a n d l a p se o f ti me
redit a
Us e o f w o rd in th e L ectures
C erta in
t xclud
s u b ec s e
ed
la p s e o f t ime
e ect o f
o r a c s o f u s er o n
it
t l e to
la n d
ipti n (in En gli h s n e) gen lly

Acqui iti n f igh t s b y de n ed p
n
Cu sto m di tin gui sh d
Di tin cti n b tw een
P e c ipti n in p e s n ; igh t s in g
Pre rip tio n in cu e t te igh t nn exed to l n d
igh t nn exed to l n d w h i h n b cqu i d
N a tu e o f th
ip ti n
by p e
Righ ts o f mm o n nd p t d p nd
E men ts
Mi c ll n u righ ts w h i h n b e a cqui d by p c ipti n
Na tu
nd h
n w hi ch p es iptive
cte i tics o f th e u s e
righ t s mu s t b
f un d d
G en e l ul e l id do w n by C urts
Which do n o t h o w ever a pply t o cl ims un de st tut
t li gh t
r es cr
erso
sc
e r
r s cr
r o
ro s s
s a
s a
s a
ca
e a
eo
re a
ro
a ra
re
re
r o
res r
r
7
7
8
cr
re
ca
r s
ra
re
a se
co
r s r
era
10
C NT NT
VI
Na ture a n d ch a ra cteristics o f th e u ser

Gra n t mu s t b e presumed
Wh i ch mu st b e a n a b s o lu te o n e
D o ctr ine rests up o n a cquies cen ce
co ntzn ued
PA G E
11
12
13
o n co n v en ien ce o f co
C a ses in w h ich a gra nt

N O gra nt pr esumed
mmun ity
ca n n o t b e p r es umed
An d is b a s ed
14
w h ere
te
gra n
tu
s a
&c
co n ra r
ic
t o pu b l
O r w h ere gra nt in co n sisten t w ith cu sto m

O r w h ere do min a n t o wn er ca nn o t ta ke b y gra n t
O r wh ere s ervi en t o w n er ca nn o t ma k e gra n t
O r w h ere serv i ent o w n er in ca p a ble o f pr even tin g
15
16
17
u s er
wh e e s e vient o w ne ign o nt o f u s e
O r wh ere u s er w s n o t a s O f ri gh t
Or
ra
18
18
E g
V73
.
15
19
O la/m
19
Preca mo
20
Unity o f po ssessi on
Mista ke
20
20
O r w h ere u ser ca n b e o th erw i s e expl a in ed

Perio d durin g w h ich eviden ce o f u ser mu st b e given in th e
ca s e o f cl a ims b a s ed o n
P esc ipti n t mm n l w
Pre ripti n b y lo t gr nt
P e criptio n u n de st tu te
( P es iptio n A t
U s in ca ses f l im und
r
sc
co
r s
cr
er
23
24
25
21
c a
er
th e
tt t
s a u e.
Ho llin s v Vern ey 13 Q B D 3 04
Smith v B a xter ( 19 00) 2 Ch 13 8
.
27
29
II
PRE SCRIP TI ON IN R ELATION T o WAY S

Priva te righ t f w y
Ann exed t p o p e ty
Kin ds f p p rty to wh i ch th ey ca n b e a nn exed
Righ t mu t be co n n ect d with th e enj yment
.
s o
ro
pr o p erty
f eren k n ds
t i o f w a ys
E xt nt f igh t m su
r
of
th e
32
Di f
32
31
ea
33
red
by
u s er
34
C ON T E N T S
Acquis itio n by prescriptio n
Th ree meth o ds O f cla im
Ca se
w h er e
s erv ien
m is ma d e
V11
O f priva te righ t s
PAG E
of wa
34
34
t ten emen t
is in l ea s e ;
w h er e
eect
cl a i
B y prescriptio n a t co mmo n l a w o r b y lo st gra n t

Un der s ta tute K ilgo ur v G da ( 19 04 ) 1 K B 4 5 7
Ques tio n s a risin g fr o m ch a n g es in th e pr o perty o f th e
,
do min a n
cs ,
36
37
o w n er
Ch a n ge in
ch a ra c er o f d o
Wimbledon
Co ns erva to rs
A cqu isitio n by do min a n t
min a n t t en emen t
v.
D ix o n , 1 C h
o w n er o f a
ddit
Su b-divis io n o f do min a nt t en emen t

Righ ts o f o wn er o f p riv a te righ t o f w a y
A
35
r ea s o n a b l e
As to
37
io n
363
38
ty
l p ro p er
39
39
pa s sa ge
rep a ir s
40
tio n
E xtin ctio n O f priva te righ ts o f w a y
B y st a tu te
B y unity O f seisin
B y a b a n do nment
Remedies a g in st Ob st u ctio n
B y b t men t
As to devia
40
41
41
41
38
42
B y l ega l pr o ceedin gs fo r
D a ma ges
43
u n ct o n
43
III
P RE S CRI P TI ON IN R E LA TI O N T O WA TE R
N a tura l w a ter co urses

N a tura l
r igh ts
in w a
ter
Wh er e ch a nnel d e ned
Righ t o f u
Righ t f w
Bigh t Of pu ity
s er
O rdin a ry
xt
y purp o s es
ra o rd n a r
a nd e
M cCa r tney v Lon donderry

.
( 19 04 ) A C
.
301
a nd
o f u ser
Lo ugh Sw vlly Ra ilw a y
47
v iii
C O N T EN T S
N a tura l w a ter co urs esco n nu ed

N a tur a l r igh ts in w a ter co ntinued
Wh er e ch a nn el u nd e n ed
ti
Righ t
Ca s e
B
a s
dfo rd
Righ t
51
51
t o o w
d e n ed bu t
F er ra n d , ( 19 02 ) 2 C h 6 5 5
w h er e ch a nn el
ra
PAG E
wa
no t
kno w n
t o pu r t y
Pr es cr ip tive r ig h ts w h ich ca n b e
n a tu r a l w a t er co u r s es
as
52
52
q i
in w a ter in
a c u r ed
Wh ere ch a n nel de ned
Righ t t
Righ t t
t
ll ut
diver
po
Wh er e ch a n n el u nde ned
C h a s emo r e v Rich a r ds , 7
A rticia l w a ter co urses
B igh t
to
a s
34 9
o w
N O n a tu ra l righ t
iptive
i gh t
res cr
Ru le in B
Dierent
Wh ere
r
a
ily
be
ca n
.
q i
a c u r ed
( 19 02 )
C la rk ,
1 Ch
668
ca s es
wa
er co u rse
fo r t emp o ra ry
co n s ru c ed
wa s
57
p u rp o s e
B
ur r o w s v .
n a ura l
58
er co u rs es
Wh ere w a terco u rs e w a s
Righ t
58
Wh ere righ ts
wa
La ng, ( 19 01) 2 C h 5 02
w ere t o b e s im l a r to h o s e in
p erma n en
to p ur ity
M is cella n eo us r igh ts w h ich ca n he
r esp ect of w a ter , e g
58
59
a s
a cq u ired
by p rescrip tio n in
Righ t t di h a ge w te f o m ro o f
Righ t t d w w te f o m n igh b u s p in g o p u mp
Acqu isitio n o f p e c ip tive igh t in esp ect o f w te
ip tio n t co mm n l w
By p
By l t g nt
U n d t tu t e
E xt n t n d m d f nj ymen t O f w a te igh t
Bu d n n vi n t ten m n t mu s t n t b in c
d
E t in gui h men t O f igh ts in e p ect o f w te
o
sc
ra
r s r
res cr
ra
os
er S a
a
e o
s er
r r
B y st a t u t e
B y u nity o f s eis in
B y a b a ndo nmen
r s
rea s e
59
6O
60
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
63
63
CO N T N T S
1X
IV
PRE SCRI PTION
RELA TION
IN
TO
L I G HT
PA G E
C o mp a ris o n o f n a tur a l righ ts in resp ect o f w a ter w ith n a tura l

righ
ts in
res p ec
res cript ive righ
o fl igh
ts in
65
igh t
E a rly decis io n s
Tw o diverg en
66
r es p ect o f l
66
t view s expre s ed in th ese
67
D es crib ed by
Va u gh a n Willi a ms L
,
K ine v J o lly,
( 19 05 )
1 Ch
67
487
F a r w ell J Higgin s v
,
Ca lls
B etts ,
Ho me Sto r es ( 19 04 ) A
,
( 19 05 )
2 Ch
69
179
Na tu re o f p res criptive righ t to ligh t sta ted

Nu is a n ce mu st be p ro ved
C o n sidera tio n s t o w h ich Co urt sh o ul d h a ve
decidin g
68
2 15
70
70
rega rd
in
o n n u is a n ce
C o n sidera tio n s a s to present

C o n s idera tio n s a s to fu t ur e
C o n s idera tio n s a s to p a s t
K ine v J o lly,
( 19 05 )
L igh t in to w n
a n d co u n r
Rul
e of4 5
1 Ch
( 19 0 7) A
4 80 ;
ty
degrees
L igh t fo r sp ecia l pu rp o se
A cqui s itio n O f righ t t o ligh t
Pres criptio n a t co mmo n la w
P
P
r es crip tio n
res cri
pt
b y lo s gra n
o n u n d er s ta
tu te
C a s e w h ere s ervient ten ement is

y ea rs
(a ) Ligh t
cl a
gr a n t
D o min a n
im d
e
i ti
by pres cr p
in p o s ses sio n
of
l es s ee fo r
79
on
co
mmo n la w
or
lo s
t
79
a nd s er vient
ten em nt
e
p er s o n s
O w n ed in fee by s a me p ers o n
( b ) L gh cla med by p res cr pt o n
i t
i i
s o w n ed in
iff
fee by d
eren
t
79
80
tt t
u n der s a u e
80
D o mina nt a n d servient ten ements o w ned in fee by dierent

p ers o n s
80
C O NTE NT S
PA G E
i
b
h
l
L
t
a
i
i
ti
t
t
t
c
m
e
d
r
sc
r
o
n
d
e
r
S
a
u
e
b
un
e
co ntinu ed
( ) g
y p
p
O w ned in fee by s a me p er s o n , o ccu p a tio n o f di erent
.
l es s ees
F r ew en
v.
Wh ea to n
F ea r
E ect
Ph illip s
81
M a p le
81
v.
Of a ltera tio n
D ecisio n s
E ect
of
A nk er so n
as
Aba n do nmen t
in do min a n
t ten
t o hi s b efo re Ca lls
Oo lls
v.
81
o rga n
men t
Ho me Stor es
82
v.
82
Ho me Stor es
Co nnelly ,
( 19 06 )
O f righ t to
ligh
84
2 Ch
85
544
Remedies fo Ob t u tio n to ligh t

B y w a y O f in j un cti n
r
s r
87
B y w a y Of da ma ges
Repo rt by surveyo r
87
89
PRE S CRI P TI O N
IN
R ELATI O N T O R I G HT S O P C OM M O N
PR O FIT S A P REND RE
AN D
Mea nin g O i
Righ t
mmo n
90
Pr o ts (2 p r en dre
Th e tw o e pr es s io n s
91
s o f co
x
n t kin d O f
mp a r ed
r igh t s o f co mmo n
91
co
s
D iffere
Co mmo n o f p a s t ure
C o mmo n o f es to vers
C o mmo n o f tu rb a ry
C o mmo n o f p is ca ry
L ib erty O f t a k in g min era l s ub sta n ces fro m a n o th er s
Oth er in sta n ces O f p ro ts d p rendr e
93
93
94
95
95
la nd
Pr o ts a? p rendr e in gro s s
A cquis it o n o f righ to p ro ts at p ren dre, w h ere cla m is b a s ed
i i
96
97
p r es cr p t o n
Pro ts a p rendre a ppur
on
95
98
ten nt
a
99
Pr o ts d p rendre in gro ss
99
Perio d during which , w h ere cla im to p ro t d p rendre is ba s ed
1
o n p rescriptio n , evi den ce mu st b e given O f enj o ment
0
0
y
C ON T E NT S
X1
PAG E
Pro ts d p rendre in a n o th er s s o il ca n no t in gen era l b e

10 1
cla imed o n b eh a l f o f a u ctu a t in g cla s s
ea s o n s
iven f
G o o dma
or
th e
Sa lta s h , 7 A
n v.
10 1
rul e
102
6 33
E xcep tio n s to th e rule

Cl a ims to co mmo n by co pyh o lders ba sed
Minin g cu sto ms
E xtin gui sh ment o f righ ts o f co mmo n
o n cu s o
103
103
B y
B y
t tu te
un it y f o wn ership
o
106
B y
r el ea s e
107
106
s a
B y a ltera tio n in ten ement t o w h ich righ t a nn exed

An d in ca se O f co pyh o l ders righ ts o f co mmo n
B y enfra n chi s ement
107
VI
108
C US T OM
D ifferent sen ses o f cu sto m

Certa in Of th ese exclu ded from L ectu re
110
110
Mo dern u s a ges
C erta in cu sto ms co vered by w ide sen s e o f cu sto m
Cu sto ms co n n ected w ith th e tenur e o f l a n d
C u sto ms a s to rep a ir o f ro a ds & c
is cell
a n eo u s cu s o
tur e
in L ec
cl a s s
ea s
ro
re
re
a s
to
na
Mu st a pply to
r s
f
limited
o
viz
a c ui res
112
title
to
112
112
112
114
er s
114
er
114
tu re
Ru les
s o
111
111
igh ts in n ture o f ements

C p yh o l d cu sto m exclu ded
D i e en ce b etw een cu sto m a n d p esc iptio n
N o n co p yh o l d cu t ms
Righ t w hi h c nn o t ris e unde
P t 2 p nd in n o th
s o il
Righ t w h ich c n a i e u n d
Righ ts in n ture o f e sements
In sta n ces
a
111
ms
Na rro w er s en se o f cu sto m dea lt w ith

D o ctrine un der w h ich u ctu a tin g
r
e.g.
110
n o n cop yh o ld cus to
ms
cla s s o f p ers o n s
114
115
117
117
x ii
CO N T E N T S
Ru les
a s
to
Mu st a pply to
Pl
a ce
To
To
msco ntinu ed
n on -cop yh o ld cus to
f
limited distri ct
na ture o
117
t ppli d
h bit tio n f cto rs
lo c lity O f a ct
limi
a
PA GE
118
118
Rel tio n to
a
Th e co mmo n l a w
118
St
119
Ru les
M
a tu e
a s
to
eviden ce
er cer v .
Denne ,
in
s upp ort o
( 19 04 )
2 Ch
n o n -cop yh o ld cus to
5 34 ;
Cu s to m mu s t b e immemo ria l
C u sto m mu st b e co nti nu o u s
User mu s t b e a s o f righ t
C usto m mu s t b e
C u s t o m mu st b e
2 Ch
5 38
119
12 1
12 2
r ea s o n a
119
12 0
cer a in
A cqui s itio n O f righ ts b a s ed
Meth o d o f cla im
( 19 05 )
ms
12 3
bl e
o n n o n - co p
12 6
yh o ld cu sto ms
130
13 1
E xtin guish men t o f th ese righ ts
13 2
A PPE ND IX
13 3
IN n E x
13 7
IN DE X O F C ASE S
Abb o t v Ho ll o w a y
Ab ercro mb y v F ermo y
.
Ambler
Go rdo n
An ders o n
Fra ncis
An gu s v D a lto n
.
Ank ers o n v C o n n ell y

Arcedek n e v K el k
Arkw ri gh v G ell
Arn o ld v H o lbr o o k
.
Att G en
.
Att - G en
A -G en
tt
Qu een A n n e s
S c tt
S imp s
Amh e t
Au stin 22
Ayn sl ey v
.
22.
v.
B
B
B
ar
a
a
ker
tt
ttish ill
a x en da
Ha rri so n
A bin gdo n
Ri h
c
en v .
96
To mlin s o n
Glo ver
rs
ll a rd
a rin
g u
v.
il ey 12 Steven s
B a il y v C la rk
B a ll a co rkish CO
B a ll a rd
Dys o n
B
CO
a r ds o n
G ed ye
le
v.
eed
M cM urra y
52
33
5 1, 5 3
9 9 3 10 8
16
109
33
18 , 2 O
54 , 6 2
62
I N D EX
x v
tt
B
B
PA G E
58
34
104
83
117
39
12 7
38
35
52
51
107
9
112
Trego nn in g
v.
Al ex a n dr a
'
v.
o w er '0
CA SES
Wea te
ees o n v .
B lew e
B o u rk e
OF
CO
Hill
db u rn v F o l ey
Bra db urn Mo rris
B ra dbury v G rin s ell
Bra dfo rd C o rp o ra io n v F erra n d
B ra dfo r d
ickl es
B ra ds h a w u E yr e
B reco n CO v N ea h
a l Co
B remn er
Hu ll
B righ 12 Wa l k er
Bro a db en v Wilk s
Bro ck l eb a nk 22 Th o mp s o n
B urro w s v L a n g
ra
t Ri
12 9
33
Brya n t 72 F o o t
.
17
21
a nn o n
Vill a rs
33
54 , 6 1
10 8
a r w righ
a
La s
76
h a mb er
v Ho w o o
21
p
h a p ma n
m h
23
ich a r ds
5 1, 5 5
C h a semo r e v
o rp o r a
h il to n a
o n o f L o n do n
9 6 , 10 1
la r
la r e 12
74
o rb
9 5 , 9 7, 12 5
l a to n 12
liffo r d
a rris
40
o lt
Cli o rd v
78
12
C lipp en s O il C o v E din b urgh Tru s ees
39
o l ch es er 12
o b er s
L a u gh er
78
C o lli e
6 7, 6 8 , 6 9 , 70 , 7 2 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 ,
o ll s v Th e
o me
77, 79 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 5 , 8 7, 8 8 , 8 9
22
o mmi s s o n ers o f
la s s e
ew ers v
54
B a rb er
o o p er
12 8
o o te
o rd
117
99
C t
C
C
CO
S it
R
C
C k
C y
C
C
ti
C k
C y
H
H
'
'
C
C
C
C o wp er v L a idl er
C ro s s 12 L ewi s
Cro s sley v Ligh to wler
.
88
80
6 2 , 6 3 , 64
I N D EX
OF
CA SES
XV
PAG E
D a kin v C o rnish
D a lto n v An gus
D a mper v B a s s ett
D a niel 22 No rth
D a sh w o o d v Ma gni
D a vies Steph en s
50
'
110
D a y 12 Sa va dge
D e l a Wa rr 0 M l es
D en
Au c io n Ma r CO
D o w gla s s u K en da l
D u nga rva n 12 Ma n s eld
D u nra ven v Llew el lyn
.
'
21 96
D yce 12 Ha y
.
E a st S to n eh o u s e C o un cil 72 Wil lo ugh b y

E a to n v Th e S w a n s ea Wa terw o rk s C
E cclesia stica l C o mmis sio n ers r Kino
E dw a rd s
Jen kin s
E lw o o d v B ull o ck
E mbrey
O w en
.
76 ,
F ea r
F ea ro n
Fin ch G W R a il C o
itz gera ld v F irb a n k
Fligh t 0
F o bbin g C o mmis s io n ers 72 R
F o rema n a Free Fish ers Of Wh itsta ble
F o s ter 22 W a rblingto n C o un cil
v.
'
Fo x
12 .
Vena b les
Ph illips
Frew en
G a rdn er
v.
H o dgs o n s Brewery
C a v ed v Ma r yn
G o l ds mid v Tun brid
G o ldsmi h v
G o o dma n v al a sh
.
Ha ll
Ha ll
S t
O ldro yd
N o t ngh a m
ti
Swift
104
100
74
96
117
93
115
13
19
78 , 8 2 , 8 7
116 , 118
116 , 118
50
81
9
34
97
28
9
9
62
16
3 7, 8 1, 8 2
Co
104
55
15
60
64
115
62
x vi
I N D EX
OF
CA SES
Ha mmerto n H o ney
Ha n bury r Jenk in s
119
PA G E
12 0 13 0
32
13
62
39
115
59
H a rringto n D erb y C o rp o ra ti o n
H a rris Flo w er
H
H
H ea th D ea n e
H ertfo rdsh ire C o un cil
Higgin s
Ho llm s
72 .
tt
7
v.
Th e N ew
R i ve
95
00
68
Vern ey
v.
28
Ho rto n v B eckma n
H o s kin s v R o bin s
.
Ivimey
Sto cker
r.
White
88
41
41
9 2 , 9 8 , 9 9 , 107
45
79
Pea rs o n
K elk
K en s it v G E Ra il C o
Kidgill v Mo o r
Kilgo ur r G a ddes
Kin e u Jo ll y
.
29
119
92
5 6 , 5 8 , 63 , 115
Ja ck so n v No rma nb y CO
Ja mes 0 Pla nt
Ja mes S tep h en s o n
Jo h n s o n v B a rn es
Jo h n Wh ite & So n s v J &
J o rdes o n 12 S utto n CO
12 9
9
7
75
56
43
L a n e 72 C a p sey
L a n fr a n chi o M cKenme
L a rge 22 Pitt
L a w r en ce
Hitch
L a w r en ce v J en kin s
L emmo n v W ebb
L o ck w o o d 22 W o o d
L
N W Ra il CO v F o bbin g L evels
.
11, 12 , 3 7, 8 O
6 7, 72 , 73
43
112
43
76
36 80
L o n do n derry
M c C a rtn ey
M cInr o y v D uk e o f Ath o le
M cIntyre v M cGa vin
R il
a
Ma ck ey
S co tti
sh
Wido w s
Co
Co
113
42
119
111
4 7, 5 0
29
62
76
IN D X O F CA
SES
x vi
PA G E
59
M a rtin H ea do n
Ma s o n S h rew s b ury R a il C o
Medw a y C o v R o mn ey
Merce
D enn e
9 9 112 116 119 12 0
Me ch a n t T y lo rs Tr us co tt
Midl n d Ra i l C o
G ribb le
Miller H n co ck
N ew F o es t C o mmis s io n ers
I
M il ls
Mill s T h M yo r o f C l ch es ter
M iln er s S f e C o v G N
City R a il CO
Min er 11 Gil mo u r
Mo n tgo me y Wa ll a ce Ja mes
Mo o re Ha ll
M o o re R w s o n
74
11.
r v.
v.
v.
v.
12 .
Mo tt Sh o o lb ed
Mo un s ey v Is ma y
r
2 0, 5 4 , 5 7, 6 1
50
, 12 2 , 123 , 12 4 , 13 1
13 2
42
40
15 , 100
19 , 12 2
38
49
12 2 , 13 1
72
6 6 , 8 6 , 107
94
43
7, 2 4 , 116 , 118 , 13 1
Na tio n a l Ma nu re CO
D o n a ld
Nea l D u ke Of D ev o n sh ire
N ea v er s o n v Peter bo ro u gh C o un cil
N ew W in ds o r C o rp o ra tio n 0 Ta yl o r
New co men v C o u l s o n
Nich o ls v C h a p ma n
No rfo lk ( D uk e o f) u Arbuth n o t
15
98
13 2
39
94
2 4 , 78
9
'
O nley v G a r din er
O rmero d v T o dmo rden
O utra m u Ma u de
18
49
18 , 20, 6 1
P k
ar
er 0
Fir st Av enu e H o tel CO
'
Pen da r ves
P pp in
P rry
Ph llip
e
r es co
Sh k
a
v.
tt
v.
un r o
12 5
es p ea r
E a mes
22 H a l lid a y
.
12 .
Ph illip s
Ra ce 0 Wa rd
Ra mesh u r v Ko o n j
Ra n geley 72 Midl a n d
'
76 77
Ra il
Co
83
22
126
15
12
60
95
92
57
54
6 0, 10 1, 115 , 128
56, 58
6
v iii
I N D EX
C h o r l ey
v.
R
R
R
R
R
R
PA G E
E ccles el d
v J o llif e
v Ro l l et t
B iddif o rd v
ivers ( L o r d )
o b ert s 22
.
a rn o ld s w ic
'
v.
CA SES
T a yl o r
Ra w s tro n
R
R
R
R
R
OF
111
4 1, 6 3
111, 118
12 1
111
4
21
v.
'
A da ms
t
t
o b er s 12 .
o b er so n
ob so n v.
Ha rt o pp
W h ittingh a m
da l e C a n a l C o
Ro e v iddo n s
B r en to n
o gers
o ll e v Wh y t e
Ru sh mer v Po l en e
o ch
R
R
43
95
74
16
8, 32, 33
10 3 , 12 9
54
75
o se
v.
Ra dcli e
'
S a int J h n B pti t C di Pa i
S li b u y G l d t n e
S lt CO J y
S tt P p
S lb y N ttl f l d
S h e i gh m C
il
H l ey
Sh u ttl w th L F l min g
Simp
F l y
Simp n Att
S imp n G dm n ch t
Simp n W ll
S kull G l n i t
S mith B xt
Sow by C l m n
a
ers
co
v.
r n
me
12 6 ,
s o
o unc
o e
so
so
12.
so
22 .
'
s er
er
v.
es er
er
o e
Sta o rd sh ir e C a n a l C o a
Sta igh t 22 B urn
in ger s
o ko e v
t urges v B ri dg ma n
u th erl a n d ( D u k e o f)
w n do n CO v Wil ts CO
'
'
Birmin gh a m Ca n a l CO
Ta plin g v Jo n es
Ta ylo r v W h it eh ea d
Th eed v D eb en h a m
Til bu ry 22 S il va
Timmo n s v H ew i tt
Tru ro C o rp o ra tio n v R o w e
Tru sco tt 72 M erch a n t T a ylo rs C o
'
'
16 9 5
34
12 7, 12 9
13 2
83
40
22
o s
or
er v .
St
S
S
S i
e o
r sh io n ers o f
r.
'
ar
6 , 9 7, 9 8 , 9 9
80
18
54
12 0
39
3 0, 78 , 8 3
116
16 , 20
83
86
13 , 17, 18 , 75
91
4 9, 50
11 77 79
40
76
10 1 10 2 13 0
116
'
IN
T urn er
12.
D EX
OF
CA SES
x x
PAG E
Crus h
110 , 116 ,
Unio n CO
L o n do n
v.
D o ck
Co
14 , 19
Wa ke 6 H a ll
10 4
42
W a rr en 72 B ro w n
Wa rri ck c Qu een s C o ll eg e O xfo rd
41
83
106
12 0 , 12 7
Welco me
Upto n
Wh ea to n 12 Ma ple
Wickh a m v Ha w ker
W igglesw o rth v D a llis on
Wil ki n s o n Pro u d
Willia ms v Ja mes
Wils o n v Willes
Wimbledo n C o n s erva to rs v D ixo n
W o o d 22 H ew ett
W o o d 12 Su t cliife
Wo o d 12 Wa u d
.
9 4 , 9 5 , 9 9 , 115
62
24 , 9 2 , 9 7
59
12 8 1 8 2
97
110
W yn s ta nley v
'
Lee
95
38
54
54, 59
57 59
61
15
49
42
Pa ge 6 lin e
,
6,
9 Fo r
or
652
rea
a nd .
r ea
PRE SC RIPTIO N
RES CRI PTI ON GE N ERALLY
s ubj ect is pr escription W hat is pre scription M i g

Th e wo r d as yo u k now is a Latin o n e which lit er ally g
fig
gg
i
m e ant a wr iting before a prefac e B ut it soon

a cquired S p ecial m e anin gs
and in Roman law it cam e in R m n
l w ;
to m e an th e cr eation o r destr uction o f titl es to pr op erty
wh eth er r eal o r p er sonal resulting fr om acts o f us er
and laps e O f tim e T h e wor d was applied n o t only to
Obligations rights in p erso na m but also to prop erty
rights in rem There was th e us ucap io and th e p o ssess io
lo ngi temp o ris which many O f you ha ve r ead o f Ind eed
to diver ge fo r a moment fr om th e p rovince o f law into
th e p r ov in c e O f th eology som e o f yo u may k now that
th e early C h ristian writ er T ertullian wr ote a book to
which h e gave th e nam e Prescription

In that book
T ertullian who was a Roman advocat e called in aid
th e doctr in e o f p r escr iption as it exist ed in R oman law
for th e purp os e o f d efeating th e arg um ents O f an h ere
tical s e ct k nown as Gnostics
(See Dr Salmon s
L ectur es o n th e Infallibility O f th e C hur ch p
O UR
ea n n
n ,
RES CRI PTI O N
{Eg
Passing to
a lat er tim e tak e th e law o f S cotland

which e mbodied many O f th e p rinciple s o f th e O ld
Th ere w e nd that pr escription is either
Roman law
positive o r n egative Positive p rescription in S cottish
law says Mr E rsk in e is g en er ally den ed as th e
acquisition O f p r op erty by th e poss esso r continuing his
poss essi on fo r th e tim e which th e law has d eclare d
sufcient for th at pu rpos e N e gativ e p rescription is
th e loss O f a right by n egl e cting to follow it for th o r
t o u s e it du ring th e wh ol e tim e limited by law
(E rsk in e S p r incipl e s o f th e L a w o f S cotland 19 th ed
p
And this positive o r n egative p rescription
applies in S cotch law not only to heritabl e pr op erty o r
land but also to d ebts and th e rights of cre ditor s
Tak e again French law which is also larg ely bas e d
Th ere you will nd a s eparat e chapt er
o n R oman law
Titre 2 0 dev ot ed to prescrip
o f th e C od e N apol eon
Ar ticl e
o f that cod e d e n e s p re scr iption
tion
thus :
La prescription e st un moy e n d a cq u rir ou d e se

lib rer par un c ertain laps d e t emps et sous les con
ditions d termin e s par la loi

T h e doctrin e is appli ed by that cod e both to re al
a n d to p er sonal estat e and in th e r emaining a r ticl e s O f
th e chapt er to which I hav e re ferre d th e wo r d is also
u s ed as including both th e c reation o f a titl e and its
d est ruction
Sp eak ing g en er ally it may b e said that in th e v arious
fo r ms of law to which I have referred th e wor d p re
scription in its w ide s ens e has referenc e to th e effect Of
laps e o f tim e and acts o f us er o n th e titl e to any k ind
go ttis h
ipl
ir ench
vv
RES CRI PTI O N GENERALLY
pr op erty (wh e th er real o r p ersonal ) and wh eth er by

way O f conr ming such titl e o r by way o f d estr oying it
In this wide s ens e therefore th e wor d prescription
includ es thos e pr incipl es and rul es which in E nglish law
w e plac e und er th e h ead o f th e Statut es o f Limitation
wh ether th e statut es dealing with r eal o r the statut e s
de aling w ith p ersonal estat e An d indeed in this wide
s ens e th e wor d is sometimes loos ely us ed by E nglishm en
th e ms elves S ome O f you may r ememb er an eloquent
passag e in o n e O f Lor d M acaulay s publish ed sp eeche s
e
ll
it
was
th
e
sp
ch
th
e
D
iss
nt
r
s
hap
ls
Bi
in
ee
n
e
e
C
o
(
in which h e ill ustrat es and enforc es what h e
calls th e p rincipl e o f prescription and h e thus explains
it
Pr escription h e says
is a good titl e to pr op erty
There ought to b e a time O f limitation af ter which a
poss essor in what ever way his poss e ssion may have
o riginat ed must n o t b e disposs ess ed

T h e illustra
tions h e subs equ ently gi ves S how that h e us e s th e word
as applying to both r eal and p ersonal estate
In thes e l ectures I pr opos e to li mit my us e O f the N w
wor d p rescription to th e strict and somewhat narr ow E3 3 1
m e aning in which that word has b een us ed in modern L
f
ig
t d in
t
l
h
t
e
tim e s in
E nglish C ourts I p r opos e to limit it to
th e doctrin e under which d en ed p er sons acquir e a titl e
to c ertain pur ely incorporeal h ereditaments such titl e
re sultin g fr om acts O f us er and laps e o f tim e
Accordingly th ere a re c ertain subj ects with which I C t i
Shall not d eal in th es e l ectures In th e r s t plac e I
f
m
Shall not d eal with th e effec t of laps e o f tim e upon th e l t
t i tl e to d ebts o r oth er fo rms o f p er sonal p r op erty
Th e g ff t
of
er
a rro
8
3 ,
av
ec ur es
er a n
ro
ec ur es :
of
1 (2 )
ec
la p s e o f
RES CRI PTIO N
time o n
titl e t o
p ers o n a l
Pro p ert
law as to this you must look fo r in th e various statut es

as to th e limitation O f actions to recov er p ersonal e stat e
y
and th e d ecisions under them
t itl
In
th e s econd plac e I Shall n o t d eal with th e effe ct
d
o f laps e O f ti me o r acts o f us er o n th e titl e to land o r
corporeal h ereditaments
said L or d Oh elms
L and
fo rd cannot be claimed by prescription th e titl e by
p r escription b eing applicabl e only to incorporeal h ere
6
2
8
dita ments
B
ea uch a m
v
a
n
L
R
H
L
3
W
;
p
(
Fo o t L R 2 Q B
An d in
s ee B rya nt v
accor danc e with this vi ew it was laid down by th e
C ourt o f E x ch equ er in Wilkinso n v Pro ud 11 M
W
3 3 that a r ight to land could n o t b e claim ed by p re
scription I S hould mention h ere in passing (to S how
how clos e tog ether th e subj ects lie) that there a re som e
cas e s in which th e C our ts ha ve in th e cas e of a titl e to
land applied th e doct rin e O f presu ming a grant w hich
doctr in e is an essential part O f th e law o f p rescription
Thus wh ere th e gr az ing o n th e soil of a lan e had fo r
a long p eriod o f y ear s b een let for th e b en et O f a
parish th e C ourt pr esum ed a grant o f th e soil to
tr ust ee s fo r th e parish
H
a igh v Wes t 18 93 2 Q B
(
A gain in O ld ti mes wh en th e C r own was n o t
bound by any St a tut e O f Limitation th e grant by th e
Cr own O f its land might have b een p resum ed fr om long
poss ession (see G o o dtitle v B a ldwin 11 E ast
a
doctrin e r eferr ed to in a rec ent app eal fr om N ew
ealand t o
th e Pr i vy C ouncil
i
d
d
o rd v
i
f
x
B
R
e
(
19 05 A C 14 7
But th e word p rescription is
n o t us ed in th es e d ecision s and it is cl ea r that acco r d
ing to o ur p res ent us e of languag e th e law as to th e
.
o r on
t o la n
"
,
RES CRIPTI O N G E N ERA LLY
ffe ct O f tim e and us er o n th e titl e to land must be

sought fo r not in l ectur es on presc ription but in th e
S tatut es of L imitation r elating to th e r eco very o f land
In th e thir d plac e as regards th e titl e to thes e
in corpor eal h ereditaments I Shall u se th e wor d pre

sc ription
as r elatin g p rimaril y o r main ly to th e
c re ation of such titl e and not to its d estruction O f
cour s e it will be n ec essary in d eveloping o ur subj ect
to consider th e cir cumstanc es und er which such a titl e
can be destr oy ed But th e words us ed by th e C ourt s
in dealin g with such d estruction a re abandon ed and
other similar words and do not include p r escription

I start then with th e rst part O f my explanation o f A
th e E nglish m eaning o f p r escription Th e acquisition
AS p r obably
o f th e titl e must b e by d e n ed p er sons
most of you a re aware it has fr equ ently happ en ed that
claims have b een made to rights o f th e character with
which w e a re d ealing and a titl e established by an
unden ed o r uctuatin g class Th e l egal char acter of
such a titl e is expr ess ed by th e wor d custom a

subj ect much discuss ed in a r ec ent cas e d ealin g with
th e rights o f sh erm en to dry their n ets o n W almer
B e ach (M ercer v D unne 19 04 2 C h 5 3 4 ; 19 05
In that cas e F arwell J laid down ( 19 04
2 Ch
2 Ch 5 5 6 ) that th e di eren ce b etween custom and
p re scription was only that th e right to th e form er might
b e claim ed by o r in resp ect of locality and to th e latt er
by a p erson o r corpor ation but that th e rul es a ecting
th e subj ect matter in each cas e wer e th e sam e In my
concluding lecture I p r opos e to discuss th e subj ect o f
custom which has s o much in common with prescrip
e
cq uis i
cu s to
RES CRI PTI ON
Lectur e V I p os t ) B ut in th e e arli er
l e cture s I shall conn e mys elf to th e strict v i e w of
prescription as a clai m by d en e d p er sons no t by an
unden ed o r uctuating class
D i tin
In dealing with th e claimant O f th e rights th ere is a
furth er distinction to which I must call your att e ntion
P 911
Pre sc rip tion said Fry J must be eith er in a man a re)
ti
d his anc esto r s o r in a man and thos e
e e stat e h e
P
n
hath (A us tin v A mh ers t 7 Ch D
Th e r st
t t
qu
O f th e s e two is termed a p rescription in a p er son and
th e rights bas ed on it a re O ft en r ef err ed to as prescrip
tive r ights in g r oss
Th e s econd is term ed a p re
scription in a gue estat e which m eans a right claim e d
as ann ex ed to par ticul a r land and only exer cisabl e by
thos e who a re s eis ed o f that land
As r egar ds rights in gr oss I may say h ere sho rtly
that th ere cannot be an easem e nt in gross (Ra ngeley v
3 Ch
but th ere may b e a
M idla nd Ra il
u
t
t
l
w
d
r
n
d
r
e
in
g
r
oss
h
e
or th v L e F leming 19
ro
t
e
S
p
p
(
C B N S 68 7 ; 34 L J C P
In a later
l e cture however (s ee Lecture V p os t) I pr opos e to
d e al r ather more ful ly with th es e rights in gr oss
f T o night I pass a t onc e to consid er p rescr iption in a
N tu
t
h
ue estat e t e to consid er what rights ann ex ed to land
g
:nigigf
d h i h can b e acquir ed by p r escr iption
I
ha
ve said that th e s e
gi ljg
rights are h ere ditaments O f a purely incorpore al
ql j d
1
g
7 P
nature
s ipti n
In Mr J oshua W illia ms s t re atis e o n Re al Pr op erty
you will nd a s epar at e chapter d e voted to th e con
sideration o f h ereditam ents purely incorporeal O f th e
h ere ditam ents re ferr ed to in that chapter th ere a re
tion
S
ee
(
1.
19 5
o n in a
ers o
an
e es a
e.
re o
i c u re
re
cr
RES CRI PTI O N GEN ERALLY
som e which do n o t fall within th e subj ect o f prescrip

t ion as I have ex plain ed it : fo r instanc e ad vowsons
t ith e s v arious fo rms O f re nt including quit re nts rents
s ec and r ent char g es
Th e effec t O f laps e O f time o n th e
titl e to thes e inco rpore al h ereditam e nts falls more p ro
p erly within th e impo rtant subj e ct O f th e S tatutes O f
Limitation relating to real p rop erty and I pass them by
O th er s how ever o f th e pur ely in co rpo r eal h eredita
m ents m ention e d by Mr Williams do fall within th e
s ubj ect o f p re sc ription
Of th e s e th e tw o mos t im
port ant are : ( 1) Rights of common o r p ro ts d P t
t p nd
p rendre such fo r instanc e as th e r ight to tak e eith er
wood o r ston e o r clay fr om another man s land o r to
pasture your cattle upon it ; (2 ) E as ements Rights
O f common and p ro ts .2 p rendre will b e dealt with in a
lat er l ecture (See L ecture V p os t ) About e as e m ents
I shall sa y a few words now
An eas ement is d ened in T erm e s de la Ley as a E
m ts
p rivil ege that o ne n eighbour hath O f anoth er by writing
o r p r esc ription without p r ot ; and this d enition has
b een adopt ed by B ayl ey J in Hen line v St p a m
5 B
C 2 3 0 and Martin B
in M ounsey v Is ma y
3 H
C 4 8 6 ; 34 L J E x 5 6
In its strict s ens e
an eas ement implies two t en e ments o r holdings O f land ;
r st th e s er vient t en ement o ver which th e eas ement o r
p rivil eg e is ex ercis ed ; and s econdly th e do minant t en e
m ent in resp ect o r fo r th e b en et o f which it is ex er
cis ed
(See Ha wkins v R utter 18 92 1 Q B
It is ess ential that thes e t w o t en ements should b elong
to di erent own er s fo r th e own er O f two t en e m e nts can
have no e as em ent o ver o n e O f th e m in re sp e ct O f th e
,
ro
re
re.
a se
en
RES CRIPTI O N
oth er Thus l e t us call th e two t en em ents W hiteacr e

and Black acre and let us suppos e th e sam e p er son t o
o w n th em both
N o w wh en that p er son pass es o ver
Whit eacre o n his way to Black acre h e is not ex er cising
o ver W hiteacre a right of way in resp ect o f Black acre
h e is merely mak ing u se o f his o w n land to get fr om
ent o f
o n e pa rt o f it to anoth er
j
udgm
e
e
t
h
e
S
(
Fry L J R o e v Siddo ns 2 2 Q B D
There a re an innit e numb er o f e as ements which
have b ee n discuss e d by th e C our ts Y o u will nd lists
ee fo r instanc e pag e 6
o f th em in th e t ex t book s
S
(
But sp eak ing
o f C a rson s Real Pr op er ty Statut es )
br oadl y th e eas em ents most fre que ntly met with a re
rights O f way rights o f wat er and rights O f light
And in vi ew O f th eir importanc e in modern law I
p r opos e to d evot e a s epar at e l e cture to each o f th e s e
class e s o f e as e m ents
Mi l
In addition to th e prescriptiv e rights r eferre d to
u
l
above th ere are a numb er O f other misc ellan eous rights
ig h t
w hi h
uld dr aw your att e ntion
to
which
I
sho
Many
of
th
em
b
q ui d by d o not fall within th e Pr escr iption Act bu t th ey a re all
ip
p
ti
referred to in th e book s as rights which can b e acquired
by presc ription Accordin gly without att empting any
S ci entic classication I p r opos e to enum er at e th e m
h ere
In th e rs t plac e th ere may b e p rescriptive burd ens
Thus th ere may b e a p re scriptive liability impos e d o n
th e own er O f o n e clos e to maintain a fenc e b etwee n his
clos e and an adj oining close for th e b en et O f th e own er
O f th e latter (La wrence v J enkins L R 8 Q B
And th e o w n er O f land fr onting th e sea may b e similarly
.
s ce
a n eo
ca n
e a o
re
rescr
on .
RES CRI PTI ON GE N ERA LLY
bound to maintain a sea wall fo r th e p r ot e ction o f an

adj oining own er ( See Fo bbing C o mmiss io ners v R eg
Again L or d C ok e lays down that th e
11 A C
liability to repair a highway may attach either to cor
e
o ra tio n s o r to individuals by p r esc r iption
C
O
R
(
p
p
SO there may b e a p r escriptive
Part X III
liability to repair a bridg e a doctrin e rec ently r eferr ed
to by Swinfen E ady J (Her tfordsh ire C o uncil v Th e
19 04 2 C h
Another class O f
N ew R iver
th e s e misc ellan eous rights includ es paym ents which can
Thus ma r
be claim ed on th e gr ound o f p r escription
ria ge f ees can b e claim ed by th e r ect o r o f a parish by
prescription (B rya nt v Foo t L R 3 Q B
SO
a claim can be made by p r escription to tolls for passing
o ver another s land a doctrin e discuss ed by Will es J
in B reco n C o v N ea th R ly
L R 7 C P 555
Tolls can also be claim ed by prescription as b eing
payabl e for passing o v er a bridg e (N ew IVinelsor
o r fo r anchor
Co rp o ra tio n v Ta ylo r 18 9 9 A C
ing in a port (Fo rema n v Free Fis h ers of W hits ta ble
L R 4 H L
Mark et rights may also be
claim ed by prescription S uch a claim to mark et tolls
w a s discuss ed in L a wr ence v Hitch L R 3 Q B 5 3 3
And in Fea ro n v M itch ell L R 7 Q B at p 6 9 6
k
u
w
i
ll
nd
Blac
bu
r
n
J
laying
down
that
th
er
e
o
y
may be by prescription a mark et with th e right o f
preventing th e sal e by oth er s O f mark etabl e goods o n
th e mark et day Lastly th er e a re c ertain oth er pre
sc riptive rights sometimes claimed by th e lord O f a
manor o n th e gr ound of p re scription ; as fo r instanc e
th e right to wre ck o n th e s e a Shore th e right to waifs
.
10
RES CRI PTI O N
1.
and e str ays and th e right to fra nk fo lda ge A S to

thes e somewhat O bscure rights n o w r ar ely to b e met
with I must refer you to Mr E lton s book o n C opy
holds a t pp 2 4 0 et s eq
I pass from th e discussion of th e nature O f th e rights
ggg which can be claim ed by prescription to deal with th e
t i ti
thir d part of my ex planation O f th e m eaning in E nglis h
law O f p rescription v iz th e natur e and char act eristics

o f th e us er o n whi ch p r esc r iption mus t b e found ed
O n this point I wish to p refac e my r emark s by m e n
tio n in g th e thre e l egal m e thods in which p re scriptive
rights can in E nglish law b e claim e d viz
Pr escription at common law ;
C laims bas ed o n a lost gr ant ; and
Pre sc ription und er th e Pr esc ription Act 18 3 2
Th e most impo rtant differenc e b etw e en thes e thr ee
m ethods r elat e s to th e p eriod during which evid enc e O f
acts O f us er must be given and with this differenc e
b etwe en th e p eriods to which th e evid e nc e must b e
address e d I shall d e al mor e fully lat er (See p ost
p
Fo r th e p res ent howev er conning mys elf to
th e natur e and cha r act eristics o f th e us er I shall stat e
c ert ain rul es which have b een mainly laid down in th e
l
G
l
cas
e O f claims by p r escr ip tion at common law to eas e
g?
Ef
th c mt
m ents You may tak e it sp eak ing g en erally that th e
same rul es apply to claims by pr esc ription at common
law to p ro ts 5 p rena re and also to claims by 10 st grant
to both eas em ents and p ro ts 5 p r endre
As r egards pr escription under th e Prescription Act
18 3 2 I may also s a y g en er ally that th e r ul es which I
am about to stat e will apply to claims to p ro ts 5 p rendre
.
cs
a c er s
8913
en era
'
PRESCRI P TIO N G ENERALLY
ll
nder s e ct 1 o f th e A ct and to claim s to e as eme nts

