Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Jury Court Reports
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Douglas v. Monteith. [1826] ScotJCR 4_Murray_130 (19 September 1826)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1826/4_Murray_130.html
Cite as: [1826] ScotJCR 4_Murray_130
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 130↓
(1826) 4 Murray 130
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT, AT EDINBURGH, AND ON THE CIRCUIT, FROM DECEMBER 1825 TO JULY 1828.
GLASGOW.
No. 19
v.
PRESENT, LORDS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AND
Damages for injury caused to one house by operations on the adjoining house.
Damages for injury done to a house by alterations made in the adjoining house, and for the anxiety and inconvenience occasioned to the pursuer and his family by these alterations.
Defence.—The operations were legal, and conducted by authority of the Dean of Guild. The house of the pursuer was cracked before, and was to be taken down. The defender offered to repair any injury done by his operations.
“It being admitted, that the pursuer is proprietor of a house in Argyle Street, in Glasgow, and that the defender is proprietor of a
Page: 131↓
It being also admitted, that the defender applied to, and obtained from the Dean of Guild Court of the said city, authority to make certain alterations on his, the defender's said house; and that the same were accordingly made:
Whether the operations performed (alterations executed) by the defender, upon his said house, by virtue of the said authority, caused injury or damage to the said house of the pursuer; and whether the defender was bound and obliged, or became liable to indemnify the pursuer for the said injury and damage? Or,
Whether the operations carried on by the defender, in making the alterations aforesaid, were illegal and improper, and to the loss and damage of the pursuer?”
M'Neill opened the case.
Jeffrey, for the defender, said, This would prove a case of contrary evidence; and also contended that the defender was not bound to repair injuries done by lawful operations carried on within his own territories, unless they were
Page: 132↓
Cockburn.—As to the principle stated by the other party, I maintain that the principle of law is against him, and that every thing done within burgh which brings down a neighbour's house is wrong. In Edinburgh the operation was held improper, because it cracked the neighbouring house. In the present case no penal damages are sought; but the defender must pay for the injury he has done.
Lord Chief Commissioner.—This is a case for you, (the jury,) and the only question is the amount of damages. The Court hold that damages are due, as they cannot sanction the doctrine, that the defender is not to pay for the damage done by his operations. All question of liability is at an end; and the only question is the amount, which you must fix on a consideration of the testimony of the different witnesses, some of whom speak on theory, some on fact.
Page: 133↓
Verdict—For the pursuer, damages L.300.
Counsel:
Cockburn and D. M'Neill, for the Pursuer.
Jeffrey and Jardine, for the Defender.