V. Queen Anne Mansions Co., 60 L. T. N.S. 759; 37 W. R. 572; and as to a church, see Duke of Norfolk v. Arbuthnot, 5 C. P. Div. 390; Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. Div. 213.

The use of light has been "enjoyed" within the section if the owner has had the amenity or advantage of using the light; continuous user is not necessary Cooper v. Straker, 40 Ch. D. 21, where light was acquired in respect of windows with moveable shutters, which were only occasionally opened.

The Crown not being named in the section is not bound by it: Perry v. Eames, sup.

As to what constitutes an interruption within the Act, and as to the different considerations which may arise according as the alleged interruption is permanent or fluctuating, see Presland v. Bingham, 41 Ch. Div. 268; and that to establish acquiescence in an interruption, the existence of actual notice must be proved, Seddon v. Bank of Bolton, 19 Ch. D. 462.

A provision in a lease for the purpose of relieving the lessor from the application of the rule against derogating is not a consent or agreement by the lessee within the section: Mitchell v. Cantrill, 37 Ch. D. 56; and that the mere fact of there being windows in an adjoining house is not constructive notice of any agreement giving a right to light, see Allen v. Seckham, 11 Ch. Div. 790; observing on Miles v. Tobin, 16 W. R. 465.

It is sufficient if the consent is signed by the owner of the dominant tenement: Bewley v. Atkinson, 13 Ch. Div. 283.

But the right cannot be acquired during unity of possession of the house and the land over which the right would extend: Ladyman v. Grave, 6 Ch. 763. As to the possibility of the acquisition, in respect of a church, of a title to light by prescription or grant over the glebe, see Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. Div. 213.

IMPLIED GRANT.

The implication in favour of a grantee, whereby, under a grant of part of a tenement, continuous and apparent easements over the other part pass to the grantee, does not, in general, apply in favour of a grantor; so that if a vendor does not on conveyance reserve the right to light, no reservation is implied, and the purchaser can build so as to obstruct the windows: Wheeldon v. Burrows, 12 Ch. Div. 31; Tawes v. Knowles, 39 W. R. 512 (where the principle was applied to a mortgagee); secus, where there is any contract between the parties, e.g., a building scheme, which would render such an act contrary to good faith: Russell v. Watts, 10 App. Cas. 590 (reversing S. C., 25 Ch. Div. 559). And as to the difference between implied grant and implied reservation, see also Bayley v. G. W. Ry. Co., 26 Ch. Div. 434, 458; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Co., 2 C. P. D. 13.

Where the owner of a house and land sells and conveys contemporaneously the house to one and the land to another, either purchaser being aware of the conveyance to the other, the purchaser of the land cannot obstruct the light of the house: Allen v. Taylor, 16 Ch. D. 255; and where a railway co. sold land adjoining railway arches, with a recital that all other land acquired by them would be used for the purposes of their railway, there was an implied obligation on their part not to obstruct the light coming through the railway arches: Myers v. Catterson, 43 Ch. Div. 470; q. v., also, as to the principles upon which the doctrine of implication depends.

The implication is not prevented by the fact that the dominant tenement is in lease, and therefore not in the possession of the grantor: Barnes v. Loach, 4 Q. B. D. 494; and applies though the title of the grantor is equitable only: Beddington v. Atlee, 35 Ch. D. 317; the extent of the right of the grantee being measured by the state of the grantor's title, ex. gr., being subject to any contract of sale entered into by the grantee: S. C.; and depending on all the circumstances existing at the time of the grant, and known to the grantee; ex. gr., an improvement scheme as to land sold by a corporation : Birmingham Bkg. Co. v. Ross, 38 Ch. Div. 295.

And the grantor does not escape the operation of the rule by leaving a strip of vacant land intervening between the house granted and land retained: S. C. The implication holds good in the case of a lease by a mortgagor under the Conveyancing Act, s. 18, as against a subsequent grantee from the mortgagee: Wilson v. Queen's Club Co., W. N. (91) 133.

'ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT.