2
f
oth
er
than
light
und
er
s
e
ct
th e A ct wh ere th e
o
(
)
claims a re bas e d o n us er fo r th e short er p eriods m e n
In the cas e o f claim s to light
tio ned in thos e s e ctions
however und er s e ct 3 o f th e Act th e r ule s are
differe nt and th e s e last m e ntion e d r ul e s will b e d e alt
with conveni ently in th e l e cture o n p rescription in
relation to light ( S ee L e cture IV p os t ) In th e c as e
o f claims und er s e cts 1 and 2 o f th e A ct ; bas e d o n th e
long er p eriods m ention e d in thos e s e ctions it s eem s to
follow fr o m th e lan gu ag e us e d by L or d We stbury in
Tap ling v J o nes 11 H L C 2 9 0 that th e r ul e which
I a m about to stat e as to p re suming a gr ant ( s ee p os t
p 12 ) do e s not apply C ompare also th e languag e
O n th e oth er
o f s e ct 7 o f th e P re sc ription A ct 18 8 2
hand it must b e rem e mb ered that in th e cas e of claim s
b a s e d o n u s er fo r th e long er p eriods e nj oym ent as o f
right is n e c es sary (Ifzlgo m v Ga ddes 19 04 1 K B
An d s ee th e facts in Sta or ds /zzre 0 0 v B ir
u
'
'
w ingh a m C a na l
L R 1
.
H L
.
2 6 0, 2 78
start th en with th e nature and charact eristics of th e

u s er upon which p re scription at common law must b e
found e d T h e mo st important p oint fo r you to re
m e mb er _h ere is th a t th e foundation of co mmon law
pre scription is th e pre sumption of a g ra nt Th e C ourts G ant
mu t b
n aHon g co n tm
d enj oym e nt o r us er o f a right p umed
Ho w do th ey d e al with it ? Th e p rincipl e th ey apply
ha s b ee n re c e ntly stat e d more than onc e in th e H ous e
Where there h a s b ee n long continu e d

o f L o rds
poss e ssion in ass erti on of a righ t th e right shoul d be
pre sum
e d to have had a l egal o rigin if such a le gal
I
-W
un
'
res
12
PRESCR I P TIO N
o rigin was possibl e and th e C ourt should pipsume that

os e acts w ere 0#e
cir cum stanc e s ex ist e d
which w ere n e c e ssary to th e c rea tiBf of a va lid_
Th e s e are th e words of L or d H ers ch ell in Ph ilipp a v
Ha llida y 18 9 1 A c 2 3 1 a da
bmy in
C lzpp ea s O il 0 0 v E dlaba rglz Trus tees 19 04 A C 69
N o w th e a ct ( o r on e of th e act s ) which th e C our t
p re sum e s was don e is a gr ant o f th e righ t in qu e stion
All p re scription
said L or d Lindl ey pre s uppos e s
9
o dgs o n v
03 A C
a gr ant
G
a
r dner s
1
H
(
,
"
I'
A s to this grant which th e C our ts p re s um e you

should bear in mind that it mu st be an ab s olut e o n e
,
T h e p re
Th e whol e theory o f p re scription at common law
said L in dl ey L J
any grant
is against p r es umin g_
o r co ve nant not to i nt err upt by o r W i th anyon e ex c e pt
a p le 18 9 3
h
a n own er in fee
h
e
a to n v
M
3
C
W
(
The sam e p rincipl e was expre ss ed by Rom er L J
in d e aling with a claim to an e as em e nt under s e ct 2 o f
th e P re scription A ct
must
An e as em e nt h e said
b e acquire d in fa v our o f th e dominant as against th e
s erv i e nt t e n e m e nt in re sp e ct o f th e fee simpl e in both
l
t en e m ents
i
ur v Ga ddes 19 04
1
K
B
K
o
g
(
Y o u can und erstand that th e n e c e ssity o f th e grant
b eing absolut e p reve nts th e C our t in c ertain cas e s fr o m
pre suming it
It would s ee m that th e rul e that th e grant must b e
a n absolut e on e by th e own er in fee to an own er in fee
ap pli e s n o t only to claims by pre s cription at com m on
law but also to claims by lost grant ( S ee B rig/at v
R 2 11 ; Wh ea to n v M ap le 18 9 3
Wa lker 1 Cr M
,
an
a lu t e
be
b so
o ne
PRESCRI PT I O N G ENERA LLY

Ch
13
thi s point how ever th e authoriti e s a re

r igh t v
S
ee
in
E
ngland
a lk er 1
B
n o t con s i s t e nt
W
(
C M
R 2 2 1 ; E S to neh o us e C o uncil v IVillo ugli bg
19 02 2 K B 3 3 2 ; in Irel and Timmo ns v Hewitt
2 2 L R Ir 6 2 7 ; Ha nna v Po llo ck 19 00 2 I r
Furth er it has b ee n laid down that this p re sumption B ump
h
m
nc eth e acquie sc e nc e up n
O f a gr ant re s ts u p on acqu i esc e
m
q
S
t
u
rges v
o f th e own er o f th e s ervi e nt _t en emen t
(
_
E ia gina n 11 C h D
In th e w ell k no w n cas e
A ngus 6 A C 77 3 Fry J O ffere d to
o f D a lto n v
th e Hous e o f L or ds an opinion with which L or d
P e nzanc e was in e ntire acco r d and which L or d
Black burn d e scrib e d as a very abl e opin ion

6
(
A C 8 03
In th at Opinion Fry J expre ss e d
h is vi e ws as foll ows
In my Op inion th e whol e law o f pre scription and

t h e whole law which go v erns th e p re sumption o r in
ferenc e O f a grant o r co ve n a nt r est upon acqui e sc e nc e
Th e C ourts a n d th e udges ha ve h a d recours e to v arious
e xp e di ents fo r qu i e ting th e po s s e s s ion O f p er sons in th e
e xer cis e of r ights which ha ve not b ee n re s ist e d by th e
p ersons against whom th ey are exerc is e d ; but in a ll
c as e s it app ear s to m e that acqui e sc e nc e and nothing
e l s e is th e p r incip l e upon whi ch th e s e exp e di e nts r est
It b e com es th en O f th e high est imp ortanc e to consid er
In many
o f what ingr edi ents acqu ie sc e nc e con s i sts
c as e s as fo r instanc e in th e cas e of that acqui es c e nc e
which cre at e s a right O f way it will b e found to in volve
r st th e doing of som e act by o n e man up on th e land
o f a noth er ; s e condly th e abs e nc e of right to do that
a ct in th e p er son doing it ; thir dl y th e k nowl e dg e o f
3
On
res
o n re
o
ac
'
'
escen ce
14
PR E SCRI PTI O N
th e p erson a ected by it th at th e act is don e fo urthly

th e power of th e p er son affe ct e d by th e a ct to p reve nt
s uch a ct e ith er by act on his par t o r by action in th e
C ou rts ; and lastly th e abstin e nc e by hi m fr o m any
such int er f ere nc e fo r such a l e ngth of tim e as re nd er s it
re asonabl e for th e C ourts to say that h e sh all not aft er
w ards int erfere to st 0 p th e a ct b ein g don e In so m e
oth er cas e s a s for ex ampl e in th e cas e of lights som e
o f th e s e ingre di e nts are wanting ; but I cannot imagin e
any c a s e of a cqui e sc e nc e in which th ere is not shown to
b e in th e s ervi ent own er ( 1) a k nowl e dg e O f th e a cts
don e ; (2 ) a power in hi m to stop th e acts o r to su e in
re sp e ct of th e m ; and ( 3 ) an abstin enc e on his p art fr o m
th e exercis e O f such pow er

It must not how ever b e forgott e n that th e doctrin e
o f p re sc ription is b a s e d not on natu r al j ustic e but on
th e conve ni e nc e of th e community (S ee th e wor ds of
19 02
Vaughan William s L J Unio n 0 0 v D ock
2 C h 5 69 and o f L o r d Blac kb ur n in D a lton v A ngus
6 A C
An d this con ve ni e nc e has b ee n carri e d
far
Th e C ourt said C ollins M R
is e ndow e d
with a gre at power O f imagination fo r th e purpos e Of
supporting anci e nt us er
a o ers o n v Peter bo ro ugk
e
N
(
To p ut th e whol e matt er
C o uncil 19 02 1 C h
sho rtly : wh ere possibl e th e C o ur t will p re sum e a gr ant ;
wh ere this pre sumption c annot b e m ad e there can b e
no p re sc ription
Th e qu e stion accordingly which li e s on th e thre shold
i
:
f
ever
y
inqui
r
y
into
a
p
re
sc
r
ipti
ve
titl
e
is
th
s
Are
o
d?
th e cir cumstanc e s such that a grant can b e pr esum e d
Th e s e circum stanc e s I purpos e shortly to consider
,
D o trine
ba d n
c
se
co n ven i
nce o f
co
mmu
n it
Wh en ca n
grant b e
p res u m e
P RESCR I P TIO N G EN ERA LLY
15
t
In th e st plac e a grant cannot b e pre sum e d wh ere N
g pd
Pg
it would have b een contr ary to a statut e O f a public w h
n
Thus wh ere a grant O f pasturag e fo r stock
nature
t
tut
;
other than sh eep would ha ve b een inconsi st ent with th e
p ro visions o f an Inclosur e A ct which w er e h el d to have
b een pas s e d in th e public int ere st th e C our t r efus e d to
pre sum e th e gr ant (N ea eerso n v P eter bo ro ugh 0 o uneil
SO in M ills v N ew Fo res t 0 o mni is
19 02 1 C h
18 C B 6 0 th e statut e s relating to th e
sto ners
N ew Fo re st p revent e d th e C our t fr om p r esumin g a
gr ant O f a right O f common in that locality I s h ould
here war n you that statutory p ro v isions o f a p riv at e
natu re may b e waive d and a gr ant may b e pre sum e d
o ldsmith v
G
G E R a il
9 A C
(
In th e s e cond pl ac e a gr ant will not b e pre sum ed w h
wh ere it would h a ve b ee n incon s ist ent with th e custom
u t m ;
o f th e locality
Thus in Wgns ta nleg v L ee 2 S wans
3 33 th e O ld custom o f th e C ity O f L ondon as to th e
e nj oym ent of light preve nt ed th e presumpt ion O f a
gr ant to support a p re s cript ion at common law An d
this rule remain s bin ding wh er e claims are mad e by
p re scription at common la w althou gh it would not
p reve nt a right to light b eing claim e d un d er s e ct 3 O f
th e Prescription A ct 18 3 2
( S ee p er C hitty J in
P erry v E a mes 18 9 1 1 Ch
In th e thir d plac e a gr ant cannot b e presum ed wh ere w h
m
th e own er O f th e dominant t en em ent coul d n o t tak e by 3:33
w ay of grant Thus wh er e th e own er o f th e dominant
t e n e m e nt was a corpor ation p re clud ed by its con stitut ion g nt ;
fro m acc ept ing a gr ant no g rant was presum ed
N 8 ; 28
( N a tio na l M anure 0 0 v Do na ld 4 H
a
er e co
S a
or
er e
c s o
or
ere
ra
16
P RESCR I P TIO N
1.
J Ex
An d this l a st m e ntion e d p rincipl e h a s
b een applied wh ere incorpore al h ere ditam e nts h ave
b een claim e d by uctuating bo die s who coul d not t ake
by grant such as inhabitants ( Fox v Vena bles
i
l
ry v
u
C ro E liz 18 0) o r own er s and occupi er s
T
b
(
L
Silva , 4 5 C h D
.
h ere
In th e fou rth plac e a grant cannot b e presum e d
s ervi ent
wh ere th e own er o f th e s ervi e nt t en e m ent could n o t
o w n er
c ann o t
m ak e a gr ant O n e instanc e of this is found wh ere th e
ma k e
gra nt
own er O f th e s ervi ent t en e m e nt was a corporation and
a grant would ha ve b een u ltra s ires a p rincipl e appli e d
or
by th e C ourt
Ra dcli
of
18
e,
Qu ee n s
L 287
3 15 ,
Sta o rdsh ire C a na l 0 0

1
ench in Ro ch da le C a na l 0 0 v
and by L or d W e stbury in
B irmingh a m Ca na l
inasmuch a s th e pre sum e d grant must b e a n

absolut e o ne mad e in fee by th e own er O f th e s ervi ent
t en em e nt it cannot b e p re sum e d wh ere su ch own er is a
r ector owning gleb e land (B a rker v R ich a rdso n 4 B
Ald
o r a t e nant fo r lif e (Ro ber ts v
J a mes 8 9
L T
o r a t e nant fo r y e a r s ( D a niel v N o r th 11
E ast
a ll of whom a re incapabl e by re ason of th e
d eciency o f th e i r e stat e from mak ing a grant in fee
I sh ou ld add that th e r ul e was appli e d where th e
incap acity o f th e own er O f th e s ervi ent t e n em ent to
m ak e an absolut e gr ant co vere d only part o f th e p eriod
Thu s in B a rk er v Rich a rds o n 4 B
o f e nj oym e nt
Al d 5 7 9 th e s ervie nt t e n e m e nt was d ur ing six y e ar s
h eld by an own er in fee ; a nd in
o f th e e nj oym e nt
Ro berts v J a mes 8 9 L T 2 8 2 an absolut e gr ant
c ould a t o n e tim e dur ing th e e nj oym e nt h a ve b ee n
An d
P RESCRI PTIO N G ENERA LLY
17
mad e by th e t enant for life in re maind er who Oined in

In both the s e cas e s
r e s e ttling th e s ervi ent t e n e m e nt
however th e C ourt refus e d to pre sum e a gr ant
In th e fth plac e a grant cannot b e p re sum e d wh ere w h
th e own er O f th e s ervient t en em ent is incapabl e O f
re si sting o r preve nting th e us er reli e d o n This rul e is
I think b e st ill u strat e d by th e cas e O f S turges v B r idg 1 8 u
ma n 11 C h D 8 5 2 T h ere th e qu e stion ar os e as
regards two adj oining hous e s in L ondon O ne O f th e s e
b elonged to confe ction ers who fo r more than s ixty
y e ars b e fore action h a d caus ed nois e o n th eir p remis e s
by th e us e O f a p e stl e and mortar in th e ir kitch e n
Th e other hous e was pur chas e d a fe w y e ars b efore
action by a doctor who th ereup on built a consulting
roo m cl os e to th e abo ve m ention e d k itch en S hortly
afterwar ds h e br ought an action against th e co n fec
tio n ers to r estr ain th e m fr o m causing th e nois e which
o n th e evid enc e th e C our t h el d amount e d to a nuisanc e
to th e pl aintiff s premis e s aft er th e ere ction o f his con
Th e confection ers con
s ultin g r oom but not b efo re
t e nde d by way O f d e fenc e that a right to caus e th e
nois e had b ee n acquire d by us er and that a grant
should b e p re sum ed Th e C our t how ever d e cided
against th e cont ention ; holding th at b efo re th e ere ction
O f th e consulting r oom th e noi s e could not have b ee n
l egally prevente d either ph ys icall y o r by m e ans o f an
action and that accor dingly th ere was no su fcie nt us er
fr om which a grant coul d b e p re sum ed Th e sam e
doctrin e was applied wh ere claims w ere made to th e
acc e ss O f air to chimn eys o ver an unlimited sur fac e o f
th e s ervi ent t e n em ent (B rya nt v L efeeer 4 C P D i v
-
or
11
ere
ser
18
PRESCR I P T I O N
and to subt erran e an wat er p er col ating in unk nown

chann els ( Ch a semo re v Rich a r ds 7 H L C
In n either of th e s e cas e s could th e s ervi ent own er have
prevent e d th e u s er
Th e rul e that a grant cannot b e presum e d by th e
own er O f th e s ervi ent t en em ent who is incap able o f
p reventing th e us er is fur ther ill u str at e d by tho s e cas e s
wh ere th e s am e p erson has b ee n in l e gal occupation as
t enant of th e alleg ed s ervi ent and do minant t en em e nts
during part of th e enj oym ent reli e d upon In such a
cas e us er by th e t enant occupying th e s ervi e nt t en e
m e nt coul d not b e p rev ent e d by its own er
( S ee
B a ttis h ill v R eed 18 C B 7 02 ; Onley v Ga r diner
W 5 00 ; O utra m v M a ude 17 C h D 4 05 ;
4 M
Da mp er v B a ss ett 19 0 1 2 Ch
In th e si xth pl ac e a gr ant cannot b e pre sum e d fr om
wh
vi nt
s
er
O
f
hich
h
e own er o f th e s erv i ent t e n e m e nt has
t
w
u
wn
i gn nt no k nowl e dg e actual o r p re sumptive
rges
t
u
S
v
(
fu
B r idgma n 11 Ch D 8 6 3 ; A bler v Go rdo n 19 05
Thus it has b ee n laid do wn that th e
1K B
u s er fr om which a gr ant will b e p re s um e d m ust ha ve
b ee n with th e acqui esc e nc e o f th e p erson s eis e d o f an
e stat e O f inh eritance in th e s ervi e nt t en em e nt Th e
m ere k nowl e dg e o f a t e nant was not sufci ent (D a niel
v N o r th 11 E ast
B u t if th e us er has b ee n fo r
a gre at l ength O f tim e it may b e p r esume d th e lan dl or d
was aware o f it (Da vies v S tevens 7 C
P 5 70 ;
compar e S imp so n v A C 19 04 A C
In th e s eventh plac e a grant wi ll not b e p re sum e d
N g ant
um d wh r e th e us er has not b ee n what is t e chnically t erm ed a
p
e
wh
u
w
t
a rtly co vers th e sam e
ri h t
as
of
a
r
ul
e
which
u s er
f ight
.
ere
or
s er
er
o ra
ser.
r es
ere
a s no
s er
a s
P RESCRI PTIO N G E N ERALLY
19
gr ound a s th e l ast rule Th e w ell k nown wo r ds a s
of right which h ave b een rep e at e d in th e fth s e ction

o f th e Pre sc ription A ct
18 32 ha ve gi ve n ris e to so
mu ch discus sion that it is n ec e ssary to indicat e b ri ey
their m e aning
In th e cas e o f pre scription said
M r J u st ic e W ill es in exp res sing th e o p inion O f th e
C our t O f C ommon Pleas in M ills v Th e M a yo r of
C o lch es ter L R 2 C P 4 8 6
long enj oym ent in or der
to e stab lish a r igh t mu st h a ve b ee n as o f right and
there fore n e ith er by violenc e n o r by st e alth n o r by
l e ave a ske d fr om tim e to tim e

T h e s e wo rds re call
th e phras e O f B ra eton quot e d by L ord C oke in C oke
upon L ittl e ton 113 b w h ere h e sp e ak s of
Lo ngus us us
nec p er vim nec cla m nec p reca r io

To quot e th e
well known formul a s aid Lor d D a vey in addres sing

th e H ous e o f L ord s in Ga rdner v Ho dgso n s B rewery
19 03 A C 2 3 8
an enj oyment as of right must b e
-
nec o i, nee cla
m,
nee p reca rio
accordingly is not as O f right if it b e p er vim g u

im
p
a s fo r in stanc e if th ere w ere p erp etual war fare b etwee n
th e partie s a p oint you will nd dis cu ss e d in E a to n v
Th e S wa ns ea Wa terwo rks
17 Q B 2 6 7
Fr om this
c as e it is clear th at int erruptions ( although not
a cquie sce d in fo r a y e ar with in th e m eaning o f s e ct 4
o f th e Pr es c ri p t ion A ct ) may s how that th e us er n ever
w a s of righ t but w a s cont entious thr oughout
A gain th e u s er is n o t a s O f right if it b e cla m a r ul e u
d m
19 02 2
illustr at ed by Unio n 0 0 v L o ndo n D o ck
C h 5 5 7 In th at ca se a d oc k own er cl aim e d fo r h is d ock
a n e as e m e nt O f suppo rt by m eans O f und er gr ound r ods
p assing t h rough ano th er s land Th e C o urt h eld that
U s er ,
s er
er r
or
"
s er
20
PRESCR I P TIO N
1.
inasmuch as th e r ods w ere not visibl e th e enj oym e nt

b ein g cla m was not a sufci e nt foundation fo r th e
,
or
is th e us er a s O f right if it b e p reca rio Thus

in th e cas e O f an articial water cour s e construct e d for
a t emp o r a ry p urp os e th e C our t h eld that th e e nj oy
m ent was p ermis si ve and accor dingly b eing preca rious
0
1
Ch
2
w a s not as O f r ight
r r o ws v L a ng
1
9
B
u
(
S imilarly th e us er O f wast e water fr om a canal
was h eld not to b e an e nj oym en t as O f right ( S taf o rd
s h ir e C o v B ir mingh a m C a na l
L R 1 H L 254
2 6 8 ; compar e M a so n v Sh rews bury R a il
L R 6
QB
A ga in to r ecall th e abo ve wor ds O f Will e s J
th e us er to b e a u ser as O f right mu st not ha ve b ee n
by lea ve a sk ed from tim e to tim e In th e much
di s cuss e d case O f Ga r dner v Ho dgso n s B rew ery
19 03 A C 2 2 9 wh ere th e pla in ti re li ed upon fo rty
y e ars enj oym ent o f a cartway fr om his stable s thr ough
th e yar d of an adj oining inn ; it app ear ed that every
y ear h e had p aid 15 8 to th e o w n er s of th e inn yar d
F r om thi s th e Hou s e o f L ords inferre d that th e pay
m ent was ma d e fo r l eav e from tim e to t im e gi ve n to us e
th e way and t h at t h e us er ha ving b e en o n that gr ound
1
9
03
p reca r io th er e h a d b ee n no us er as O f right
(
u ser
N or
p reca ri o
A C 2 2 9 ; s ee
SO also th ere is
.
no e nj oym ent as of right whil e th ere

u ser
w he e
i
f
s sion O f
t
h
e dom inant and s ervi e nt
is
un
ty
o
s
e
o
s
p
unity o f
p o s s ess i o n t e n e m e nts
( See B a ttish ill v R eed 18 C B 7 06 ;
or
O utra m v M
.
U s er un der
mi stak e
17 C h
4 05 ; D a mp er
a rrett,
quoted a nte p
A s to th e qu e stion wh e th er a us er by th e p arti e s
19 01, 2
Ch
a ude,
354 ;
P RESCR I P TIO N G ENERA LLY
21
nd er a mi stak e woul d b e an e nj oym ent as O f right

th e autho rities are not quit e cle ar In th e cas e o f a
claim mad e by th e own er O f a t en em ent to cut litter in
a fo re st th e C our t of Ap pe al h eld th er e had b ee n us er
a s o f right alth ough h e h a d claim ed to do th e acts o f
us er under th e mistak e n suppo sition th at th e acts w ere
justi ed by an o ld d e cr ee wh ich in th e C our t s vi e w
did not confer th e righ t (D e la W ar r v M iles 17
Ch D
O n th e oth er hand in L o rd Rivers v
A da ms 3 E x D 3 6 1 th e E x ch e qu er D i vi sion h el d th at
a cts O f us er must b e conn e cted strictly with th e right
claim e d by th e p erson doing t h em and coul d no t b e
referre d to any oth er right An d this s ee ms to fo ll ow
also fr om th e ca s e o f C a mp bell v Wilso n 3 E ast
2 9 4 wh ere M r J u stic e L awre nc e intimat es that u s er
o riginating in a m istak e woul d n o t b e sufcie nt With
the s e ca s e s you should compare Ch a mber C o v Hop wo o d
3 2 C h D 5 4 9 wh ere a qu estion b e tw een a t enant
holdin g under a long le as e and his landlo rd cam e b efore
th e C our t O f A pp e al A wat ercours e o n th e lan dl o rd s
land was made and enj oy e d fo r a l on g p eriod by th e
t enant Th e enj oym ent was O f a kind which th e C ourt
a ssum e d was not authoris e d by th e l eas e but both
lan dl or d and t enant w ere under th e m istak e n b eli ef
that it w a s so authoris e d Th e C our t O f App eal held
that there was n o e nj oym ent a s o f right
In th e eighth plac e a grant will not b e p resum e d N g ant
um d
p
wh ere th e us er can b e oth erwi s e explain e d Th e gist o f W h u
th e p rinciple up on which a gr ant is pres um e d is this E
igg
fi
sa id Farw ell J th at without such presumption th e p lain d
stat e o f a a irs is un explain ed (A tt Gen v Simp son
u
r es
ere
ex
s er
v se
22
PRESCRI PTIO N
1.
C h 6 9 8 ; A tt Gen v A ntro bus 19 05 2 C h

And if it can b e expl ain e d a s b eing in e ffe ct an
19 01, 2
ext ension O f righ ts ex pre ssly grante d by a docum e nt in

existenc e th ere wil l be no presum ption Thus in A tt
Gen v Ho rner 14 Q B D 2 5 8 th e p r oduction O f an
Old gr ant o f a mark e t o n Thurs days and S atur days
prevent e d th e C ourt fr om p re suming a grant o f a
m arket o n oth er days th e actual u ser b eing t re at e d a s
a n ext e n sion of righ ts ex pre ssly g ive n by th e Old gr ant
SO it was said by th e E x ch e qu er D i vis ion that a
wid er grant would not be p resum e d wh ere a na rr ow er
gr ant was in exist enc e (M a yo r of Penrh yn v B es t 3
Ex D
SO again in th e w ell k nown ca s e d e alin g
w ith th e rights O f common in E ppin g Fo re s t ( C o mmis
s io ners of S ewer s v G la sse 19 E q
it was said by
S ir Geor g e J e ss el that a common law p rescription ca n
b e d efe at e d by showing th e origin O f th e us er and th at
th e right claim e d is n o t in accordanc e w ith such o rl gm
Th e p rincipl e is fur th er illu str at ed by th e rec ent cas e
o f S h er ingh a m C o uncil v
Ho lsey 19 04 W N 8 3
Th ere a footpath had b e en s et o ut by an awar d un d er
a n Incl osure Act But a public r igh t o f cartag e w a s
claimed o n th e gr oun d that th e sh erm en O f th e plac e
had dri ven carts o ver th e path fo r forty y e ars Th e
C ou rt how ever h el d that th e way had o riginat ed fr o m
th e award and that th e right to a wid er us er had no t
b ee n Obtain e d
P id
f
o
I
now
com
e
to
th
e
last
pa
r
t
O
f
m
ex
planation
y
du i g
w hi h
pre scription viz th e effe ct O f laps e o f tim e An d th e
vid n
r st qu e stion is What tim e
In oth er wo rds during
fu
mu t b
e gi ve n O f a cts o f us er to
what
p
er
iod
m
ust
ev
id
e
nc
e
b
giv n
.
er o
r n
ce
ser
P RESCR I P TIO N G ENER ALLY
23
suppo rt th e claim ? H ere I must distinguish b etw ee n

th e thr ee le gal m ethods o f claiming prescripti ve rights
which I have alre ady m ention e d to you viz pres crip
tion at common law lost gr ant and pre scription by
statut e Th e di stinction b etwee n th e three m etho ds
is to a c ertain ext ent historical An d tre ating th em
historically th e on e which cam e e arliest into us e was
p re s cription at common law This m ethod accordingly
w e d e al with rst
ip
A claim by p re scription at co mm on law ( o r as it is P
ti n at
som etim es call ed imm e morial p rescription ) mu st b e mm n
l w
bas e d upon usag e dur ing a time wh ere of th e m e mory
O f man runn eth not to th e contrary that is during
tim e o ut O f mind ( C o Litt 114 b ) And by a curious
p ro vi s ion O f E nglish law (which s ee ms to have had its
ori gin in c ertain O ld statut e s o f limitation ) th e p eriod
o f l egal m e mo ry comm e nc ed in th e y e a r 118 9 th e rst
y e ar o f th e reign o f Richar d I ( C h ap ma n v Smith 2
5 l l A ngus v D a lto n 3 Q B D 104 ; and
Ves S e n
s ee re cital at comm enc em e nt o f Pre scription A ct in th e
App e n dix p os t ) SO that t e chnicall y in claimin g a
right by p r es cri ption at common law it was n e c e ssary to
h
i
ve
ev
i
d
enc e goin g back to 118 9
T
is
o f cou r s e as
g
tim e w ent o n b ecam e impossibl e ; but th e C o urts pr o
vided a re m edy by hol d ing that if th e evid e nc e w ere
carrie d back a s far as li ving m emory woul d go it should
b e presum ed th at th e ri ght had exi sted fr o m 118 9
ngus v D a lto n 3 Q B D
L
at
er
a
f
r
th
er
A
o
n
u
(
limitation was introduc e d by th e C ourt s having regard
to th e S tatute o f 2 1 J ac I c 16 wh ich limited th e
tim e fo r b ringing poss essory actions to twenty ye ars
.
r escr
co
24
PRESCR I P TIO N
A cting by analogy to that statut e th e C ourts laid down

,
that if evidenc e coul d be give n O f a twenty y e ar s us er

th e right would be p re sum e d to ha ve exist e d fr om 118 9
In oth er words as
(A ngus v D a lto n 3 Q B D
a l egal th e o ry th e C ourts fr om a tw e nty y e ar s us er
presum e d an absolut e grant exe cut ed in o r b e fore 118 9
ip
I pass to th e s econd m ethod o f claim viz by lost
g
r
ant
th
e
m
e
thod
which
was
n
ex
t
int
r
oduc
e
d
It
wa s
a
nt
g
found in practic e that a claim by prescription at co m
m on law was in many cas e s e asily d ef e at e d Thus it
could be d e fe at e d by showing that th e us er originat e d
in an existing d ee d exe cut e d sinc e 118 9 as was don e in
W
It could b e
Welco me v Up ton ( 5 M
d efe at ed in th e cas e O f a claim to light by showin g that
th e building for which th e right was claim ed was
ere ct e d subs e qu ently to that dat e ; as was don e in th e
cas e o f D uke of N o rfo lk v A r buth no t ( 5 C P D
O r a gain it might b e d e fe at ed by showing a unity of
own ers hip sinc e 118 9 ; as was point e d out by B a r on
M artin in M o uns ey v Is ma y ( 3 H
C 486 ; 34 L J
Ex
Fo r if th ere was unity o f own er ship o f th e
dom inant and s ervi ent t e n em ents th e right to th e e as e
m ent o ver th e s ervi e nt t en e m e nt m erg e d in th e own er
ship O f th e soil O f th e s ervi e nt t en em ent so that th e
e as e m ent was d estr oye d An d if th e titl e was sub
s e qu ently divid ed th ere mu s t ha ve b ee n a n e w e as e m e nt
To m eet
c oming into exi st enc e at som e mod er n dat e
this difculty O f pr oof a n ew d evic e was adopt e d by th e
Th ey h eld that evid enc e o f us er fo r twenty
C o urts
ye ar s was su fci ent to r ais e th e pre sumption of a lost
grant In other wo rds as a l e gal th e ory th e C ourts
Pres cr
PRESCR I P TIO N GENERA LLY
25
fr o m a tw enty y e ars us er pre sum e d a grant exe cut ed at

Th e gr ant p resum e d was a
som e dat e s inc e 118 9
gr ant by som e form er own er in f ee o f th e s ervie nt
te n em ent to th e own er in fee O f th e dominant t en e
m e nt a nd a g rant O f thi s kind was of cour s e suf ci e nt
foundation for th e claim
With re sp ect to this claim by l ost gr ant ( a m ethod
which is still u s ed in mod ern actions claiming pres crip
ti ve righ ts ) th e b ett er Opinion s e em s to b e that exp re ss
evidenc e cannot be give n to rebut this pre sum ption o r
See th e
s how that in fact no g r ant was ever mad e
Opinion o f L ord B lack b urn (D a lto n v A ngus 6 A C
4
Lind ley J
i
Th
L
J
b
es ig er
(
(
Q B D
There is h o w
C otton L J (ib
ever a conict o n th e point
In th e year 18 3 2 accordingly th e law stood as
follows If yo u could show twe nty ye ar s e nj oym e nt
o f an e as e m e nt in ci r cumstanc e s und er which a g r ant
coul d b e pre sum e d you could supp ort your right
e ither under th e doctrin e O f imm emorial p re sc rip tion
at common la w o r alt ernatively (if fo r any re ason
th e enj oym ent could not b e t e chnically carri ed back to
th e ye ar
th e n und er th e doctrin e o f lost grant
In 18 3 2 th e th ir d m ethod O f claim I have m ention e d P ip
ti n und
v
iz
p
re
sc
r
iption
und
er
statut
e
was
int
r
oduc
e
d
F
o
r t tut
)
(
ip
in that y e a r th e Pre scription A ct was pas s ed which P
ti n A t
mus t b e studi ed care ful ly by anyon e conc ern e d in 18 3 2
Th e statut e is p rint e d
litigating p re scripti ve rights
at l ength in th e App endix Its main o r substantive
pr o vi sions ( s e cts 1 2 and 3 ) d e al s eparat ely r st
with p ro ts at p rendre s e condly with e as e m ents oth er
res cr
o
s a
e.
res cr
er
26
PRESCRI PTIO N
1.
th an light and thirdly with th e e as e m ent O f light

