| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Facts
| Defendant owned land containing underground streams which fed Claimant water works. Defendant began to sink shafts for the alleged purpose of draining certain beds on stone the effects of which were to seriously affect water supplies to Claimant operations. Claimant alleged that Defendant was not acting in good faith but to compel them to purchase his land. Plaintiff − preventing digging and compensation for loss Claim Bradford Corporation filed a suit of nuisance against the defendant for an injunction against the defendant. Bradford Corporation argued that this was a malicious effort to deprive their land of water. They also alleged that the defendant was doing this to compel them to purchase their land. |
Law Points
- Can a use of property which would be legal if due to a proper motive become illegal because it is prompted by a motive which is MALICIOUS??
- Damnum sine injuria
Decision
- Appeal not accepted.
- appeal should be dismissed with costs. Reasons
- The court held that as long as Pickles had a right to take an action on his property, there is no way that can be converted to an illegal action, no matter what his motives.
There was no reason why he should not demand that the city pay for his interests in the water beneath his land.
Ratio
- One has the right to use his land as he wishes.
It is the act, not the motive for the act, that must be regarded.
