Renwick v Daly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1877
• Date: 02 May 1877
• Court: Common Pleas Division (Ireland)

Com. Pleas.

RENWICK

and

DALY.

Skull v. GleinsterENR 16 C. B. (N. S.) 81.

Canham v. FickENR 2 Cr. & J. 126.

Dobbyn v. SomersUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 293.

Solme v. BullockENR 3 Lev. 106.

Hinchliffe v. The Earl of KinnoulENR 5 Bing. N. C. 1.

Northern v. HurleyENR 1 E. & B. 665.

Deed Grant Habendum Appurtenance Easements.

126 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. RENWICK v. DALY. Deed-Grant-Habendam-Appurtenance-Basements. M., possessed of two contiguous plots of ground, assigned one of them to T. " together with the right to use the walls on the N. side" (i. e., on the adjoining plot) " for building purposes ;" T. afterwards assigned the plot so purchased by him to the Defendant by deed, the granting part of which was silent as to " rights, members and appurtenances," habendum " with the rights, members, and appurtenances thereto belonging ;" and, subsequently, M. assigned the adjoining plot of ground to the Plaintiff :-Held, in an action for trespassing upon the walls, that the right to use them for building purposes passed with the plot of ground to the Defendant. TRESPASS q. c. f. tried before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of this Court at the sittings after last Michaelmas Term. The plaint contained two counts : complaining that the DeÂÂfendant broke and entered a close of the Plaintiff and a wall of the Plaintiff then standing upon it, and broke down a part of the wall and made holes therein, and. built a shed. and. a roof against and upon it. The Defendant traversed the acts complained of, and the Plaintiff's property in the premises, and pleaded specially :- " That one J. M., by indenture dated the 26th September, 1874, assigned to one P. T. that plot of ground adjoining the premises in the summons and plaint mentioned, together with the right to use the walls on the north side of the said plot for building purposes, and the said P. T., subsequently, on the 28th September, 1874, duly demised the said plot of ground with the said right to the Defendant ; and the Defendant says that the said walls in the said indenture mentioned and those in the said counts respectively mentioned are the same, and, after the said indentures repectively, the said J. M. assigned to the Plaintiff the premises in the summons and plaint mentioned as being the Plaintiffs property, and the entire interest of the Plaintiff is derived under said assignment ; and the Defendant, in exercise of his said right, did use the wall by building thereon and using the same for building purposes...