In th e cas e O f p ro ts ( 2 p rendre a n d e as em e nts oth er
than light it p r o vid e s in e ffe ct that if unint errupt ed
e nj oym ent as O f right can b e shown fo r thirty y e ars
in th e cas e o f p rofits a p rendre and for tw enty y e ars
in th e cas e O f e as e m ents other than light a claim shall
not b e d e fe at e d only by showing th e comm enc em ent
o f th e e n j oyment
Th e wor ds re fer o f cours e to th e
O ld difcultie s I ha ve m ention e d to you in th e cas e
o f claims by p resc ri tion at common law
Th e statut e
p
further p r ovid e s that if un int errup te d e nj oym ent as of
right without any con s ent in writing can b e s hown
fo r six ty y e ar s in th e cas e O f p ro ts a p rendr e o r fo r
forty y e ar s in th e case O f e as em e nts oth er than light
th e right shall b e d eem e d in d efe asibl e L astly in th e
cas e O f th e e as eme nt O f light (which w h e n claim e d
und er th e statut e is plac e d by s e ct 3 upon a footing
differe nt fr o m oth er e as e m e nts ) it is p r o vid e d that if
you can show twe nty y ears unint errupt e d enj oym ent
without any con sent in writing th e right shall b e
d ee m e d indefe as i bl e I should h ere re mind you th at
when th e eas em e nt o f light is claim ed by p re scription at
common law o r by lo st grant it stands so fa r as th e
m eth od of clai m is conc ern e d upon th e sam e footin g
as oth er e as e m ents
P assin g to th e oth er p ro visio n szw h ich d e al sp e cic ally
with th e p eriod dur ing which evid e nc e of us er must b e
give n you wi ll nd th at thos e p rovisions are contain e d
in s e ct 6 th e r st half O f s e ct 4 and s e cts 7 and 8
S e ct 6 forbids a pre sumption in fa v our O f a clai m
to b e dr awn fr om a p eriod O f e nj oy m ent l e ss th an
,
PRESCR I PTIO N G ENERALLY
27
that m ention e d in th e statut e S e ct 4 p rov id e s that

th e p eriod to which evid e nc e is to b e dir ect e d must
b e th e p eriod n ext b efo re som e suit o r action in which
th e claim is b r ough t in qu e stion Th en as to s e cts 7
and 8 : In consid erin g th e s e yo u will b e ar in mind
th e rul es I have m ention e d to you as to wh e n th e
C ourts will p re sum e a grant
Th e effect O f thos e
s e ction s is shortly thi s In th e cas e o fp ro ts a p rendre
th e p eriod d uring wh ich th e own er O f th e s ervi ent
t e n ement is e ither an infant or non co mp os o r t e nant
for life is ex clud e d fr om th e thir ty y ear s m e ntion e d in
s e ct 1 but n o t from th e six ty ye ars m ention e d in that
s e ction Y o u will Obs erve that th e ex cluded p eriod is
o n e du ring which th e own er O f th e s ervi e nt t e n em e nt
co uld not mak e an absolut e grant In th e cas e of e as e
m e n ts other than l igh t th e sam e p eriod (viz infancy
& c ) is ex clud ed fr om th e tw enty y e a r s but not fr o m
th e forty ye ars m e ntion ed in s ect 2
A p r o viso how
ever is a dd ed by s e ct 8 as r egards th e e as em ents o f
way and wat er ; that wh ere th e s ervient t en em ent is
h eld by a t enant for l ife o r y e ars th e own er in rever
sion O f that t en em ent has (fo r th e purpose O f re sisting
a right O f way o r water cl aim e d o n th e gr ound of fo rty
y e ar s enj oym ent) an additional p eriod O f three ye ar s
fr om th e expir ation of th e life t enancy o r th e t erm O f
ye ar s a s th e cas e may b e
While d e aling with th e statut e I s hould notic e h ere U
wh
som e pr ovi si ons as to th e charact er o f th e us er w h l ch l im
m
d
wh e n th e claim is made un d er th e statut e must not b e und
forgot ten S ects l 2 and 3 sp eak in each cas e O f tatut
a ctual e nj oym e nt without int err uption

and th e
.
ser
ere
c a
er
e.
28
P RESCR I P TIO N
1.
latt er half of s e ct 4 p ro vid e s that no act shall b e

d eem e d to b e an int erruption unless acquiesc ed in fo r
o n e y ea r af ter not ic e
Th e last m e ntion e d pr o vision
had this curious re sul t th at where an e as e m e nt had
b ee n actually enj oy e d for n o t more than nin etee n y e ar s
a nd a fr action and was the n int err upt e d during th e
re maind er o f th e 2 0th y e ar and an action to preve nt
th e exercis e of th e e a s em ent w a s comm enc e d within a
y e ar fr om th e notic e O f th e int erruption the right w a s
h eld to ha ve b ee n acquir ed although th ere had not in
F
i
h
h
as
fact b ee n a twenty y e ar s us er
v
l
t
T
o
m
g
(
8 Cl
F
A s re gar ds th e n e c e s sity O f continuous us er O f th e
v
e as em ent by th e own er O f th e dominant t e n e ment during
th e statutory p eriod th e e arlier d e cisions were not quit e
un iform But th e rul e was at last s ettle d in Ho llins v
Verneg 13 Q B D 3 04 wh ere th e C ourt O f A pp e al
laid down ( 13 Q B D 3 14 ) that th ere was no dis
tinction b etwe en non u s er fo r a year at the b eginning
Pr oof
o r e nd o r in th e middle O f th e statutory p eriod
O f actual us er in every y e ar is not e s s ential but th e
abs enc e o f us er fo r any year will b e fatal unl e ss
expl ain e d in such a way as to wa rr ant th e infere nc e o f
continual actual e nj oym ent notwith standing such t e m
h
o ra ry non us er
e C our t O f App e al fur th er laid
T
p
down ( 13 Q B D 3 15 ) that no actual us er can b e

sufci e nt to satis fy th e statut e unl ess during th e whol e
statutory t erm (wh e th er us er b e p r oved in e ach y e ar o r
not) th e us er is e nough to carry to th e mind of a
re asonable p erson in p o s s e s sion o f th e s ervi ent t en e m e nt
th e fact th at a continuous right to th e e nj oym ent is
.
Hollins
P RESCR I PTIO N G ENER ALLY
29
b eing ass ert e d and ought to b e resist e d if such right is

not re cognis e d
Th e s e words should b e comp are d
with th e princi pl e stat ed by L ord Watson in th e H ous e
O f L or ds as go ver ning p re sc r i pti v e r ights in S cotland
I do not doubt h e said that in o rd er to found

a p re scriptive right O f s ervitud e acco r ding to S cotch
l aw acts o f pos s ession mu st b e o vert in this s en s e th at
th ey must in th ems elve s be of such a char act er o r b e
d on e in such cir cumstanc e s as to indicat e un e qui v ocall y
to th e pr opri etor O f th e s ervient t e nem ent th e fact that
a right is a ss ert e d and th e nature O f th e right
Th e
propri eto r who s eek s to e stablish th e right cannot in
my O p in ion a v ail hims elf O f any acts O f p oss e ssion in
a lieno s o lo unl ess h e is ab l e to Show that th ey eith er
w ere known o r ought to have b een k nown to its own er
o r to th e p er s ons to whom h e e nt rust e d th e char g e O f
h is p r op erty
(M cI nrog v D uke of A th o le 18 9 1
,
A C
.
Th e principle s express e d by th e C our t of App e al in

t h e wo r ds whi ch I ha ve re ad to yOu w ere ap p li e d in
Ho llins v Verneg s up ra to a clai m O f righ t O f way fo r
r e m o ving wood o ut down u p on an adj oining cl os e
Th e way had only b ee n u s ed o n succ e ssi ve occa sions
w hich occurr e d at int erv als O f tw elve y e ar s thos e b e ing
t h e only occasions how ever o n which th e way w a s
Th e C ourt O f Ap p e al h el d th ere had b een
w ant e d
n o unint err upt e d e nj oym e nt s u f
ci ent to sati s fy th e
s tatu t e
A similar rul e wa s appli e d in th e cas e o f a claim to
l ight wh ere two windo w s had b ee n boar ded u p fo r
more than a y e ar Stirling J h eld that th ere h a d
.
30
PRESCRI P TIO N
b ee n such a discontinuanc e of us er as to prevent th e

a cquisition o f a right ( S mith v B a xter 19 00 2 C h
.
S uch is th e short eect o f th e Pre scription A ct Th e

re sult o f that A ct was that in 18 3 2 a n e w l e gal m ethod
go ver ned by c ertain statutory r ule s was introduc e d fo r
claiming pre sc riptive rights I should t ell yo u th at
th e thr ee m ethods o f claim I have m ention e d viz
co mmon law lost gr ant and statut e are all in exist enc e
at th e p re s ent tim e and are r eli e d o n every day in o ur
C our ts I should add that acco rding to th e p re s e nt
p r actic e it is fre qu e ntly a dvi s able to ple ad alternatively
a ll th e s e three m ethods O f cl a im ; so th a t if th e pa rty
fails o n o n e m e thod h e may succ ee d o n anoth er Thus
if o n th e evide nc e th e enj oym e nt cannot b e b rought dow n
to th e comm e nc e m e nt O f som e action p rescription by
th e statut e cannot b e reli e d upon SO again if th e
e nj oym ent can b e shown to ha ve comm enc e d with in th e
p eriod O f l e gal m emory p re scription at co mmon la w
c a nnot b e reli e d upon
.
31
II
P RESCRI P TIO N
IN
RELATIO N
TO
WAY S
I wish to say s om ething to you about P re

Egg
sc ription in relation to righ ts of way I shall conn e w y i
my r emark s mainly to pri v at e r ights o f way not
de aling with p ublic right s O f w a y o r high w ay s It is
tru e that much of th e la w relating to publ ic right s of
way o r highway s migh t be included in a wid e s e n s e o f
th e word pre s cription
M any o f th e r ul e s r el at ing
to th e acquisition and e nj oyment by th e p ublic O f
highways proc e ed o n pr in ciples similar to th os e wh ich
govern th e acquis ition a n d enj oym ent by in divi duals of
e as em ent s a n d oth er strictly p rescri ptive righ t s B ut
th e subj ect O f highway s d epend s so uch up on statut e
l a w and inv o lveS SO many sp ecial con sid er ation s that
I do not p ro pos e to d eal with it b eyond fr om t im e to
tim e referrin g to it by way O f illus tration
A private way th en is a r igh t which o n e p er son has P iv t
f
i
g
h
t
to go o v er th e lan d of anoth er and such a righ t w h e n w y
ann ex ed a s an ea sem e nt to p r o p er ty can b e acqui red by
p re s cr ip tion
Y o u w ill recolle ct that in dis cu s sing e a sem ents in
m y las t L ecture w e fou n d that an eas e ment implied two
te n em e nts th e servient t en em ent o ver wh ich th e ea se
m e nt w a s ex er c is ed and th e dominant in r esp ect of
To -N IG HT
s O
32
PRESCR I PTIO N
II
[
which it wa s exer cis e d We saw that th e two ten e

m ents must b elong to differe nt own er s For that if
th e two t e n e ments (which w e will call Whit e acre and
Black acre ) w ere ow n e d by th e sam e p erson the com mon
own er in pa ss in g o ver Whit e acre to Black acre woul d
not b e ex er cising a right O f way in re sp e ct O f Black a cre
but m erely m ak ing us e O f his o w n land White acre
o e v S iddo ns 2 2 Q B D
R
(
T h e k ind of p r op erty to wh ich a right of w ay (which
is its elf an incorporeal h ere ditam ent) is usually ann exe d
is land which is a co rp ore al h ere ditam e nt I sho uld
re mind you however that it has b ee n d e cid e d that a
right O f way can b e ann exe d to a right O f shing
which is an incorpore al right Th e t es t laid down
in a not e to C ok e up on Littl eton is that you must
con sid er th e p r op riety or re lation b etwee n th e p rin
2
C
O
L
itt
1
1
b
not
e
cip a l and th e adjunct
(
Aft er d i s cussing this t e st Buckl ey J cam e to th e
conclusion that th ere was no incongruity in th e union
o f a right o f shing in a ri ver and a r ight to wal k
along th e bank for th e purpos e O f that shing (Ha n
burg v J enkins 19 01 2 Ch
Th e re sult is this
A p riv at e righ t of way is a right which mu s t b e ex er
cised o v er th e s ervi e nt t e n e m e nt in re sp e ct o f p r op erty
b elonging to th e dominant own er An d that p r op erty
ma y b e in th e fo r m either o f land o r O f such an incor
It
is
impo
r
tant
o
r ea l right as th e r i ght of shing
p
ho w ever that you s hould rem emb er that th e e as em ent
cannot ex ist unle ss it b e conn ect e d with th e use o r
e nj oym ent of th e p r op erty to which it is ann exe d
ck r oyd v Smith
A
1
0
C
B
Thus
it
a s s aid
w
(
.
to w
hich
i
s
f
be
annex ed
R ight
gfd
e
ith th e
enj o yment
W
o f th e
Pmp ert y
IL]
WAY S
33
by Mr J ustic e Byle s in B a iley v S tevens 12 C B

N S 9 1 ; 3 1 L J C P 2 2 6 that you cannot h a ve
a right O f way o ver land in K e nt a ppurte nant to an
e stat e in N orthumb erland
Re m e mb ering th e n that in all c a s e s a r ight o f w ay
33353?
must b e conn e cte d with th e enj oym ent o f th e dominant W ay

t en e m e nt our n ex t inquiry is What are th e kinds o f
ri ght s O f way which can b e acquire d by pre scription
O f thes e th ere are four which yo u will nd s e t o ut and
distinguished in C oke upon Lit tl eton 5 6 a and th e
cas e s O f B a lla rd v Dyso n 1 Taunt 2 79 and C a nno n v
Villa rs 8 Ch D 4 2 0 4 2 1 Th ey are ( 1) a foot way ;
a car
(2 ) a hor s e way which includ e s a foot way ;
ria ge way which includ e s a ho r s e a nd foot way ; a nd
4
a
d
r
ift
way
o
r
a
way
fo
r
d
r
i
v
ing
cattl
e
which
is
( )
(
)
not n e c e ssarily but is usually includ e d in a carriag e
way Y o u should also rem e mb er that there may b e
a privat e right o f way o ver a cul de sa c (Roe v S iddo ns
2 2 Q B D 2 3 4 ) a nd that th ere may b e also a p r i v at e
right O f carriage way and a public right O f foot way
o ver th e sam e r oad a cas e you will nd discuss ed by
Buc kl ey J in A tt Gen v E sh er
19 01 2 C h 6 4 7
I may add h ere (though it is som ewhat anticipating th e
sub s e qu ent l e cture upon C ustom ) that p arishion ers as
such may b e entitl e d to us e a foot way l e ading to th eir
church wh ether it r uns acr oss th e d em e sn e lands of a
manor lying withi n th e parish (see B ro ck leba nk v
Th o mp s o n 19 03 2 C h
th e parish
o r ac r o s s
chur chyard (B a tten v Gedye 4 1 C h D
With
this yo u should compare th e cas e s in which rights o f
way o ver clos e d chur chyar ds ha ve b ee n discuss ed in th e
.
34
PRESCR I P TIO N
E ccl e siastic al
C ourts
t
S
(
Pa r is h io ners 0f S a me, 18 9 8 , P
19 00, P
IL
J o h n B a p tis t, C a rdi v
155 R e B idefo rd P a rish ,
.
E x t ent o f
In discussing in any p articul ar c as e what is th e nature

ip
p
tiv i gh t o f th e right yOu m ust b e ar in m ind that in p r o ving a
ma u d
r
ight
by
p
re
sc
r
iption
th
e
us
er
O
f
th
e
r
ight
is
th
e
only
by th
u
evide nc e and th at th e ext e nt o f th e right must b e
m e asure d by th e exte nt o f th e us er ( IVillia ms v J a mes
L R 2 C P 5 8 1; E inch v G W Ra il 0 0 5 E x D
In th e n ext plac e w e inquire how th e rights I ha ve
Pr s ip
tiv a q ui
iti u f m ention e d o r any of th em can b e acquir ed by p re
i ght f scription Th e answ er is th ey can and mus t b e acquire d
w y
in o n e O f th e three ways o r m ethods which I ha ve
alr e ady m e ntion e d viz p re scription e ith er : ( 1) at
o r ( 2 ) by lost grant o r (3 ) und er th e
co mm on law
As to th e s e m e thods s ee a nte p 2 3 et seq
s tatut e
In d e aling with claims bas e d o n p re scription at
o r with claims und er th e
common law o r lost g r ant
statut e wh ere th e e nj oym e nt h a s b ee n fo r th e sho rt er
p eriods m e ntion e d in s e cts 1 and 2 you will rem emb er
that in all c a s e s a gr ant must b e p re sum e d and yo u
will carefully asc ertain wh eth er th e conditions und er
w hich such a p re sumption can b e m ad e a re fulll e d
( S ee a nte p 14 et seq ) Thus no gr ant is p resum e d
w h ere th e us er has b ee n such that th e own er o f th e
A s is th e cas e
s ervie nt t e n e m ent coul d not p reve nt it
w h ere th e f ee simp l e o f th e dominant and s ervi e nt t e n e
m ent s b elong to di ffere nt p er son s but such t en e m ents
are in th e lawful occupation O f th e sam e p erson as
t enant i e wh ere th ere is unity O f po s s es sion O n
thi s gr ound a claim to a right of way wa s de fe at e d in
D a mp er v B a rrett 19 01 2 C h 3 5 0
rescr
e r
e s
re
ser .
e cr
W AY S
35
A c as e which fre qu e ntly occ asions di fficul ty is wh ere Ca se

h
there Is no unity o f poss e ss i on but th e s ervi e nt t e n em ent grif
n,
en em ent
is und er l e as e during th e whol e o r a portion of th e Ist in l ease
e nj oym e nt Y o u will rem e mb er that in such a cas e F ee 9 f
d o m n a nt
th e own er 1n fee of th e s erv1e nt t en em ent must b e a n d servi
o
bound and that th e knowl edge and acqui e sc enc e O f his igi
g
t e nant is not sufci ent to bind h im Though in c ertain E
g iggt
c a s e s if th e us er has b een long continu e d it m ay b e p n
p re sum e d that th e landlor d was aware o f it (D a vies v
P
Th e la w o n this point was
Step h ens 7 C
re c ently explain e d by S tirling L J (in d e aling with a
claim bas e d o n pre scription at common law o r by lost
gr ant) as foll ows
In B ra dbury v Grinsell 2 Wms
Sa un d 5 10 it is said that though an unint err upt e d pos
s e ssion for tw enty ye ars or upwards should b e sufci ent
evid e nc e to b e l eft to a j ur y to p re sum e a g r ant y e t th e
rul e must ever b e taken with this qualication that th e
poss e s sion w a s with the acqui esc enc e O f hi m who wa s
s eis e d O f an e stat e of inheritanc e : for a t e n ant for life o r
y e ar s has no pow er to grant any such right fo r a long er
p eriod than durin g th e continuanc e of his partic ul ar
e stat e If such a t e nant p ermits another to enj oy an
e as e m e nt o n his e stat e fo r twenty ye ars o r upwards
w ithout int err uption a nd th e n th e p articul ar e stat e
det ermin e s such us er will no t affe ct him who has th e
but wh e n it
inh eritanc e in rever sion o r re mainder
vests in poss e ssion th e reversion er may disput e th e
right to th e e as em ent and th e l ength O f poss e s sion will
b e no answer to his claim Th e ru l e which I h ave
re a d shows that th e p erson who has th e inh eritanc e in
rem ainder or reversion may wh e n it ve sts in poss e s sion
a ss ert his right to disput e th e cl ai m to th e e as eme nt
en e'
n s
erso
(2)
s.
36
P RESCRI P TIO N
I
L
[
It is only by p r oving his acqui e s c enc e that th e lost

g rant coul d b e as sum e d It s e ems to b e w ell s ettl e d
that in or d er to e stablis h acqui e s cenc e you mu st show
knowledg e o n th e part O f th e p erson a gainst whom th e
k nowl e dge is a s s erted o f th e fact that th e e as em ent was
e nj oy e d
o ber ts a nd L o vell v J a mes 8 9 L T
R
(
Th e passag e which I have j ust b een re ading d e al s
with th e ca s e wh ere th e fee s impl e in th e dominant a nd
s ervi e nt t en em ents b elon gs to differe nt p ers ons but th e
s ervi e nt t en em ent is in le a s e L et u s however sup
F
f
d mi nt
f
ee simp l e in th e dom in a nt and s ervi e nt
pos
e
that
th
e
and vi
t t n
t
en e m e nts b el ong s to th e sam e p er s on
but
that
such
m nt
b l n gi g t e n em e nts a r e in th e occup ation O f di ff erent l e ss ee s
t
m
i
enc e l et u s call th e dominant t en e m e nt
a
nd
fo
r
con
ve
n
n
p
S up
B lack acre and t h e s ervi ent t en e m ent W hit eacre
o
s ing n o w in th e l a s t m ention e d cas e that th e l ess ee o f
p
Black acre u s e s for th e p eriod o f tw enty y e ars a way
o ver W hit e a cr e is any r ight O f way acquir e d
On
p rincipl e w e must an s wer N C Fo r th e lessee O f Black
a cre who exer ci s e s th e right O f way if h e acquire s any
right mu st acquire it o n b ehalf and for th e b en et O f
his landlord who is th e common own er O f th e fee simpl e
in Black acre and th e fee simple in W hit eacre (S ee
L a rge v P itt Peak e 152 ; Timmo ns v Heu itt 2 2 L R
Ir
An d it is cl ea r that s uch common landlor d
cannot acquire any e as e m ent in his o w n land
N ext alt er th e p eriod and suppos e that th e us er O f
th e w ay by th e l e s s ee O f B lack ac re cont inu e s fo r fo rty
y e ars and th at an e as em ent is claim e d und er th e co n
cluding words at th e en d o f s ect 2 O f th e Pres cription
A ct which r efer to an ind ef e asible title This very
cas e w a s re c ently d e alt with by the C ourt o f App e al in
.
ee O
na
s er
en
e o
o sa
ers o
IL ]
WAY S
37
right of way
was claime d by th e l es s ee o f Black acre o n th e gr ound
that fo rty y e ars us er cre at ed und er s e ct 2 an ind e
fe asibl e title An d it was argu e d o n h is b ehalf that
und er s imila r wo r ds in s e ct 3 an e as e m e nt o f light w a s
h eld to ha ve b ee n acquire d Th e cas e so reli e d on in
ar gum e nt was Frewen v Ph illip s 11 C B N S 4 5 5
Th e C ourt of App e al how ever d e cid ed agains t th e
claim ; pointin g out that us er as o f right is not

n e c es sary un d er s e ct 3 and that th e e nj oym ent of
th e e as em ent wh ere th e lan dl or d o f both t e n e m ents
wa s th e sam e was not a s o f ri ght

We ha ve discu ss e d th e different mod e s in which Qu ti n
i in g
a p re scripti ve ri ght o f way can b e a cquir e d I p ass f m
g
to th e consid er at ion o f som e qu e stion s which m ay ari s e i f
g
g
d
m
ant
during the sub s e qu ent us er o f th e right
wn
Thr e e cas e s may occur T h er e may co m e a chang e in g
th e charact er or u s er o f th e domin ant t en em ent and th e
dominant own er may att empt to u s e h is o ld right o f way
u nd er th e n e w condit ions
O r s e con dly th e dominant
own er may acquire other o r additional pr op erty in th e
n eighbourhood and may att empt to us e fo r acc e s s to such
a dditional p r op erty h is o ld righ t o fway O r thirdl y th e
do minant t e n em ent may b e divided and th e divide d
portions pass to di ffere nt own ers W hat in th e s e
vari ous cas es would b e th e r esul t o n th e righ t o f way ?
As to th e r st o f th e s e ca ses viz a chang e occurring Ch g in
in th e char act er o r user o f th e dominant t en em e nt it g
gggmgi
was laid down by Will es J in Willia ms v J a mes
gm nt ;
L R 2 C P 5 8 2 that th e us er o f th e O ld right of way
must b e a re a s onabl e us er fo r th e pur pos e s o f th e
K ilgo ur
Ga ddes , 1904 , 1 K B
.
4 57
es
ar s
ro
er
in
er ,
an
c r
38
PRESCRI P TIO N
I
L
[
do minant t e n e m ent in th e condition in w hich it w a s

whil e th e us er on which th e right is bas e d took plac e
In accordanc e with this rul e a p re scri pti ve right of way
a cquire d for agricultur al purpos e s only to and fr o m a
pr op erty did not give a right o f way to or fr o m th e
p rop erty for min er al purpos es wh en th e min erals un d er
th e dominant t en e m ent comm enc e d to b e worke d
ra d bur n v M o r ris 3 C h D 8 12
B
no
r
it
gi
ve
a
did
(
)
right to cart building mat erial s to th e dominant
t en e m ent wh en such t en em ent was d evelop e d fro m
its O ld a gricul tural condition into a building e stat e
m
bl
i
edo n
W
C o ns erva tors v D ixo n 1 C h D
(
Th e rul e is bas e d o n th e p rincipl e that th e bur d en
o n th e s ervi e nt t e n e m e nt m ust not b e incre as e d
It
m ay b e fur th er illustrat e d by a r ec e nt cas e in which
th e grant of a right o f way o ver a passag e w a s
i mpli e d fr om th e cir cumstanc e s But inasmuch as th e
dominant t en em ent had b ee n alt ere d th e qu e stion
ar os e W hat was th e e ffe ct o f th e alt er ation upo n
th e impli e d right of way ? Th e passag e had b een
o riginally construct e d and us e d in conn e ction with
hous e s abuttin g on it O n e o f th e s e hous e s had b een
pulle d d own and a r ailway station built upon th e sit e
Th e C ourt h eld that under th e altere d cir cumstanc e s
th e right was not ex ercisea ble at all (M ilner s S afe Co
v Grea t N o r th ern a nd C ity Ra il
19 07 1 C h
A cq ui i
A s to th e s e cond of th e two cas e s I have m ention e d
wh ere th e dominant own er acquire s a ddition al
viz
of
p
r
op
er
ty
it
is
s
e
ttl
e
d
that
if
a
m
an
has
a
r
ight
23 2: :l
P o p t y ; way to clos e A h e cannot us e th e right fo r th e p ur pos e
o f going thr ough clos e A a nd th e nc e p a ssi n g to clos e B
.
er
IL]
W AY S
39
a dj oining A ( S kull v Glenis ter 16 C B N S 8 1 3 3

L J C P 18 9 ; C o lch es ter v R o ber ts 4 M
W
This rul e was re c ently appli e d by the C ourt o f A pp e al in
th e cas e o f Ha rr is v Flo wer W N 19 04 18 0 which
d ep e nde d not upon pre scription but upon expre ss gr ant
Th e thir d cas e I m ention e d was wh ere th e domin ant Sub divi
.
t en e ment has b e com e di vide d subs e qu ently to th e

t
en m nt
a cquisition o f th e p re scripti ve right o f way and th e
divid e d po rtions ha ve pas s e d to differe nt own er s
It
was laid do w n by J e ss el M R in N ewco men v C o ulso n
5 C h D 14 1 that a right of way in re sp e ct o f land is
s evere d wh en th e land is s evere d that is it go e s with every
part o f th e s evered land O n th e other hand in B o wer
v Hill 2 B ing N C 3 3 9 a ri ght o f way was e nj oye d
in re sp e ct o f an inn and c ertain adj oining land th e oc on
pa tio n o f which s ever al p r op erti e s b e cam e subs e qu e ntly
s evere d and an indep e nd ent right o f way was claime d
by th e occupi er of th e l and Th e C ourt d e cid e d against
th e claim on th e gr ound that it woul d incre as e th e us er
o f th e p reviously exis ting right
Th e re sul t s eems to
b e that where a dominant t enem ent in resp ect of wh ich
a pre scriptive right o f way exis ts is di vide d p r ima fa cie
th e own er s o f th e divid e d portions e nj oy th e right
But if a s erious incre as e o f th e us er could b e shown
this may b e a re ason fo r arriving at a different resul t
o n th e gr o und that an inc re a s e d bur d e n would be
incon s ist ent w ith th e gr ant o riginally p re sum e d
C ontinuing my con s id eration o f th e us er o f a p ri vat e Rights f
right of way th ere are a few s ettl e d rul e s to which I
f
i
g
h
t
should dr aw your att e ntion It is s ettle d that th e w
y
o wn er o f a p ri v at e right o f w ay is not st rictly sp e aking
s to
e
, a
4O
P RESCR I P TIO N
"
a nable e ntitl e d to us e th e whol e sur fac e

p a ssage
IL
th e p ri vat e ro ad
but is only e ntitl e d to a re asonabl e passag e ( C liord v
Ha r ris 9 C P 3 62 ) his rights dierin g in this re sp e ct
fr o m th e o rdinary right o f th e public to us e th e whole
su r fa c e o f a highway
t
A gain as re g a r ds re pair
It is s ettl e d by th e
p ai
common law that h e who has th e us e of a th ing ought
to repair it ( Ta ylo r v W hiteh ea d 2 D oug
But
I should re mind you h ere that in c ertain cas e s th ere
m ay b e an impli e d obligation o n th e own er o f a s er
vi e nt t en e m e nt to do th e repairs
Thus wh ere a
landlor d had l e as e d a s eri e s o f ats in o n e building to
which ats acc e ss coul d only b e obtain ed by o n e s tair cas e
which th e landlord retain ed under h is own contr ol an obli
ga tio n o n th e par t of th e landlo r d to k eep th e stai r cas e in
repai r was impli e d (M iller v Ha nco ck 18 93 2 Q B
Turning to th e cas e wh ere th e p ri vat e way h a s
t
b e com e impassable it s eems to b e th e rul e that if th e
d v ati n
difculty has a ri s e n fr om ood o r t e mp es t th e own er
o f th e e as e m e nt cannot d eviat e o r walk o ver adjoining
land ; but that wh ere th e di fficulty has aris e n fr o m th e
a cts of th e own er o f th e s ervi e nt t e n e m e nt h e can
deviat e ( S elby v N ettlefo /d L R 9 C h
I
may m e ntion that in th e ca se o f a highway th e right
o f d eviation was d iscuss e d in th e cas e o f A rno ld v
Ho lbr ook L R 8 Q B 9 6 wh ere C ockb urn C J
l aid down that th e right to d eviat e might b e ann exe d
by p re s cription to a highway but was not incide nt to a
li
mit e d d e dication
E tin ti n
f i t
My n ext h e ad is th e extinction o f p ri vat e rights o f
ig ts f
way Ho w can a pri vat e right o f way b e extinguishe d ?
w y
re so
of
a s
re
as
e i
r va
IL]
WAY S
41
sh
In th e r st plac e it ca n o f cour s e b e extingui e d

by statut e T h e most common instanc e o f this occur s
in Inclo sur e A cts which pro vid e fo r th e stop ping up o f
paths and ways Th e nature of this statutory ex tin c
tion you will nd considere d by th e Hous e o f L ords in
Turner v C r ush 4 A C 2 2 1
S e condly privat e righ ts o f way can b e extinguishe d by unity
f
m;
by un ity of s eisin T hus where th e own er in fee of
Black acre ha ving a ri ght o f way o ver Wh it e acre
pur chases th e fee simpl e of Wh it eacr e in this cas e (as
I explain e d to you b efore ) th e right o f way o ver
Whiteacre b e com e s m erg e d in th e rights o f own ership
which th e pur chas er acquire s Y o u will nd this
E l 76 1
doctrin e dis cussed in J a mes v P la nt 4 Ad
Thirdl y a privat e right o f way can b e extinguish e d
3
3 22 6
by aband onm ent ; th e m eanin g b eing that th e cir cum
stanc e s are such that th e C ou rt can pre sum e a rele as e
o f th e e as e m e nt by th e p ers on e ntitl e d to exer ci s e it
As to th is m ethod of ext inction it w a s laid down by
S ir E dwar d Fry in deli vering th e judgm e nt o f th e
Privy C ouncil in J a mes v Stevens o n 18 9 3 A C 16 7
that abandonm ent is a qu estion o f int ention to b e
de cid e d upon th e facts o f e ach particular cas e N o n
us er ( e sp e cially if it lasts fo r a consid er abl e t im e ) is th e
fact usually relied up on to pr o ve abandonm ent B ut it
is not so much th e dur ation o f non us er as th e conduct
o f t h e pa rty which is mat erial
(Reg v C h o r ley 12
Q B
N o n us er accordingly may b e acco mpan ie d by ci r
cumsta n ces which p reve nt th e C ou rt fr om d e ci din g in
favour of abandonm ent Thus where th e own er of a
,
b y s t a t ut e ;
B el e
8 3 11
11 1 11
42
PRESCR I P TIO N
right
I
L
[
way to a particular clos e had a m ore con

v enient acc e ss to it o ver anoth er clos e th e non u ser o f
th e rst m ention e d wa y w as held n o t to b e evidenc e o f
an int ention to abandon it ( Wa rd v Wa rd 7 E x ch
In th e re c ent cas e o f Y o ung v S ta r O mnibus
8 6 L T 4 1 yo u will nd a discussion by F ar
w ell J o f acts o f th e own er o f th e e as e m e nt which
were all e g e d to a m ount to abandonm ent In that ca se
F arw ell J h eld th at th e placing by th e own er o f th e
e as e m e nt o f a locked g at e acr oss th e way and th e ere ction
o f a su m m er hous e o n pa r t th ere of was not abandon
m e nt O n th e oth er hand th e no n us er m ay b e
a ccompani e d by cir cum stanc e s which show a cl e ar
int ention to abandon Thus wh ere th e own er o f two
clos e s which w ere conn e ct e d by a right o f way sold on e
o f th e m without gr ant ing any right o f way t o th e
p ur chas er o r re s ervin g any right o f way to hims elf th e
conn e cting way was h eld to b e abandon e d (M dla nd
Ra il C o v G ribble 18 9 5 2 C h
T ur ning to anoth er chapt er in o ur sto ry let us a ssu m e
that a n e as em ent has not b ee n extin guish e d but con
tin n e s to exist and that th e e nj oym ent is obstr uct e d by
th e acts o f oth er s what is th e p osition o f th e own er of
th e e as e m ent
Th e acts of obstr uction constitut e wh at
is k nown in law as a nuisanc e Th e simpl est re m e dy in
th e cas e o f a nuisanc e is what is t e chnically call e d abate
m e nt ; that is to say that th e own er o f th e e a s em ent
shoul d take th e law into his own hands and r emo ve th e
O b struction A s regards th e n e c es sity for giv ing notic e
b efore abating th e obstruction th e rul e w a s laid down by
L or d Lindl ey in Lemmo n v Webb 18 9 4 3 C h 13 a s
of
'
R medi
e
es
ti o n
ab ate
ment
by
IL]
WA YS
43
.
follow s : A p erson who suffer s fro m a nuisanc e o n

anoth er s land can e nt er upon that land and abat e th e
nuisanc e without notic e in two cas e s First if th e p er
son in pos s e ssion o f th e land hims e lf cre at e d th e
nuisanc e o r s e con dl y in th e cas e o f e m erg ency In
oth er ca s e s notic e to th e p erson in po ss ession re qu esting
him to abat e and n o n com plianc e with th e re qu e st a re
n e c es s ary to u stify abat em ent by th e p erson aggrieve d
hims elf Wh ere p r op er notice is given it s eems that
th e p erson aggri eve d may eve n remo ve an inhabite d
hou s e (L a ne v Cap sey 18 9 1 3 C h
It must b e
rem emb ere d also that th e p erson abating must not do
m ore than is n e c e s sary fo r his p urpos e and must not
inj ur e oth er s (Ro ber ts v Rose L R 1 E x
In addition to abating th e p erson aggri eve d can o f by l g l
g
f
f
cour s e st a rt p r oc e edings at law He may su e fo r f
g
damag es But it shoul d b e rem emb ere d that if his gau
g
int ere st b e that of a revers ion er h e cannot su e unl e ss
th e Ob struction p erman ently inj ure s th e e stat e o r
Op er at e s in denia l O f th e right (M o tt v Sh o o lbred 2 0
E q 2 2 ; R idgill v M oo r 9 C B
H e c an als o f
apply fo r an in junction which is usually ask e d in th e ti n
C hanc ery D ivis ion and o f which you will nd fo rms in
S eton Wh ere th e nuisanc e aris e s fr om th e a cts o f two
o r m o re p ersons th e rul e has b ee n laid down that th e
C our t in s epar at e actions will restrain e ach of th e m fr o m
doing th e acts constitutin g a nuisanc e although th e act
o f o n e tak e n alon e woul d not amount to a nui s anc e
a mbto n v M ellis h 18 9 4 3 C h
L
163 compare A G v
(
S co tt 19 05 2 K B
es
or
44
III
PR ESCR I PTIO N
IN
RE L ATIO N
TO
WA T E R
subj e ct to night is Pre scription in relation to

iv
i
g
h
t
fn
W
at
er
in
oth
er
wo
r
ds
res cri ti ve ri hts in re sp s et
t
P
P
g
p
fW t
o f wat er
A p re scripti ve right in re sp e ct of wat er
is o n e o f th e rights m entione d in s e ct 2 o f th e
P re scription A ct and as such it call s fo r o ur con
sid eration n ext after th e discu s sion to which I d evot e d
m y l ast l e cture o f Pre s cription in relation to W ays
What th en is a pre scriptive right in resp e ct o f water
In answ ering o ur qu es tion I must ask you to b e ar
pzpfpg in mind that th e e as em ents or prescri tive rights
int f
p
en er ally
re
f
erre
d
to
in
claus
e
th
e
g
2
f
A
ct a re
o
Egg
h u
sp e ak ing rights a cquire d by on e own er o f land in
conn e ction with that land which are not only additions
to his o w n natur al rights o f own ers hip but which
int erf ere with a n eigh bou ring landown er s natur al
rights o f own ership Thus for in stanc e in th e cas e
o f a right to light
L et us suppos e th ere a re t w o
adj oining pi e c e s o f land B l ackacre (which bel ongs to
A ) and Whit e ac re (which b elongs to
and l et us
suppos e A builds a hous e upon Black acre A is in
th e rs t instanc e entitled as a natural right or p ri vi leg e
to a ll th e light which com es a cr oss White acre to th e
windows o f th e Black a cre hous e
This p rimd fa cic
O UR
Prescrip
er
r es
ec
..
er er e
r s
11L
WA T ERC O U RSES
45
right o r priv il e g e is how ever subj e ct to th e n atur al

right o f B th e own er o f W h it e acre to build upon
it so as to ob struct the light coming to th e Blackacre
hous e A n d thi s ri ght B can exer cis e wh e n and how
h e pl e as e s subj e ct to this that if B suers tw e nty
l
s e without b uilding o r oth er wis e int er
e
a
r
s
to
e
ap
y
r uptin
A
s light A will acqui re a p re sc ripti ve right
g
to prev ent B fr om building o n Wh it e acre so as to
In other
c a us e a n ui s anc e to th e Black acre hous e
wor ds pre s cri ption O p er ating by laps e of tim e will
have two r es ults : Fir st it will have d evelop e d A s
natural right o r p ri vil e ge in res pect of light wh ich
was d efe asibl e into a p re scriptive right to light which
is indefe a sible ; s econdly this pres criptive right acquir e d
by A will int erfere with on e o f th e natur al and or dinary
would oth erwis e have
r ights o f o w n er ship whi ch B
poss e ss ed nam ely th e right o f buil ding upon Whit e
In th e sam e way in th e cas e of pre scripti ve
a c re
rights in r es p e ct of wat er th e s e a re rights o f a land
o wn er w h ich a re not only an ad ditio n to his natur al
but are also rights int er
r ights in re sp ect of wat er
feri n g with th e natur al wat er rights to which his n eigh
bour s woul d oth erwi s e have b een entitle d

O f cour se
wh il e discus sing th e rights o f
s aid L o r d Ha lsbury
r ipar ian p r op r i e to r s
rights may be acquire d by pre
s c ription w hi ch to som e ext e nt do int er fere w ith what
w o uld oth er wis e b e th e natur al right s of oth er p r o
o h n Wh ite 8 So ns
eto rs both abo ve and b el ow
J
r
i
(
;
p
,
J 8; M
.
Wh ite
19 06 , A C
.
B efore accordingly w e inquir e what are p re scriptive What

l nd
r ights in re sp e ct of wat er w e m ust und ertake anoth er wn
,
a re
er s
46
PRESCR I PTIO N
IIL
natural inquiry viz , wh at are a landown er s natural rights in

ri ght s in
re sp e ct o f wat er About th e s e I shall s a y a few wor ds
w a ter in
natural I put asid e n avigabl e ri ver s and navigation rights I
w ater
co urse
i
asid
e
also
fo
r
th
e
m
o
m
e
nt
a
r
t
cial
wat
ercour s e s ,
u
t
,
p
and d e al only with rights in wat er unaffe ct e d by an
articial cour s e Qu e stions a s to natur al water rights
sually a ris e in th e cas e of tw o n eighbouring land

o wn er s b e tw ee n whos e re sp e cti ve p r op er ti e s th ere ex ists
And this co m
s o m e fo r m of w at er com m unication
munica tio n may b e in th e shap e o f a d e n e d and known
chann el (wh eth er o ver gr ound o r under gr ound ) o r in
th e shap e of a n und en e d chann el as wh ere wat er
m erely p er col at e s th r ough th e soil with no k nown
It is important that you shoul d b e ar this dis
cour s e
tinction in mind for th e natur al rights a re dierent
in th e two cas e s of a d e n e d and k no w n channel and a
chann el which is und en e d and unknown
Take rst land e d pr op erti e s b etwee n which th ere
exists wat er co mmunication in th e shap e o f a de ne d and
k nown chann el Th e o r dinary cas e occurs wh ere s ever al
pr op erti e s are situat e o n a ri ver o r natural strea m
and succ e ssively abut on its bank s Y o u will re coll e ct
I a m re ferring to a non na vigabl e ri ver N o w let us
suppos e a ri ver to ris e fr om a sour c e situat e on W hit e
a cre b elonging to A and this to pas s thr ough B lac k
and sub s e qu e n tly to ow on
a cre b elon gi ng to B
thr ough Greena cre b elonging to C What are th e
n atural rights of A B and C in res p e ct of th e wat er
of th e river ?
Th e ow of a natur al stre am said
E rl e C J in d eli vering th e udgmen t o f th e C ou t of
C o mmon P l e a s in C a ved v M a r tyn 19 C B N S
u
Where
hann el
d e n ed
c
11L
WAT E RC O U RSES
47
cre at e s mutual rights and

liabiliti e s b etwee n a ll th e riparian p r opri etors along th e
whole o f its cours e S ubj e ct to reasonabl e us e by
himself e ach p r op ri e tor is bound to allow th e w at er to
Th e
o w o n with out alt eri ng th e quantity o r quality
th e c e ntr al p r op r i e to r may
natur al rights th e n o f B
b e sho rtly d e n ed as three fold First as re gards wat er Right f
se
which has actuall y re ach e d Black acre and is upon it
B ca n us e it fo r c ertain limit e d purpos e s which I sh all
ex plain in a mom ent more ful ly This is B s right o f
S e con dl y as re gards wat er which is co m ing o n Ri ght f
u s er
W
to Black acre fro m W hit e acre th e land o f A th e
sup erior p r opri etor B is e ntitle d to have th e ow un
disturb ed This is B s right o f ow Thirdly as Right f
u
it
y
p
re gar ds th e sam e wat er which is coming o n to Black
a cre B is e ntitl e d to have that wat er com e unpollut e d
This is B s right o f p urity U s er o w and p urity are
B s thr ee natu r al rights
In addition to what I have just s aid it is n e c e ssary to O dina y
t
fo r which R
in :E
ex pl ain mo re fully th e pu rpos e s
gi fj ;
exercis e o f his natur al right o f us er can use th e water
In this vie w I cannot do b etter than re ad you a passag e
fr om th e sp ee ch o f L ord M a cn a gh ten in de aling re
th e Hous e o f L ords with th e ca s e of
cently in
19 04
A C M C tn y
M C a r tney v L o ndo nderry Ra il
m
In that passag e his L ordship sp e ak s of dierent E
3 06
at/ g
zi
ways in wh ich a p er son whos e lands are int er s e ct e d 0
o r bound e d by a running st re a m m ay us e th e wat er
to which th e situation of his pr op ert y gi ve s him a cce ss
H e may us e it fo r o rdina ry o r p r ima ry p urp oses fo r
dom e stic purpos e s and th e wants o f his cattl e H e
732 ; 3 4
J C
.
3 6 3,
r'
ar
'
48
PRESCRI P TIO N
111
may us e it also for so m e oth er purpos e s som etim e s

call e d ex tra o rdina ry o r seco nda ry p urp os es p r o vid e d
thos e p urpo s e s a re conn e ct e d with o r incid ent to his
land and p r ovid e d that c ertain conditions are compli e d
with Th e n h e may possibly take advantag e o f his
po sition to u se th e water for pur pos e s foreign to or
unconn e ct e d with his riparian t en em e nt His ri ghts
in th e rst two cas e s are not quit e th e Sam e In
th e th ir d ca s e h e has no right at a ll N o w it s eem s
to m e that th e rs t qu estion your L ordships ha ve
to con sider is und er what cat e gory do e s th e p r opos e d
u s er o f th e r ailway company fall
C ertainly it is
n o t th e o rdina ry o r p r imary us e o f a owing stre am
nor is it I think o n e of thos e extraordinary us e s
conn e ct e d with o r incid e ntal to a rip arian t en e me nt
which are p ermis sibl e under c ertain conditions In
th e o r d inary o r p rimary us e o f o w mg wat er a p er son
dw elling o n th e bank s o f a stre am is under no
restriction In th e exer cis e of his ordin a ry rights h e
m ay exhau st th e wat er altog eth er N o low er p r o
riet o r can
complain o f that
In th e exer cis e o f
p
rights extraor dinary but p ermissibl e th e limit of which
has n ever b ee n acc ur at ely d e n e d and p robably is
incapabl e of accurat e d e nition a rip a ri an own er is
con s id erabl e re strictions Th e us e m ust b e
u nd er
re a s onable Th e pur pos e s fo r which th e wat er is take n
mu st b e conn e cted wi th h is t e n e m e nt and h e is bound
to re sto re th e wat er which h e tak e s and us e s fo r thos e
purpo s e s sub stantially undiminish e d in v olume and
unalt ered in ch ara ct er

