Front Page Titles (by Subject) ADDENDA. - The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (4th ed.)
Return to Title Page for The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (4th ed.)
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
ADDENDA. - Sir Frederick Pollock, The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (4th ed.) 
The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law: to which is added the Draft of a Code of Civil Wrongs prepared for the Government of India, Fourth Edition (London: Stevens and Sons, 1895).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Pp. 24, 181—
As to the imposition of statutory duties not necessarily giving rights of private action for damage suffered through breach of such duties, see further Saunders v. Holborn District Board of Works, ’95, 1 Q. B. 64, 64 L. J. Q. B. 101, 15 R. Jan. 381.
I have not been able to find any report accessible in England of the New York case here referred to in which Coultas’s case was not followed. An abstract is given in 9 Gen. Dig. (Rochester, N. Y. 1894) 2249 a.
Corporation of Bradford v. Pickles is now reported on appeal, ’95, 1 Ch. 145, 64 L. J. Ch. 101. Lord Wensleydale’s dictum in Chasemore v. Richards was approved in express terms by Lindley and A. L. Smith, L JJ., and in effect, though not so strongly, by Lord Herschell. In the case at bar the utmost that was alleged against the defendant was that he intended to divert underground water from the springs that supplied the plaintiff Corporation’s works, not for the benefit of his own land, but in order to drive the Corporation to buy him off. This, as pointed out by Lord Herschell and A. L. Smith, L.J., might be unneighbourly conduct, but could not be called malicious, the main object being not harm to the plaintiff but gain to the defendant. The actual decision, therefore, does not categorically deny the doctrine of “animus vicino nocendi,” but all the judges who took part in the case have expressed themselves against it so strongly that the point may be practically deemed settled. The judgment below was reversed on the construction of a special Act, the Court of Appeal holding that it did not restrain the defendant’s general rights.
The rule as to burden of proof in cases of negligence was held not to apply to a case where the defendant had maintained a dangerous nuisance, and the plaintiff, a young child, had suffered such harm as that nuisance (a row of spikes on the top of a low wall) was likely to cause. Fenna v. Clare & Co., ’95, 1 Q. B. 199.
As to payment of money into Court with an apology in actions for libel contained in a newspaper, add reference to the amending Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 75, and Dunn v. Devon, &c. Newspaper Co., ’95, 1 Q. B. 211, n.
Alabaster v. Harness has been affirmed in the Court of Appeal, ’95, 1 Q. B. 339, 64 L. J. Q. B. 76.
That a person holding goods as a warehouseman or the like may make himself liable as a bailee by attornment, and be estopped as against the person to whom he has attorned, notwithstanding evident want of title, see Henderson v. Williams, ’95, 1 Q. B. 521, C. A.
Pp. 310, 377, 385—
Lemmon v. Webb has been affirmed in the House of Lords, ’95, A. C. 1.
Pp. 380, 385—
The jurisdiction existing since Lord Cairns’ Act to award damages in lieu of an injunction does not carry with it a discretion to refuse an injunction in cases, especially of continuing nuisance, where the plaintiff is entitled to that remedy under the settled principles of equity. Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., ’95, 1 Ch. 287, C. A.