The Weekly Notes Cover Volume 9-10 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 Excerpt: ...apparently, of creating no little alarm on the part of conveyancers and real property lawyers. The defendants in this case had leased to the plaintiff a farm with the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment. The defendants had previously let another farm lying above the plaintiffs land, to one C, and to the latter lease was annexed the right to use certain underground drains (forming part of a general system of drainage instituted by the defendants), through the plaintiffs land. Owing to one of these drains having been imperfectly constructed the water flowing from C.'s laud appears to have escaped and caused damage to the plaintiffs farm. In these circumstances it was held that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for a breach of their covenant for quiet enjoyment;--inasmuch as there had been a substantial interference of the plaintiffs enjoyment by a person claiming under the defendants. As regards the covenant for quiet enjoyment, generally, it was also laid down that any substantial interference with the lessee's ordinary and lawful enjoyment, either by the lessor or those claiming under him, would constitute a breach of such covenant, even though neither the title to nor the possession of the land (except in a mere teehI nical sense) might be affected: cf. p. 551. This statement of principle appears to have been adopted in the subsequent case of Aldin v. Latimer, Clarke 8f Co. (sup.). But in the still later case of The Manchester, fcc., Railway Co. v. Anderson (1898 2 Ch. 394), an opinion was expressed by Lindley, M.R., that this statement of principle must be taken with reference to the facts then before the Court (cf. at p. 402). In the latter case, moreover, the Court whilst recognising that structural injury to to a house would constitute a breac...