I have re ad to you th e most m odern and p erh aps th e
,
WA T ERC O U RSES
49
.
cle are st state m ent a s of th e purpo s e s for which a rip a ria n

p r op ri eto r in exer ci s e o f his nat ur al right o f us er can
us e th e wat er B ut I in vit e you to compare with it som e
other passag es which are frequ e ntly re ferre d to as b eing
authoritative stat e m ents O f th e la w o n this subj e ct
Th ey are th e j udgm ent of L ord K in gs down in M iner
v Gilmo ur 12 M oore P C 15 6 ; th e judgm ent of
L R 7 H L
L or d C airns in S windo n 0 0 v IVilts
7 04 ; and an e arli er stat e m ent by L o r d M a cn a gh ten
18 9 3 A C 6 9 8
hims e lf in Y o ung v B a nk ier
In addition to th e p rincipl e s laid down by L or d
M a cna gh ten in th e abo ve pass ag e it is n e c e ssar y that
sho
ul d b e ar in mind c ertain pur pos e s which have
o
u
y
b een said to fall w ithin o r to fall without th e extra
o rdinary purpos e s of us er to which h e re fers S p e ak
ing g e n er ally th e lin e o f d is tinction b e twee n th e
ordinary user of wat er and th e extraor dinary us er of
wat er may b e different in differ ent plac e s and at
Thus it has b een s aid that a us er
di erent tim es
which may at on e time have b ee n extraordinary may
lat er o n by ch ang e s in th e condition of things b e com e
or dinary ; and als o that a u ser which might b e extra
or dinary in an agricultur al district may not b e extra
ordinary in a manufacturing district (See th e udgment
o f L o r d E sh er in O rmero d v To dmo rden 5 2 L J Q B
at p
Th en as to concret e cas e s Irrigation is
m ention e d by L or d C air ns among th e purpos e s which
are extraordinary but p ermi ssib le ( S windo n C o v
L R 7 H L
And yo u will nd a
IVilts
discussion o f conditions und er which irrigation is p er
.
50
P RESCR I P TIO N
111
m issibl e in th e judgm e nt of P arke B in E mbrey v

O wen 6 E x ch at pp 3 7 1 3 72
Again among th e
pu rpos e s whi ch are extr ao r dinary but p ermissibl e L or d
C airns m e ntions manufactur ing pu rp os e s
And a s to
this yo u Will nd a stat e m ent by Ald ers on B O f th e
rul e which h e appli e d in D a kin v Co rnish m ention e d
by hi m duri n g th e argum e nt o f th e above m ention e d
c as e of E mbrey v O wen 6 E x ch at p 3 6 0 It h a s
.
b een d e ci d e d how ever that th e natur al rights o f a

rip arian p r o pri eto r to u se wat er for extrao rdinary or
s e condary purpo s e s do not ext end to enabling him to
divert th e wat er o f a ri ver to supply a lunatic asylu m
and county gaol (M edwa y C o v R o mney 9 C B N S
5 75 ; 3 0 L J C P
or to supply a town
n
d
o
n
i
S
w
C o v IVilts
L R 7 H L
So a
(
ra ilway company who own e d a t e n e m e nt on a st re am
coul d not in th e exercis e o f any natu ral righ t diver t
th e wat er to a plac e out sid e that t en em ent and us e it
fo r supplying th eir locomoti ve s along th eir lin e
M
19 04 A C
( C a r tney v Lo ndo nderry R a il
S uch th en are th e natur al rights in re sp ect o f w at er
in a d e n ed chann el to w hich a riparian p ropri e to r is
e ntitled : th e right of us er wh ether fo r o rdinary o r
extraordinary pu rpos es ; th e right o f ow ; and th e
right o f p urity An d I a sk yo u to ob serve that th e
n atur al right o f ow to which an inferi o r ri p aria n
p r opri eto r is entitl ed is subj ect to and controlle d by th e
n atural righ t o f u s er for ordinary purpo s e s to which th e
sup er i o r ri p ari an p r o pri e to r s on th e sam e st re a m a re
e ntitl e d Thu s in th e ex am pl e w e have put (a nte p
B s right o f ow is subj e ct to A s right o f us er fo r
,
WA TERC O URSES
51
.
o rdinary purpos e s And if A in th e exer cis e of s uch

n atur al right o f us er exhausts th e water B in L or d
M a on a gh ten s wo rds cannot complain
C ontinuing to d e al with natur al rights in re sp e ct o f
$333 1
wat er I tak e s e condly th e cas e of land e d p r op er ti e s und ned
b etwe en which th ere exists wat er communication in th e
shape of unde n e d chann els th e wat er p ercolating
th r ough th e soil with no k nown cour s e ; such for
instanc e as occur s in th e cas e o f two marshy pi e c e s o f
l and adj oining e ach oth er What are th e natural
rights o f th e owners o f th e s e two p rop er ti e s ? I co m
m e nc e with th e rights as to th e ow As re gards i
Eggt
surfac e o r o verground wat er it is s ettle d that wh ere its
ow foll ows no d en ed cour s e th e own er of th e land
has an unquali ed right to drain for agricultu ral pur
pos e s and g et rid of th e wat er (Ra ws tro n v Ta ylo r
11 E x ch
As r egards und ergr ound wat er th e
rul e is that every man h a s a right i e a natur al right
to divert or appr opriat e a ll und ergr ound wat er going in
n o d en e d ch ann e l which h e can nd in his o w n land
i
ch a rds
n d this
h
H
a s emo re v
7
C
A
R
L
C
(
right h e can exercise notwithstanding that th e e ffe ct
may be that his n eighbou r s w ell is l e ft d ry (A cto n v
B lundell 12 M
W
o r that his n eighbour will
have no und ergr ound wat er in his o wn land o r that th e
stre am which th e n eighbour owns will b e dimini sh e d in
cons e qu enc e o f th e diverte d o r appropriat e d wat er n o t
comin g into it (B a lla rd v Tomlinson 2 9 Ch D 123 ;
B ra dfo rd v P ick les 18 9 5 A C
The rul e as to
such di version and appr opriat ion is th e sam e in t w o
cas e s viz both in th e ca s e wh ere by re ason of such
.
es
2
( )
52
P RESCRI P TIO N
111
di ver sion o r appr op riation wat er is mad e to c e as e from

owing along chann els thr ough which it had previously
found its way to a well and in th e cas e wh er e by th e
sam e reason wat er which has found its way to th e w ell
c eas e s to b e retain e d there (B a lla eork ish Co v
,
H arr iso n L R 5 P C
,
I ha ve stat e d to you th e different r ul e s governing th e

natur al right to ow ; r st in th e cas e of wat er in a
d en e d and known chann el and s e condly in th e cas e
C
I shoul d
o f wat er in a C hann el whi ch is und en ed
wh
h nn l add h ere that a qu e stion o f this k ind re c ently ar os e a s
w
d
to
th
e
d
i
ver
s ion of und er g r ound wat er th e chann el of
n d b t
tk
w
which w a s a d en ed o ne but was not k nown b e ing only
a sc ertainabl e by ex cav ation It was a rgu e d o n th e
o n e sid e that such a cas e s hould b e b r ought un d er th e
rul e as to d e n e d chann els ; o n th e oth er sid e that it
shoul d be b rought und er th e r ul e as to chann els which
w ere unden e d as b e ing unkn own In th e re sult th e
C ourt d ecid e d in accordanc e with th e latter alt ernati ve
a nd h el d th at inasmuch as th e chann el was not k nown
th e lower rip arian pr opri eto r had no ri ght o f ow and
could not restr ain d iv ersion by th e sup erior p roprietor
B
r a dfo r d C o rp o r a tio n v Fer ra nd 19 02 2 C h
(
I con sider n ext th e natur al right as to purity in th e
N atu l
i gh t t
cas
e
o f wat er following no d e n e d cour s e
H
ere
w
e
it
P
y
wh
ind th e r ul e (which is part o f th e la w o f
must
b
e
a
r
in
m
h nn l
u nd n d nui s anc e
that
if
a
man
puts
poison
n
his
own
l
and
o
)
h e mu s t tak e care not to let it e s cap e o n to his n eigh
bour s land ; oth er wis e h e may b e liabl e Thus if a
lan d o w n er ap pr opriat es o n his o wn land wat er which is
fo llowin g no d e n e d cour s e (which h e has a p erfe ct right
,
a se
er e
a s
no
no
n.
ra
ur
ere
WA T ERC O U RSES
53
do) and such landown er nds that th e app r op riat e d

wat er is poison ed as th e re s ult o f a n eighbour s acts
there h e has a right o f action against that n eighbour
a lla rd v To mlinso n 2 9 C h D
B
(
I tur n fr om natur al rights to p re scriptive rights and P p
t v gh t
shall consider n ext th e pres criptive rights which are in w at
t
"
l
capabl e o f b eing acquire d i n natur al wat ercour s e s
Tak e r st th e cas e wh ere th ere is a d en ed chann el
"
What in this ca se are th es e pres criptive rights They S
h
l
d n d
may b e shortly de scrib ed as th e right to int er fere with
a n eighbour s natu ral rights in th e sam e stre am o r
som e o f th em Y o u will re colle ct th e cas e I sugg e st e d
to yo u o f A B and C successive own ers of White acre
B lack ac re and Green a cre a ll abutting o n th e sa m e
We saw that as again st A th e sup erior p r o
s t re am
r
i
eto r B
th
e
inf
er
io
r
p
r
op
r
i
e
to
r
has
s
ever
al
nat
r
al
u
p
rights H e is entitle d to have th e stre am ow fro m
Whit eacre to B lack acre (th e right o f o w ) and to have
it com e un p ollut e d (th e right o f p urity) Furth er
wh en wat er has re ach e d B lack acre B has th e natur al
right o f us er for or dinary and extraordinary purpos e s
(th e right o f us er) and subj e ct th ereto h e is bound to
allow th e wat er to ow o n unpoll ut e d to C N o w in
th e cas e o f water owing in a d en ed Chann el pre
scriptive rights can b e acquir e d int erferi ng with th e
natu ral right of ow and th e natur al right o f purity
Thu s A can as again st B acquire a pre scripti ve right Ri ght to
to divert o r obstruct th e stre am that is to int erf ere with
B s natur al right o f ow
A gain A can as against B R i ght t
p u t
acquire th e pre sc riptive right to pollut e th e stre am
that is to int erfere with B s n atural right of purity
to
r es cr
e ri
er
ur2
er
a nn e
'
u e
'
54
I
PRESCR I PTIO N
s ta n ces
p
gggl
a
rg h ts
111
Th e following are som e o f th e p re scriptive rights in

re sp e ct o f wat er which yo u will nd discuss ed in
repo rt e d cas e s
Th e right o f th e sup erio r pr opri eto r to divert th e
ow o f wat er ( Presco tt v Ph illip s s et o ut in 6 E ast
,
Th e right o f th e inferio r p r op ri etor to h ave th at

di ver sion continu e d (M a so n v Sh rews bury Ra il
.
L R
.
6 o B
.
Th e right to p e n b a ck a stre am ( C oop er v B a rber

3 Taunt
Th e right of th e inferior p r op ri eto r to plac e a hatch
o n th e land o f th e sup erio r p r op r i eto r t o re gulat e th e
o r fo r
ow of wat er ( Woo d v Hewett 8 Q B
th e latt er pu rpos e to go o n th e land o f th e sup erio r
p rop ri eto r and op e n lock gat e s ( S imp son v G odma n
.
ch es ter ,
A C
18 9 7,
Th e right to ob st ruct th e ow o f wat er by m e ans o f

a shing w e ir ( Ro lle v Wh yte L R
B
a xenda le v
Th e right to pollut e a stre a m
(
M cM ur ra y 2 C h
A s to th e l a st
m ention e d right yo u c an und erstand
that th e i mportanc e (fr om th e point o f v i e w alike of
h e alth and manufacture s) o f pre s ervin g th e pur ity of
stre ams caus e d this qu e stion o f pollution to b e br ought
b e fore th e C ou rt in many cas e s An d it was long ago
de cide d that th e right to pollut e a stream could b e
utclie 2
od v
S
ee
o
S
a cquir ed by p re sc ription
W
(
Sim N S 16 3 ; Ca r lyo n v L o ver ing 1 H
N 78 4 ;
Th e pre scriptive right how ever
2 6 L J Ex
only a r os e fr o m th e continuanc e of p erc eptibl e injury
.
WA T ERC O URSES
for twenty y e ars

1 Ch
( Go ldsmid v
55
Tunbridge C o mmiss io ners ,
much for p rescripti ve rights in wat er owing in a P ip

gh
d e n ed chann el
Tak e n ext th e cas e o f wat er com ti
2
mun ica tio n b e tw ee n two p r op erties (ind ep e nd e ntly o f $323 d
any articial chann el) wh ere th e wat er foll ows no
d e n e d co urs e as is th e cas e with und ergr ound wat er
p er colating in unknown chann els A s to this th e l aw
was s ettle d by th e w ell known cas e o f Ch a semore v Ch
R ich a rds 7 H L C 3 4 9 which d e cid e d that no p re
scripti ve right to th e unint errupt e d ow o f such under
gr ound wat er can b e acqui re d Th e re ason gi ve n for
th e de ci s ion is this that in such a cas e no gr ant can b e
pre sum e d ( S ee th e opinion of th e j udg es stat e d by
Wightman J 7 H L C at p 3 7 0 and th e sp ee ch of
L or d We n sleydal e p
Y o u will re m e mb er th e
rul e s I stat e d in my rst l e ct ure as to wh e n a gr ant
woul d b e pre sum e d ; and that among th e cas e s wh ere a
grant cannot b e pre sum e d are th e cas e s wh ere th e own er
o f th e s ervi ent t e n e m e nt do e s no t k n o w of th e us er o r
c annot preve nt it (S ee a nte p p 17
P as sing to th e In ex t di vi sion o f o ur subj e ct viz A ti ial
a rticial wat ercours e s I wi s h to say a wor d about
wat er in articial channels ; which occur fre qu ently
e sp e cially in parts o f th e country wh ere mining is
c arri e d on A common in stanc e o f a n a rticial stre a m
is wh ere a sys t em o f drai nin g is c re at e d fo r a min e
whereby th e water is pump ed up and ows away fro m
th e min ing pr op erty thr ough th e lands o f s everal n eigh
Wh at
bo uring landown ers to o in som e ri ver o r la ke
a re th e rights o f th e s e n eighbouring landown ers
SO
r escr
a se.
PR E SCRI P TIO N
56
111
Fir st as to th e ow of th e a rticial stre am H ere it

t w
is cl ear that th e rights are quit e different fr o m th e
rights in a natur al s tream

There is no doubt said
S ir M ontagu S mith in d elivering th e judgm e nt o f th e
Pr i vy C ouncil in Ra mesh ur v K oo nj 4 A C 12 6
that th e right to wat er owing in a natur al chann e l

and th e right to wat er owing thr ough an art icial
wat er cours e do not res t on th e sam e principle In th e
form er cas e e ach succ e s si ve riparian p ropri etor is p rimci
fa cie e ntitl e d to th e un imp e d e d ow o f wat er in its
natural cour s e and to its re asonabl e enj oym ent as it
pass e s thr ough his land as a natur al incid ent to his
own ership In th e latter cas e any right to th e flow
o f wat er must r est on s om e g r ant o r a rr ang e m e nt e ith er
pr o ve d o r p re sum ed fr om o r w ith th e own er s o f th e
lands fr om which th e wat er is articially b r ought o r o n
in
som
e
oth
er
l
e
gal
o
r
ig
Th
ere
a re no nat ur al r ights
N
n tu al
in res p e ct o f wat er in an articial wat er cours e and th e
ght
rights if any which a ris e th erein cannot b e natur al
rights ( S ee K ens it v G E R a il
2 7 C h D 13 3
a c a s e wh ere an a rticial pip e was in qu e stion and
L or d J ustic e C otton discuss e s th e rights o f a ma n
living a s h e said o n th e bank s o f a pip e )
B ut although th ere a re no natu ral rights in a n
P
ip
gh t
er cou r s e
e a cquire d
a
r
ticial
wat
re
sc
r
i
ti
ve
r
ights
can
b
p
p
a q i d in c ertain a rticial wat er cour s e s S ee fo r instanc e th e

cas e o f Ivimey v S tocker 1 C h 3 9 6 The rul e to b e
follow e d in asc ertainin g such rights was laid down by
R ul in S tirling L J as foll ows
Fir st yo u must take into
B M
account th e charact er o f th e articial wat ercour s e
wh eth er it is t empor ary o r p erm an e nt S e condly yo u
o
ri
s.
rescr
u re
'
WA T E RC O URSES
57
.
must c onsid er th e circumstanc e s un d er which it was

pre sumably cre ate d And thirdly th e mod e in which
a ily v C la rk 19 02
it has b ee n us e d and enj oyed
B
(
1 Ch
E ach cas e must b e ex amin e d according to
this rul e and you m ay com e to differe nt conclus ions
Fo r instanc e yo u may conclud e that th e articial C
th
wh
water cours e was a t empo rary o n e constructe d fo r a ti i l
w t
t emporary purpos e a s was th e cas e i n B urro ws v L a ng u w
19 01 2 C h 5 02 wh ere th e C our t h a d to d e al with an

E
gg
?
articial stre am l e ading to a mill In such a cas e th e
rul e is that n o right to th e unint erru pted ow of
wat er can b e acquire d by pre scription against th e
cre ator o f th e stre am This was laid down by L or d
Abin g er d elivering th e ju dgm e nt o f th e C o urt o f
E x ch e qu er in th e w ell known cas e o f A rkw r igh t v Gell
5 M
W 2 3 3 It would s ee m furth er that no such
right o f ow can b e acquir ed as against th e p ersons
thr ough wh os e land th e wat er has b ee n accustom e d to
ow that is to say as against sup erior p r op rie tor s
Th e re ason is that in vi e w of th e te mporary charact er
o f th e wat er cour s e th ere is as b e twee n th e succ e ssive
p r opri etor s o ver whos e lands th e wat er ows no e nj oy
m e nt as o f r ight ( Woo d v Wa nd 3 E x ch 779 M a so n
v Sh rews bury Ra il
The last
L R 6 Q B
m e ntion ed rul e may b e subj e ct to ex c eptions und er
sp e cial cir cumstanc es See P o well v B utler I R 5
C L 3 09 re ferr ed to in B urro ws v L a ng 19 01 2 C h
5 09
S ee als o th e original statem ent of th e p rincipl e
by L or d Abing er in A rkwrigh t v Gell 5 M W 2 3 3
A s to th e m eaning o f th e wo rds
t empor ary wat er
cours e in th e rul e which I have j ust b een stating I
,
a se
ere
ar
, co
c a
er
r se
as
PR E SCRI PTIO N
58
111
in pas sing that in his u dgment in

B urr o ws v L a ng 19 0 1 2 C h 5 08 Far well J laid
down that wh ere th e rule sp e ak s o f a wat ercour s e con
s tr uct ed fo r a tempo r a ry pur os e this is not conn e d to
p
a purpos e that happ ens to la st for a f e w ye ars only but
include s a p urpos e which is t e mporary in th e s ens e that
it ma y within th e re asonabl e cont empl ation o f th e
parti e s com e to an e nd
S e condly in applying th e rul e in B a ily v C la rk yo u
ma y com e to th e conclusion that th e ar ticial w at er
cours e was ori ginally construct e d upon th e condition
that th e rights of own ers of pr op ertie s abutting th ere on
should b e th e sam e as they would have b ee n had th e
ar ticial wat er cours e b ee n a natur al o n e T h is was th e
conclu sion arri ve d at in th e cas e o f B a ily v C la rk
its e lf ; wh ere th e C ourt h eld that as b etween sup erio r
a n d inferio r p r op ri e to r s o f land abutting on an a r ticial
wat ercour s e th e sup erio r p r opri etor w a s e ntitl e d to
with dr aw a re asonabl e a m ount o f wat er fo r ma nufa c
turing p urpos e s
Thi rdly in applying th e rul e in B a ily v C la rk you
may nd that th e a rti CIa l wat er cour s e was a p erm an e nt
on e and that th e us er o f this p erman ent waterco urs e
has continu ed fo r a p eriod long enough to b e a fo un da
tion for pre scription T h is was th e cas e in Ra mesh ur
v K o o nj 4 A C 12 1 ; B ees to n v Wea te 5 E
B
9 9 6 ; 2 5 L J Q B 115 I vimey v S to ck er 1 C h 3 9 6
And h ere p re scripti ve r ights can b e acquire d th e n ature
Th ey m ay e ith er
o f wh ich w ill d e p e nd o n th e u s er
co rre spond to what w ould in a natur al stre a m h ave
b ee n natur al rights o r th ey may b e more ext e nsi ve
m ay obs erve
Ca
se
$31: i
u
w e e to b e
s imil a r t o
tho se in
natur al
rse
co
Ca
se
W b er e
at e
co u s e W 8 8
Pe m a
n ent
w
'
'
W A T ER C O URSES
59
I have now d ealt with th e rights in resp e ct o f th e

o w o f an ar ticial st ream
As r egar ds its purity th e cas e s a re not quite cl e ar Righ t
but th e rul e s eems to b e that ( apart al tog eth er fr om
t
f
pre scription) th e m ere appr opriation of th e wat er o an
E
articial str eam by a p er son entitl ed to appropriat e it
would be sufcient to confer a right on that p erson that
th e wat er shall not b e pollut ed to his injury ( Wh a ley
v L a zng 2 H N 4 7 6 ; 2 6 L J E x 3 2 7 ; in E x ch
Ch a mb 3 H
N 6 75 ; 2 7 L J E X 4 2 2
Wo o d v
Wo o d 3 E x ch 779 ; see co mm th e langu age us ed in
.
as
2
5
Sutclg
e
2
L
h
4
1
J
C
,
Wo od v
M ayo r
C h a dwick ,
co ur s e th e above r ul e woul d b e
subj ect to an ex c eption in any cas e wh er e a pre
sc riptive right to pollute had b een pr op erly acquired as
it co ul d be in th e cas e of a p erman ent articial stream
If as I b eli eve th e above is an accurat e statem ent o f
th e law you wil l see that (apart from prescription ) th e
rights as to p ur ity in a rticial streams a re similar to
th e rights as to p ur ity in und ergr ound wat er p er colatin g
in no den ed cour s e
Indep end ently o f th e prescriptive rights m ention e d M i ll
above ( which are mainly rights call ed in qu estion and $353 2
discuss ed b etw e en r iparian pr opri etor s) I may m ention $33213:
som e other misc ellan eous wat er rights which a re capabl e
o f b ein g acquir ed by p r esc ription
Fo r instanc e a
landown er who has erect ed a hous e o n th e boundary o f
his o w n land can acquir e by p rescription th e right to
dischar ge upon th e adj oinin g land th e r ain running
from th e r oof o f his hous e (Ho w ey v Wa lters L R
8 C P
11 A
Of
'
s ce
1
RES CRI PTI O N
60
111
own er o f on e pi ec e of land can acquir e by

p rescription a right to go o n his n eighbour s land and
dr aw wat er th er e eith er fr om a sp r ing as in R a ce v
Wa rd 4 E 1 B 7 02 o r fr om a pump as in Po lden v
B a s ta r d L R 1 Q B 15 6
Again th e own er o f a
hous e can acquire th e right to bring water thereto
thr ough pip es o ver his n eighbour s land ( Go od/ta rt v
Hyett 2 5 C h D
And oth er similar rights
might be m ention ed
So much fo r th e natur e o f th e p re scriptive r ights
which can be acqui red in re sp ect o f wat er As to th e
mod e in which th ey can be acquired I remind you o f
what I have already said (s ee a nte p
that the s e
right can b e acqu ir ed either by pr escription at common
law o r p rescription by lost gr ant o r prescription un der
th e statu te
T h e p er iod dur ing which th e acts o f us er
must ha ve continu ed will be regulated by th e particular
m ethod which is s el ected fo r ass erting th e claim and if
th e claim is cont est ed t h e evid enc e must b e p r epare d
accor dingly A s to th e natur e and character istics o f
th ese acts o f us er I must again remind yo u o f what I
said at l ength in my rst l ecture ( See a nte p 11
et seq )
Y o u will r ecoll ect that a gr ant must b e p re
sumed and that th e acts of us er must support th e pre
sumption o f a gr ant Thes e acts o f us er sp ea k ing
g en er ally must amount to a p erc eptibl e int erferenc e
with th e rights of th e oth er pr op ri etor acts which such
p rop rieto r could hav e p r evented and which if h e do e s
not prevent are reasonabl e gr ounds for inferring that
You will also r ecollect that a
h e gr ant ed th e right
grant cannot be pre sume d eith er wh ere th e own er o f
A gain , th e
tio n o fp re
s crip tiv e
righ t s a s
t o w a t er
.
W A T ER CO URSES
61
th e s er vient t en ement cannot pr event th e us er o r where

a n te pp 17
S
e
th e us er can be oth erwis e ex plain ed
e
(
A ccor dingly wh er e A owning Black ac r e in fee
claimed a p rescriptive right to dischar g e wat er thr ough
an ar ticial wat ercours e in B s land W hit ea c re and it
app eared that during th e enj oy ment A h a d hims elf
b een tenan t fr om y ear to y ear of W hit eacre th e us er
utra m V
was insufci ent and th e claim fail ed
O
(
Lastly you w ill r ecollect
M a ude 17 C h D
that th e us er must have b een a us er as o f right
A ccor dingly wh er e th e us er o f wat er was fo und to
hav e b een precarious as d ep ending on th e p ermission
o f th e own er of th e s ervi ent t en em ent it was not a
suf ci ent foundation for a pr escriptive right ( Ga ved
v M artyn 19 C B N S 73 2 ; 3 4 L J O P
As r egar ds a claim und er th e statut e you will nd
o n r ef err ing to s ect 2 o f th e A ct of 18 32 tha t it sp eak s
any wat er cour s e o r th e u se of any

o f a claim to
T h es e wo rds hav e b een h eld to includ e a claim

wat er
to have continu ed th e div ersion o f wat er by a sup erior
prop ri etor (M a s on v 8 ,37 elt 8 62tTy R a il
L R 6 Q B
5 78 ) and also a claim to s end th r ough anoth er man s
wat ercour s e eith er polluted wat er ( IVr ig/zt v Willia ms
1M
W 77) or sand and rubbl e ( Ca r lyo n v L over ing
1H
N 78 4 ; 2 6 L J E x
I hav e now compl et ed what I have to s a y about th e E t t
d m d
nature and g en esis o f prescriptive rights in r esp ect of f j y
m
t f
wat er As r egards th e ext ent and mod e o f enj oyment w t
o f th es e p r esc riptiv e rights th e o rdina ry r ul es as to th e igh t
Th e enj oyment may
enjoym ent o f e as em ents apply
vary slightly Thus prescriptive rights in r esp ect o f
,
'
en
an
en o
en
er
s.
62
RES CRI PTI O N
111.
water were not destr oy e d by th e own ers of th e dominant

t en ement slightly alt ering th e cours e of th e s tream a s
was th e cas e in Ha ll v Swift 4 Bing N C 3 8 1 ; o r
by th eir erecting cottag es in th e place o f cattl e sh e ds
which had formerly stood o n th e dominant t en em ent as
was th e cas e in Wa tts v K elso n 6 C h 16 6 Again
where a right to pollut e a stream by a c ertain manu
facture had b een acquired it was said that th e right
would n o t be d estr oy ed by alt ering th e mat erials us e d
a xenda le v M cM ur ra y 2 C h
h
B
But
b
r
d
e
n
t
e
u
(
Thus
o n th e s erv i ent t en em ent cannot b e inc r eas ed
th e own er of a mill on th e bank s o f a str eam cannot by
suddenly altering his sluic e acquire an increas ed right
h
6
B
ea ley v
a w
E
ast
o f di ver ting wat er
S
(
A gain where a p rescriptive right to pollut e a stre am
has b een ac q uired th e pollution must not be consider
ably enlarged to th e prej udic e of oth er s ( C ro ss ley v
L igh to wler 2 Ch 4 78 ; M cIntyre v M cGa c in 18 9 3
,
A C
.
Whil e referring t o th e exten t and mode o f enjoy

m ent o f th e right to pollut e wat er I shoul d m ention
that wh en in modern ti mes th e L egislature conferre d
upon public bodies statutory po w ers o f d ealing with th e
s ewage o f towns much litigation at once ar os e in con
That cu rrent o f
n ectio n with th e r ight o f pollution
litigatio n is still continuing Fo r rec ent instanc es I
may refer you to th e cas e of Ha r r ingto n v D er by C or
p o ra tio n 19 05 1 C h 2 05 wh er e Buck l ey J discuss e s
at p 2 19 p rescriptive rights o f hous eholder s to dis
ch a rge s ewage in to a riv er ; also to th e cas e o f Fos ter v
Wa r blingto n C o uncil 19 06 1 K B 64 8 W h ere o ne o f
,
'
W A T ER C O URSES
63
th e parti e s claim e d a common law right to discharg e

s e wag e into th e s e a Th e C ourt o f App eal d ecid ed
that th ere was no such right (See 19 06 1 K B
Th e d ecisions howev er as to wh en injunctions will b e
gr ant ed against local authoriti e s in conn ection with
s ewage a re too num er ous and too sp e cial to be con
I will only m entio n b efor e I pass o n that
s idered h er e
th e Ri ver s Pollution Act 18 7 6 p rovides a summary
m eans of prev enting th e p o llution of r ivers
E
As in th e cas e o f pr escriptiv e rights o f way so in th e i h m t
g
eas e of
p rescr ipti ve ri ghts o f wat er my last he ad i s f w t
i gh t
the ir extinguishm ent
O f cour s e p r escripti ve rights in r esp e ct of wat er can b y t tu t ;
T h en as r egards unity o f b y
b e ex tinguished by statut e
m
f
m
;
s eisin
Th e law is cl ear
said Lord C ranworth
that if th e same p erson b ecomes absolute own er o f

th e land fro m which a stream of wat er flo w s and also
of th e land into which it o ws th e eas ement which th e
I
i
m
ey v
latter might have claim ed is extinguish ed
v
(
.
en
u s
er
s :
S a
Sta cker , 1 C h
gr ound however which is usuall y relied o n to b y b n

d m nt
s how ex tinction is abandon ment
A s to this Lor d
C h elmsfor d laid down in C ross ley v L igh to w ler 2 Ch
4 78 that th e qu estion o f abandonment is o n e o f inten
Referrin g to a l o ng continu ed non us er o f th e
t ion
r ight h e q uot ed th e wo r ds of L o r d D enman in R ey v
C /zo r ley 12 Q B 5 15 which I have al ready qu o t ed to
you (s ee a nte p
that it is n o t so much th e dur a
tion o f th e c ess er as th e natu r e o f th e a ct don e by th e
grant ee of th e eas em ent and th e intention in him which
it in dicat es which are material Accordingly in C ross ley
Th e
on
64
PRESCR I P TI O N
111
v L igh to wler where dye work s to which th e right o f

fouling a stream had b ecom e annexe d by prescr iption
w ere n o t us e d for more than tw enty y ears and w ere
also allow ed to go to ruin th e C our t h eld that th e
right o f foul ing had b ee n abandon e d O n th e other
hand wh ere th e own er o f th e d ominant t en em e nt
who was entitl ed by p rescription to have wat er run into
an Old pond had substitut ed thre e n e w ponds for th e
singl e Old pond and discontinu ed th e u se o f th e latter
th e C ou r t o f E x ch equ er h eld that h e had n o t lost his
right in r esp e ct o f th e old pond ; Bar on Park e laying
down that a substitution o f that natur e was not an
abandonment o f th e right
(Ha le v O ldroyd 14
M
W
-
65
IV
PRESCR I P TIO N I N RE LATIO N T O LI GHT
my last L ecture w e considere d Pr escription in relation C mp i

f
to W at er To ni ght w e consi der Prescri pti on In r elati on i l
igh t in
t o Light and it will assist us at th e outs et if w e compare
p t f
for a moment a landown er s natur al rights in r esp ect w t w ith
l
in
o f wat er with what I may call his natur al ri ghts ( o r
f
p erhaps more accurately privil eges) in resp ect o f light
You will recoll ect that in th e last L ectur e w e found that
an inferior riparian pr opri etor is e ntitl ed a s a natur al
right to have undistur b e d th e ow O f wat er coming to
In th e same way suppos e th ere are two
his land
adj oining pi ec es of land Black acre and W hit eacr e and
th e own er o f B lack ac re er ects o n it a buil ding and
In such
ins ert s ap ertur es in th e wall o f that building
a cas e h e has a natur al right o r p ri vil ege to r eceive all
But there is this
th e light c o ming to thos e ap ertur es
di eren ce b etween th e natur al right to th e o w O f
w at er and th e natur al r ight o r p r i vil eg e as to th e
acc ess o f light to th e ap ertures In th e rst cas e th e
natur al right to th e ow o f wat er cannot be interfere d
with unl ess an ea s ement has b een acquired for th e pur
pos e In th e s econd cas e th e natur al right o r p riv il eg e
a s t o th e acc ess of light is subo r dinat e to th e r ight
ncid
nt
p
r
op
erty which th e own er of th e adj oinin
i
e
t
o
)
(
g
IN
ar
r es
ec
er
66
P RESCR I PTIO N
Iv .
land W hiteacre has o f building o n it B ut although

th e own er o f W hiteacre can during a c ertain p erio d o f
y ears which immediat ely follows th e er ection of th e
building o n Black acre build o n W hit eacre so as to
ir
ob s truct th e light coming to th e B lack acre building
giiiggt et if h e p ermits that p eriod to elaps e without Obstruct
in
p t y
f ligh t
ing this light th e own er o f Black acre will by prescrip
tion acquire a c ert in right to p revent int erfere nc e with
th e light coming to th e ap ertur es in his building which
a r e th en d esc rib e d as anci e nt lights
e th e u d ment
S
e
(
g
O f Littleda le J M oo re v Ra ws on 3 B
I
C
have pu rpos ely in th e rst instanc e r eferred to this
right in th e most g en eral t erms T h e particular nat ure
o f th e right will app e ar mo r e cl early as w e p r oc eed
E ly
This prescriptive right o f p reventing int erferenc e
d
W i th a nci ent li ghts was ea rly re cogni s ed by o ur C ou r ts
and yo u will nd in th e book s notic es of actions br ought
to enfor ce it as long ago as th e time o f L ord C ok e
Thus fo r instanc e A ldr ed s C as e r epo rted in th e
9 th vo l o f C o k e s Repor ts d eals with th e r ight to
p r event an interfere nc e with anci ent lights Lat er
cases followed gr owing mo re numer ous as th e nu mb er
In 18 32 th e Prescription Act
o f o ur r epo r t s inc r eas ed
was pass ed which contained as you k now a sp ecial
s ection (s ect 3 ) dealing with this particular right
h
t
e A ct p r int ed at l ength in th e A pp endi x )
B
u
t
S
ee
(
it has b een laid down ex pressly by th e Hous e o f L ords
that th e statut e mad e no difference in th e nature o f th e
right to p revent interferenc e with anci ent lights ( S ee
th e O pinions ex p r ess ed in Cells v T/ze Ho me S to res
19 04 A C 179 ; by Lo r d Ha lsbury at p 18 3 ; by
,
s l
r es
ec
ar
eCISIOn s
Iv
LI GH T
67
Lord M a cn a gh ten at p 19 0 ; and by Lor d D av ey a t

p
Acco rdingly th e cur rent o f d ecision (W heth er
b e fore or after th e Prescription A ct) in which th e
C our ts do w n to 19 04 deal t with th e natur e o f this
p rescripti ve right falls to be considered as a whol e I
draw th e lin e at 19 04 for in that year th e impo rtant
and w ell k nown cas e o f C o lls v Th e Ho me Stores to
which I must p res ently refer s epar ately was d ecid ed
by th e Hous e of L ords
Turnin g then to th e curr ent of d e cision b efore 19 04 T w
nt
fer enc e o f O pinion
Thes e g
w e nd no doubt a dif
igg
d ecisions are referred to in M a y 19 04 by L ord
M a cn a gh ten in th e S p eech mad e by h im to th e Hous e
o f L o r ds in C o ils v Th e Ho me S to r es 19 04 A C 18 9
19 1 as an embarr assing chain o f authority

in which
th ere wer e two div erg ent vi ews An d th ey have sinc e

b e en twic e d escrib ed in report ed cas es In D ec emb er
19 04 V W ill iams L J ( on th e h ea ring o f th e app eal
in K ine v J o lly 19 05 1 C h 4 8 7) thus d escrib ed th e
d ecis ions b efore C o lls v T/ie Ho me Sto res
T h e main E ly
d i i
di sti ncti on W t h runs thr ough th e two li n es of cas es d ib d
is this T h e right of a hous e own er to light gain ed by g
i gh
p rescription wh ether b efore o r aft er th e Pr escription W ill i m
I"J
A ct was r egar d ed by o n e school as b eing a m ere right
o f p r op er ty
and by th e oth er school th e right was
regard ed not as a right o f pro p erty i n light but as a
n e gative eas ement b eing a right to p rev ent some land
own er fr om using his land s o as to constitute a nuisanc e
to th e own er o r occupi er o f a hous e upon adj oining l a nd
T hos e wer e th e two r iv a l vi ews o f th e law which app ear
in th e cas es antec edent to C o lls v T/ze Ho me Sto res

.
ar
ec s o n s
es cr
an
'
s,
68
PRESCRI PTIO N
23 ;
5
iv .
In May 19 05 Farw ell J in Higgins v B etts 19 05

2 Ch at p 2 15 r eferr ed to th e law which p rev ail ed as
to light b efo re C o lls v Th e Home Sto res and th e
decisions o n which it was bas ed as follows
Any substantial interfer enc e with an own er s com

fo rta bl e u se and enj oym ent of his hous e acco rding to th e
us ag es o f or dinary p ersons in th e locality is actionabl e as
a nuisanc e at common law His n eighbour s brick bur n
ing o r fried sh sh 0 p may be a nuisanc e in r esp ect of
s m ell his p e stl e and mo r ta r in r esp ect of nois e and in
lik e mann er his n eighbour s n ew building ma y be a
nuisanc e in r esp ect o f int erferenc e with light Th e
di ffer enc e b etween th e right to light and th e right to
freedo m fr om sm ell and nois e is that th e form er has to
b e acquir ed as an eas ement in addition to th e right o f
p r op erty b efore it can b e enfor c ed ; th e two latt er a re
a b initio incid ent to th e right o f p r op erty
But th e
wr ong don e is in both cas es th e same na mely th e dis
turba n ce o f th e own er in his enj o y ment of his hous e
Inasmuch as th e acquisition O f th e eas emen t was a
n ec essary condition p rec ed ent to th e right to s ue th e
C our ts app e ar in many cas es to have addr ess ed th em
s e l ves r ath er to th e ex t ent o f th e eas em ent acquir ed
and th e amount of such eas em ent tak en away by th e
d efendant than to th e sufciency for ordinary purp o s es
o f th e a mo un t o f light l eft
that many
so much s o
ex pressions can b e found that l end support to th e
a rgum ent that th e r ight to light was a r ight of p r op er ty
for which trespass would lie Th e do minant own er was
n ever entitl ed eith er by p rescription o r under th e A ct
It
to a l l th e light that cam e th r ough his win dows
,
Iv
LI GH T
69
was not enough to show that some light had b een tak e n
but th e question always was wh eth er s o much had b ee n
tak en as to caus e a nuisanc e B ut for many y ear s th e
t end ency o f th e C ourts had b een to m easure th e nuisanc e
by th e amount tak en fr o m th e light acquired and n o t
to consider wheth er th e amount l eft was sufficient fo r
th e r easonabl e co mfo rt O f th e hous e acco r ding to o rdinar y
requirements If a man had a hous e with unusually
ex c ell ent lights it was t reated as a nuisanc e if h e was
d epri ved O f a substantial part o f it ev en although a
fair amount for o rdinary purpos e s was l eft

