Atkinson v King

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 December 1877
• Date: 13 December 1877
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. Bench.

ATKINSON

and

KING.

The Duke of Beaufort v. PatrickENR 17 Beav. 60.

Moreland v. RichardsonENR 22 Beav. 596.

Wood v. LeadbitterENR 13 M. & W. 838.

Carr v. BensonELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 524.

Rich v. BasterfieldENR 4 C. B. 783.

The King v. PedleyENR 1 Ad. & E. 822.

Bower v. PeateELR 1 Q. B. D. 321.

Pickard v. SmithENR 10 C. B. N. S. 470.

Hole v. Sittingbourne Railway CompanyENR 6 H. & N. 488.

Ellis v. Sheffield Gas CompanyENR 2 E. & B. 767.

Gray v. PullenENR 5 B. & S. 970.

Bonomi v. BackhouseENR 9 H. L. C. 503.

Gandy v. JubberENR 5 B. & S. 485.

Corby v. HillENR 4 C. B. N. S. 556.

White v. JamesonELR L. R. 18 Eq. 303.

Rosewell v. PriorUNK 12 Mad. 639.

Thompson v. GibsonENR 7 M. & W. 462.

Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Co.ENR 2 E. & B. 771.

Bower v. PeateELR 1 Q. B. D. 322.

Hole v. Sittingbourne & Sheerness Railway Co.ENR 6 H. & N. 497.

Jameson v. WhiteELR L. R. 18 Eq. 303.

Rights of mining Irrevocable license to third person to sink mines in Defendant's land Withdrawal of support from Plaintiff's land.

536 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Q. B. ment against the firm as such, and to be entitled to execution 1878. against the goods of the firm and the goods of the partner served. SMITH & Co. All the partnership rules in force in England appear to have been smiTV.rf & incorporated into the Irish Rules and Orders, with the single 'ex- NEILL. ception of Order IX., rule 6, which refers to service. By analogy to the English practice, the Plaintiffs ought to be able to have execution against the goods of the firm and against the goods of Smith, who has been served (Order XT rule 8), or, at least, judgment and execution against the goods of Smith ; Order XTI., rules 2 & 4 : and they should not be compelled to serve any other person, as the Defendants would be liable to pay the whole under a joint judgment, under the old practice. BARRY, J. :- The English Order IX., rule 6, has not been adopted into the Irish code, because the Judges were of opinion that such a rule might be inconsistent with rule 10 in the schedule of the Irish Judicature Act, which there was no power to alter or vary by the rules made before the 1st of January, 1878. In any future revision of Orders, a rule corresponding to the English Order IX., rule 6, may, and probably will, be introduced ; but in the meantime I do not think I can act upon an analogy to a rule which has been deliberately omitted from the Irish Orders. Motion refused. dant 's kind-Withdrawal of support from Plaintiff's land. A licensee, under an irrevocable license granted to him by the Defendant, sank coal-pits in the Defendant's land, and thereby caused injury to the adÂÂjoining premises of the Plaintiff :-Held, that the Defendant was not answerable for the damage so caused. ACTION for negligently mining so as to deprive certain houses of the Plaintiff of their proper support, and for injury to the Plaintiff's reversion in certain lands by digging pits therein. At the trial, before BARRY, J., at the Sittings after Trinity VOL. XI.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 537 Term, 1877, it appeared that damage was done to the Plaintiff's Q. Benc.h. 1877 houses by mines sunk in the Defendant's lands, which mines also IN ATK SON ,extended under a portion of the Plaintiff's lands, held by the De- v. fendant under lease from the Plaintiff. These...