After some conflict of opinion, it is now settled that the fact that an owner of ancient lights has altered and enlarged his windows, or added new ones will not deprive him of the right to an injunction against interference with his ancient light-provided there be a material injury to that which is a clear legal right, and damages will give no adequate compensation: Aynsley v. Glover, sup.; Staight v. Burn, 5 Ch. 163; Tapling v. Jones, 11 H. L. C. 290; Barnes v. Loach, 4 Q. B. D. 494; Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. Div. 43, 55; Greenwood v. Horsey, 33 Ch. D. 471; Raper v. Fortescue, W. N. (86) 78; though where the portion of an ancient window, which is retained in the area of a new window, is so small that the damage to the ancient light is insignificant, the Court might decline to grant an injunction: Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. Div. 43, 62; and the right to light is not abandoned by alteration of the plane of the windows by advancing them or setting them back: Scott v. Pape, 31 Ch. Div. 554; Bullers v. Dickinson, 29 Ch. Ď. 155; if there is user throngh the new apertures of the same, or a substantial part of the same cone of light which passed through the old apertures: Scott v. Pape, sup.; nor lost, although the actual enjoyment of the light has been entirely suspended by reason of there being no existing windows: Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. Div. 213; but there may be an abandonment of the ancient lights if the alterations are such as to show such an intention: Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. Div. 43; Nat. Prov. Co. v. Prudential Assce. Co., 6 Ch. D. 757; or if the owner of the dominant tenement has by his alterations so confused the evidence that he cannot prove the identity of the light: Scott v. Pape, sup.; and as to the importance of preserving distinct evidence as to the position and dimensions of the ancient windows, see S. C., and Fowlers v. Walker, 49 L. J. Ch. 598; 28 W. R. 579; Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. Div. 43, 55.

The recent cases have thus virtually overruled Heath v. Bucknall, 8 Eq. 1 (which decided that after an alteration or enlargement of windows the only relief was in damages), and also the common law decisions-Renshaw v. Bean, 18 Q. B. 112; Hutchinson v. Copestake, 8 C. B. N.S. 102; 9 C. B. N.S. 863; and extended the protection which in Turner v. Spooner, 1 Dr. & Sm. 467, and in Curriers' Co. v. Corbett, 2 Dr. & Sm. 353, was apparently limited to cases where the change was trivial or immaterial, e. g., putting in improved frames and glass; and in Weatherley v. Ross, 1 H. & M. 349, was limited to ancient windows when restored, Plt being ordered, as the condition of obtaining any injunction, to block up the new and to restore the altered windows to their original size.

(III.)—MINERAL RIGHTS.

1. Account and Injunction in respect of Mineral Workings by Copyholder under Ancient Inclosures within a Manor.

"LET an account be taken of all the coal and minerals which have been raised or dug by the Deft H., or by his licence or authority, from underneath the piece of copyhold land within and parcel of the manor of B., in the county of &c., and which formerly belonged to W., deceased, and now belongs to the Deft H., and which same piece of land is either ancient inclosure land, or is part of the open arable fields inclosed under the B- Inclosure Act, as allotted and awarded to the said W., deceased, and contains about &c., and is now in the occupation of &c., and of the value of such coal and minerals and of all money received by the Deft H., or by his order or for his use from the sale, or otherwise in respect of such coal and minerals; And Let the said Deft, his agents &c., and all others by his authority, be perpetually restrained by injunction from raising, digging, or working,

or in any way interfering with the coal or other minerals lying underneath the said copyhold lands of the Deft H. within the said manor, being old inclosures, or which have been allotted to him as copyholds out of the open arable fields."-Deft to pay Plt's costs of suit to be taxed.-Adjourn &c., and subsequent costs.-D. of Portland v. Hill, V.-C. W., 15 Mar. 1866, B. 947; 2 Eq. 765; followed in D. of Rutland V. Tutin, V.-C. M., 22 July, 1878, B. 1958.

