and advantage as theretofore, there is sufficient ground for the interference of the court." (e) And there is no rule which prevents the court from interfering on the ground that the injury sought to be restrained has been completed before the filing of the bill. (f) It depends, however, upon all the circumstances of the case whether the court will grant a mandatory injunction, or only order an inquiry as to damages under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27 (Cairn's Act). (g) And it has been held that the court will not, as a rule, grant an injunction against the erection of a building the height of which above an ancient light is not greater than its distance from the light. (k)

If ancient windows looking over or upon the land of another have been enlarged, and then totally obstructed by the adjoining landowner, a court of equity will, on the windows being restored to their ancient dimensions, grant an injunction to restrain such adjoining landowner from continuing the obstruction to the restored windows. (1) And if a person possessed of an ancient diamond-paned, or stone-mullioned, or Gothic window, or a window painted on the inside, puts in a modern sash with plate glass, or rubs off the paint and so increases the amount of light inside his house, and his neighbor blocks up the window, or builds immediately before it, the court will by injunction compel him to remove the obstruction, on the ground that there has been no enlargement of the external aperture. (j)

A person does not lose his right to an injunction merely because he has himself erected buildings which deprive him of a certain amount of light and air, (k) nor because he happens to be then carrying on a business which as a matter of fact, requires a subdued light. () If the defendant, in an action for obstructing the plaintiff's ancient lights, pleads an equitable plea that he was to be allowed to obstruct such lights on certain terms, this will not prevent him from also applying for an

(e) Per Kindersley, V.C., in Martin v. Headon, L. R., 2 Eq. Ca. 434. See Clarke v. Clark, L. R., I Ch. App. 16. Durell v. Pritchard, infra.

Durell v. Pritchard, L. R., I Ch. App. 244.

(g) Senior v. Pawson, L. R., 3 Eq. Ca. 330.

(4) Beadel v. Perry, L. R., 3 Eq. Ca.

(2) Cooper v. Hubbuck, 30 Beav. 160; 31 Law J., Ch. 123. Weatherley v. Ross, 32 Ib. 128. See Jones v. Tapling, ante, pp. 126, 136.

() Turner v. Spooner, ante, p. 136. (k) Arcedeckne v. Kelk, 2 Giff. 683. (4) Yates v. Jack, L. R., 1 Ch. App. 295. See ante, p. 128. Lanfranchi v. Mackenzie.

iujunction to restrain the action, if the Court of Law can not give such relief as the Court of Equity would give. (m)

215. Injunction to prevent injury to support.--If a tenant in fee-simple grants a portion of his land for building purposes, he impliedly grants, as we have seen, an easement of lateral support for the buildings from his adjoining land; and if he, or those who claim under him, attempt to derogate from the grant by excavating so as to endanger the buildings, the court will grant an injunction to prevent the threatened mischief. And where a landowner has sold his land to a railway company under the compulsory powers of an Act of Parliament, the court will interfere by injunction to prevent him from working mines in his adjoining land, so as to endanger the stability of the railway, unless the legislature has given the company the power of purchasing such adjoining land, and has provided that they shall protect themselves by purchasing so much of it as may be required to give their railway and works the requisite amount of lateral support. () Where land had been allotted under a local enclosure Act, the effect of which was to vest the surface in the allottee, and the minerals in the lord of the manor, it was held, under the words of the Act, that the latter could not be restrained from working the mines, although by so doing he let down the surface, even to the extent of destroying it, and that there was no difference for this purpose between lands allotted under the General Enclos ure Act (41 Geo. 3, c. 109, s. 32) and lands sold to pay the expenses of the enclosure. (0)

216. Bill of peace.-In addition to the remedy by action of injunction, there are certain cases in which what is termed a bill of peace may be filed for the purpose of quieting a person in the enjoyment of his legal rights and preventing the interference with them by others. (p) “It is certain," says Lord HARDWICKE, that where a man sets up a general and exclusive right, and where the persons who controvert it are very numerous, and he can not by one or two actions at law quiet that right, he may come to this court first, which is called a bill

66

(m) Waterlow v. Bacon, L. R., 2 Eq. Ca. 514.

(1) North-East. Rail. Co. v. Elliott, ante. pp.

(e) Wakefield v. Duke of Buccleuch,

36 L. J., Ch. 763; L. R., 4 Eq. Ca. 613; 4 Engl. & Ir. App. 377.

(p) Spence's Eq. Jur., pp. 656, 657. See Sheffield Waterworks v. Yeomans, L. R., 2 Ch. App. 8.

of peace, and the court will direct an issue to determine the right, as it disputes between lords of manors and their tenants, and between tenants of one manor or another, for in these cases there would be no end of bringing actions of trespass, since each action would determine only the particular right in question between the plaintiff and defendant." (q) Thus, a bill may be filed by one copyholder on behalf of himself and the other copyholders against the lord, (r) or by the lord against the commoners, (s) to have their respective rights of common ascertained. So by the freehold tenants of a manor against the lord, to establish their rights to common of pasture and turbary, and to dig gravel and sand in the lord's waste, (t) or by a freeholder and copyholder, jointly, on behalf of themselves and all other copyhold and freehold tenants of the manor, (u) if their rights are co-extensive. (x) So to establish a right to a fishery, where the persons disputing the right are very numerous. (y) But, although a court of equity will thus protect the private rights of those who are comprehended under one common capacity, as the inhabitants of a parish or the tenants of a manor, it will not establish a right in contradiction of a public right, as a right to a highway or a common navigable river, for that would be to enjoin all the people of England. (~)

(9) Tenham v. Herbert, 2 Atk. 483. () Phillips v. Hudson, L. R., 2 Ch. App. 243.

(5) Arthington v. Fawkes, 2 Vern. 356. (1) See Warrick v. Queen's College, L. R. 4 Eq. Ca. 254; 10 Ibid. 105; 6 Ch. App. 716. Minet v. Morgan, L. R., II Eq. Ca. 284.

(u) Smith v. Brownlow (Earl), L. R.,

CHAPTER IV.

NUISANCES.