If you co mpare th e s e two passag e s car efully yo u will
s ee that V W illiams L J
d escrib es th e diverg enc e as
o n e b etween thos e jud es who h eld that th e r ight to
g
prevent int er ferenc e with anci ent lights was a right o f
pr op erty and thos e who held it was a right to p reve nt
a nuisanc e O n th e oth er hand Farwell J says that
th e qu estion always was wh eth er s o much light had
b een tak en as to caus e a nuisanc e and that th e diff er
enc e b etw een th e j udg es was a diff er enc e in th e mod e
o f m easur ing th e nuisanc e
Th e effect O f th e d e cision
in C o lls v Th e Ho me Sto res is accordingly differently
stated by thes e two judges Vaughan W illiams L J
sp eak s O f it ( 19 05 1 C h 4 8 7) as a decision that th e
right is not a right o f prO p erty ; but that th e only
right in resp ect of light gain ed by th e prescription was
a n egative eas ement a right namely to prevent your
n eighbour fr om s o usin g his land as to inj ur e you a
right pr op erly enforc eabl e by an action o f nuisanc e
Farw ell J on th e oth er hand thus d escrib es th e eff ect
,
of
Co lls
v.
Th e Ho me S to res , 19 05 , 2 Ch 2 15
.
v,
PRESCR I PTIO N
70
IV
It is in this resp ect h e says (that is with resp ect
that C oll s
t o th e mod e o f m easu rin g th e nuisanc e)
C as e has to my mind readjusted th e law It is still
a question o f nuisanc e o r no
a s it always has b een
n
ot
How much
n uisanc e but th e t es t o f nuisanc e is
light h a s b een tak en and is that e nough mat erially to
l ess en th e enj oyment and use o f th e hous e that its
own er p reviously had ? but How much is left and is
that e nough fo r th e comfortabl e u s e and enj oym ent o f
th e hous e accor ding to th e o rdinary re quire ments o f
mank ind ?
Let us n o w t ur n to th e cas e o f C a lls v Th e Ho me
P in ipl s
t t d in
I do n o t
Stores repo rt e d in 19 04 A C at p 179
Hm
s ta t e th e facts o f th e cas e but only r efer to c ert ain
St
points O f p rinciple m ention ed in th e sp eeches o f th e
l e arn e d lords
Th e nature o f th e r ight was thus
d e scrib ed by Lor d Lindl ey at p 2 08 o f th e report
f
N tu
an own er o f ancient
G en er ally sp eak ing h e said
ip
p
ig h t lights is e ntitl e d to sufci ent light acco r ding to th e
ti
t ligh t
o rdinary notions o f mank ind for th e comfo rtabl e use
a n d enj oym ent o f his hous e as a dw elling hous e if it is
a dwellin g hous e o r for th e b en ecial u se and o ccu
p a tio n o f th e hous e if it is a w arehous e shop o r oth er
plac e o f busin ess

And this d escription O f th e r ight
corre sponds with th e similar words o f Lor d D avey
which you will nd at p 2 04 o f th e repo rt That is
th e rs t point o f p rincipl e to which I re fer
N ui
e
Again w e nd it laid down by all o r n e arly all th e
m tb
ed lo r ds who took par t in th e d ecision that th e
l
e
a
r
n
d
p
test o f th e r ight is wh ether th e O bstruction complain ed
o f is a nuisanc e ; i e ( it would s ee m ) a n uisanc e hav ing
,
s a
ores .
re o
res cr
ve r
sa n c
us
ro v e
L I GH T
Iv.
71
re gard to th e ext ent o f th e e as em e nt all eg ed to have

b ee n inte rfered with ( See the Opinions to this effect
o f L o r d Ha lsbur
y p 18 5 Lor d D a v ey p 2 04 ; and
Lo rd Lindl ey p
An d o n th e abo ve footing th e
C our t app r oved c ertain o f th e e arlier d e cisions and dis
a pp r o ved o f oth er s
SO far it is compar atively sp eak ing e asy to stat e th e C id
15
e ffe ct o f th e cas e But som e difculty commenc es when $331
w e com e to a sk what a re th e considerations to which th e C u t
C ourt Is to have regar d in deci ding wheth er th er e i s o r h
is not in any particul a r cas e a nuisanc e ha ving rega r d g
gi
m
to ext ent o f th e eas ement all eg ed to have b een int er fered

with Fo r cl e ar n ess sak e I sugg est to you to distingui sh
b etween th es e v ari ous consider ations T o distinguish
fo r insta nc e ( 1) consider ations r elating to th e stat e o f
th e p r emis es ex isting at th e dat e o f th e writ in th e
action i e their pr es ent stat e ;
considerations
relatin g to th e futur e of th e p re mis e s ; and (3 ) co n
sider ations relating to their past
S om e things a re cl ear
In th e r st plac e as regards C id
th e pr es ent th e C our t must plainly inquir e wh eth er
und er existing cir cumstanc es ( that is aft er th e er ection
o f th e all eg ed O bst ruction ) th e p er son co mplainin g has
o r has not th e amount of light referr ed to in Lor d
Lindl ey s words r egar d b eing had o f cour s e to th e
ext e nt o f that p erson s eas ement In th e s econd plac e
as regards th e pres ent th e C ourt must in answering th e
inquiry bas ed o n L or d Lin dl ey s wor ds have r egar d to
e as to this th e wo r ds
S
e
th e locality of th e p r op erty
(
us ed by Lor d Ha lsbury in th e Hous e o f L or ds 19 04
A C p 18 9 th e j udgment o f Rom er L J in K ine
.
ons
era
a v e re
ea n
ons
era
'
72
PRESCRI PT I O N
19 05 ,
J o lly,
Ch
4 97 ;
Iv
and
th e
judgm ent
of
J in Higgins v B etts 19 05 2 C h
In
th e thir d plac e as r ega rds th e p r es ent th e C our t must
in answerin g th e inquiry bas ed o n L or d Lindl ey s
wo rds have regard to light coming fr om sour c es oth er
than that which has b een O bstr uct ed p r o vid ed how ev er
that this is light to which th e plaintiff is entitl ed by
as
to
t
hi
s
t
h
e judgments in
S
e
e
gr ant o r p rescription
(
K ine v J o lly o f Rom er L J 19 05 1 Ch 4 9 7 and
Vaughan W il liams L J 19 05 1 Ch 4 93 ; and th e
sp eech o f Lor d Lindl ey in C o lls v Th e Ho me Sto res
Fa r well ,
19 04 , A C
.
Qo n sidera
to
Turning to th e s e cond class o f consid er ations I have

m ention ed viz consid erations relating to th e fut ure o f
th e p r emis es I may r emind you that in 18 78 it was
laid down by C ock burn C J that th e C ou rt shoul d
consid er not only th e actual p res e nt use o f th e r ooms
but also any purpos e to which it may be r easonably
ex p ect ed that in th e futur e th ey may be applicabl e
o re v Ha ll 3 Q B D
M
o
A
n
it
would
s
ee
m
d
(
that this rul e has n o t b een alt er ed by th e d ecision in
Thus Lord D avey says a t
C ells v Th e Ho me S to r es
19 04 A C p 2 02 th a t re gar d may b e had n o t only
to th e pres ent u s e but also to any o rdinary uses to
which th e t en ement is adapted An d at p 2 11 of th e
repor t L or d Lindl ey says that if a man choos es to us e
a well light ed r oom for a lumb er r oom for which little
light is r equired h e do es n o t los e his right to use th e
same r oom fo r som e other p urp os e for which more light
is requir ed
D ealing lastly with th e thir d class of consid erations
,
C o n s idera
iv
L I GH T
73
I have m ention ed nam ely consider ations relating to ti t

p
th e past o f th e p r emis es th e qu estion is C a n th e C ourt
in inquirin g whether there is o r is not a nuisance having
regard to th e extent o f th e plaintiff s easement conn e
its elf to th e pres ent stat e of th e premis es only ; or can
it in a case wh ere th e evidenc e shows that sufci ent
light is enj oyed for ordinary comfort in th e p res ent
ent er o n a co mparison of th e p r es ent with th e past ?
N ow yo u will r ec o ll ect th e wor ds of Far well J which
I r ead you fr om th e r epo rt o f Higgins v B etts
see
a n te p
h
in
wh
ch
h
d
sc
r
ib
e
s
e
t
r
u
e
mod
e
i
e
e
t
(
which according to h is und erstanding o f C ells v 1720
Ho me Sto res should b e appli ed in m easur ing th e
all eged nuisanc e If th e s e words can be tak en to
b e lit erally and strictly accurat e th e answer to our
qu estion s eems to be : N O th e C ourt cannot in th e cas e
suppos ed enter upon any such inquiry An d th ere is
very much in C o lls v Th e Ho me Sto res (esp ecially wh en
compared with th e cas e o f Wa r ren v B ro wn 19 00 2
K B 72 2 ; 19 02 1 K B 15 ) to justify th e wor ds o f
Farwell J
O n th e oth er hand I a m bound to t ell
you that th e judgments d elivered in Kine v J o lly K i
J uy
19 05 1 C h 4 8 0 ; 19 07 A C 1 s eem to me to thr ow
a doubt o n this qu estion An d fo r th e pres ent th e law
must b e consid er ed uns ettled
ons a s
as
ne v
Th e
re sult of what
have said can b e shortly state d
thus
natur e o f th e pr escriptive right to light is
that stated by Lor d Lindl ey ( 19 04 A C
Th e
If th e own er
of
th e
e as e m ent sues to pr otect it
'
to
74
PRESCR I PTIO N
Iv
h e must pr ove a nuis anc e having re gar d to th e ext ent

O f hi s eas em ent
In d eciding whether such a nuisanc e has o r h a s
not b een p r oved th e C ou rt may in s om e cas es have
re gar d to th e future
A s to th e p res ent it mus t o f cour s e consid er th e
light actually enj oy e d at th e time and must also
consider th e locality and any p resc riptive light coming
fr om other sour c es
As to wh ether in a cas e wh ere th e light actually
enj oyed in th e p res ent is sufcient for or dinary comfort
th e C our t should ent er o n any comparison O f th e p r es e nt
with th e past th e law is not s ettl ed
So much fo r th e g en er al nature o f th e p re sc ripti ve
right to light A s to th e qu estion which is sometim e s
r ais ed wh eth er that right is different in town and
country I may remind yo u that in the d e cisions b efo re
C ells v Th e Home Sto res th ere w a s som e di eren ce o f
Opinion
In M a r tin v Hea do n 2 E q 4 3 0 Kindersl ey V C
in 18 66 ex pre ssly decided that there w a s no distinction
as r egards th e right to light b etween town hous es and
country hous es In D ent v A uctio n M a rt C o 2 E q
O n th e
2 4 8 W ood V C was o f th e sam e opinion
other hand in C la rke v C la rk 1 C h 18 L or d C ran
wor th said that in qu estions as to light much must tu rn
o n th e locality of th e windows and that p er sons who live
in larg e citi es cannot exp e ct to enj oy th e sam e un
obstructed light as thos e who liv e in th e country
W ith L or d C ra nw o rth s opinion Knight B ruc e L J
in Ro bson v W/zittinglia m 1 C h 4 44 agreed and it
,
t o w n a nd
co un t r
Iv
L IGH T
75
app ear s from th e judgm ents in K elk v Pea rso n 6 C h

8 12 that J am e s and M ellish L JJ took th e sam e v i ew
Wh en w e com e to C ells v Th e Home Sto res w e nd
that th e right to prevent th e obstruction o f light is
placed o n th e gr ound o f nuisance N ow in th e cas e o f
nuisanc e s oth er than a nuisanc e to th e right to light it
In
is cl ea r that th e qu estion v ar i e s with th e locality
th e r ec ent cas e O f B a s h mer v P o lsue 19 06 1 Ch 2 3 4
W N ( 19 07) 6 7 a cas e which d ealt with a nuisanc e
fr om nois e you will nd C oz ens Hardy L J using
th e foll owing wor ds
Th e standar d o f comfor t di ffer s
This idea is
a cco r ding t o th e situation o f th e p r op erty
expr ess ed by Th esiger L J in Sturges v B ridgma n
11 Ch D 8 52 wh en h e said what might b e a nuisanc e
in B elgr ave Square woul d n o t be a nuisanc e in B er
a l sbury
mo n ds ey
1
9
06
h
Lo
r
d
H
in
1
C
(
his sp e ech to th e Hous e o f Lords in th e cas e o f C ells v
Th e Ho me S to r es exp r essly d ea l s w ith th e d i eren ce
b etwe en town and country (See 19 04 A O 18 3
An d I think it must be ta k en that sinc e th e d ecisio n o f
th e Hous e o f Lords in that cas e a qu e stion o f light in
resp ect o f a town hous e might be d ecided o n di erent
grounds from a s imilar qu estion arising in re sp e ct o f a
countr y hous e
I r efer n ex t to a rul e in relation to light which you R l
d g
may have heard m ention ed as th e rul e o f 4 5 d egrees ;
th e sugg e st ed rul e b eing that a p erson who has 4 5
d egr ees of light l eft to him cannot complain O n this
point I cannot do b e tt er than read you a passag e fr om
th e sp ee ch o f Lor d Lin dl ey addr essing th e Hous e of
Lo r ds in C ells v Th e Ho me Stores 19 04 A C 2 10 :
.
u e of
rees
45
76
PRESCR I P TIO N
Iv
Th ere is no rul e of law th at if a p er son has 4 5 d egree s

o f unobstr uct ed light thr ough a par ticul a r window l e ft
to him h e cannot maintain an action fo r a nuisanc e
caus ed by diminishing th e light which formerly cam e
6
thr ough th e window
ebenh a m
T
h
e
e
d
1
8
7
2
D
v
(
Ch D
But exp eri enc e shows that it is g enerally
sp eak ing a fair work ing rul e to consider that no sub
sta n tia l inju ry is don e to him wh ere an angl e o f 4 5
degrees is l eft to him esp ecially if there is a good light
fr om other dir ections as w ell Th e late L or d Justic e
C otton pointed this o u t in E ccles ia s tica l C o mmissio ners
v K ino 14 C h D 2 2 8 ; s ee also Pa rker v Firs t A venue
Ho tel C o 24 C h D
C ontinuing th e consideration o f th e nature O f th e
p rescriptiv e right to light I hav e n ex t to m ention th e
qu estion o f acquiring by prescription th e right to an
extraordinary amount o f light for a sp ecial purpos e
B efore C ells v Th e Ho me Sto res this qu estion was
frequ ently r ais ed An d in La nfr a nch i v M a ck enz ie
L R 4 E q 4 2 1 ( which was a case o f a pla inti using
light for th e pu rpos e o f ex amining silk s a busin e ss
w hich r equi red an ex tr ao r dinary amoun t o f light )
Malins V C exp ress ed his opinion that if th e plaintiff
had b een in th e enj oyment of an extr aordinary us er o f
light fo r 2 0 years that would e stablish his right to th e
ex tr ao rdinary light against all p er sons who had r eason
abl e k nowl edg e o f it You will nd that a similar
qu estion was r ais e d by a s eed m erchant (M a ckey v
I R 11 E q
a dentist
Sco ttis h Wido ws C o
ul pto r
6
a st
7
N
a
sc
1
8
a r twrigh t v
L
W
C
(
D
a
photog
r
aph
er
eed v 1) ebcnh a m 2 C h
h
T
(
.
Ligh t fo r
s p ecia l
p urp o s e
L I GH T
Iv .
77
2 4 Ch D 2 8 2 ) and
(Pa rker v Firs t A venue Ho tel
a hosier ( Wa rren v B ro wn 19 02 1 K B
In
their sp eech es to th e Hous e o f L or ds in Cells v Th e
Ho me S tores both L or d D a vey and L or d Lindl ey
referr ed to this qu estion but expr ess ed n o nal O pinion
ee 19 04 A C
S
pp
2
04
But
sinc
e
that
cas
e
(
th e qu estion was n eatly r ais ed b efo r e B r ay J
in
A mbler v Go rdo n 19 05 1 K B 4 17 ; th e particular
tr ades b eing thos e of an ar chit ect and a cloth m er chant
Th ere B ray J h eld that a right to a Sp ecial amount
O f light n ec essary for a par ticul ar busin ess cannot be
acquir ed by twenty y ea r s enj oym ent even wh er e th e
own er of th e s ervi ent t e n ement was aware o f th e enj oy
m ent
SO much fo r th e nat ure o f th e pr escr iptive right to A cq ui i
ti n f p e
light I pass to its acquisition Y o u will r ecoll ect th e ip ti
igh t t
stat ement in my rst L ectur e as to th e thr ee l egal gh t
m ethods in whi ch such a right may be acquired : rst Th
m th d f
presc riptio n at common law ; s econdly lost grant ; and l im w
xis ting
thir dly und er th e statut e It was at o n e tim e suppos ed
that th e wordin g o f s ect 3 O f th e Prescriptio n A ct
wh
ch
d
eals with th e eas ement O f light ) had tak en
i
(
away th e oth er m etho ds which previously existed o f
claimin g that eas ement ; viz th e m ethods by pre
scription at common law o r by lost grant (See Ta p ling
v J o nes 11 H L C 2 9 0 T rusco tt v M erch a nt T aylors
It is how ev er now s ettl ed that
C o 11 E x ch
th es e pr evious m ethods still ex ist th e wo rds of th e A ct
not having had th e e ect o f tak ing th es e away but
havi n g in effect added a thir d m ethod (See L or d
Lindl ey s sp eech to th e Hous e o f L ords in Ga rdner v
.
scr
ve
r ee
, c a
'
s o
no
78
PRESCRI P TIO N
Ho dgs o n s K ings ton
Iv .
A C 238
A yns ley v C lover 10 Ch
An d yo u will nd that
th es e thr ee alt ernativ e m ethods o f claim w er e in fact
pleaded in th e cas e of a claim fo r light to a chur ch
which ar os e b etween th e vicar o f Arundel and th e D uk e
o rfo lk v A r buth no t 4 C P D
o f N o r fol k
N
(
Referr ing th e n to th e two r st m e ntion ed m e thods
C l im by
ip
p
v
iz
p
r
escr iption at common la w and lost
o f claim
t
ti
mm
g
r
ant
you
will
re
coll
e
ct
what
I
said
to
you
in
my
l w
l t g
t r st L ectur e as to th e conditions und er whi ch th es e
m ethods can be us ed I may remind yo u in particul ar
r st that a grant must be p re sum ed and s e condly that
no grant wil l b e p resum e d wh ere th e e as em e nt has not
b een enj oy ed as o f right
I pass to th e third m ethod o f claiming th e eas em ent
Cl im by
ip
p
by
p
r
z
esc r iption und er th e statut e th e thi r d s e ction
v
i
d
ti
t t t
of which deals sp ecially with th e cas e of light ( See
In using th e statutory m ethod th e
App endix )
claimant o f th e eas ement must of cour s e bring hims elf
within th e w or ds o f s ect 3 He must show ( 1) that
building
th e light has b ee n enj oy ed in r esp ect o f a
which n eed not however be t for occupation ( C o llis
v La ugh er 18 9 4 3 C h
and which may b e a
greenhouse ( C lierd v Ho lt 18 9 9 1 Ch
a pictur e
g a ll ery (A tt Gcn v Queen A nne s C o 6 0 L T
o r a chu r ch ( E ccles ia s tica l C o mmrs v Ifino 14 Ch D
He must show (2 ) that th ere has b ee n th e
actual enj oym ent required by th e s e ction

( S ee
Smith v B a x ter 4 0 C h D 2 6 quot ed a nte p
He must show (3 ) that such actual enj oym e nt h a s
last ed fo r th e p eriod m entioned in th e s e ction
19 03 ,
Co
r ewery
rescr
on a
on
co
a
os
or
ra n
res cr
o n un
er
s a u e.
LI GH T
Iv.
79
B e sides how ever directing your att ention to th e

wor ds o f th e statut e th ere a re two rul es which I should
m e ntion In th e rst plac e in claiming th e eas ement
o f light und er s ect 3 it is not n ec essa ry to p r esum e a
g rant In Tap ling v J o nes 11 H L C 2 9 0 L or d
W estbury laid down that th e right to light under th e

s tatut e d ep ends upon positive enactm ent and do es n o t
r equire and th erefo re ought not to b e rest ed o n any
p resumption of a grant fr om any adjoining pr oprietor

And th es e words hav e sinc e b een ad o pt ed and applied
by N or th J in J o rdeson v S utto n 8ft Co 18 9 8 2 C h
626
In th e s econd plac e it is s ettl ed that th e actual
enj oyment
r equired by s ect 3 n eed n o t be a user as
o f right
T h e d ecisi o ns on which this d ep ends you will
nd quot ed by Lor d Lindl ey in his sp eech to th e Ho us e
O f Lo r ds in C ells v Th e Ho me Stor es 19 04 A C 2 05
C ontinuing to deal with th e acquisition o f th e r igh t C
h
t o l i ght I n ex t consi d er th e cas e wh i ch has g i ven r i s e
to some difculty v iz wh ere th e s ervi ent t en em ent has
i
f
d uring th e whol e o r any mat erial part of th e p eriod of
f
l
e nj oym ent b ee n i n th e occupati on o f a l ess ee fo r y ear s
And in discussing this I commenc e with th e two rst ( ) ligh t
1
y
m ethods of clai m k nown as prescri pti on at common law E
ggfgf
t
o r by lost gr ant
C o n nin g o ur attention to th es e
mm n
m ethods let us tak e rst th e cas e wh ere th e own ers O f l w l t
t
t h e fee Simpl e i n th e two t en em ents a re di ffer ent p er s o ns
d
a n d let us suppos e th e s ervi ent t en emen t to be in th e
tt
It is cl ea r that in th a t m t
O ccupati on o f a l ess ee fo r y ear s
W
s
E
l
c as e no eas em ent is acqui red by p r es c ription at co mmon f
by
d
t
l a w o r by lost gr ant unl ess th e claima n t o f th e eas e
;
p
me nt can show that th e own er of th e fee in th e s erv i e nt
,
a se
s es s o n o
or
ess ee
"
0 11 a
co
os
or
ra n
o nal
a n
B er
v 1en
'
en e
en
DB
In
ee
l
eren
ers o n s
80
PRESCRI PTIO N
Iv
t en em e nt k n e w
O f or acqui esced in th e e nj oyment

D
a niel v N o r th 11 E ast
It was n o t however
(
difcult for th e C ourt to conclude his acqui esc enc e
wh er e it was shown that th e enj oyment of th e eas e me nt
commenc e d b efore th e occupation o f th e l e ss ee (See
C ross v L ewis 2 B
C
w
d in
So much fo r th e cas e o f different p er sons owning th e
f by
tw o t e n em ents
Tak e now th e case O f th e same p erson
m
p
owni ng th e fee Si mpl e in th e two t en ements such t en e
m ents how ever b eing occupied by di erent l ess ees
An d suppos e an eas em ent to b e claim ed by p rescription
at co mmon law or by los t grant In this cas e it s eems
cl ear that th e claim must fa il F o r accor ding to th e
Old doctrin es O f prescription th e l ess ee occupying th e
dominant ten ement if h e were to acquire an eas ement
a t all wo ul d n ec e ssarily acquir e it fo r th e b en e t o f his
lan dl or d ( See K ilgo ur v Ga ddes 19 04 1 K B 4 6 2
L a rge v Pitt Peak e
An d th e landlo r d can
acquir e no eas ement o ver th e a dj O i n i ng t en em ent which
upon o ur assumption is his o w n land
m
ethod o f claim
b
assing
now
to
th
e
thi
r
d
a
P
v
i
z
li
h
t
( ) g
l im d by
enc e
cla
i m und er th e statut e
I
co
m
m
as
b
efo r e W i th
ip
p
iffer ent p er sons o w n th e fee
d
h
e assu mption that
t
g
iggig?
d mi
t simpl e O f th e do minant and s er vi ent t en ements and I
d
suppos
e th e s ervi ent t en em ent to be i n th e occupat i on
vi nt
t
t o f a l ess ee fo r y e ar s
In this cas e it s eems that under
a
w
3
f
an
eas em ent is acquir ed wh en
by
h
e wo r ds o f s ec t
t
e
th ere h a s b een an enj oy ment fo r th e st a tutory p eriod ;
th e r esult differing you O bs er ve fr om th e r esult in a
similar cas e wh ere th e claim is bas ed o n p rescription
at common law o r by lost grant In Simp cr v Fo ley
.
ne
ee
sa
er s o n :
c a
rescr
na n
an
ser
en e es
ne
1n
iv
L I GH T
81
.
2 J
H 5 5 5 it was laid down by W ood V C that
wh ere un der th e statute th e right to light is acquired
against th e own er of a leas ehold inter est it is also
acquir ed against th e own er of th e reversion
d in
I com e lastly to th e cas e o f a claim und er th e
ggs
statut e wh ere th e fee simpl e in th e dominant and m y
s ervi ent t en ements b elongs to th e same p er son but th e E
jzig
zii n
two t en ements a re in th e occupation of different l ess ees
A n d I suppos e that th er e has b een enj oym ent fo r th e
U nd er such cir cumstanc es it was
statutory p eriod
d ecid ed in a cas e which came b efo r e th e C ourt o f
E xch equ er C hamb er in 18 6 1 (Frewen v Ph illip s 11 F w
Ph d lt
30 L J C P
that a claim
C B N s
under th e statut e to th e eas em ent o f light succ eeds
T h e lin e o f autho rity however has not stopp ed th ere
In a later cas e which cam e b efo re th e C hanc ery C ourt o f
it Wh t n
App eal in 18 9 3 ( Wh ea to n v M a p le 18 9 3 3 C h
was laid down by Lindl ey L J that under s ect 3 O f
th e statut e (th e s ection d ealing with light) an eas em e nt
for a t erm o f y ear s cannot be acquired In oth er wor ds
a n eas em ent acqui r ed und er th a t s ecti on must be o n e
which binds th e fee simpl e of th e s er vi ent t en em ent
a n d e nu r es fo r th e b en et of th e f ee simpl e o f th e
dominant t en ement
Having r egar d to th e last m ention ed d ecision th e
qu estion was rec ently r ais ed before th e C o urt o f App eal
as to wh eth er under th e suppos ed cir cumstanc es with
which w e are now dealing any eas ement coul d b e
claimed at all ; and it was sugg est ed that IVh ea ten
M a p le had o verr ul ed Fr ewen v Ph illip s
v
T h e cas e F
M
m
is Fea r v M o rga n 19 06 2 Ch 4 06 Th e argu ment
-
r n
sa
re
en v .
s '
ea
ea r v ,
PRESCR IP TIO N
82
Iv
was that if an e as em ent was acquired at all th en

accor ding to Wh ea ten v M ap le it could n o t be fo r a
t erm o f y ears but must be fo r th e b enet o f th e fee
simpl e o f th e dominant t en em ent and bind th e f ee
o f th e s ervi ent t en em ent ; and f ur th er that inasmuch
as th e own er o f th e fee O f th e dominant t en em ent
was also th e owner o f th e fee o f th e s ervi ent t en e
m ent h e could not have an easeme nt over his own
land The C ourt o f App eal how ever r ej ect ed th e
argument and held that Frewen v Ph illip s and t ea to n
v M ap le mus t both be acc ept ed as law Th e gr ounds
o f th e d ecision a r e not easy to follow
E ff t f
Let us pass to anoth er stage in th e history of an
$ 32223 e asement o f light L et us assume that a prescriptive
r
ight
to light has b een acquir ed and that th e own er o f
t
th e dominant te n emen t is enj oying it and is d esir ous o f
Fo r som e r eason however h e
continuing to do s o
nds it n ec e ssary o r d esirabl e to mak e alterations in th e
dominant t en em ent and th e qu estion at onc e aris es as
to what effect this will ha v e up o n th e eas ement o f light
W hat an impo rtant pr actical qu estion this is yo u will
s ee at onc e wh en yo u r ememb er what an a mount o f
rebuilding is continually going o n in o ur l a rge towns
D ii
and how often buildings us ed for o n e pu rpos e a re
altered so as to b e applie d for anoth er B efore th e
d
T
h
e Ho me Sto res
h
e qu estion I
ecision in C ells v
t
St
h a ve m ention ed had b een d ea lt with by th e C ou rts
Thus it was decided b y th e C o urt of A pp eal that th e
own er o f an ancient light might pull down his building
with a Vi ew to res t o ration without interfering with his
right to th e light (E col C o mmrs v Ifino 14 C h D
and might chang e th e purpos e for which th e
,
ec
en
ec s o n s
ores .
1v
L I GHT
83
building was to b e us e d ( Sco tt v Pa p e 3 1 C h D

SO h e might mak e alt er ations in th e fram ework
a n d glazing o f his windo w s w ithout losing h is right
o
D
u
r
n
e
r
v
S
o
n
e
r
r
And as r egar d s
1
Sm
T
p
(
th e cas e which fre qu ently occurs wher e th e plan e of th e
w indows in th e n ew building differ s fr om th eir plan e in
th e Old it was laid down by th e C our t of A pp e al that
an al teration o f th e plan e would not destr oy th e right
s o long as it could be shown that th e dominant o w n er
is using thr ough th e new ap er tures in th e n ew buil ding
th e sam e o r a substantial part of th e same light which
pass e d thr ough th e o ld ap ertur es into th e O ld buil ding
In addition to thes e
( Sco tt v Pa p e 3 1 C h D
d e cisions I should m ention some others in which it
was held that a pla inti who had by his o w n alter ations
obscure d part o f th e light p reviously coming to his hous e
but left a substantial part u n a ected was h eld still
entitl ed to pr otection ( Sta igh t v B ur n 5 C h 16 3
B o urke v A lexa ndra C o 18 7 7 W N 3 0 ; A rcedeckne
v K elk 2 Griff
As r egards th e facts o f th e
alt eration it was held not n ec essary to giv e ind ep endent
evid e nc e of th e own er s intention to p res erve his anci e nt
lights ( Smith v B a x ter 18 9 8 2 C h
B ut it
was n ecessary to give accur at e evidenc e o f th e position
and size o f th e o ld lights s o as to identify th e area
wh ere th e n ew lights coincid e d with th em (Penda rees
v M unro 18 9 2 1 C h
All th e abov e cas es w ere d ecid e d b e fo re C ells v Th e
Ho me Sto res and I should point o ut to yo u that o ne O f
th e ca ses I have m ention ed viz Sco tt v Pep e 3 1 Ch D
5 71 is d e scri bed by Lo r d M a cn a gh ten in h is sp e ech to
.
'
(2 )
84
PRESCR I P TIO N
Iv .
House o f L ords in C ells v Th e Ho me Sto res a s

an extreme instanc e of th e o ld th eory o f p rop erty in
light If you will refer to th e cas e yo u w ill nd that
Bowen L J th ere sp eak s o f an indefeasibl e right t o
a sp ecic quantity o f light and to a d enite amount
o f p encil s o f light
An d this vi e w o f p r op erty in th e
light enj oyed undoubtedl y runs thr ough a good many
o f th e o ld d ecisions as to th e e ect of alt er ations in
th e dominant ten ement I p r oceed however to co n
sider what is th e r ul e which since C ells v Th e Ho me
S to res must now be appli ed in th e cas e o f such
alterations
A ccording to th e law laid down in C ells v Th e Ho me
Sto res yo u will r ecoll ect that th e plaintiff must p r ove
that th e d efendant has committ ed a nuisanc e a
nuisanc e that is to th e plainti ff having regar d to th e
ex t ent o f his p revious ly existing eas ement o f light
Suppos e now th e own er O f th e do minan t t en em en t
alter s it and th en su es to p rotect his eas em ent fr om th e
r esult o f a later O bstruction ; in that action h e must
p r ov e a nuisanc e which mu s t be as certain ed with strict
r eference to th e plaintiff s o ld easement In oth er
wo rds th e pla inti must show that if th e domin ant
t en ement had remain ed unaltered th e lat er Obstruction
would have SO a ected h im as to caus e substantial
discomfo rt
T h e onus accordin gly is this : th e plaintiff has to
p r ove that in a hypoth etical cas e a nuisance would
hav e aris e n from th e defendant s acts You will there
fore see at onc e that th e result o f C ells v Th e Home
Sto res may have b ee n to mak e it a very d ifcult thin g
th e
E ff
ec t o n
th is q u es
tio n o f
Ho me
Stores
IV
LI GH T
th e plaintiff under those circumstanc es to pr ov e h is

cas e So far as I can asc ertain th ere is only o n e reported
sinc e C ells v Th e Ho me Sto res th e
cas e in which
C ourt s have d ealt with th e qu estion o f altera tion in th e
dominant ten ement T h e cas e is A nkers en v Co nnelly A k
C
lly
In that cas e to refer to th e facts
19 06 2 Ch 5 4 4
sufcie ntly for o ur purpos e yo u will nd that th e
dominant t en em ent was a sh ed deriving light fr om a
yard b elonging to th e o wn er o f th e shed and also from
a window o r anci ent light overlook ing th e s ervi ent
t e n ement Th e own er o f th e shed co vered in th e
yard and th e qu estion was rais ed wh eth er h e was
still entitl ed to pr otection in resp ect o f th e window
It w a s cl ear that by reason of th e dominant own er
having cov ere d in th e yard a buil ding erected o n th e
s ervi ent t en ement in th e future might interfere with
th e dominant own er s c o mfort which if th e yar d had
n o t b een co ver ed in
woul d not have don e so Th e
C our t held that th e dominant own er had don e an act
which woul d have materially incre as ed th e burd en o f
th e o ld eas e ment and that by doing s o h e had in effe ct
de stroyed it Fo r it b eing impossibl e to s ever th e
incre as ed bur den fr om th e o riginal bur d en it had also
b ecome impossibl e fo r th e dominant own er to enforce
his Old right at all
I turn n ex t to th e qu estion o f abandonm ent Sup A b d n
m t f
posing th e eas ement o f th e right to light to have b ee n ig h t t
lig h t
acquired and enj oyed by th e own er O f the dominant
te n e m e nt h o w can it b e abando n ed ? Abandonm ent in
th e cas e o f light as in th e cas e o f oth er e as e m e nts is a
qu e stion o f inte ntion and that int e ntion is to be d erive d
fo r
n er s en
v.
onne
an
en
86
PRESCR I P TIO N
fr om
Iv
th e acts o f th e par ties It is cl e ar that c ertain

acts will amount to abandonm ent i e will p er se
a mount to evid enc e o f an int ention to abandon th e
e as em ent Thus it was said in M o o re v R a wson
3 B
C 3 4 1 that if a ma n pulls down his hous e and
d o e s not u se th e land fo r two o r th ree y ear s o r convert s
it into tillag e h e may be tak en to have abandon ed h is
right to light A ccording to th e udgmen ts in that
cas e how ever ( which is th e l eading o n e o n th e subj e ct )
th e qu estion s eems to be larg ely o n e o f th e bur den o f
pr oof Thus it was there laid down by Bayl ey J
that c easing to enj oy d estr oys th e right unl e ss at th e
t im e wh en th e par ty discontinu es th e e nj oym ent h e
do e s som e act to show that h e means to resum e it
within a reasonabl e time A n d Abbot C J stat e s
t hat th e bur d en of p r ov ing that h e showed an int ention
t o re sum e th e u se o f light li es o n th e par ty who has
discontinu ed it
In M o o re V R a wso n th e C ourt w a s
d e a ling with th e cas e O f a man who had pull ed down
his hous e and erect ed o n th e sit e a blank wall which
stood th ere for s event een y ear s ; and m e anwhile th e
o wn er O f th e s erv i ent t en em en t had er ect ed a buil din g
upon his o w n land It is important there fore to
notic e that th e owner o f th e s ervi ent t e nement had
act e d o n th e int ention o f abando nment which h e
b eli eved th e own er o f th e dominant t en ement to have
manifest e d In th e later cas e o f Stoko e v Singers
8 E
B 3 7 L o r d C ampb ell doubt ed w h e th er th e
communication to th e O wn er o f th e s er vi e nt t en em ent
o f an int ention p er man ently to abandon th e r igh t
would destr oy th e right until th e communication w a s
.
Iv
L I GH T
87
ct e d upon It is cl ear in g en er al that th e m ere

pul ling down of a buil ding do e s not amount to aban
d o nment o r d estr oy th e right
E
ccles ia s tica l C o mmis
(
s io ners v Ifino 14 C h D
A s r egards buil din g
a lt er ations how ever I should r emind
u that ( apart
o
y
fr om abandonm ent) thes e may hav e th e effe ct o f
d estr oying th e right by making it impossibl e fo r th e
o wn er of th e eas eme nt to p r o v e a cas e o f nuisanc e
A
n
k
ers en v C o nnelly 19 06 2 C h
(
S upposing an anci ent light to be obst ruct e d and th e R m di
o wn er o f th e eas em en t su es fo r p r ot ection th e C ourt

ig zggn
ca n giv e r elief eith er by way O f injunction o r by way
o f damag es o r in both fo r ms
W hat relief shall b e d m g ;
n
given is a matter for th e discre tion o f th e C ou rt and th e g if

di scretion is a u dicia l o n e
In explaining to you thos e
cas es in which an injunction may be obtain ed and
thos e in which damages will p r obably b e given I
cannot do b etter than r ead to yo u a passage fr om th e
Sp ee ch d eliver ed by L o r d M a cn a gh ten in C ells v Home
Sto res 19 04 A C at p 19 3
In some cas es o f cour s e an injunction is n ec e ssary
if for instanc e th e injury cannot fairly b e com
n
a ted by mon ey ; if th e d ef endant has act e d in a
e
s
p
high handed mann er ; if h e has end eav our ed to steal a
march upon th e plaintiff o r to evade th e ur isdictio n o f
th e C our t
In all th es e cas e s an injunction is n eces
sary in ord er to do justic e to th e plaintiff and as a
warning to oth ers B ut if th ere is really a qu e stion a s
to wh eth er th e obstruction is l egal o r not and if th e
d e fendant has act ed fairly and not in an unn eighbourly
spirit I am dispos ed to think that th e C ourt ought to
a
es
es
PRESCRI PTIO N
38
Iv
inclin e to damag es r ather than to an injunction It is

quite tru e that a man ought not to be compelled to
par t with his pr op erty against his will or to have th e
v alu e o f his p r op er ty di minish ed without an A ct o f
O n th e oth er hand th e C ourt ought to be
Parliament
careful n o t to allow an action for th e pr otection of
ancient lights to be used as a means O f extorting money

