Hill v Tupper
| Hill v Tupper | |
|---|---|
| Court | Exchequer Chamber |
| Citation(s) | (1863) 2 H & C 121 |
| Keywords | |
| Easements | |
Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121 is an English land law case, concerning easements.
Facts
The Basingstoke Canal Co gave Mr Hill an exclusive contractual licence to hire boats out. Mr Tupper also hired boats out on the canal. Mr Hill wished to stop Mr Tupper from operating. He argued that it was an easement and therefore sought to enforce his right against Mr Tupper
Judgment
Pollock CB held that the contract did not create any legal property right, and so there was no duty on Mr Tupper. If Mr Hill wanted to stop Mr Tupper, it would have to force the Canal Company to assert its property right against Mr Tupper.
An easement would not be recognised.[1] The benefit of an easement must be for the land. Here, the right to exclusive use of the canal was not for benefitting the land itself, but just for the business.
| “ | A new species of incorporeal hereditament cannot be created at the will and pleasure of the owner of property... | ” |
Bramwell B concurred.
See also
Notes
- ↑ (1863) 2 H & C 121, 127
References
- N Gravells (ed), Landmark Cases in Land Law (2013)