Odger's English Common Law

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA. 407
interruption of the current of air to his mill, 1 or by the erection of a
mill contiguous to his own, which causes loss of custom. So no action will
lie for the loss of a view or prospect. And the owner of an ancient ferry
is entitled to no compensation if a bridge be built across the river, which
the public use in preference to his ferry. 2 In all these cases it has been
held that there is no injuria or legal wrong upon which an action could be
founded.
The case of Mogul S. S. Go. v. McGregor, Goiv & Co. 5 affords an
interesting example of acts which, although they inflict damage, do not
give rise to a cause of action. A combination of shipowners agreed to
regulate the division of cargoes and freight from a particular port, and
to allow a rebate to all shippers who shipped only with the members
of the combination. The plaintiffs were thus compelled to carry at
unremunerative rates ; and they brought an action, alleging that the
defendants had conspired to injure them. The House of Lords held that
the defendants had acted with the lawful purpose of extending their trade
and increasing their profits, and not with any malicious design to injure
the plaintiffs ; that the defendants' acts were therefore not unlawful and
gave the plaintiffs no cause of action.
Again, there are many cases in which a man may, without incurring
liability, so use his own property as to cause damage to his neighbour.
For instance, "one landowner cannot, by altering the condition of his land,
deprive the owner of the adjoining land of the privilege of using his own as
he might have done before. Thus he cannot, by building a house near the
margin of his land, prevent his neighbour from excavating his own land,
4 nor from building on his own
although it may endanger the house ;
land, although it may obstruct windows," unless he has acquired rights
to support or light by lapse of time. 5 2 fortiori, no action will lie, if the
damage sustained by the plaintiff be the result of an "act of God" or
other vis major. 6
As North, C. J., remarked in Bamardiston v. Soame, 7 which was an
action against the sheriff for a double return of members to serve in Parliament
: " There is sometimes damnum sine injurid though the thing be
done on purpose to bring a loss upon another without any design of
benefit to himself ; as, if a new house be erected contiguous to my grounds
I may build anything on purpose to blind the lights of that new house,
and no action will accrue, though the malice were never so great ; much
less will it lie when a man acts for his own safety."
To take an instance of a different kind, a comment upon a literary
1 Webb v. Bird (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 841 ; see, however, the remarks of Lord
Selborne in Dalton v. Angus (1881), 6 App. Cas. at p. 798 ; and Hall v. Lichfield
Brewery Co. (1880), 40 L. J. Ch. 655.
> Hopkins v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 224.
i [1892] A. C. 25, affirming C. A. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 598 ; and see Allen r.
Flood, [1898] A. C. 1.
* Hall v. Mayor, Use., of Bristol (1867), L. K. 2 C. P. 322.
5 Per cur. inSmith v. Kenrick (1849), 7 C. B. at p. 565.
6 Nichols v. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. D. 1 ; River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson
(1877), 2 App. Cas. 743 ; Box v. Jubb (1879), 4 Ex. D. 76, 79.
? (1674), 6 St. Tr. at p. 1099.