This sugg estion o f exto rtion h a d b een dealt with in
a cas e d ecided in 19 03 before C ells v Ho me Sto res
Th e cas e is C o wp er v La idler 19 03 2 C h 3 3 7 wh ere
Buck l ey J while granting an inj unction to restr ain
int erferenc e with anci ent lights d ealt with th e argu
ment that th e action was b eing used as a m eans of
ex to r ting mon ey
You will nd in his j udgment a
statement o f th e gr ounds o n which h e came to th e
conclusion that in that cas e there w a s no extortion
If th e C ourt decides to gr ant an injunction th e
inj unction will according to th e pres ent practice b e in
th e for m sugg est ed by L or d M a cn a gh ten in C ells v
Ho me Sto res 19 04 A C 19 4 It will r es tr ain th e
defendant fr om erecting any building so as to caus e a
nuisance o r ill egal O bstruction to th e plaintiff s ancient
windows as th e same ex isted pr eviously to th e comm ence
m e nt o f th e defendant s work s In 19 06 an injunction
to this effect was grant ed by Swinfen E ady J as you
will nd in th e not e o f A nderso n v Fra ncis 19 06 W N
16 0
O f cour s e yo u will r ememb er that in a p r op er
cas e a mandato ry injunction ma y be gr anted which in
th e fo r m now adopt ed shoul d in dir ect wo r ds o r d er th e
building to be pull e d down ( J a ckso n v N o rma nby C o
18 9 9 1 C h
.
Iv
L I GH T
89
r egards appointing a sur veyo r to report th e R

powers o f th e C ourt under th e pres e nt Rul es of th e
S upr eme C our t are v ery wid e
U nd er O rd L r 3
th e C ourt may o rder th e insp ection o f th e pr op erty
and may authoris e any p erson to ent er upon any land
in th e occupation o f any party to th e action and may
authoris e any Obs erv ation to be mad e o r exp eriment
trie d for th e purpos e O f evidenc e U nder O rd LV
r 19 th e judg e in chamb er s may Obtain th e assistanc e
of an engin e er o r other sci entic p erson and may act
upon his c erticat e In his sp eech in C ells v Ho me
Stores 19 04 A C 19 2 L o r d M a cn a gh ten exp r ess ed
his sur p ris e that th e C ourt did not more frequ ently
avail its elf o f th e power O f calling in a comp et ent
advis er to r eport to th e C our t ; and stat ed his Opinion
that in that cas e th e C our t ought to hav e Obtained such
a report fo r its o w n guidanc e I may m ention that in
th e rec ent cas e o f A bbo t v Ho llo wa y 19 04 W N 12 4
in
which
l
i
nti claim ed an injunction to r est r ain
h
e
a
t
(
p
interferenc e with anci ent lights) Buck ley J by
consent referr ed th e action to an in dep ende nt sur veyo r
to d e al with th e whol e qu estion
As
ep o rt
by
s u rve o r
90
V
RES CRI PTI O N
RE LATI ON T O RI GHT S
AN D PR O FIT S A PREN D RE
IN
CO M M ON
OF
O UR
subj ect to night is Prescription in relation to Rights

o f C ommon and p ro ts a p rendre
In th e cour s e of my
Fir s t L ectur e (see a n te p
w e s a w that th e most
important o f th e purely incorpo rea l h ereditaments to
which a title aris e s by prescription are two viz : rst
rights of common and p ro ts a p rendre ; and s econdly
e as em ents ; th e distinction b etw een th e s e two class e s o f
rights b eing that th e r s t are rights to tak e somethin g
o ut o f anoth er s land ; th e s econd a re r ights to have
accommodation in another s land W e also saw that of
th es e rights th e r st can exist either as rights ann exe d
t o land o r in gr oss ; wh ere as th e s e cond w ere inv ariably
ann exed to land With eas em ents w e have alre ady
d ealt at som e l ength We hav e discuss ed rights o f way
and rights o f wat er both o f which fall within s ect 2 o f
th e Pr esc ription A ct 18 3 2
W e have also discuss ed
rights o f light which fall within s ect 3 o f th e sam e Act
W e now com e to d eal with righ ts o f common a nd
p ro ts d p rendre which fall within s e ct 1
This s e ction sp eak s o f any right of common o r oth er

M
ni g
3
2;$33 p r ot o r b en e t to b e tak en and enj oy e d fr om o r upon
mn
any land o f any p er son
What do th e s e words m e an ?
-
ea
PR OFIT S A PREN D RE
91
has b ee n oft e n dened

C ommon
says Mr Serj eant Stephen is a p r ot which o n e ma n
has in th e land o f another

( 1 St eph C o m
says M r Elton
is a right o f tak ing
C ommon
some part o f any natur al p r oduct o f th e land o f a n
h
oth er
E
l
on
C
o
m
mons
p
T
e last d enition
t
(
Com
I shall r efer to is by M r S erj eant W o o lry ch :
mon may be said to exist where two o r more tak e in
c ommon with each oth er fr om th e soil o f a thi r d p er son
a part o f th e natur al pr oduc e

l
ry ch C ommons
o
o
W
(
p
S o much fo r th e d enitions o f right o f common M
W hat about p rots to be tak en and enj oy ed fr om o r
upon any land

A p r o t a p rendr e says Lindl ey
L J
is a right to tak e something O ff anoth er p erson s
land Such a right do es not p reve nt th e own er fr om
tak ing th e same sort o f thin g fr om O R his o w n land
Th e r st right may limit but do es not ex clud e th e
s e cond An ex clusi ve right to all th e p rot o f a parti
onl a r k ind can no doubt be gr ant ed ; but such a right
cannot b e inferr ed fr om language which is not cl ear
and explicit
(D uke of Suth er la nd v I Hea th co te 18 9 2
Right o f common
ea nin g
1 Ch
far as th e d enitions go accordingly th e rights Th t w

app ear to be very si milar But a clos er consideration
mp
shows that th e words p ro t ( 2 p rendre a re wider words
than right Of common ; in other wo rds that whil e every
right o f common is a p rot a p rendre there a re som e
Fo r
p ro ts a p rendr e which a re not rights O f common
instanc e a man may prescrib e for th e tak ing o f th e sol e
and s ever al herbage o f land o r th e sol e and s ever al
So
co
a red
92
P RESCR I P TIO N
pasture of land ; as was establish ed in Po tter v N o r th

1 Vent 3 8 5 and Hosk ins v R o bins Po llex fen l 3
quoted with appr o v al by Park e B in Welco me v
Up to n 6 M
W 5 4 3 Thes e rights would I a ppre
h end be accur ately describ ed as prescriptive rights to
incorporeal h ereditam ents in th e natur e O f p rots d
p rendre and would p r op erly fall within s e ct 1 o f th e
Prescription A ct
ll
m
n
i
ia
s
S
ee
o
C ommons
W
(
But th ey would not be rights O f common ; see th e
judgment o f Martin B in J o h nso n v B a rnes L R
8 C P 5 3 1 wh ere h e dr aws a clear distinction b e tween a
right o fcommon o f pasture and a sol e and s ever al pasture
T h e t erm p ro t a p rendr e accor dingly is th e wid er

t erm which may b e us ed to describ e th e right o f tak ing
part o f th e substance o r pr oduc e O f th e land o f another
n o t only in th e cas e wh er e th e right is own e d and
ex er cis ed by o n e p erson under o n e titl e but also in th e
cas e where it is own ed and ex er cis ed simul taneously by
Th e t erm r igh t
s ev er al p er sons und er di ffer ent titl es
O f common o n th e oth er hand is th e narr ower term

usually employed in th e latter cas e alon e In this
L e ctur e th e two terms will be us ed to a larg e ex tent
int er change ably B ut where t echnically th e t er m
right o f common will not be applicabl e th e term

p ro t a p rendre will be us ed
I may m ention h ere that b eing r ights O f tak in g
pr oduc e p ro ts a p rendr e were s o call ed as contrast e d
with other forms O f pr ot fro m anoth er s land such as
quit re nts which w ere said to lie in render In oth er
words th e distinction was b etween p ro ts d p rendre
a n d p ro ts d rendre
,
P R O FIT S
A PRE N D RE
93
proceed now to consid er th e v ar ious k inds o f rights D iff nt

f
ki d
O f common r ecognis ed by ou r C our ts
ig h t
f
mm n
says
Th e rights O f common now usually met with
Mr J oshua W illiams Real Pr op erty 15 th ed p 3 76
a re o f two k inds
Fir st
Wh ere th e s everal own er s o f strips o f land
c omposing tog eth er a co mmon eld hav e at c er tain
s e asons a r ight to put in cattl e to r ang e o v er th e
whol e
Se condly
W h ere th e t enants of a manor poss ess
r ights of co mmon o ver th e wast e of th e mano r which
b elongs to th e lo r d subj ect to such rights

Th e latt er rights that is th e rights poss ess ed by th e
t enants o f a manor a re th e r ights mor e usually met
w ith and of th es e L o rd C ok e m entions v e z C o mmon
co mmon o f turbary
o f pastur e common o f esto v er s
and th e right of diggin g fo r
c ommon o f piscary
min er als These r ights I p ropos e to ex plain shor tly in
o r der
C ommon of pasture is wh ere o n e p er son has in C mm n
fp t u
c ommon with oth er s th e r ight of tak ing by th e mouths
I pu t pp
o f h is cattl e th e h erbag e o n th e land O f anoth er
d t;
a sid e ( as not falling within th e subj ect of p rescription
)
c ommon o f pastur e app endant which you will nd
in
d iscuss ed at l ength in th e judgment o f Park e B
T his is th e
D unra cen v L lewellyn 15 Q B 8 10
r ight o f fr eehold er s entitl ed to ar abl e land par c el o f a
mano r by virtu e o f a gr ant mad e b efo re th e statut e o f
Quia E mp tores It is th e right to pastu re upon th e
w ast e such cattl e as a re k ept fo r ploughing and
manuring th e arabl e land Th e right was ann ex ed by
I
ere
s o
s o
co
as
en
an
re:
P R E SCRI P TIO N
94
pp ur
th e common law and ind ep endent o f any pre scription to

such a grant as I hav e mention ed C ommon o f pasture
based o n prescription is usually claim e d as appurt e nant
Th e r ight must b e
t o th e land o f th e clai mant
limit ed (E lton C ommons
and th e limit may aris e
e ither by th e numb er o f cattle b eing x ed o r by what is
call ed l evancy and couchancy that is th e numb er o f

cattl e which th e p r oduc e o f th e com mon er s land can
I
b
i
d
k e ep in winter
)
(
W hen claimed as appurtenant to land th ere must b e
some connection b etween th e right claimed and th e
land in r esp ect o f which it is claim ed It has b ee n
h eld claimable fo r hors es sh eep goats and sw in e and
possibly fo r th e fractional part o f a co w (N ich o ls v
N
But in o n e cas e it was
Ch a p ma n 5 H
s ol emnly d ecid ed that it could n o t b e claim ed fo r g ee s e
a s having ( at l e as t in that cas e) no conn ection with th e
land o f th e claimant (M o rley v C lierd 2 0 Ch D
Y o u must r em emb er however (a s will h ere aft er
app ear) that a right o f common o f pasture may exist
in gr o ss
indep endently of th e own ership o f land)
in which cas e o f cours e thi s rul e woul d not apply
C ommon o f estover s is th e right to tak e from
another s land wood fo r fuel and repair s It mus t b e
limi ted and there must be som e c o nn ection Shown
b etween th e right claimed and th e hous e o r th e agri
cul tur al impl em ents O r th e fenc es o f th e claimant A
right o f this k ind was establi sh ed by th e freehold
t enants o f th e mano r o f Plu mst ead as you will nd in
Wa rw ick v Queen s C o llege Oxfo rd 6 Ch 7 16
C ommon o f turbary is the right to tak e tur f from
.
C o mmo n
o festo vers .
C o mmo n
o ftu rb a ry
PR O FIT S
v.
PREND RE
95
noth er s land This right wh en claim e d as anci ent

can only exist as b eing a right in r esp ect o f an anci ent
dwelling hous e o r th e hous e which suppli es its place
It
( Wa rwick v Queen s C o llege Oxfo rd 6 Ch
must b e limited : see Wils o n v IVilles 7 E ast 12 1
C ommon o f piscary is th e right O f shing in C mm
fp
y
common with oth er p ersons in a stream th e soil whereof
b elongs to a thir d p erson an instanc e of which you will
n d in th e cas e O f Tilbury v Silva 4 5 C h D 115
Th e last of th e r ights m ention ed by L o rd C ok e Lib ty f
is th e right o f taking min erals su ch as sand grav el and mi l
t n es
ston e in another s land Instances o f thi s right will be E
ffz
found in Po r tla nd v Hill 1 E q 76 1 where th e t enants m dth
l n
o f a mano r w er e entitl ed to tak e coal und er th e wast e ;
and in Ro berts on v Ha r topp 4 3 C h D 5 14 wh er e th e
t e nants wer e entitl ed to dig loam n ec ess a r y fo r repair ing
their ancient t en em ents ; and in Hea th v D ea ne 19 05
2 C h 8 6 wh ere a right to t a k e ston e fr om th e wast e
w a s establish e d in th e freehold and C opyhold t enants o f
a mano r
said Lord D enman in

Th e natur e o f th es e r ights
is accur at ely gi ven in

C la yto n v C o r by 5 Q B 4 2 0
th e s econd v olu me o f Black ston e s Comm entar ies at
p 3 5 as follows
The s e s ever al sp ecies o f c o mmons
do all o riginally resul t fro m th e sam e n ec essity as
common of pasture ; viz fo r th e maint enanc e and
carrying o n o f husbandry ; common o f piscary b eing
given fo r th e sust enanc e o f th e t enant s family ; com
mo n o f turbary and re bot e fo r his fu el ; and hous e
bot e plough bot e cart bot e and hedg e b o te fo r repair
ing his hous e his instr um e nts o f tillag e and th e
on
l s ca r
er
n era
er s
'
96
PRESCRI P TIO N
n ec essary fe nc e s o f his gr ounds

Th e tak ing o f
sand gravel and ston e fr om th e wast e can be referre d
to a similar origin
Th e abov e a re th e r ights o f common e num er at e d by
Lor d C ok e but there are oth er rights o f common som e
what simil ar in character which yo u will nd have
b een litigated in recent times Thus fo r instanc e th ere
is a right of common o f pannag e ; in oth er wor ds th e
right of an own er o f land who k eeps pigs to tak e his
pigs into th e wood o f another and allow th em to ea t
This yo u
th e acorns which ha ve fall en to th e g r ound
will nd discuss ed in Ch ilton v C o rp o ra tion of L o ndon
So th e right O f cuttin g in a fore st litt er
7 Ch D 5 6 2
fo r th e u s e o f a copyhold t en em ent in an adj oinin g
mano r claimed by th e own er of that t en em ent as b eing
ex er cisabl e by him in common with oth er s ; a right yo u
will nd discuss e d in D e la Wa rr v M iles 17 Ch D
O th
er
righ
co
ts
of
mmo n
535
O th er
p ro ts a
p rendre
.
Then th er e a re cas e s o f p ro ts ( 2 p rendre which are

not strictly sp eak ing rights o f common Thus I may
refer to a right which was established in th e own er o f
a house to tak e a ll tho rns gr owing upon anoth er man s
land which were to be u s ed in th e hous e (Do wgla ss v
But such a right if claimed
K enda l Cro J ac
as appurt enant to land must have some conn ection
with th e enj oym ent o f th e land in resp ect o f which it
is claim ed W here a similar right was claimed a s
appur t enant to land but which was wholly unconnecte d
with that land as for instanc e a right to cut wood and
dispos e o f it as th e clai mant pl eas e d th e claim was h eld
bad (B a iley v Stevens 12 C B N S 9 1 3 1 L J
,
PR OFIT S A P R EN D RE
L e Fleming, 19
C B
;
N S 687 ; 34 L J C P
As to all rights o f
this nature it s eems that to be v alid th ey must b e
claim ed with som e lim itation o r re striction
( C la yton
v C o rby 5 Q B
A s oth er instanc e s o f p rots a p rendre which would
not b e rights o f common I ma y mention that an own er
o f land can establish a cl a im to a s ev er al sh ery in
non tidal waters ( CO Lit t 12 2 a ; see Goo dma n v
Sa lta sh 7 A C 6 54 ; Fitz gera ld v Fir ba nk 18 9 7
2 C h 9 6 ; and a claim to th e right o f hawk ing and
fowling ( Wickh a m v Ha wker 7 M W
All th e abo ve rights ( wh eth er strictly sp eak ing rights P o t
d
p
o f common o r p ro ts ( 2p rendre) can ex ist as a pp urten a n t
g
Th e qu estion wh e th er th ey can ex ist in g r oss
t o land
that is as p erp etu a l rights to be h eld and enj oy ed apart
fro m th e own ership o f land demands a littl e more
consider ation In th e rst place it is cl ear that an
exp ress gr ant by d e ed to a man his heirs and assigns
o f a p erp etual r ight to a p ro t d p rendr e is a v a lid g r ant
ud men t O f Pa rk e B
in Wh icker v Ha wker
s ee th e
g
7 M
W 79 wh ere quoting from th e y ear bo o k s
h e says
If o n e lic ens e me and my h eirs to come and
hunt in his park I mus t have a writing that is a dee d
o f that lic ens e fo r a thing pass es by th e lic ens e which
Referring to this cas e L or d

e nd ures in p erp e tuity
Black burn in addressing th e Hous e o f L ords in
Go od ma n v Sa lta sh 7 A C 6 58 says tha t as such
a n int er est can b e c re a te d now by ex p ress gr a nt it is
cl e ar it migh t b e p r escr ib ed fo r
A cc o rdingly y o u
w ill nd that in Welcome v Up to n 6 M
W 5 36
.
P 22 6
Sh uttleworth
see
97
ren
ro ss
c.
a
r e in
s
98
PRESCR I P TIO N
th e C ourt o f E x chequ er h eld that a right in gross to a

s everal p a sturag e in a particular close could b e acquire d
by p res cription at common law Similarly in J oh nson
v B a r nes 7 C P 5 9 2 ; 8 C
P 5 2 7 th e C o rpor ation
o f C olch est er establish ed by p r esc rip tion at common
law a clai m to an ex clusiv e right o f pasturage in gr oss
SO it was said by th e C ourt o f C ommon Pl e as in
Sh u ttlewo rth v L e Fleming 3 4 L J C P 3 11 19 C B
N S 6 8 7 that th e following rights ma y lawfully ex ist a s
r
r
o
t
s
a
p
p endre in gr oss viz th e right to t a k e a ll th e
wood in a c ertain clo s e th e right to tak e mi n erals a nd
th e right to a s everal shery I should add h ere that
in N ea l v D uke of D evo ns hire 8 A C 15 3 Lord
Selbo rn e laid d o wn that wh er e a s ev er al sh er v had
come into ex istenc e as appurt enant to a manor and th e
manor w a s sub s eq u ently destr oy ed by reason O f all th e
lands b elonging to it b eing c o nveyed away th e s ev er al
sh ery would c o ntinu e to ex ist as a shery in gr oss
W e conclude accordingly that rights to p rots d p rendr e
ca n ex ist in gr oss
ip
S
o
much
fo
r
th e nature o f th e rights o f common a n d
"
q i
f
r e which ha ve b een d iscuss ed in th e book s
n
d
ro
t
s
d
re
p
p
a
O ur n ex t inquiry will be in what p rescriptiv e mann er
th e s e rights can b e acquired Y o u will rememb er o f
cour s e that in this L ecture as in my previous L ectur es
I do not consid er th e effect o f any ex p ress grant o f
th e s e rights
A s to th e mod e o f acquisition th e n wh ere th e qu estion
a ris es in relation to th e rights o f common claimed in
resp ect of lands within a mano r it is s ettl ed that such
rights may be claim ed in th e cas e o f th e fre ehold tenants
.
Pres cr
tiv e a c
s itio u o
p r o ts
P R O FIT S A REN D RE
99
.
th e manor by prescription and in th e cas e o f th e

ueen s
a rw ick v
W
O opyhold
tenants by custom
Q
(
Th e cas e howev er o f
C o llege Oxfo rd 6 C h
by custom is a sp ecial o n e
C opyh o ld er s claiming
d ep ending up o n sp ecial gr ounds and is an ex c eption
A part
t o th e g en er al r ul e as I shall m ention lat er
fr om cl a ims by O opyholders to rights o f co mmon within
t h e m a no r th e g en er a l r ul e is that p ro ts at p r endre P o t
( wh eth er st rictly sp eak ing rights o f common o r not {33 2323 1
a n d wh eth er within o r withou t a mano r ) can b e acquir ed
a s appur t enant to land eith er by p resc ription at com mon
law o r by lost gr ant ( C o wla m v Sla ck 15 E a st 108 ;
o r by p r es cr ipti o n
B a r ing v A bingdo n 18 9 2 2 C h
und er th e statut e ( See s ect 1 in th e A p pen dix p os t
p
A s ex istin g apart fro m th e own er ship o f land
in gr oss) th ey can be established either by prescrip P t d
t ion at c o mmon law o r by los t g rant ( s ee th e meth o d o f$2
23
pr oof adopt ed in J o h nso n v B a r nes L R 8 C P 52 7)
but as th e law at present st a nds they cannot be acquired
under th e statute This questio n as to th e statut e w a s
a r gu ed at l ength b efo r e th e C o u r t o f C o mmo n Pl ea s in
Sh uttlewo r th v L e Fleming 19 C B N S 68 7 3 4 L J
and in a res erved judgment that C ourt
C P 3 09
held that rea ding th e A ct as a whol e its p ro vision s did
not apply to rights in g r oss A different v iew o f th e
s tat ut e was r ais ed in a rgum ent b efo r e th e C o u rt O f
App eal in th e W a l mer sh er men s case but th e C ourt
ercer v D enne
M
ex p r ess ed no opini o n o n th e po int
(
of
s a
ro
6 In
19 05 , 2 C h
5 74 ,
Wh ere a claim to a right o f this kind is made in any

p resc riptive m ethod yo u will b ear in mind th e re ma rk s
,
7 (2 )
100
PRESCR I PTIO N
I mad e in my rst Le cture as to th e nature and charac

teristics o f th e us er o n whi ch th e p r escriptive claims
must b e bas ed I may remind you h ere in particul ar
that it has b ee n d ecid ed that in t h e cas e o f a clai m by
prescription to a p ro t a p rendre as appurtenant to th e
land th e us er upon which th e claim is bas ed must be a
us er as o f right (De la Wa rr v M iles 17 C h D
and also that a claim bas ed o n thirty y ears enj oym ent
cannot be establish ed wh ere an express grant o f th e
right would have b een v oid by statut e (M ill v N ew
.
Fores t C o mmissio ners , 18 C
As r egar ds th e p eriod du ring which evid enc e must be

given O f th e us er o r enj o ym ent o f a p rot a p rendre
d
m t
ere a r e o n e o r tw o points which I mus t m ention
th
b gi
f
j y You will recoll ect that in d ealing with this subj ect in
m t
an earlier L ectur e w e ha ve already discuss ed th e s evera l
stag e s thr ough which th e C ourts develop ed th e doctrin e
o f clai ming by p r esc r iption
W e s a w tha t in o ne stag e
th e C our ts t r eat ed evid e nc e o f a twenty y ears us er a s
a sufci ent ground fo r pr esuming a gr ant ex ecute d
b efore 118 9 ; this being in e ffect th e existing form o f
p rescription at common law W e saw that in a further
s tag e o f th e d evelop men t O f th e doctr in e th e C ou rt s
tr eat ed ev id enc e o f twenty y ear s us er as s uicien t
gr ound fo r pr esuming a lost grant exe cut ed sinc e 118 9 ;
this b eing in e ect th e ex isting for m of p r esc ription by
l o st grant Th ese rul es app ea r to ha ve applied to
a
p rescripti ve claims to p rots a p rendre as w e ll as to
clai ms to eas ements Fo r b efore th e Prescription A ct
n o distinction in th e l en gth of th e p er iod r equired
a pp ea r s to hav e b ee n mad e b e t w een th e s e t w o class es o f
Perio d
d ur in g
w hi ch evi
en ce
us
v en
en o
en
P R O FIT S A PREN D RE
101
rights But th e A ct mad e a change In th e cas e of

e as em ents
th e p eriod o f twenty y ear s was also th e
p eriod xed by s ect 2 o f th e Prescription Act 18 3 2
for showing a p r ima fa cie titl e to an eas ement In th e
c as e o fp r o ts a
e
n
e
how
r
s
e
ct
x
d
th
e
p
riod
r
e
1
r
e
d
eve
p
for showing a p rima fa cie titl e at thir ty year s And
s ect 6 p r ovid es that no p r esumption is to b e mad e in
favour of any claim upon p r oof o f th e exer cis e of th e
right claimed fo r a less p eriod than fo r th e s ta t utory
p eriod applic a bl e to th e cas e T h e r esult s e ems to b e
that in claiming a p rot at p rendr e th e minimu m p eriod
fo r which ev id enc e of us er should b e giv en must in a ll
cases (wheth er th e claim be a t common law o r by lost
grant o r und er th e statute) be thir ty y ears
I have gon e thr ough th e v arious p rescriptiv e m ethods R l t
in which p ro ts ( 2 p rendre can be claimed by den ed
m m
1
p er sons Claims to similar rights hav e frequently b een th
made by o r o n b ehalf o f unden ed p ersons o r o f a u c il
tua tin g class th e clai m b eing d esc rib ed in law a s a claim
i
lb
g
by custom But claims mad e in that form have always l im d
fail ed They failed when made o n b ehalf o f th e inh a bi b h lf f
fl t t
tents of a parish ( C h ilto n v Co rp o ra tio n of Lo ndo n 7 i g l
C h D 73 5 ) th ey fail e d wh e n mad e o n b ehalf o f th e
own er s and occupi er s o f ancient ten em ents in a manor
4
i lbury v Silva
5
C
h
D
V
a
r
ious
re
asons
ha
ve R
T
(
f th
b een given for th e conclusion at which th e C our ts have ul
Thus in R a ce v Wa rd 4 E
a rrived o n this point
153
B 7 02
it was said by
24 L J Q B
Lor d C ampb ell that th e reason why a p ro t ( 2 p rendre
c anno t be suppo r t e d in an ind enit e numb er o f p eopl e
is that th e subj e ct o f th e p rot a p rendre would in tha t
.
u e as
a no
so
er 8
es era
on
c a
e
uc ua
c a ss
ea so ns
or
102
PR E SCR I PTIO N
v.
ca s e be liabl e to be e nti rely d estr oy ed A gain it w a s

pointed o ut in Tilbury v Sikva 4 5 C h D 9 8 that a
numb er o f succ essive gr ants to undene d g rantee s
co ul d n o t be p resumed
Lastly it was said by
Lor d Black burn whil e addre ssing th e House o f L ords
in Goo dma n v Sa lta sh 7 App Ga s 6 55 that it w a s
repugnant t o th e nature o f an inh erit a nc e in a p rot ( 2
p rendre in r eal p r op erty that it Should b e vest ed in a
body n o t capabl e o f rel e asing o r d ea ling with it
In referring to Go odma n v Sa lta s h I should m ention
It
th e discussion to whi ch that case has given r is e
w a s a clai m by th e inhabitants o f a bo r ough to a
s ever al sh ery Th e Hous e o f L ords d ecided in fav our
o f th e clai m o n th e g r ound that t h e C our t migh t and
ought to p resu me a grant o f th e right to th e corpora
tion o f th e bo rough subj ect to a trust in th e nature o f
Th e
a char itabl e t rust in fav o ur o f th e inhabitants
d ecis ion s eems at rst sight to b e an ex c eption to th e
rul e I have m ention ed that a p ro t ( 3 p rendre in
a noth er s soil cannot b e claim ed by an und en ed class
If however yo u read carefully th e sp eech e s o f
L or d S elbo rn e and L or d C airns (7 A pp Ga s 6 4 6
wi
l
l
s ee that th ey did n o t tr eat th e cas e as o n e of a
u
o
y
clai m to a p rot a p rendre in th e soil o f another It
was n e cessary to explain an ancient us er in which th e
House o f L ords found indep endent and s eparat e titl e s :
th e claim nam ely o f th e corpo r ation o n th e o n e hand
and th e claim o f th e inhabitant s o n th e oth er The se
O pposing claims th e Hous e reconcil ed by presumin g
that th e sh ery in that cas e had b een originally
r
ant
e
d
t
h
e co rpor ation s ubj e ct to a tr us t o r co n
t
o
g
,
G oodma n
v Sa lta s h
.
PR O FIT S A PREN D R E
103
dition in fav ou r o f th e inhabitants s o that th e two

ind ep end e nt and s epar at e rights had their or igin in th e
s am e gr ant
Th e g en er al rul e th en is that a p ro t at p rendre in E pti
t th m
another man s soil cannot be clai me d o n th e gr ound of
custom To this rul e there is o ne w ell k nown ex cep
tion whi ch occur s in th e cas e o f the copyhold t enants
o f a mano r who a re allowed to cl a i m o n th e g r ound O f
custom rights o f common in th e wast e Thes e C opy
hold ers as you may rememb er w ere treat ed in O ld days
as tenants at w ill o f th e lor d o f th e mano r ; and it was
fr om this p eculiarity o f their t enur e that th e anomaly
ar os e They could not p rescrib e fo r rights O f common in
the ir o w n nam e by r eason O f th e want o f p er man enc e
N o r could th ey pre scrib e in th e na me o f th e lo r d fo r
he could not claim co mmon in his o w n land Th e
copyholders were th erefore allowe d to claim rights o f
common by custom
S om e f urth er ex c eptions to th e g en er al rul e that a
t
r
o
d
r
e
n
d
r
e
m
in
anoth
r
an s soil cannot be claime d
e
p
p
on th e gr ound O f custom aris e in th e cas e o f c ertain
local mining customs In R oger s v B rento n 10 Q B
2 6 th e qu estion tu rn ed o n th e v alidi ty o f a custom
all eg ed to exis t in C o rnwall for a p erson to ent er o n th e
waste land o f anoth er and conduct there on tin minin g
operations T h e C ourt stat ed and d iscuss ed th e custom
and point ed o ut that to be good in law it mus t b e
quali ed by th e condition o f bo na de work ing Furth er
assuming that a custo m so qualied could be p ro ved
th e C our t p r oc e ed ed to inquir e wh eth er such a cust om
woul d be re ndere d in valid by th e g e n era l rul e m e n
,
x ce
on
'
PRE SCR I P TIO N
tio n ed
above ; a n d it cam e to th e conclusion that in

that cas e as in th e cas e o f copyholders claimin g rights
o f co mmon an ex c eption to th e r ul e must b e allow e d
To ex plain th e gr ounds upon which th e C ourt pro
ceeded
I cannot do b etter than re ad yo u a passag e
fr om L ord D enman s udgment w hich yo u will nd a t
,
10
Q B
.
60
Thus far w e have assumed that th e custom qualie d

by th e condition o f bo nd de work ing is good in law
B ut it was str o ngly a r gued that tr i ed by o n e well
establish ed r ul e it could not b e sustain ed
It was said
and truly that th e bounder tak es a pr ot in th e soil O f
another and that a right to do s o cannot by law rest
o n custom
This doctrin e was af rmed in B lewett v
Trego nn ing 3 A d
E 11 5 3 4 in which th e earlier
cas es from Ga tewa rd s C a se downwards will be found
coll ected Th e pl ea in that case o n which th e qu estion
aros e was framed e vide ntly with a v iew to escap e from
th e resoluti o n in G a tewa rd s C a se ; but th e C ourt would
n o t ad mit th e distinction in fact and h eld th e pl ea bad
aft er v erdic t But it is a misapplication o f th e doctrin e
to apply it to th e cas e n o w b efore us : that doct r in e
stands o n just tho u gh st rictly t e chnical re asoning
which may b e w ell collected from th e j udgment in
Da y v Sa va dge Ho b 8 5 that that which is matt er o f
int erest as th e tak ing a p rot fr om th e soil must fo r
its existenc e have som e p erson in whom it is ; and a
u x body which has n o entir ety o r p erman ence cannot
tak e that interest which by th e supposition is imm e
morial and p erman ent b ecaus e from its nature it
cannot pre scr ib e fo r anything Nec e ssity however
,
PR OFI T S A PREN D R E
105
will contr ol this : th e cas e o f common o f pasture

ex empli es both th e r ul e a n d th e ex c eption ; in its elf it
is an int erest ; it is th e tak in g a p r ot fr om th e s o il ; it
is pr op erly matt er o f p resc ription ; if th e copyhold er s o f
o n e mano r will claim it in th e wast es o f an o th er th ey
must b ecaus e th ey can do s o by p rescribing in th e
name o f th eir lo rd w h o in th e eye o f th e law by
reason o f his estat e has such a p erman enc e as enables
him to p rescribe ; but if they clai m it in his w a st es
th ey cannot prescribe in their own names and rights by
re ason o f th e want o f p erma n ence ; nor can th ey in their
lo rd s nam e for h e cannot claim co mmon in his o w n
land ; th ey a re therefore from n ecessity allowed to
T hat
claim it by custom B ut what is th e n ec essity
gr owing o ut o f th e o riginal co mpact wh en they recei ved
p ermission to cultivat e for th eir o w n b en et and o n
condition o f c ertain s er vic es c ertain p o rt i o ns o f th e
lor d s land
That compa ct includ ed th e right o f
common o n th e lo rd s waste and th e law will n o t
suffer that right to want a l egal character and s o b e
without th e m e ans o f its l egal enforc ement though a t
the exp ens e o f st rict l egal r easoning In th e sam e
way th e right now in qu estion must h a ve o riginat ed in
each instanc e in a virtual contr act _
th e own er has p er
w itt e d th e tinn er to ent er and wo rk wh en h e will n o t
wo rk hims elf o r d evote his wast e ex clusi v ely to other
purpos e s by inclosure o n th e conditio n that th e tinn er
shall r end er to him a c ertain portion x ed by custom
o f th e p r oduc e o f th e min e
H ere as in th e instanc e
o f a com mon th e thing is in its natur e t o b e claim ed
by p re scription only but they who have it and ought
,
106
PRESCR I PTIO N
have it in ustice cannot p rescrib e fo r it from

n ec es sity ; th erefo re that th e undoubt ed right may n o t b e
defeat ed they shall be allowed to cl a im it by custom

T O r efer to mining custo ms in anoth er locality I may
m ention th e cas e o f Wa ke v Ha ll 8 App Ga s 19 5
where yo u will nd a statement o f some mining customs
in th e High Peak district o f D erbyshir e entitling
p ersons to enter o n land s in c ertain districts and cond uct
lead mining O p erations th ere B efore 18 5 1 thes e rights
existed as anci ent mining custo ms But by v irtue O f a
local A ct pa s s ed in 18 5 1 ( 14 15 Vict c
th e se
r ights have now th e fo rc e o f statut e law wh ether b efo re
th e A ct th ey would ha v e b een h eld r easonabl e c ustoms
to
as
8
A
C
pp
(
pass to c o nsider th e
o r no t
xtin guishm ent o f rights o f

That is to sa y assu me that a right o f
f ig h t f common
W mm
common h a s b een cr eat ed and h a s b een enj oy e d und er
In th e r st
b y t tute ; what ci r cu mstanc es d o es it c eas e to ex ist ?
plac e it ma y b e ex tin guish ed by statut e A common
instanc e o f this is w h er e th e wast es o f a mano r a re
inclos ed under th e In closur e A cts ; in which cas e
according to th e usual cours e rights O f common are
ex tinguish e d and porti o ns O f th e waste are allott e d to
th e common er s in satisfaction o f th ei r right s
b y unity
Rights o f common may be ex tinguish e d by
f wn
unity o f own er sh ip
Thus It was lai d down In
Tyrr ingh a me s C a s e ( in th e four th v olume O f L o rd
C ok e s Report s ; Tudor s L C Co nv 705 ) that wh e n a
man has as high and dur a bl e estat e as well in th e land
a s in th e co mmon and oth er p r o t issuing out o f th e
s am e land t h ere th e co mmon and p r o t is ex tinct
I
E x tin
o
s o
on
s a
er
PR OFIT S A PREN D RE
107
this doctrin e is appli ed both wh ere th e own er of

th e land o ver which th e right o f common is ex er cisabl e
acquir es th e land to w hich th e right is appurtenant
and also wh ere th e
(B ra dsh a w v E yre C ro E liz
own er o f th e land to which th e right is appurt enant
a cquir es t h e land o v er which th e right is exer cis abl e
( CO Litt 122 a )
Th e right of common may be ex tin gu ish ed by a by l
;
releas e As to this I may r efer you to th e judgm ent
o f Bar on Mar tin in J o h ns o n v B a r nes L R 8 C P
at p 5 3 1 wher e h e says that according to th e o ld r ul e
w hich was th e law as e arly as th e tim e o f L ittl eton th e
rel e as e o f a pa rt o f th e land over which a right o f
co mmon is exercisabl e will extinguish th e right
Rights o f common may b e ex tinguish e d by an b y lt
alteration o f th e t en ement to whi ch th e right is a ppur
te nant Thus in M o o re v R a ws o n 3 B
C at p 3 3 8 Egg?
d;
it w a s said by Mr J ustice Holr oyd : If a man h a s a
right o f common atta ch ed to his mil l or a right o f
tu rbary attach ed to his hous e if h e pull s down th e
mill o r th e hous e th e right o f common o r o f turb a ry
will p rim fa cie c eas e If h e Show an int ention to build
a noth er mill o r anoth er hous e h is right continu es
B ut
if h e pulls do w n th e hous e o r th e mill without showing
any intention to mak e a simila r us e o f th e land and
after a long p eriod of tim e has elaps ed builds a hous e
or mill co rr espon ding to that which h e pul ls do w n
that is n o t th e re no vation o f th e o ld hous e o r mill but
th e c re ation O f a n ew thing and th e rights which he
had in re sp ec t o f th e o ld hous e o r mill do n o t a tta ch to
An d
re ea s e
era
"
a nn ex e
th e
new o ne
P RESCR I P TIO N
v.
will see fr om th e words I hav e quot ed that th e

C ou rts treat th e extinction o f rights o f common by an
alt er ation o f th e t en em ent as a qu estion to be decided
o n th e int ention o f th e parti es as asc ertain ed fr om th eir
conduct A nd so wh ere a righ t o f common o f pasture
w a s appu rt enant to a t en em ent which was fo rm erly in
a condition to support cattl e a n d such t en em ent had
for more than thir ty y e ars b e en tur ned to di erent
purposes but it still re mained in such a stat e that it
might easily again be us ed for cattl e th e C ourt h eld
rr
that th e right o f common was n o t ex tinguished
a
C
(
v L a mber t L R 1 E x
All th e above modes o f extinguishm e nt apply to
rights o f common claim e d in resp ect o f land w hether
such land be o f copyhold t enure o r no t In th e par
ticula r cas e o f rights o f common poss ess ed by copy
holder s th ere is a fth mod e o f extin guishm ent v iz
extinguishm e n t by enfr anchis ement
Thus in B a ring v A bingdo n 18 9 2 2 Ch 3 8 3
yo u will nd Mr J ustic e S ti rlin g lays down that
with resp ect to copyholds th e law is established tha t
by enfranchis em ent any rights o f common p revious ly
existing a re extinguish e d
Y o u should re m emb er
however that this means e nfranchis e men t by a ct o f
party where th e lor d grants to a copyholder th e
freehold o f th e copyhold tenem e nt Fo r wh ere
enfr anchis e m ent t ak es plac e und er th e C opyhold A c ts
those Acts p rovide that copyholder s commonable rights
A
s
9
4
1
8
C
opyhold
Act
a re n o t ex tinguish ed
(
regards e nfranchis em e nt by a ct o f party I should add
that where th e w ast e o ver which th e right o f common
Y
ou
v.
PR O FIT S A PREN D R E
109
ann exe d to a C opyhold t e n ement ex ists is situat e n o t in

th e manor o f which th e copyhold t en em ent is p a r c el
but in an o th er manor th ere th e right of common will
not be extinguish ed by th e lor d s conveyance o f th e
fre ehold to th e copyhold er fo r th e right o f common is
ann ex ed n o t to th e copyholder s customary e sta t e but
to th e land its elf All o f which you will nd laid
down in B a rwick v M a tthews 5 Taunt 3 6 5
'
110
VI
C US T O M
D i eren t
s en s es o f
cu s t o
Certa in
o f th ese
ex clu ded
e .g
ro
mo dern
g es
L e cture to night w e consid er

doctrin e o f
C ustom
And a t th e commencem ent o f th e L e cture I
w ish to point o ut som e differen t s ens es in which that
word h a s b een us ed in o ur C ourts In th e rst plac e
th e wo r d has b e en so metim es us ed in referr ing to th o s e
u sag es which a re i mpo rt ed into commer cial cont r acts
Thes e
o r into cont r acts b e tw een lan dl o r d and t enant
u sag es n eed n o t be i mmemo r ial and fo r cl ear n e ss sak e
ee th e
th ey should be distinguish ed fr om customs
S
(
judgment o f Kay L J in Da sh wo o d v M a gnino 18 9 1
They a re fully d ealt with in th e not e to
3 Ch
kViggles wo r th v Da lliso n 1 S mith s L C and I do no t
fur th er consider them
Then there is a wid e s ense o f th e word C ustom as
usag e which obtains th e for ce o f law and is in truth
th e binding law within a pa rticular district o r at a
particular pla ce o f th e p ersons o r things which it
al
T
n v Smith
so
concerns
P
Tind
er
C
J
9
A
d
y
(
U nd er this wid e s ens e o f th e wor d
E 11
C ustom a gr eat nu mb er O f subj ects hav e b e en d ealt
with by th e C ourts T hus th ey hav e dealt with cu s
toms conn ected with th e t enure o f land Th e most
familiar instanc e of this occurs in th e cas e o f copyhold
IN
o ur
L ect ure,
usa
C usto ms
co n n ect ed
w ith
VI
C U S TO M
t enu r e
111
f
apart fr om copyholds yo u a re aware that t
l d
g
in th e C ounty o f K ent most lands a re held by th e
t e nure o f gavel k ind
An d in th e cas e o f lands s o h eld g lki d
t h e cus tom o f gav el k ind (which is enfo r c e d in o u r C ou rt s )
regul ates s everal p o ints in a sp ecial mann er It regulates
rst th e mode o f desc ent wh ere th e owner di es int es tat e ;
s e condly th e natu re o f th e d o wer whi ch a wife who
th e
s urvives h er husband tak es in his land ; thir dly
n ature o f th e estate by t h e cur t esy which a husb a nd
w h o survi ves his wife t a k es in h er land
A g a in th ere
a re lands in oth er par ts o f E ngland h eld by sp eci a l
t enu res such as bur gag e t enur e o r th e t enu r e of anci ent
d eme sn e ; and in th e cas e o f s o me lands s o h eld th e
c ustom o f B o r o ugh E ngli s h r egulat es
in a sp ecial
ma nn er th e d es c ent on i nt estacy F o r furth er info r m
a tion as to th es e cust o ms I r efer you to M r E lton s
book o n C opyh o lds pp 7 12 6
A gain o ur C o urts hav e r eco gnis ed customs d ea ling C to m
t
w ith Obligations to r epair
A s fo r instanc e a cust o m :g
p
l a ndo wn er s in a district t o ma int a in s ea
O bliging
fr ontag es (L
N W R v Fo bbing L evels 6 6 L J
Q B 12 7) a custom r end ering a parish o r t o wnship
l iabl e to repair th e high w ays within it (see th e j u d g
ment O f L o r d E l lenbo r ough in Rex v E cclcs eld
Ald 3 6 0 and t h e cas es di s cuss ed in R eg v
1 B
Ro llett L R 10 Q B 4 6 9 ) and a custom ex emp t ing
a
parish fr o m cont rib uting to th e rep a i rs O f c erta in
9
4
a no ld w ick
R
eg
B
4
Q
B
9
ee
h ighways
v
s
;
(
R eg v Rellett L R 10 Q B
A gain th e paym ent o f ma rri a g e fees in a particul a r M i ll
a
r
i sh was tr eat ed a s a qu est i o n O f custo m In B rya n t
t m
p
ut
en u re o
an
a ve
us
s r.
s ce
118 0 11 8
cu s o
112
PRESCRI P T I O N
VL
v Fo o t L R 2 Q B 16 1 17 1 178 ; and th e appoint

m e nt o f chur chward ens was S imilarly treated in B remner
v Hull L R 1 C P 74 8 Again a custom bindin g
th e parson as own er of th e g re at tith es in th e parish t o
k e ep a bull and boar fo r th e us e o f th e parishion ers
was mentioned in L a nch bury v B ode 18 9 8 2 C h 12 0
An d sp eak ing g e n erally you w ill nd in th e s econd
v olume o f Bacon s A bridgment
C ustoms
a
coll ection o f v arious matter s which have fr om time to
time b ee n d e alt with by th e C ourt s as qu estions o f
custom
In this Le cture however I do not mak e an exhaustive
inquiry into th e subj ect o f custom Th ere is a narr ower
application o r a narrower s ens e o f th e wor d in which
th e doct rin e has a clos e analogy to p r escription and in
which accordingly w e can more us efully discuss it h ere
In this narr ow er s ens e custo m may b e ex plain ed as th e
doctrin e und er which und en ed p ersons o r a fluctuatin g
class can within a d enite district claim and es ta blish
c ert a in rights in th e n atur e o f incorporeal h eredita
ments T O custom in this narr ower s ens e I p ropos e to
con n e mys elf In particul a r I may sa y that I do n o t
pr opos e to deal with copyhold customs which depend
larg ely on th e relation o f t enure existing b etween th e
lor d o f th e mano r and his t enants In the remark s
which follow this limitation O f m eaning must b e borne
in mind
D ealing with cust om th en in this s ens e I in ay
com menc e by reminding you o f a passage in th e judg
m ent o f Farwell J in M ercer V D enne 19 04 2 Ch
Th e
5 5 6 to which I re ferre d in my rst Le ctur e
.
'
N a rro w er
g t
e
ec ure .
Co pyh o ld
D iff
eren ce
;
gpgf
VI
C U S TO M
113
wo rds h e us e d w ere that th e di eren ce b e tween

custom and pr es cr i ption is only that th e r igh t to th e
former mu s t be cla i med by o r in r esp ect o f a locality
and to th e latter by a p er son o r co rpor ation ; but that
th e rul es affecting th e subj ect matt er w ere in each cas e
Thes e wo rds o f Mr Justic e Far well a re in

th e sam e
fa ct a k ind of mod er n echo o f what was said long ago
by L ord C ok e (C o L itt 113 b ) that p rescription is
p ersonal whil e a custom is local all eged in no p er son
but laid within some plac e and that both to customs
and pre scriptions thes e tw o things a re incid ents ins e
par abl e viz poss ession o r u sage and ti me He deals
a gain with th e subj ect ( C O L itt 110 b ) as foll ows
C onsu etudo is o n e o f th e main e t riangl es o f th e law es
thos e lawes b eing di vided into common
o f E ngland
law statute law and cu sto me
O f every cu sto me
th ere b e t w o ess enti a ll parts time and usage ; time o ut
o f m ind e a s shall be said h ereaft er and co n tinu a ll and
p eac e abl e usag e without la w full interruption