2. Lateral Support to Church-Coal Workings restrained. "AND both sides (by their counsel) consenting to treat this motion as the trial of this action, Let the Defts D. and G., their agents &c., be restrained by injunction from further proceeding with their mining operations and workings in the coal mines so occupied by them as in the statement of claim mentioned, and from working the coal in their said mines at any part thereof nearer to the Plt's church than that to which the workings of their predecessors (in title) were carried, and from getting the ribs and pillars of coal, including the thick rib of coal in the said statement mentioned, so left by their predecessors as aforesaid, within eighty yards from the ground immediately under the said church, and from commencing or proceeding with any mining operations or workings in such manner as to cause damage to the Plt as the vicar of the said church; And Let the Plt and his agents be at liberty from time to time to inspect the said mines and workings, and the working plans connected therewith, at all reasonable times."-Deft to pay Plt's costs of suit, to be taxed.-Wall v. Dunn, V.-C. M., 2 Mar. 1876, B. 693; affirmed on appeal, 7 July, 1876.

3. Injunction as to Coal Workings-Account of Coals gottenSupport.

"LET Deft W., his servants &c., be perpetually restrained by injunction from working or getting any coals or other materials in the mines under the close of land called &c., or other lands of the Pit, situate at &c., or from carrying on any working under the same lands, and from permitting the ways, passages, and apertures which have been made or opened in or to the said mines to remain open, or from permitting the surface of the land to remain insufficiently supported; And Let an account be taken of all coals and other materials worked or gotten or rendered unworkable under the same lands by the Deft W., and of the value of such coals and other material, without any allowance for the cost of working or getting the same."-Deft W. to pay Plt's costs of suit.-Adjourn &c.-Bell v. Joell, V.-C. H., 8 July, 1875, A. 295.

For decree restraining the working of minerals, to the support of which Plts were entitled under their contracts, in such a manner as to occasion damage to them, see N. E. Ry. Co. v. Crossland, 2 J. & H. 565; 4 D. F. & J. 550.

For injunction to stay the owner of a bed of china clay from getting it so as to destroy or seriously injure the surface, see Hext v. Gill, 7 Ch. 699.

For injunction to stay Deft working coals under Plt's railway, or within twenty yards of any building, so as to damage or obstruct it, unless after the notice required by the Railways Clauses Act, s. 78, or so as to affect a bridge, without prejudice to Deft's right to pump water from the shaft, see N. E. Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 1 J. & H. 158; 2 D. F. & J. 423.

For inquiry with a view to an injunction against a lessee of mines disturbing supports of lessor's house, see Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J. 695.

4. Injunction as to Mines-Support-Inspection-Account. (By consent) Let &c., be restrained by injunction from digging or getting any coals, culm, or other minerals or soil from under the E. estate, in &c., mentioned, or in any manner digging under the same, and also from destroying or taking away the pillars or supports which have been left or erected in the workings under &c., or any part thereof, and also from using such parts of the communications called the &c., as lie under the said &c., or any part thereof, or such parts of any other communications from &c., until &c.; And Let the Plts, or a proper person to be appointed by them for that purpose, be at liberty, on reasonable notice being given, to inspect the workings of the Defts under the said E. estate; And Let the following &c.-1. An account of the several quantities of coal, culm, and other minerals, worked, raised, or procured by the Defts, or any of them, or by any other person or persons by their or any of their order, or for their or any of their use, out of or from the said E. estate or any part thereof; 2. An inquiry how, and in what manner, and at what time or times, and for what sum or sums of money, the same, and every part thereof, have or has been sold, applied, or disposed of.-Adjourn &c.-See Baynton v. Leonard, M. R., 15 Feb. 1853, A. 454.

For an interlocutory order for Plt to inspect at all reasonable times, upon giving one day's notice, so far as might be necessary to ascertain whether Deft had worked into Plt's land, and how far and to what extent, with liberty to measure, dial, and make all such plans or surveys as might be necessary for that purpose, and to use the Deft's machinery for descending and ascending, doing no injury to the Deft's works, and paying the Deft any expenses he may incur, see Bennitt v. Whitehouse, M. R., 9 Feb. 1860, A. 232; 28 Beav. 119.

