Actions on the case for nuisance

J. Baker
{"title":"Actions on the case for nuisance","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows how actions on the case were used both to supplant the assize of nuisance and to provide remedies for types of nuisance not within the assize. The King’s Bench allowed case to overlap with the assize, but this was opposed by the Common Pleas until 1601, when the King’s Bench view prevailed. The assize was chiefly concerned with easements and profits. But there were new difficulties over the extent to which neighbours had to put up with disagreeable activities and processes which disturbed their comfort. These were discussed in a case of 1569 concerning ancient lights in London, and in a leading case of 1629 concerning the use of sea-coal by a London brewery. The 1629 case seems to have resulted in judicial deadlock, but the judges agreed on the principle of ‘necessity’, meaning that activities which were desirable in the public interest should be protected.","PeriodicalId":197105,"journal":{"name":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","volume":"182 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter shows how actions on the case were used both to supplant the assize of nuisance and to provide remedies for types of nuisance not within the assize. The King’s Bench allowed case to overlap with the assize, but this was opposed by the Common Pleas until 1601, when the King’s Bench view prevailed. The assize was chiefly concerned with easements and profits. But there were new difficulties over the extent to which neighbours had to put up with disagreeable activities and processes which disturbed their comfort. These were discussed in a case of 1569 concerning ancient lights in London, and in a leading case of 1629 concerning the use of sea-coal by a London brewery. The 1629 case seems to have resulted in judicial deadlock, but the judges agreed on the principle of ‘necessity’, meaning that activities which were desirable in the public interest should be protected.
妨害案件的诉讼
本章展示了案件的诉讼如何被用来取代妨害罪的范围,以及如何为妨害罪不在范围内的类型提供救济。国王御前庭允许案件与案件重叠,但这一直受到普通上诉的反对,直到1601年,国王御前庭的观点占了上风。该法案主要涉及地役权和利润。但是,邻居们在多大程度上不得不忍受扰乱他们舒适的不愉快的活动和过程,这就产生了新的困难。这些都在1569年关于伦敦古代灯光的案例和1629年关于伦敦啤酒厂使用海煤的主要案例中进行了讨论。1629年的案件似乎导致了司法僵局,但法官们同意"必要性"原则,即符合公共利益的活动应该受到保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信