Th e contr ast b etween custom and p rescription was
further develop ed by C hief J ustice Tindal in L o ckwo od
v
Wo od repor ted in 6 Q B at p 6 4
A custo m which h a s ex ist ed fr om time imm emo rial
without int errupti o n within a c ertain plac e and which
is c er t a in and r easonabl e in its elf O btains th e for c e of
law and is in effect th e common law within that plac e
to which it ext ends though contr ary to th e g en er al law
In the cas e O f a custom there fore it is
o f th e r ealm
unn ec essary to l o o k o u t for its o rigin ; but in th e cas e
o f p r esc ripti o n which founds its elf upon th e p r esumption
o f a gr an t that has b e en lost by p r oc ess o f tim e n o
,
114
PRE SCRI PTIO N
VL
prescription can have had a l egal o rigin wh ere no gr ant

could hav e b een made to suppo rt it Thus a custom
fo r all sh erme n w ithin a c ertain district to dry th e ir
n ets u pon th e land of anoth er might w ell be a good
custom and yet a grant o f such an eas ement to sh er
men w ithin th e district eo nemine might w e ll be h eld
v oid
SO much fo r th e di eren ce b etw ee n custom ( in my
limit e d s ens e) and pre scription I pr oc ee d to inquir e
wh at a re th e rights which und ened p ersons o r a
uctuating class can in a d e nit e district claim and
est a blish on th e gr ound o f custom
Y o u will r ecoll e ct
that I am not dealing with copyhold customs but am
conning my remark s to non copyhold customs
First th en to cl ear th e way by an ex clusion and
m ention rights which cannot be so acquir ed I remind
th
e
r
ul
f
e about p ro ts a p r endr e m e ntion ed in my
o
u
o
y
last Lectur e Th e rule nam ely that a p ro t ( 2p rendr e
in a no ther s S oi l cannot be clai m ed by custom Y o u
will no doubt recoll ect th e v arious reasons fo r th e rul e
giv en by th e j u dges and th e ex c eptions to th e rul e
which I m ention ed There a re how ev er num er ous
class es O f r ights frequ ently m e t with whi ch can b e
e stablish ed und er non copyhold customs Th es e a re
rights in th e natur e O f eas em ents

It is well s ettled
said J o yc e J in B ro ck leba nk v Th o mp so n 1903 2 C h
that by custom a class of p ersons (as th e inh a bi

348
tants o f a parish) may be entitl ed to have som e u se o r
a s i eas ement o f land ; as to hav e a way to a chur ch
u
q
Th es e rights a re not strictly sp eak ing

o r mark et
fo r st rictly sp eak ing th ere can b e n o
eas e m e nts ;
.
N on
2323 3:
1
Rig h ts
w h i ch
03 1110 1
5
a r se
323i
a n o th er s
E
igh t
11
$33
1 ca n
u n d er
und er
gigz
g
n
re
VI
CUSTOM
115
t en em ent b elonging to a uctuating class ;

but th ey a re rights in th e nature o f e as ements a uth o
r ising c ertain acts
C ustoms th en conferring rights in th e nature o f I
have b e en discuss ed by th e C ourts in
e as ements
num er ous cas es o f which th e follow ing a re instanc es
A cus tom fo r th e inhabitants o f a township to ent er
o n land within th e township and t ak e wat er fr o m a
s pr ing th er e was go o d
ce v
rd 2 4 L J Q B
R
a
a
W
(
15 3 ; 4 E
B 702 ; Ha rrop v Hirs t L R 4 E x 4 3 ;
c ompar e th e r emark s o f Turn er
L J in Ivimey v
d ominant
n s ta n ces
cu s t o
Stocker, 1 C h
A custom fo r tin bound ers inhabiting th e county o f

C ornwall to u se fo r minin g op er ations th e wat er in
their district was recognis ed as g o od ( Ga ved v
M a r tyn 19 C B N S 73 2 ; 3 4 L J C P 3 5 3
A custom fo r th e inhabitants o f a parish to have a
churchway ov er land within th e parish forming th e
d emesn e O f a manor was also good (B ro ck leba nk v
Th o mp so n 19 03 2 C h
A custom fo r th e inhabitants Of a town to us e fo r
re cr eati o n a p r omenade in th e town was good (A ber
cro mby v Fermoy 19 00 1 I R 3 02 ; compar e Dyce v
Ha y 1 M a cq
A custom fo r th e inhabitants o f a parish to enter o n
land in th e parish and danc e th ere o r play any lawful
game o r enj oy any lawful r ecreation a t any time i n
th e y ear was g o o d
(Ha ll v N o ttingh a m L R 1
E x D 1 ; Wa rr ick v Queen s Co llege Oxford L R
,
10 E q
( 2)
ms
PRESCR I PTIO N
116
VI
A similar custom o f recreation however claimed fo r

th e inhabitants o f s ever al parish es was h eld bad
d
w
a r ds v J enk ins 18 9 6 1 C h
E
(
Again it was said a custom fo r th e inhabitants o f a
parish to tr ain hors es at all s e asonabl e times o f th e y ea r
o
w
er by v
o n land within th e par ish might b e good
S
(
C o lema n L R 2 E x
W h ere th e tr aining ground
was O utsid e th e parish such a custom was h eld bad
inasmuch as th e ind enite ex ercis e o f such a custo m
might ex clude the own er fr o m th e b en e cial occupation
o wer by v C o lema n L R 2 E x
o f his p r op er ty
S
(
O n th e oth er hand a custom fo r th e freem en o f a city
to hold hor s e r ac es on a c er t a in day In th e y ear on land
outside th e city was held good th e burden o f th e
custom b eing c ertain and light (M o unsey v Is ma y
1 H
C 72 9 ; 3 2 L J E x
A custom fo r any li eg e s ubj ect o f th e Qu een b eing
to ent er during a fair wit hin a c ertain
a v ictuall er
bor ough o n land within th e bo rough and fo r th e
c on v eni ent ca rrying o n o f h is t r ad e to ere ct th er e
b ooths paying r easonabl e co mp ensation to th e own er o f
o o d v B ullo ck 6 Q B
l
E
w
th e soil was h eld v alid
(
E 11
3 8 3 ; Tyso n v Smith 9 Ad
A cu s tom for th e sh ermen in a parish to dry th ei r
n e ts o n land within th e par ish a t all ti mes s eas o nabl e
er cer v
M
D
enne 19 05
2 Ch
fo r shing was good
(
,
A custom for th e sherm en o f a particular loc a lity to

d eposit oyst er s o n th e for esho re was t r eated by th e
C our t o f rst instan ce as g o od ( Truro C o rp o ra tio n v
But th e C ourt O f App ea l
R o we 19 01 2 K B
.
VI
C U S TO M
117
held that no evid enc e had b een p roduc ed to suppo rt

such a custom ( 19 02 2 K B
t
In dealing with customs conferring rights in th e R l
f
t
natur e O f eas em ents th e C our ts have som etimes laid n
d own p rincipl es
In th e rs t plac e they hav e laid
d own a p rincipl e as regards t h e p er sons entitl e d to th e C t m
m t
b en et o f th e custom In C o ventry v lVills 12 W R p p ly t
12 8 (wh ere th e qu estion b efo r e th e C ourt was a claim
to a customary right fo r all th e Qu een s subj ects to P
remain o n N ewmark et H eath and witn e ss th e rac e s
th er e) it was said by C ock bur n C J
that th ere
cannot be a custom in all th e Queen s subj ects gen e
rally inasmuch as th e rights possess ed by th e Queen s
subj ects gen erally a re part o f th e common law o f th e
land and n o t th e customs o f a particul ar plac e In
acc o rdance with th e sam e principle it was said by
Kay J that th e right o f recreation by custom cannot
ex ist a s a right in th e public g en er ally
B
u
k
e v
o
r
(
S imilarly th e Irish C o ur ts
Da vis 4 4 C h D
have de cided against a claim o f a customary right in
th e public g en er ally to ent er o n land and d r aw wat er
th ere (D unga rva n v M a nseld 18 9 7 1 Ir
That a custom shoul d be valid accordin gly it is n eces
s ary that th e class of p er sons e ntitl ed to th e b e n e t
should be in some way limit e d
In th e s econd plac e th e C ourt s have considered th e C t m
m t
plac e in which th e custom is all eg e d Thus Lor d C ok e p ply t
lays down ( C O Litt 110 b) that a custom cannot b e $92333
a ll eg ed gen er ally within th e k ingdom o f E ngland fo r
t hat is th e common law
B ut it may b e all e g e d within
a haml e t a t own a bur gh a city
a manor a hundre d
.
u es a s
na
ure o
no
us o
us
ers o n s
us o
us
118
PR E SCR I P TI O N
Pla ce
a county And this rul e as to a plac e limit has b ee n

applied in tw o ways F ir st as re gards th e plac e o f
habitation o f th e p ersons w h o do th e acts authoris e d by
th e custom
S econ dly as r egar ds th e locality o f thos e
acts AS r egards th e plac e o f habitation o f th e p erson s
e ntitl e d to th e b en e t o f th e custom yo u will have
Obs erve d sp eak ing g en erally that th e custo ms which I
have e num erat e d were customs fo r th e inhabitants of a
d e nit e district such as a parish o r a county to do
cert ain acts
An d it s ee ms that th e district which
th es e p er sons must in habit mus t b e some d enit e dis
tr i ot k nown to th e law
Thus a gr oup o f s everal
parish e s will no t do (E dwa rds v J enk ins 18 9 6 1 Ch
N o r a gr oup o f par ticular t e n em ents within a
mano r (B rock leba nk v Th o mp so n 19 03 2 C h
I Should add that in sp ecial cas es th e class e ntitl ed to
th e b en e t O f th e custo m h a s included p er sons n o t b ein g
Thus in E lwo o d v B ullo ck
inhabitants o f th e district
6 Q B 3 8 3 this b e n et included all li eg e subj ects o f
th e Qu ee n b e ing v ictuall er s coming to a particula r
a nci ent fai r
S econ dl y th e plac e limit has b e en applied
to th e locality o f th e acts authoris ed by th e custom (R
v E ccles eld 1 B
Ald
T h e customs I have
mention e d sp eak ing g e n er ally refer to acts don e within
th e par ticular dist rict It is cl ea r however that in S p ecial
cas e s th e acts authoris e d by th e custom hav e b ee n acts out
side th e district Thus in M o unsey v Is ma y 1 H C
72 9 ; 32 L J E x 9 4 th e custom was fo r th e fr eem e n
o f a city to hold ho r s e r ac es in a haml et outsid e th e city
In th e thir d plac e th e udges have explained th e
relation o f th e s e customs to th e common law Thus
or
p plied to
h a ita tio n
o f a cto rs ;
a
Vi
a nd
to
o f act
th es e
cust o ms
of
VI
C U S TO M
119
Tindal C J says o f a custom that it may be contrary $

L
o ck woo d v
od l w
to th e g en eral law O f th e r eal m
o
W
(
It is no
6 Q B
An d L or d K enyon says
obj ection to a custom that it is not conformabl e to th e
com mon law o f th e land
Fo r it is o f th e very ess e nc e
H
o to n v
o f a custom that it should v ary fr om it
(
B eckma n 6 T R
A custom said J ess el M R
It is common law b e caus e

is its elf local common law
it is not statut e law ; it is local law b ecaus e it is th e law
o f a par ticula r plac e as dis tingui s h ed fr om th e g en er a l
o ney 2 4 W R
H
m
H
a
e
r
t
o
n
v
common la w
m
(
L astly th e C o urts have considered th e r elation o f
custom to statut e A man said L o r d C ok e cann o t
all eg e a custo m against a statut e ( C o L itt 115 a) ;
re ferring as I understand him to a statut e o f a public
natur e In accordance with this view it was h eld in
Tr usco tt v M erch a nt Ta ylors Co 11 E x 8 5 5 that th e
custom of L ondon as to acc ess of light was abr ogat ed
by th e 3 rd s ect o f th e Prescription A ct If however
a statute be merely declaratory of th e common la w
wh
e
th
e
r
its
fo
r
m
e
n
e
gati
ve
o
r
af
rmati ve) th en as
b
(
would s eem fr om M r Hargrave s not es N o s 8 9 to
C o Litt 115 a it will not affec t th e continuanc e o f a
local custom A s to this however yo u must b ear in
mind som e remark s which will be made at th e en d o f
this L ectur e in conn e ction with the extinguishme nt o f
custom by statut e
I p r oc e ed now to consider some rul es which have Rul
b ee n l a id down as to th es e customs in th e book s

A
f
custom ( said M r J ustic e Farwell in M ercer v D enne yh ld
p
t m
19 04 2 C h 5 5 1 r ep eating in effect th e wo r ds o f
.
0 11
es a s
0 11
Co
cu s o
'
PRESCRI P TIO N
12 0
VL
J i n Tyso n v Smith 9 Ad
E ll 4 2 1)
c ertain r easonabl e in its elf co mm encing
immemorial and continu ed without inter
Thes e rul es as Sir G eorg e J ess el said in
Ha mmerton v Ho ney 2 4 W R 6 03 r elat e r ath er
to th e evidenc e of th e custom than to th e custom
its elf Treating th em then as r ul es o f e videnc e it
will be conv eni ent to consid er them s eparately and
in o rder
In th e rst place it is said that a custom must have
commenc ed fr om time imm emorial Pu t in oth er wor ds
this r ul e m eans that a custom may b e d efeat ed by
showing that it could not have ex isted in th e tim e O f
To do this however thos e who obj ect to
Richar d I
th e custom mus t d emonstrat e this i mpossibility (p er
in M ercer v D enne 19 04 2 C h
Farw ell J
Th e impossibility was demonstrated in th e cas e O f
Simp s o n v Wells L R 7 Q B 2 14 wh er e th e claim
o f a custom to er ect stalls fo r hir ing s erv ants at th e
statut e s essions was d efeat ed by show ing that such
s essions w ere intr oduc ed by th e Statut e o f Labour ers
th e rst o f which was in th e reign o f E dward III
B u t suppos e ther e is no such impossibility ; what is
th e l ength o f th e p eriod as to whi ch evid e nc e mus t b e
given to support an immemorial custom A s to this
I again quote J ess el M R:
It is i mp o ssibl e to pr ove
actual usage in all time by living te stimony Th e
usual cour s e tak e n is this : Persons o f middle o r Old
ag e a re called who stat e that in th eir time usually at
l east half a c entury th e usag e has always prevaile d
That is considere d in th e abs enc e o f count ervailing
Tindal C
must be
fr om tim e
ruption
,
C usto m
mu s t b e
imme
mo ria l
.
vi
C US T O M
12 1
vide nc e to show tha t th e us a g e h a s p re v a il e d fr om a ll
t ime
I should add that it w a s l a id down in R v
J o lla e 2 B
C 5 4 that ev id enc e o f a re gul a r us a g e
fo r twe nty y e a rs un ex pl a in e d a n d uncon tra dicte d may
b e su f cie nt to suppo rt an imm emo r i a l custom
Th e s e cond of th e s e rul e s p r o v id e s th a t a custom C stom
m st b
must ha v e b ee n continu e d without interruption Th e o ti u
m e aning o f this is expl a in e d by Sir G e org e J e ss el in
Ha mmer to n v Ho ney 2 4 W R 6 03 as follows :
Wh en th ere has b ee n interruption o r distu rb a n c e in

th e us a g e acqui e sc e d in by th e p er sons who a r e a ll e g e d
t o b e e nti tl e d to exer cis e th e r ight and w h o have n o t
e ith er by l e g a l o r ill egal m e ans attempt e d t o prevent
the dis turb a nc e o r interferenc e and th e disturb a nc e o r
interruption h a s no t b ee n fo r a short tim e but for many
y e ars it is a strong pre sumption that th ere n ever was
any su ch law as a lle g e d a t a ll A s a ge n er al r ul e
p e opl e do n o t quietly acqui e sc e in th e disturb a nc e o f
th e ir r ights a n d th ere fore wh e n th ere has b ee n a long
continu e d inte rruption you natur ally com e to th e
conclusion that th ere n ever w a s any such law

In
applying this rul e in pr a ctic e yo u mus t b e ar in mind
tw o things
Th e r st is th a t m ere discontinu a nc e o f
th e us er will n o t amo un t t o interr up tion
Thus in
d ea ling with a cl a im o f sh erm e n to dry the ir n ets o n
Wa lm er b e ach and th e a rgum e nt that th e s ea had onc e
owe d o ver th e spot M r J us tic e Fa r w ell said ( 1904
2 Ch
Th e m ere non us er du ring th e p eriod that
th e sea flow e d o v er th e spot is immateria l fo r it was no
int erruption o f th e right but only o f th e poss e ssion

An d h e re ferre d t o Lor d C oke who says ( C o Litt
0 118
c n
'
12 2
PR E S CRI PT ION
VI
b)
A titl e onc e gain e d by cus tom cannot b e lost
by in terruption o f th e poss ession for ten o r t we nty
y e a rs but by interr uption in th e right

Th e only
e ffe ct o f m e r e non us er s eems to b e t o make it more
dif cul t to p r o v e th e ex is tenc e of th e cust om
ee th e
S
(
re mark s o f th e C our t o f A ppe a l j udg e s 19 05 2 Ch
Th e s e cond thin g you mus t b ea r in mind is that
in th e opinion o f Va ughan W illiams L J th ere ma y
b e an intermi ttent custom a ry r ight Th e remark w a s
addre ss e d by him to th e a rgum ent that th e dis a pp ear
anc e o f a stre am a n d its subs e qu e n t re app e ara nc e would
n o t a ect a cust om re l a ting t o th e w a ter
M
ercer v
(
114
D enne, 19 05 , 2 Ch
User mu st
be a s
rig h
of
rul e de a ls with th e nature o f this continuous

us er It mus t b e as o f right T his r ul e is n o t m en
tio ned by Far w ell J
in th e s entenc e quote d a nte
p 12 0 ; but it is s ta te d in o th er c a s e s a n d it is cou ve
ni en t to consid er it h ere Thus in M ills v Co lch es ter
L R 2 C P 4 8 6 it was l a id down by Will e s J th a t
in th e cas e o f cus tom long e nj oym ent to e sta blish a
right must have b een as of right and th erefore n either
by viol enc e nor by s te al th nor by l e a v e aske d fr om
t im e to tim e
An illus tr a tion o f this r ul e yo u will n d
in M o ntgo mery v Wa lla ce J a mes re po rte d in 19 04
A C 7 3 8 1 wh ere th e C our t had t o d e a l with a claim
by th e burg e ss e s and inha bitan ts o f a bur gh to a
customary right of re cre a tion o ver a s trip o f l a nd in
Scotl a nd
Th e Hous e o f Lor ds d e cid e d ag a ins t th e
cla im o n th e gr ound that th e evid enc e did n o t exte nd
o ver a suf ci en t p eriod ; and in d eli v e r ing his j udgm ent
Lor d D avey us e d th e following words
It is agree d
Th e thi r d
.
v1
CUS T O M
12 3
according to th e pr actic e o f th e Scottish C ourts a t

l east forty y e a rs us er by th e public must b e p r ove d in
ord er to e s ta blis h a claim o f right by imm e morial us er
It is n o t a qu es tion o f p re scription fo r th ere is no
dominant ten em ent ; but by analogy I pre sum e to th e
la w o f p re scrip tion th e p eriod o f fo rty y e ar s h a s b ee n
adop te d a s th e minimum o f p r oof in such a c a s e I
think th e evid enc e re quire d t o e st a blish a cas e o f imm e
mo rial us er must b e of th e sam e character and a s s tr ong
a s would b e re quire d in a c a s e o f p re sc rip tion
It mus t
show that th e right cl a im e d has b ee n enj oy e d nec cz nec
that,
cla
m,
'
nec p r eca rzo
four th rul e l a ys down that a cus tom must b e

ga
certain Thi s rul e is discuss e d a t som e l ength by e t in
M r J us tic e F ar well in M ercer v Denne 19 04 2 C h
5 5 2 wh ere h e says th a t a cus t om is n o t unc er tain
b e caus e it is n o t inv ariabl e in every part H e points
o ut tha t th e s ta t e m e n t tha t a cus tom may b e w ell l a id
in th e inhabita nts of a to wn shows that th e numb er of
p ersons entitl e d to e nj oy it will vary An d referring
t o t h e cus tom which I ha ve m e ntion e d t o yo u t o play
all lawful gam e s o n a pi e c e o f l a nd h e remark s that
such a cus tom was h eld t o ustify c ricket although it is
certa in tha t cricket was n o t known un til long after th e
H e als o points o ut tha t th e varia
tim e o f Richar d I
tion in th e n a ture o f th e g a m e s pl a ye d did n o t re nd er
th e cus tom to play a ll lawful gam e s v oid fo r un cer
tainty
Th ere w a s a furth er poin t take n in M ercer v D enne
wh ich s eems to fa ll und er this rul e Th e right claim e d
in th at case w a s a right no t only to dry n ets which had
Th e
c r a
12 4
PR E S CR PT
ION
VL
b ee n wette d by us e in shing but also to dry n ets

which h a d b ee n w ette d by oilin g preparatory to shing
An d whil e th e evid e nc e as to drying after o rdinary
w etting ex te nde d o ver a very long p eriod th e ev idenc e
It
a s t o d rying after oiling was comp a r ative ly mod er n
was a rgu e d that this re ndere d th e custom bad in to to It
w a s laid down how ever by th e C our t o f A pp e al that
g en er al customs may b e extende d to n e w things which
are wi thin th e re ason o f thos e customs ; and furth er
th a t thos e who a re e n titl e d to th e b e n e t o f th e customs
ought n o t to b e d eprive d o f tha t b en e t m erely b e cause
th e y t ake ad vantag e o f mod er n in ve n tions o r n e w
O p er ations s o long a s th ey do n o t th ereby th r o w an
unr e ason a bl e bur de n o n th e l a ndown er ( 19 05 2 C h
T h e C ou rt h eld th e whol e cus tom t o b e good
I s hould add that o n th e cas e of M ercer v D enne
coming b e fore th e C ourt o f A pp e a l a further point o n
th er ul e a s to c ert a in ty was r ais e d
It w a s argu e d that
th e loc a l law c re at ed by cust om must affe ct a d e nit e
clos e and that th e exte nsion o f th e are a for th e gr ant
fo r drying n ets by accretions fr om th e sea re nd ere d th e
cust om unc ert ain Th e C ourt o f A pp e a l however
re j e cte d th e a r gum ent ( 19 05 2 Ch
Th e rul e a s t o c erta inty ma y b e ill ustr ate d by a
comp a rison o f th e languag e o f th e judg e s in c ertain
d e cisions as to p ro ts at p rendre ; both wh ere such p r o ts
w ere cl a im e d by Oopyhold ers o n th e g r ound o f custom
and wh ere th ey were claim e d by freehold e r s o n th e
gr ound o f pre scription In d e a ling with such cl a ims
by copyhold ers th e C ourts have re quir e d c erta inty in
th e purpos e s fo r which a cust om is all e g e d
Thus in
,
v1
C US T O M
12 5
discussing th e mod e in which a custom for copyhold ers

to ta ke s a nd fr om th e waste o f th e m a no r must b e
all e g ed th e C ourt o f Kin g s B ench h eld that it was
n e ce ssa ry to a ll e g e tha t th e s a nd was b eing ta ke n fo r
th e n e c e ssa ry re pair s o f a hous e sit u a te on th e co pyhold
t e n e m e n t which was o ut of re pair (Pepp in v Sh a k esp ea r
6 T R
So again a cust om a ll e g e d fo r copy
holders to dig tur f fr o m th e wa ste to make gr ass plot s
in th eir ga rdens fo r th e improvem e nt th ere of was h eld
bad a s b eing unc ertain ( W lso n v Willes 7 E ast
In tha t ca s e Lord E ll enbor ough said that it was n o t
d e n e d what sort of imp r o v em ent th e custom extend e d
It was n o t s tate d t o b e in th e w a y o f agricul tu r e
to
o r hor ticul ture
It might m e an a ll k in ds of fa nciful
impr ove m e nts
T h ere w a s no thin g to re strain th e
t e nants fr om d e str oying th e p a s ture of th e common
altog eth er A custom o f tha t d e scription h e said
ought to h a v e som e limit but in that cas e th ere was no
limita tion m a d e but cap ric e and fa ncy The last t w o
cas e s to which I h a v e re ferre d you are yo u will
obs er v e c a s e s o f copyholders ; who ca n you will
re m e mb er cl a im p ro ts p rendre by custom I am
no t in this L e ct ur e d e a ling sp e ci cally wi th copyhold
customs but th e c a s e s may b e re ferre d to by way o f
illustra tion
A g a in in d e aling with cl a ims by freehold er s to
p ro ts d p rendr e t h e C ou r t s ha ve re quire d c ertainty in
A n instanc e o f this
th e qu a ntity o f mate r ial cl a im e d
is C la yto n v C o r by 5 Q B 4 15 wh ere a ma n cl a im e d
th e r igh t t o carry aw a y fr om his n eighbour s clos e so
much clay as w a s a t a n y tim e re quire d by h im for
PR E SCRI PT ION
VL
making brick s a t a brick k iln in every y e ar and a t all

t im e s o f th e y e ar
Lor d D enman after referring to
th e tw o cas e s I ha ve m e ntion e d o f Pep p in v Sh a kesp ea r
and It s o a v M lles held that th e obj e ction o f un cer
t ainty appli e d to th e claim
Such a claim s a id h e in
or der to b e valid must b e mad e wi th som e limitation
and re striction wh ere a s in th e claim a s state d there
was no limit Similarly th e O bj e ction o f unc ertainty
was allowe d to a p re scriptive claim by c ert ain free
miners in th e F ore st o f D ea n to carry away th e ston e
fr om quarri e s 1n th e fores t without limit (A G v
.
M a t/ala s , 4 K
In conn e ction with th e p r oposition that c ertainty has

b ee n re quire d in th e amount o f materia l cl a im ed I
shoul d m e ntion a cas e (which s eems to b e an ex ce ption
t o th e c ertain ty r ul e ) wh ere a custom for copyhold er s
to dig clay without limit fr om th e i r copyhold ten em e nts
was h eld good by t h e Hous e o f Lords ( Sa lis bury v
This ca se how ever falls
G la ds to ne 9 H L C
more p r op erly und er th e n ext rul e a bout re asonabl e n e ss
t
o
s
to which I shall d raw your atten tion lat er
ee
S
p
(
p
Th e fth ru l e lays down that a cust om must b e
re asonabl e in i ts elf A s to this I should quot e th e
words o f Lor d C ra nworth which w ere us e d by him in
rel a tion to copyhold customs bu t which s ee m to b e
applic a bl e g en era lly

In truth h e s a ys I b eli eve
that wh e n it is s a id tha t a cus tom is v oid b e caus e it is
unre a sona bl e nothing more is m e ant than that th e
u nre asonabl e cha ra cter of th e all e ge d cus tom co n
clusively p r o ve s that th e usag e
even though it may
,
Custo m
must
be
r a son
bl e
VI
CUS T O M
127
have existe d imm e mori a lly must have re sul te d fr om

a ccid e n t o r n e glig e nc e a n d n o t fr om a ny r ight co n
ferre d in anci ent t im e s o n th e party s etting u p th e
a ds to ne 9
l
H L C
S
a lis bury v
G
cus tom
(
T h e words a r e impo r ta nt bu t th ey re fer r a th er t o th e
m e a ning of th e r ul e than to th e m a nn er in which it is
a ppli e d
T h e qu e stion remains Wh a t a r e th e p rincipl e s
o n which cus toms h a ve b ee n h e ld by th e C ou rt s t o b e
unre ason abl e An d on this qu e stion I c a nnot do b etter
t han re ad you th e wo rds us e d by T in d a l C J in
E 11 4 2 1 ( s ee B ra dbur n v
Tys o n v Smith 9 A d
Th e qu e s tion wh e th er a
Fo ley 3 C P D
cust om is re a sonabl e o r n o t b e longs t o th e judg e s o f
It is a qu e stion upon which
t h e l a nd t o d e ter min e
A cus tom is n o t
t h e book s are n o t al tog e th er sil e n t
un re asonabl e m erely b e caus e it is contr a ry to a p a r
t icul a r m a x i m o r r ul e o f th e common la w fo r co nsa c
,
t ualo
ex
legem
cer ta
ca us a
ra
tio na bili
us ita ta
p r io a t
co
mma nem
Litt 113 a ) ; as th e custom O f ga v el

kind a n d bo r ough E nglish which are dire ctly con tr a ry
t o th e l a w of d esc e nt o r ag a in th e cus tom o f K en t
w hich is contr a ry t o th e l a w o f e sch e a t s
N o r is a
c us t om unre a son a bl e b e c a us e it is p re judici a l t o th e
intere sts o f a p ri v a te ma n if it b e for th e b en e t of
t h e commonw e a l th ; as t h e cust om to t urn th e plough
our of husbandry
u pon th e h e a dl a n d o f a noth er in fa v
in fav our o f
o r t o d ry n et s o n th e l a nd o f ano th er
B ut o n
shing and fo r th e b en e t o f navig a tion
t h e o th er h a nd a cus tom that is con tr ary t o th e
p ublic good o r inju r ious o r p reju dicia l t o th e many
a n d b e n e cial only to som e p a r ticul a r p er son is repu
g
n ant t o th e law O f re ason ; fo r it could n o t have had
(C O
12 8
PR E S CRI PT ION
VL
a re asonabl e comme nc em ent ; as a custom s et up in a

manor o n th e p a rt o f th e lor d tha t th e common er
cannot tu r n in his cattl e un til th e lord has p ut in h is
o w n is cl e a r ly b a d fo r it is inj ur ious t o th e mul ti tude
and b e n e cia l only t o th e lord (Y ea rb Trin 2 H 4
fol 2 4 pl
O r that th e lo r d o f th e m a nor may
d etain a distre ss taken upon his d em e sn e s u n til n e b e
mad e for th e dam a g e a t th e lord s will (Litt s
A pplyin g C hi e f J ustic e T ind a l s wo rd s in conn e ct ion
with Lord Cra nw o rth s principl e M r J ustic e Far well
in d e a ling with th e custom cla im e d by th e W alm er
sh erm e n to d ry th ei r n e ts said ( 19 04 2 C h 5 5 2 ) a
custom is n o t unre asonabl e b e caus e prejudicial to th e
intere sts o f a p ri va te individual if it is fo r th e b en et
of th e commonwe a lth b e ca us e such b e ne t rend er s its
lawful comm enc em ent re a sonably probabl e
So much fo r th e p rincipl e
Wha t a re th e instanc es
in which th e rul e o f re ason a bl en e ss h a s b ee n a ppli e d ?
O n e o f th e mos t familia r instanc e s occur s in thos e cas es
wh ere a p ro t at p rendre in anoth er s soil has b e n
claim e d by a uctuating class o n th e ground o f cust om
T h e s e cl a ims have as w e have s ee n b ee n rej e cte d by
th e C ou rt s ; and o n e o f th e gr ounds give n for th e
rej e ction was that if a p ro t a p rendre w ere s o claim
abl e th e subj e ct matter would b e e ntirely d e stroy e d
a rd
4
E
7
05
2
L
R
a ce v
W
B
4
J
B
Q
;
(
T h e C ou rts in effe ct h e ld that such a cust om w a s nu
re ason a bl e and th ere fore ba d A somewhat similar
instanc e o f this application O f th e r ul e yo u will nd in
C oo te v Fo r d 8 3 L T 4 82 wh ere a cust om fo r any
p erson to t ake r abbits o n th e waste o f a manor w a s
sa id t o b e bad
,
v1
CUST O M
12 9
bo rr ow anoth er ill ustration fr om copyhold

d e cisions yo u will nd a som e what similar application
o f th e rul e in an O ld cas e wh ere a cus tom was claim e d
fo r th e lor d o f a mano r t o lay coals to an ind e nite
ext ent o n th e lands o f copyholders It was cl e ar that
such a custom woul d have rend ere d th e land us el e ss
and th e C ourt h eld that th e claim was un reasonabl e
and bad (B roa dbent v Willes Will e s
Th ere are oth er cas e s wh ere th e rul e o f re asonabl e
ne ss has b een appli e d in a wid er s ens e Thus an
all e ge d custom for tin bounder s in C ornwall to pre s erve
th e ir rights by m ere annual ren e wals without wo rk ing
w a s h e ld unre asonabl e and bad
(Rogers v B rento n
To
10
Q B
.
I shoul d m ention h ere on e o r tw o cas e s in which

cus toms which might o th er w is e it s eems have b ee n
thought un re asonabl e have b ee n h eld good o n sp e cial
gr ounds In Sa lis bury v Gla ds tone 9 H
C 6 92
a claim by copyholder s to dig clay without limit
fr om th e ir o w n copyhold te n em e nts was h eld good by
th e Hous e O f Lor ds in a particular manor and o n
sp e cial gr ounds Again in Hea t]; v Dea ne 19 05
2 C h 8 6 th e freehold and copyhold t enan ts o f th e
manor claime d t o b e entitl e d by custom to take from
a quarry o n th e waste ston e to b e us e d upon the ir
It was ar gu e d that th e custo m all e g e d was
t e n e m e nts
t o t ake as much st on e as th e y pl e as e d and th ere fore
void as un reasonabl e B ut th e C ourt h eld th e custom
good mainl y o n th e gr oun d that th e e ntrie s upon th e
C ourt r oll in th e manor amounte d to an admis sion by
th e lor d o f th e right claim e d
,
130
PR E S CR IPTI O N
Acq uisi
tion of
rig h ts
b sed o n
VL
l e ave now th e rul e s as to th e evid enc e by which

th e s e customs are p r o ve d
I ask n ext how a re the s e
t
t
r ed ?
cus
oma
r
y
r
igh
s
acqui
Sp e aking g en er ally o f
n
copyh old cour s e th e s e cust omary righ ts are acquire d by usag e
;
custom
and usag e (to quote th e words o f Sir Ge org e J e ss el in
Ha mmer ton v Honey 2 4 W R 6 04 ) is p r ove d by
evid enc e exte nding over as long a p eriod o f y e ars as
possibl e and including usuall y th e evid enc e o f Old
p ersons W e may how ever furth er inquire wh eth er
it is possibl e to asc ertain in mo re d e nite l e gal languag e
th e m ethod by which th e s e r ights are acquire d
M eth od of
Y o u will re coll e ct that in th e cas e o f e as em e nts
claim e d by pre scription I m e ntion e d to yo u three
m ethods in which th e s e claims could b e mad e : rs t
th ere w a s p re scrip tion a t common law ; s e condl y p re
s c ription by los t g r ant ; and thir dly p re scr ip tion und er
th e S tatute C a n th e m ethod of claiming customary r ights
in th e nature o f e as e m e nts b e re ferre d to any O f th e s e
h e ads
Take r st p re scrip tion a t common law o r by
lost gr ant It s ee ms cl e ar that th e m ethod o f claiming
customary rights cannot b e so de scrib e d Fo r th e s e
righ ts a re usually claim e d o n b ehalf o f a uc tuating
class (such as inhabitants ) and no grant could b e mad e
in that form (See Tilbury v Silva 4 5 Ch D
Th e p re sump tion o f a g r ant yo u will re coll e ct is
e ss e ntial in both th e s e m ethods o f claim
Y o u will reco l
T ake n ext pre scription by s ta tute
l e ct that th e 2 nd s e ction o f th e Pre scription Act (which
d e als with e as e ments g en erally) comm enc e s with wor ds
referring to any claim which may b e lawfully mad e

a t th e common law by custom p re scription o r g r an t to
I
on
s.
VL
C US T O M
13 1
any e as em ent
Having re gar d to th es e words
m a d e to apply to customary rights
a tte mpts w ere
all e ge d to exis t in fav our o f a uctuating class th e
statutory m ethod of cl a im This was don e in tw o
cas e s : r s t in th e cas e of a claim by th e citiz ens o f a
city to th e b en e t of a custom to hold hors e r ac e s o n
C 48 6
land n ear th e city (M ounsey v Isma y 3 H
3 4 L J E x 5 2 ) and s e condly in th e cas e o f a claim
by sh erm e n to dr y th eir n ets o n th e Walm er b each
In both
( M ercer v Denne 19 04 2 Ch 5 3 9
cas e s th e C ourts h eld as re gards th e statutory m ethod
o f cl a im
that th e 2 n d s e ction re ferre d only to e as e
m ents in som e way appurt enant to a dominant te n em ent ;
and inasmuch as th ere could b e no dominant ten em e nt
b elonging to a uctuating class th ey h eld th a t th e
clai m could n o t b e made in that mann er A differe nt
vi e w of th e s e ction was pre ss e d in argume nt upon th e
C ourt O f App e al wh e n M ercer v Denne cam e b e fore it
but no O pinion was exp re ss e d upon th e ar gum e nt
(See 1905 2 Ch pp 5 74
All th e usu a l m ethods of pre scrip tive claim b e ing
th e n S trictly sp e aking o ut o f th e qu e s tion th e re sult
s eems t o b e that th e m ethod of claiming customa ry
rights in th e nature Of e a s em ents all ege d to aris e o ut of
a non Copyhold custo m must b e ta ken to b e a m ethod
analogous to pre scription g e n era lly
Ind ee d th e
ana logy is sugge ste d by Lor d D avey in th e wo rds I
quoted a nte p 12 2 fr om M o ntgo mery v W alla ce J a mes
19 04 A C 8 2 a n d by J e ss el M R in Ha mmer to n v
Ho ney 2 4 W R 6 04
M y last inquiry in conn e ction with non
copyhold E
,
(2 )
in
xt
13 2
PR E S CR I PT ION
of these
righ ts
.
vr.
customs is to a sk wh eth er th ere is any m ethod in