For an order in Chambers under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 58, that Plt be at liberty by his witnesses &c., to inspect the Defts' mine; that for this purpose the Defts give all reasonable facilities for access to and in the mine, and for ventilation during the process; and that Plt be at liberty, so far as is necessary for the purpose of inspection, to make a drift-way as described &c.; before commencing the inspection Plt to give security, to the satisfaction of the master, to the extent of £500, or deposit that sum with the master to abide any order as to indemnifying Defts for any loss or damage which might be sustained in consequence of the inspection, see Bennett v. Griffiths, 30 L. J. Q. B. 98.

5. Inspection of Mines, in Suit to establish the Right.

LET the Commrs of her Majesty's Woods and Forests be at liberty on behalf of the informant, at all seasonable times, and on giving reasonable notice, to enter, inspect, and examine, by surveyors to be appointed by them, the coal mines now or lately worked by the Defts, by means of the four several pits or shafts &c., for the purpose of

VOL. I.

K K

ascertaining, so far as may be necessary to ascertain, how far seawards from the said pits or shafts the said Defts have worked the said mines, and every one of them.-A. G. v. Chambers, V.-C. W., 18 July, 1849, A. 1948; 12 Beav. 159, 160.

For order for injunction to stay Deft getting coals under the Plt's land, and for Plt and his agents to be at liberty to inspect the workings, see E. Lonsdale v. Curwen, L. C., 7 June, 1799, A. 399; and for further order appointing persons to view, and directing obstructions to be removed and air-courses opened, and inspection to be allowed from time to time so as to enable the viewers to make a complete report of the workings, Ib.

For a similar order, see Lewis v. Marsh, 19 April, 1849, B. 791; 8 Ha. 100.

6. Using Way under Plt's Land for conveying Coals from Deft's Mines restrained.

LET the Deft Earl G., his viewers &c., be perpetually restrained by injunction from conveying any coal or ironstone, or other produce of the freehold lands in the (bill) mentioned, and from making or using, or allowing any road or way to remain underneath the copyhold lands in the (bill) also mentioned, for the purpose of conveying such coal &c., or other produce, or for the purpose of working or getting, or assisting the Deft to work or get any coal out of the freehold mines, and from using or continuing to use any part of the surface of Plt's copyholds, for the purpose of a railway for conveying any coal &c., or produce of the said freehold lands, or any coal out of any other estate or property not comprised in and held of the said manor of N.Eardley v. Earl Granville, M. R., 18 Feb. 1876, A. 629; 3 Ch. D. 826.

For an interlocutory order (upon Plt's personal undertaking) restraining mineral lessees of the lord of the manor from entering upon or taking possession of any part of Plt's copyhold lands in the manor, and from proceeding with the construction of the tramway commenced by Defts upon part of the said copyhold lands, and from proceeding to construct any railway or tramway upon any part of the said copyhold lands, see Holden v. Hargreaves, V.-C. B., 3 Aug. 1876, A. 1584.

For an injunction to restrain Deft from conducting or allowing to pass any water into the Plt's mine by means of the troughs or air-drifts constructed, &c., by the Deft, or by any other new works to be constructed by the Deft, see Westminster Brymbo Co. v. Clayton, V.-C. W., 25 April, 1867, B. 1337; 36 L. J. Ch. 476.

For the like order, and to restrain Defts from getting &c., or carrying away any coals or other minerals belonging to the Plts as owners of the colliery; appointment of a special referee to report what kind of barrier ought to be erected by the Defts between their works and those of the Plts; Defts to erect such works under the superintendence of such referee; referee to ascertain the extent of the coal got by the Defts belonging to the Plts, and the amount the Defts ought to pay for the value of the coal so got; Defts to afford every facility to the referee and his assistants for ascertaining the extent of coal got; referee to ascertain the extent of damage, if any, by the water from the Defts' works flowing into the Plts' works; Defts, within fourteen days from the date of the report, to pay to the Plts such sum as the referee should certify to be fair and reasonable for the trespass and damage committed by the Defts; costs, charges, and expenses already incurred, or which should be incurred or sustained, by Plts in consequence of the Defts' trespass, including the surveyor's charges and the charges of the referee and the Plts' costs of the action, to be taxed and paid by Defts, see Craven v. Kaye, Field, J., for V.-C. H., 29 Aug. 1876, A. 1647.