which such customs can b e ex tinguish e d As to this
J e ss e l M R laid down in Ha mmerto n v Ho ney 2 4
W R 6 04 that as custom is local law it cannot b e
t
f
t
t
t
o
t
r
id
f
ex
c
e
p
t
by
s
a
u
t
e
O
cou
r
s
e
a
s
a
t
u
e
may
o
g
extinguish a custom e ith er by expre ss pr ovis ion o r by
words inconsistent with th e existenc e o f th e custo m
a ylo rs
rus co tt
v
x
ch
er
c
h
a
n
t
T
1
1
E
8
55
M
T
;
(
B ut a statute may
Sa lters 0 0 v J a y 3 Q B
affe ct a custom in anoth er way a s to which I should
remind yo u o f Lor d D avey s words in N ew Windsor
H e state s it to b e
Co rp ora tion v Ta ylor 9 9 A C 4 9
an indisputabl e p r oposition o f law that wh ere an Act
of Parliam e nt has e mbrac e d and con rme d a right
which had previously existe d by custom o r prescription
that right b e com e s h e nc e forth a statut o ry righ t and
th e low er titl e by cus tom o r p re scrip tion is m er g e d in
and extinguish e d by th e high er titl e d erive d fr om th e
Th e cas e in which th e s e words
Act o f Parliam ent
occur was a strik ing application O f th e p rincipl e ; for in
it a p erman e nt righ t to take t olls which had b ee n
acqui re d by p re scription was held to have b ee n m erge d
in and extinguish e d by a sta tute which was only tem
p o ra ry in its O p er ation
In concluding th e s e l e ctur e s I have to thank you fo r
th e attention with which you have lis ten e d to th em
I
canno t d e ny that th e subj e ct o f pre scrip tion is te chnica l
and in som e re sp e cts dif cult O n th e oth er hand
qu e stions conn e cte d with th e subj e ct aris e fre qu ently in
modern litigation and I have no h e sitation in telling
ha
i
is
w
e
ll
wo
r
t
h
you
r
whil
e
t
o
d
ev
o
t
e
t
im
e
t
u
t
t
t
o
o
y
mastering it
.
13 3
A PPE N D I X
PR E S C R I PT I O N A C T
2
(
WI LL IV
A n A ct for sh or tening th e
C er ta in Ca ses
Time
f Prescrip tio n
in
ugust
t ime i mm e m o ri a l o r tim e
W HE REA S th e exp r e ss i on
wh e r e of th e m em ory o f ma n runn eth n o t t o th e co ntra ry

is n o w by th e l a w o f E n gl a n d in m a ny ca s e s c on sid er ed to
i nclud e a nd den ot e th e wh ol e p e ri o d o f tim e fr o m th e r ei gn
o f Kin g R ich a r d th e Fir s t wh e r e by th e t itl e t o m a tt er s
th a t h a v e b een l o n g e nj o y e d is so m e tim e s d e f e a t e d by
s h owin g th e co mm e nc e m ent of s uch e nj oym ent whi ch i s
in m a ny c a s e s p r o ductiv e o f inc onv e ni e nc e a n d inj u s tic e ;
f o r r e m e dy t h e r e o f b e it e n a cte d by th e Ki n g s m ost
exc elle nt M a j e s ty by a n d with th e a dvic e a n d c ons ent of
t h e Lo rd s Sp iri t ua l a nd T em po r a l a n d C o mm o n s in thi s
pr e s ent Pa rli a m ent a ss embled a nd by th e a uth ori ty of th e Cl im t
s a m e T h a t n o cl a im whi ch ma y b e l a wfully m a d e a t th e g g d
c o mm on l a w by cus to m p r e s cri pti on or gra nt t o a n y ri ght th g
o f c omm on o r oth e r pr ot o r b en e t t o b e t a k e n a n d enj oye d
b d
fr o m o r upo n a ny l a nd of our Sov er ei gn Lo r d th e K in g hi s
y
h eir s o r s ucc e ssor s o r a ny l a nd b ein g p a rce l o f th e D uchy j yme t
of L a nca st er o r of th e D uchy o f C ornwa ll o r o f a ny e ccl e 3 3; n
o r b o dy c o rpora te e xc ept s uch m m t
s ia s tica l o r l a y p ers o n
m a tt ers a n d thin gs a s a re h e r e in sp e ci a lly p r ovid ed fo r
r e nt a n d s ervic e s s h a ll wh e r e su ch
a n d e xc ep t t it h e s
ri ght p r o t or b en e t sh a ll h a v e b ee n a ctu a lly ta k e n a n d
e nj oye d by a ny p erso n cl a imin g ri ght th eret o with out int er
rup ti o n f o r th e full p e ri o d o f thi rty y ea r s b e d e f e a t ed o r
d e str oy e d by sh owin g onl y th a t su ch ri ght pr ot o r b e n e t
w a s r s t t a k e n o r e nj o y e d a t a ny t im e p ri o r to such p e ri od
o f thir tyye a r s b ut n ev erth e l e ss suc h cl a i m m ay b e d efe a t e d
1
t
A
s
[
, an
er
ro
ts
e.
ence
en o
en
13 4
APPE N D I X
in a ny other w a y b y whi ch th e s a m e i s n ow l ia b l e to b e
def ea t e d ; a nd wh e n s uch ri ght p r o t o r b e n et sh a ll h a v e
35:
b
s o t a k e n a n d enj o y e d a s a f o r e s a i d fo r th e f u ll
b
ee
n
e
ri
od
p
Egggg
h ld
l
o f s ixty y e a r s th e ri ght th e ret o sh a ll b e d e e m e d a bs o lute
a n d ind e f ea s ib l e u nl e ss it s h a ll a p p e a r t h a t th e s a m e w a s
t a k e n a n d e nj o y e d by so m e c o n s e nt o r a gr ee m e nt e x p r e ssly
m a d e o r giv e n f or th a t purpos e by dee d o r writin g
f
13 l m
2 An d b e it fur th e r e n a ct e d T h a t n o cl a im wh i ch ma y
w y
b e l a w fully m a de a t th e co mm o n l a w by custo m pres crip
$ 2312:
t i o n o r g r a n t t o a n y w a y o r o th e r e a s e m e n t o r t o a n y
ggzgifg
d
o r th e us e o f a n y wa te r to b e enj oy ed o r
t b tw
ty wa t e rc o ur s e
d
e
riv
e
d
u
o
n
o
v
e
r
o
r
fr
o
m
an
l
a nd o r w a t e r o f ou r s a i d
p
y
{ggfsglm
L o rd th e K in g hi s h eir s o r succ e ssor s o r b ein g p a rc el o f
th e D uchy O f L a nc a st e r o r of th e D uchy o f C orn wa ll o r
b ein g th e p r op e rty o f a ny e ccl e si a stica l o r la y p er so n o r
body c orpor a t e wh e n s uch w a y o r oth e r m a tt e r a s h e r ein l a st
b e f or e m e nt i o n e d sh a ll h a v e b ee n a ctu a lly e nj oy ed by a ny
p ers o n cla imin g ri ght t h eret o with o ut int e rru pti o n fo th e
f ull p e ri o d o f twe nty y e a rs sh a ll b e d e f e a t e d o r d e s troy e d
by sh owin g o nly th a t s uch w a y o r o th e r m a tt er w a s r st
e nj oy e d a t a ny time pri or t o s uch p e ri o d o f twe nty y ea r s
but n e v erthel e ss s uch cl a im ma y b e d e f e a te d in a n y o th e r
w a y by which th e s a m e is n o w li a bl e t o b e d e f e a t e d ; a n d
wh er e s uch w a y o r oth er m a tt er a s h er ein l a st b e f or e
m e ntion e d sh a ll h a v e b ee n so e nj oy e d a s a f ore s a i d fo r th e
full p e ri od o f f o rty y e a r s th e ri ght th e reto sh a ll b e deem ed
a b solu t e a n d ind e f e a sibl e u nl e ss it s h a ll a pp e a r t h a t th e
s a m e w a s e nj oy e d by som e c o ns e nt or a gr ee m e nt exp re ssly
giv e n o r m a d e f o r th a t purpos e by d ee d or writin g
Cl im t t h
3 An d b e it furth e r e n a cte d T h a t wh e n th e a cc e ss a n d
f g
Eggggfgf us e o f li ght to a n d fo a ny d w e llin g h o us e wo rksho p o r
o
th
e
r
b
u
ildin
g
sh
a ll h a v e b ee n a ctu a l y e nj o yed th e r e w ith
tw ty
l
11
fo th e full p e ri o d o f t w enty ye a r s with ou t interrup tion
33223
h W
th
e
ri
g
ht
th e ret o sh a ll b e d ee m e d a b solut e a n d ind e f e a sibl e
g b
a n y l o c a l us a ge o r cus t o m t o th e c o n tr a ry n o t w t h s t a n di n g
by
t
unl e s s it sh a ll a p p e a r th a t th e s a m e w a s enj oy e d by som e
c o n s en t o r a greem e nt e xp r e ss ly m a de o r gi v en fo r th a t
p urpos e by dee d o r writin g
4 An d b e it furth e r e n a cte d T h a t e a ch of th e r e sp e ctiv e
B f
p e ri o ds of y e a r s h e reinb ef or e m enti o n e d sh a ll b e d e em e d
b d m d
a n d t a k e n t o b e t h e p e ri o d n e xt b e f o r e so m e sui t o r a cti o n
22ii gt wh er ein th e cla im o r m atter to whi ch such p eri o d ma y rel a te
a
ft er six tr
un es s
s o
1 c a
en
en
yea r s
810
n 00
een
a ve
co ns en
e o re
ee
APPE N D IX
13 5
ll h a v e b e en o r sha ll b e br o u gh t in to q u es tion a n d tha t 1: llfim1t

n o Act o r oth e r m a tt e r sh ll be deem e d t o b e a n int e r E
tt a ?
1 %
a
n
l
rupti o n within th e m e a nin g o f this s t tut e u e ss th e
or a o
s a m e s h a ll h a v e b ee n o r sh a ll b e submit t e d t o
q ui e sc e d in fo o n e y e a r a fter the p a rt y in t erru p t e d s h a ll
h a v e h a d o r sh ll h v e notice ther e o f a n d o f th e p e rson
m akin g o r a uth orisin g t h e s a m e t o b e m a d e
ti
a
a
ll
a
An
d
b
e
it
further
e
n
a
ct
e
d
T
h
t
in
c
t
i
o
n
s
upon
5
f
f th
a
th e c a s e a n d other p l e a d i n g s where i n th e p a rty cla ImIn g l im t
g
ma y n ow by l a w a ll e ge his ri ght ge n e r a lly with o ut a v e r giz
g
ll y
rin g th e e xistenc e o f such ri ght from tim e imm em o ri a l g
t p
t
s uch g en e ra l a lle ga ti o n sh a ll still b e d ee m e d s u f ci e nt a n d
if th e s a m e sh a ll be denie d a ll a n d ev ery th e m a tter s in
thi s Act m e nti o n e d a n d p rovided which s h a ll b e a pplic
a bl e t o t h e c a s e sh a ll b e a dmissibl e in e vid e nc e t o s u s t a in
r e but such a lle g a ti o n ; a n d th a t in a ll p l e a d ings t o I p l t
o
a c tio n s o f tr e s p a ss
a n d in a ll o ther p l e a din g s wh e r e i n g
iggfggg
b efor e th e p a s sin g o f thi s Act it would h a v e b ee n n eces i se h f
i
s a ry t o a lle g e the ri g ht t o h a ve e xiste d from tim e imm e
m ori a l it sh a ll b e s u f ci ent t o a lle g e th e enj oym e nt th er e o f
a s o f ri gh t by th e occu p ier s o f t h e t e n e m e n t in r e sp e ct m
l th
m
P
wh e r e o f th e s a me i s cl a im e d fo a nd durin g s uch o f th e ti 1
i
m
h
m
a y b e a p l i c a bl e t o th e t hig
e
r
i
o
d
s
m
e
nt
i
o
n
e
d
th
i
s
a
I
n
A
c
t
s
y
p
p
c a s e a n d with o ut cl a imin g in the n a me o r right o f th e
own e r o f th e f ee a s i s n o w usu lly don e ; a n d if th e oth e r ti
part y s h a ll intend t o r ely o n a n y provis o exc epti on in ca
l
w
a
c
i
t
di
s
a bil ity
contr
ct
a g reement
o
th
e
r
m
e
r
a
o
a
t
t
p
y
p mal5"
h e re inb ef o r e m e ntioned o r o n a n y c us e o r m a tt e r o f fa ct
o r o f l a w n o t inconsistent with the s im p le f a ct o f e nj o y
m e nt th e s a m e sh a ll b e s p e ci ll y a lle ge d a n d s et f orth in
a ns we r t o th e a lle g a ti o n o f the p a rty cl a imin g a n d s h a ll
n ot b e r e ce iv e d in evid e nc e o n a ny ge n er a l tra v e r s e o r
d eni a l o f s uch a ll e g a ti o n
6 An d b e it further e n a cted T h a t in th e s e v e r a l c a s e s R t ti g
m e n ti on e d in a n d p rovided fo by this Act n o p r e sum pti o n g
g g t
s ha l
b e a ll o w e d o r m a de in f a vour o supp ort o f a ny b ll d
cl a im up on p r o of o f the e xercise o enj oym ent o f th e 3: 3
ri ght or m a tt e r cl a imed fo a ny less p eriod o f t im e o r 1W 5 3,e
n umb e r o f ye a rs th n fo such p eri o d o numb e r m e ntion ed
in t hi s Act a s m y b e a ppli ca bl e to th e c a s e a n d t o th e
n a t ur e o f th e cl a im
7 Provide d a l so T h a t th e t i me durin g which a ny p e r so n P i f
mf t
o th e rwi s e c a p a b l e o f r e s i s tin
g a ny cl a im t o a n y of th e
C
10
sh a
ec
o ns
e ca s e
an
ca
enera
res en
as
'
ea s
e e
o ria
en
en
o ns o r
re
es rI c n
e a
18
m
owe
on
ro v s o
a n s
or
l 36
APPE NDIX
m a tte rs b efor e m enti o n e d s h a ll h a v e b een o r sh a ll b e a n

inf a n t i di ot n o n co mp o s men tis feme co ver t o r ten a nt fo r
lif e o r durin g which a ny a cti o n o r s uit sh a ll h a v e b ee n
p endi n g a n d which sh a ll h a v e b ee n diligently p r o s e cute d
until a b a t ed by th e d ea th o f a ny p a rty o r p a rti e s th e r e to
s h a ll b e e xclud e d in th e c omp ut a ti o n o f th e p eri o ds h e r ein
b efor e m e nti o n e d e xc ept o nly in c a s e s wh e r e th e ri ght o r
cl a i m i s h er e by de cl a r e d to b e a b solut e a n d ind e f e a s ibl e
8 Pr ovi d e d a lwa y s a n d b e it f urth e r e n a ct e d T h a t
wh e n a ny l a n d o r wa t er u p on o v e r o r fro m w hich a ny
su ch w a y o r o th e r c onv eni en t wa te rc o ur s e o r u s e o f wa ter
sh a ll h a v e b een o r s h a ll b e enj oy e d o r deriv e d h a th b een
o r s h a ll b e h el d u n de r o r by virtue o f a n y t erm o f lif e o r
a n y t e rm o f y e a r s e xc ee d i n g thr ee y e a r s fr o m th e g ra n tmg
ther e o f th e t im e o f th e e nj o ym e n t o f a ny s uch w a y o r
oth er m a tte r a s h e rein la st b e f o r e m e nti on e d durin g th e
c ontin u a nc e o f s uch t e rm s h a ll b e exclud e d in th e co m
p uta ti o n o f th e s a i d p eri od o f f o rty ye a r s in c a s e th e
cl a im sh a ll within thr ee ye a r s n ext a fter th e e nd o r soo n er
d e t e rmin a ti o n o f s uch t e rm b e r e si ste d by a ny p er so n
e ntitl e d to a ny r e v er sion exp ecta nt o n th e d e te rmin a t i on
th er e o f
9 An d b e it furth e r enacte d Th a t th i s Act shall no t
exte nd to Scotla n d
,
W h a t time
co
mp u t in g
PPO iPt ed
y th i s A ct
N o t to
Sco tl a nd
IN D E X
AB AN D O N M EN T
intention evidence o f 4 1 6 3 8 5
light rights of 8 5
non user by 4 1
w a ter ri ghts of 6 3
w a y ri ghts of 4 1
wha t a mounts to 4 1 4 2
A B A T E ME N T
remedy for obstruction of wa ys 4 2
AB S O LU TE G RAN T
p rescrip tion p resumes 12 8 1
excep tion where li ght cla imed under sta tute
ACQUI ES C EN C E
custom a s a ecting 12 1
knowledge of servient owner involves 3 6
na ture of crea ting e a sements 13
p resump tion of gra nt rests on 13
ten a nt of how fa r binds la ndl ord a s to light 8 1
a s to w a ys 3 5
t en a nt fo r lif e does no t bind rem a inderma n 3 5
AD D ITI ON AL PR O P ERTY
existing right o f w a y no t a va ila bl e for 3 8
ALTERATI ON
custom in 12 3
domina nt tenement eect of in ca se o f li ght 8 2
,
79 , 8 0
87
o fp r o t a p rend/re, 107
a ys , 3 7, 3 8
of
p ollution ,
in mode o f 6 2
ARTIF I CIAL STREAM
n a tura l right to ow non e 5 6
to purity 5 9
p rescri ptive right to ow 5 7
when p erma nent 5 8
when temp ora ry 5 7
p rescri p tive ri ght to p oll ut e 5 9
10 (2 )
IN DE X
13 8
B
O RO UG H E N GL I S H
ustom o f 111
B URD E N S
imp os ed by p rescri ption 8
by custom 111
servient tenement on mu st no t b e in creas ed
in ca se of light 8 5
o f w a ter 6 2
o f wa ys 3 8
c
B UR G
AGE TEN UR E
custom o f
C ARRI AG E -WA Y
33
111
wha t is
rticia l 5 5
dened wa ter ow ing in 4 6 5 3
overground 4 6 5 3
unde g round 5 2 5 3
unden ed wa t er o wing in 4 6 5 1
CH UR C H W A Y
custom a cquired by 114
wha t is 3 3
C H UR C H YARD S
rights O f w a y o ver 3 3
a
55
C LA I M
us er 19 122
C LA SS O F PERS O N S
uctua ting cla ims by
e a sements ri ghts in na ture o f cl a im ed by custo m
minin g rights 103
,
p ro ts d p rendre, 10 1
C O MM O N
ri ghts of 7
copyholders how a cquired by 9 9
denition of 9 0 9 1
extin guished how 106
f reeholders how a cquired by 9 8
kinds o f 9 3 9 6
origin of 9 5
p r o ts 3 p r en dr e distin guished from
unlimited c a nnot be 9 7
,
9 1, 9 2
114
IN DE X
C O M M O N L AW
rela tion to custo m
C O N VEN I EN CE
p
13 9
118
ublic custom b a sed on 12 7

prescrip tion b a s ed on
,
14
C O P YHO LD ERS
cu stom a cquir e p r o ts p r endre by 9 9 103

prescrip tion a cquire rights thr o ugh th e lord
by 105
12 4
of
th e
C UL -D E - S A C ,
priv a t e right
of w a y o v er
33
CUSTOM,
ltera tion of 12 3
bur ga ge tenure o f 111
certa in must be 12 0 12 3 12 5
church w a y a cquired by 114 115
cla y to ta ke 12 5 12 6 129
common l a w rel a tion to 119
continuous must be 120 12 1
co pyhold tena nts ca n a cquir e rights by 9 9 103 125
enj oyment mus t be a s o f ri ght 12 2
evidence of dur a tion 120 12 1 12 3
extension o f 12 3
e xtin g uishment of 13 2
ga velk in d of 111
gra nt lost not found ed o n 13 0
gr a nt not p resumed co ntr a ry to 15
immemori a l must be 12 0
inst a nces o f 110 111 112 115 116 12 5
int ermittent 12 2
loca l custo m is 112 117
m a rket a cquired by 114
min es 103 106
n a ture o f 110 112
nets to dr y 114 116 12 7
Prescrip tion Act 18 3 2 not cla ima bl e under 13 0
p rescrip tion distin g uished from 5 113 13 0 13 1
p r o t a p r en dr e c a nn o t b e cl a imed by 114 12 8
p roof onus o f 12 0
p ublic genera l ca nnot cla im by 117
p ublic g ood contra ry t o 12 7 12 8
qu a rries 12 6 12 9
r e a sona ble must b e 12 6
r ep a ir a s to 111
s a nd to ta k e 12 5
a
ma nor
INDE X
14 0
C U S T O M co ntin ued
sense in which discus sed 112

sta tute contra ry to 119
effect o f o n 132
unrea son a ble wha t is 12 7 12 8 12 9
us a ges di sting uis hed from 110
user n a tur e o f necess a ry 122
a cts of custom a cquired by 130
wa ter ri ght to by 115
w a y cl a imed by 114
.
DAM AG ES
remedy by
4 3, 87
DEr mE D C HAN N E L
w ter overground
a
C HANN E L
See
,
46
52
,
underground
D EF IN ED PERS ON S
p rescrip tive cl a im must be by 5
D EVIA TI O N
right of by ow ner of right o f wa y 4 0
D IVERS I O N O F WA T E R
n a tura l right 5 0
p rescrip tive ri ght 5 3 5 4
D O MIN AN T O WN ER
gra nt to n o t p resumed wh ere inc a pa ble of ta kin g
D O M IN AN T TE N E ME N T
a ddition to 3 8
a ltera tion of 3 8
division o f 3 9
D RIF T WAY
wha t is 3 3
.
ASE MEN T S
denition o f 7
implies tw o tenem ents belonging to different o wners
p ro ts ( 2 p ren dr e dis tinguished from 9 0
,
E NE RAN CHISE M E NT ,
copyholds how fa r extinguishes custo ma ry ri ghts

E S T O VER
comm o n o f 9 4
,
108
IN DE X
EX T IN G UI S HM E N T ,
common rights of
custom o f 13 1
light right of 8 5
,
106
14 1
p r o ts at p rendr e, 10 6
a
63
,
g
a
w a y,
,
g
w ter ri hts of
ri hts of by b a ndonm ent 4 1

by sta tute 4 1
by unity of seisin 4 1
.
FEES ,
m a rri a ge cla im a ble by prescrip tion 9

by cus tom 111
FI S HE RY
common of 9 5
corp ora tion cla im by 102
gross in 9 8
inh a bita nts of borou gh cl a im by 102
severa l C l a imed a s p r o t p r en dre 9 7
w a y ri ght o f a nnexed to 3 2
FL OO D
does n o t j ustify devia tio n from w a y 4 0
,
FLo w ,
rticia l stre a m 5 6
wa ter in dened cha nnel ov erground na tura l right to 4 7
how contr olled 5 0
wa ter in dened cha nnel un derground no n a tura l right
to 5 2
wa ter in un dened cha nn el no na tura l right to 5 1
a
FL
U CTUA TIN G CLA SS
WAY 3 3
FREN C H LAw
FOO T -
C LA SS
See
rescripti on under
G AVE LHIND ,
custom o f
111
PRES U MPT I ON O F
a bsolute must be 12
a cq uiescence b a sed o n 13
founda tion O f prescrip tion
la nd a s title to 4
G RAN T
11
IN DE X
14 2
PRES UM PTI O N O Fc n tin ued

light of necess a ry a t common la w 78
not necess a ry un der Prescrip tion Act 79
when n o t m a de
custom contra ry to 15
domina nt owner inca p ble of ta king 15
mista ke user under 2 0
servient o w ner i gnora nt of user 18
inca p a ble o f m kin g gra nt 16
of p reventin g user 17
sta tute contra ry to public 15
p riv a te 15
unity o f p ossession where 18 2 0
user w here not a s of ri ght 18
otherwise expla ined 2 1
wa ter owing in undened cha nnel none 5 5
G R AN T ,
G RO S S ,
RI GH T S
IN ,
common of pa sture 9 4
no e a sement in 6
Prescrip tion Act 18 3 2 c a nnot b e a cquired un der
.
p ro ts at p rendre, 6 , 9 7, 9 8
HA WK I NG
W AY
ha t is
cl a imed a s
p ro t ( 2 p rendre,
HO R SE
97
33
IG N O RA N E ,
o f servrent
ow n er o f u s er
18
I N C OR P OREA L HE RED ITAM ENT S
shing ri ght Of is 3 2
w a y ri ght o f ca n be a nnexed t o
wha t a re pur ely 7
,
32
I N C REA SE o r B URD EN 3 7 38 3 9 8 5
I NFAN CY
f servient owner c ect of
where cla im under sta tute 2 7
I N J UN CTI ON
,
remedy a ga inst n ms a n ce 4 3 8 7
IN SA N ITY
o f s erv1ent o w ner e ect o f 2 7
,
99
IN DE X
IN T E RM IT T E N T ,
custom ma y b e
122
14 3
INTE R R U P T I ON ,
custom a bsence of essentia l to 113

di scontin u a nce of user is not 12 1
ow o f n a tu r l strea m 5 4
w h a t is un der Prescrip tion A ct
,
IRRI G ATI O N ,
n a tu ra l ri ght o f
49
KN O WLE D GE ,
prescrip t iv e u
LAN D
titl e to ,
LAND L O RD
12 1
ser Inv o lves

,
18 , 5 5
c a nno t be ma de by prescripti o n
t en a nt a cquires right s for benet of, 3 6 , 8 0, 8 2

ten a nt , us a ges between , 110
ten a nts , different , under s a m e, 3 6 , 8 1
LE A SE
resumed a t common l a w 16 8 0
e ect o f u n der Prescri p tion Act
36
where cl a im is to light 79 8 1 8 2
to w a ys 3 5 3 6
LIFE TEN AN CY P O R
gr a nt not p resum ed durin g a t common la w 16
ef
fect o f under Prescrip tion Act
LIGHT
a b a ndonment of 8 5
onus o f p roof in ca ses o f 8 6
a ctu a l enj oyment must under st a t ute be p rov ed 78
need not be a s o f ri ght 79
a l tera tion of domin a nt tenement 8 2 8 7
buil din g must be cl a imed fo r 78
Wha t is 78
cla im to how m a de a t common la w 2 6 77 78
by lost gra nt 2 6 77 78
under Prescription Act 18 3 2 2 6
comfort ordina ry co n sidered 6 8 70
da m a ges fo r Obst uction 8 7
extent of e a sement considered 71
forty ve degre es rul e of 75
gra nt
du rin g
no t
6 6 , 77
IN DE X
14 4
L I G HT co n tinued
futur e user o f tenement 72 74

inj un ction for Obstruction 8 7
le a se e ffect o f 79 s q q
loca lity how fa r considered 71 74 75
m a nda tory inj unction when gra nted 8 8
n a t u ra l right t o 4 4 6 5
na ture of p rescrip tive right to 70 73
nuisa nce obstruction of is 6 8 70 74
onus O f proof 8 4
other sources how fa r considered 72
pa st en j o yment 72
Prescrip tion Act 18 3 2 c ect o f 6 6 79
prescrip tive ri ght to 4 5 6 6 70 73
p rop erty how fa r right to is 6 7 8 4
remedies for Obstruction 8 7
Sp ecia l p ur p ose 76
surveyor a pp ointment of 8 9
test a p plied 70
wa ter ri ght to comp a red w ith 4 4 6 5
LITTER
common o f cutting 9 6
L O CALIT Y
a ect in g ri ght to li ght 7 1 75
a ltera tion o f a ect in g custom 12 4
custom must be cl a imed in resp ect of 5 113 117
L O S T G R AN T
a bsolute must be 12 2 5
custo m ca nnot be founded on 130
prescription a t common l a w distin guished from 2 4
p resump tion o f not rebutta ble by exp ress evidenc e
p r ts ? p rendr e a c q uired by 9 9
user b a sed on 2 4
dura tion of 24
,
AN UFA C TURES
r used for
w a te
AR K E T
50
custom a cquired by 116

p rescrip tion a c q uired by 9
M I N ERAL S
common ri ghts in resp ect of 9 5
custom a cq uired by 103 10 6
mi ning rights cla imed by custom 103
p r o t 62 p rendre ca n exist in gross 9 8
,
25
INDE X
M I S C E LL
AN E O U S R IG HT S
quired by custom 110

by p rescription
ac
14 5
111, 115 , 116

8 , 59 , 60
N O TI C E ,
ba tement of nu Is a nce when nece s sa ry before

prescrip tive us er involves knowledge 18
43
N UI S AN C E ,
cts of tw o p ersons by 4 3
must be proved in a ctio n
light 70
obstruction of light is 6 8
obstructi o n of w a y is 4 2
a
restra in interference with
to
PAN N A GE
common of 9 6
PAS T URE
a pp enda nt 9 3
a p p urten a nt 9 4
common right of
gross in 9 4 9 8
,
9 1, 9 3
when
p ro t a? p ren dre,
PI S CARY
common of
92
95
P O LL UTI O N O F WATE R
a rticia l stre a m 5 9
cha nge in 6 2
in cre a se of 6 2
na tura l strea m 4 7 5 2
sewa ge by 6 2
,
PRE CAR I O U S
user 19
,
5 3 , 54
20, 6 1, 12 2
PRE S CRIP TI ON
a bsolute gr a nt p res umes 12
a cq uiescence rests on 13
a rti ci a l stre a m 5 8
common l a w a t 11 2 3
common ri ghts of a cquired by 9 8
copyholders when a cq uired by 104
custom distin guished from 5 113 130
dened p ersons cla im must b e by 5
,
IN DE X
14 6
PRES CRI PT I ON co ntinued

denition o f in E n glish la w 3
F rench la w 2
in R om a n la w 1
in Scotch la w 2
light a s to 6 6
lost gra nt distinguished from 24
miscell a neous ri ghts a cq uired by 8 9
p r o ts 2 p r end r e a cquired by 9 9
wa ter ri ghts how a cq uired by 6 0
wha t a re 5 3 s qq
w a y ri ght t o a cquired by 34
PRES C RIP TION ACT 18 3 2
cla ims under
to e a sement s other th a n light o r to p ro ts a p rendre
gra nt must be p resumed 11 3 4 6 0 100
q u eer s where cl a im b a sed o n lon g er p eri o ds 11
t o li ght gra n t need not be p resumed 79
customa ry rights n o t cla ima ble under 13 0
fect of 2 5 28
ef
light cl a ims to under 78
p r qts d p rendre cla ims to under 9 9 10 1
text of 13 3
u ser under nece s sa ry na tur e of 2 7
p eriods of 2 5 10 1
w a ter cl a ims to under 6 1
PRES U M P TI ON o r G RAN T See GRAN T
PR O F IT S A P REN D RE
a cqui sition methods o f 9 8
common distinguished from 9 1 9 2 9 7
co pyholders a cq uired by 9 9 12 4
custom how fa r a cquired by 103 114 128
denition of 9 1
e a sements distinguished from 7 9 0
exclusive ri ght when 9 1
extin guished how 106
shery cl a imed a s 9 7
uct ua ting cla ss c a nnot in genera l cl a im 101 104
freeholders a cquir ed by 9 8
gross in 9 7
n o t a c q uired under Prescripti o n Act 9 9
ha wkin g cl a im of 9 7
relea se must be ca pa ble of 103
s t a tute not a cquired contr a ry to 100
t horns ri ght to ta ke 9 6
user dura tion of necessa ry 100 101
user must be a s of ri ght 100
w ood right to cut 9 6
.
INDE X
P R O FIT S A REND RE
distinguished from p rots
14 7
p rendre, 9 2
PUB LI C
c a nnot cla im by custo m 117
good custom contra ry to 12 7
PURITY O F W AT ER
de ned course overground n a tu ra l right to 4 7
p rescri p tive ri ght to p ollute
unden ed co urs e na tura l right to 5 2
,
QUE E S T A T E ,
prescrip t i on
R EL EA SE
In ,
53
ba ndonment a moun ts to 4 1
common ri ghts o f 107
p r o t a p r n d re n o t a cquired by b o dy un a ble to
a
REM AIN D ERMA N
102
na nt for lif e c a nno t bind
te
REM E D I ES
35
li ght for obstruction of 8 7

w a y for obs truction of 4 2
,
R E P AIR
custom of
ecting highw a ys , 111

s ea fr onta
ges , 111
li a bility to , 9
.
p rescrip tive
w a ys , o f, 4 0
R EVER S I O NER
a
cq uiescence o f lessee does n o t bind
R IVER S P O LLU T I O N A C T
RO MA N L AW
p
rescrip ti on under
CO TTI S H L AW
p rescrip tion
SE A ,
18 7
un der
discha rge o f s ew a ge into
63
in
rights
o f w a y,
35
IND E X
14 8
VIEN T O WNER
SE R
cq uiescence by none w ithout kn o wl edge 36

ignora nt o f user 18
inc a p a ble o f preventin g user 17 3 4
SEVERAN C E
o f domina nt t en em ent e ffect o f 3 9
SE WA G E
ri ght to discha rg e 6 2
STA T U T E
common ri ghts o f extin gui shed by 106
custom contra ry to 119
extin guishing 13 1
p riv a te gra nt p resumed contra ry to 15
p ro ts t p r en d r not a c q uired contra ry to 100
p ublic gra nt n o t p resumed a ga in st 15
wa ter ri ghts of extinguished by 6 3
w a y rights of extin guished by 4 1
a
A TUT ES O F L IM ITATI O N
ST
title under distingui shed from prescription

SURVEY O R
a pp oin ted to rep ort a s to light 8 9
,
3, 4
TE MP O RARY B ASE M E N T
ca nnot be a cqu ired 12 8 1

TE N AN T
a cq uires ri ghts for benet of l a ndlord
different under s a me la ndlord 3 6 8 0
l a ndl ord a n d usa ges between 110
T OLL S
right to by prescription 9
TURB ARY
commo n of 9 4
,
UN D E F I NE D C H AN N E L ,
wa ter owin g in
o w no n a tur a l ri ght to 5 1
purity na tu ra l right to 5 2
,
no
UN D ERGR O UN D
WAT E R
52
n a tura l right o f o w
5 1, 5 2 , 5 5
36 , 80
INDE X
UN I TY
ownership of
p ossession o f
U SA GES
8 , 3 2 , 4 1, 6 3 , 8 0, 8 1, 106
18 , 2 0 , 34
a s
distinguished from custom
US E R ,
14 9
110
of ri ght 18
in ca se of cla im to light under Prescrip tion Act
.
79
18 3 2
of custom
122
to p r o ts a p rendre, 100
a
, 61
a
o f,
fa r a
.
to w ter
d iscontinu nce
how
b a ndonment 4 1 12 1
d ura tion of for e a sements
fo r common l a w p rescrip tion 2 3
for p rescrip tion under sta t u te 2 5
for p resump tion O f lost gra nt 2 4
d ura tion of necess a ry where cl a im to p r o ts .2 p rendre
.
100 ,
10 1
n a tur e of n ecessa ry to give ri s e to customa ry rights 12 2

to prescrip tive rights 10
wa ter of na tura l right to 4 7
extra ordina ry 4 8
ordina ry 4 7
,
user p
W A TER
er ,
19 , 12 2
b a ndonment of right s 6 2
a rtici a l S tre a m 5 6
li ght comp red with 4 4 6 5
miscella neous rights to 5 9
n a tur a l ri ghts t o 4 5
dened cha nnel ow 4 7
p urity 4 7
user 4 7
p rescri p tive ri ght to how a cquired
user extent of 6 1
user o f extra ordin a ry 4 8
va ries in district 4 9
in time 4 9
wha t is 4 9
u s er o f ordin a ry 4 7
a
60
IN DE X
15 0
WAT ER C O UR SE
a
rticia l
56
temp ora ry ri ghts in

mea ning of 5 7
57
WAY R I G HT S
O F,
a te
ri
v
p
ch a n ge in ch a ra ct er
,
37
cu l- de- s a c,
of
domina nt
tenement,
ct
ef
fe
o f,
over
33
denition o f 3 1
devia tion 4 0
extent of h o w me a sured 3 4
extin guished how 4 0
shin g ca n be a nnexed t o right o f 3 2
h o w a cq ui red by p rescrip tion 3 4
h p a s s a bl e where ro a d 4 0
kinds of 3 3
two over sa me ro a d 3 3
obstruction of 4 2
o wnership distin guished from 3 2
p rop erty must be connected with enj oym ent o f
rea son a ble p a ssa ge limited to 4 0
remedies fo r o bstruction 4 2
re pa ir of ro a ds 4 0
su b division of domina nt tenem ent 3 9
tena nt ca nnot a cquire a ga inst his la ndl o rd 36
.
PRIN T E D B Y
0 . F . B O WO R'I H, GRE AT N E W
STRE E T ,
FETTE R LAN E ,
32
KD 9 6 0 P 7 C 3 5 1 9 0 7
C a r s o n , T h o ma s He n r
y,
Pr e s c r i p t i o n a nd c u s t o m
PLEASE DO N O T REM O VE
C ARDS O RSLIPS FRO M THIS PO C KET

PrescriptionandCustom 10248899

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PrescriptionandCustom 10248899

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PRESCRIPTION AND CUSTOM

CAR SO N S RE AL PRO PE RTY

SWEE T AN D M AX W E LL , LIM ITE D,

followin g Lecture s w ere delivere d at th e requ est

D uring th e deli very som e o f th e cas e s referred to in

conv e ni enc e o f referenc e a full Tabl e o f

PRE SCRI PTIO N G EN ERALLY

Mea nin g o f pres c

mea nin g in E n glish

ipti n (in En gli h s n e) gen lly

Na ture a n d ch a ra cteristics o f th e u ser

C a ses in w h ich a gra nt

O r w h ere gra nt in co n sisten t w ith cu sto m

O r w h ere u ser ca n b e o th erw i s e expl a in ed

PRE SCRIP TI ON IN R ELATION T o WAY S

B y prescriptio n a t co mmo n l a w o r b y lo st gra n t

A cqu isitio n by do min a n t

Su b-divis io n o f do min a nt t en emen t

N a tura l w a ter co urses

M cCa r tney v Lon donderry

Lo ugh Sw vlly Ra ilw a y

N a tura l w a ter co urs esco n nu ed

Wh ere ch a n nel de ned

PRE SCRI PTION

C o mp a ris o n o f n a tur a l righ ts in resp ect o f w a ter w ith n a tura l

res cript ive righ

t view s expre s ed in th ese

Na tu re o f p res criptive righ t to ligh t sta ted

C o n sidera tio n s a s to present

C a s e w h ere s ervient ten ement is

D o mina nt a n d servient ten ements o w ned in fee by dierent

Remedies fo Ob t u tio n to ligh t

Pro ts d p rendre in a n o th er s s o il ca n no t in gen era l b e

E xcep tio n s to th e rule

B y a ltera tio n in ten ement t o w h ich righ t a nn exed

D ifferent sen ses o f cu sto m

igh ts in n ture o f ements

Na rro w er s en se o f cu sto m dea lt w ith

A cqui s itio n O f righ ts b a s ed

E xtin guish men t o f th ese righ ts

Ank ers o n v C o n n ell y

E a st S to n eh o u s e C o un cil 72 Wil lo ugh b y

Fir st Av enu e H o tel CO

RES CRI PTI ON GE N ERALLY

s ubj ect is pr escription W hat is pre scription M i g

m e ant a wr iting before a prefac e B ut it soon

which h e gave th e nam e Prescription

L ectur es o n th e Infallibility O f th e C hur ch p

RES CRI PTI O N

a lat er tim e tak e th e law o f S cotland

La prescription e st un moy e n d a cq u rir ou d e se

ditions d termin e s par la loi

RES CRI PTI O N GENERALLY

pr op erty (wh e th er real o r p ersonal ) and wh eth er by

o riginat ed must n o t b e disposs ess ed

RES CRI PTIO N

law as to this you must look fo r in th e various statut es

RES CRIPTI O N G E N ERA LLY

ffe ct O f tim e and us er o n th e titl e to land must be

in corpor eal h ereditaments I Shall u se th e wor d pre

in dealin g with such d estruction a re abandon ed and

other similar words and do not include p r escription

such a titl e is expr ess ed by th e wor d custom a