Odger's English Common Law

EIGHT OF SUPPORT. 589
granted on special terms in mining leases, 1
but there must
be clear words indicating an intention to confer such a right
in derogation of the ordinary and prima facie right of support. 2
Whether a right to do this can be acquired by prescription
or custom is very doubtful.
The right of support for land weighted by buildings, on
the other hand, is not a natural right but an easement. Such
an easement—unlike a natural right of property—must be
acquired and, until it has been secured either by grant or
prescription at common law or by statute, its acquisition
may be prevented by any person interested. Thus, where
a house has not stood for twenty years, "the owner of the
adjacent soil may with perfect legality dig that soil away
and allow his neighbour's house, if supported by it, to fall
in ruins to the ground ; " * and if a house, not being " ancient "
in law, is supported by the buildings of a neighbour, on the
same principle the neighbour will not be liable for any damage
caused by his pulling down his buildings and so withdrawing
the support needed by the house, unless the pulling down is
performed so negligently and violently as to amount to a
trespass upon the adjoining property. 5 When, however, the
easement has once been acquired, it will stand upon the
same footing as a natural right of property, and any infringement
thereof will be punished at law either by damages for
the unlawful acts, or an injunction to prevent their repetition.
"Support to that which is artificially imposed upon land cannot exist e.r
jure naturce, because the thing supported does not itself so exist ; it must
in each particular case be acquired by a grant, or by some means equivalent,
in law to a grant, in order to make it a burden upon a neighbour's land,
which (naturally) would be free from it. This distinction (and at the same
time its proper limit) was pointed out by Willes, J., in Bonomi v. Baclc-
1 As to mines under land taken under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act,
1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), see G. W. By, Co. v. Bennett (1867),L. R. 2 H. L. 27 ;
Midland By. Co. v. Bobinson (1889), 15 App. Cas. 19 ; Manchester Corporation v.
New Moss Colliery, Ltd., [1906] 2 Ch. 664 ; [1908] A. C. 117.
2 Dugdale v. Robertson (1857), 3 Kay & J. 695 ; Davis v. TreAarne (1881), 6 App.
Cas. 460 ; Loce v. Bell (1884), 9 App. Cas. 286.
3 Hilton v. Earl Granville (1845), 5 Q. B. 701 ; Duke of Bueeleueh v. Waltefield
Gill v. Dickinson (1880), 5 Q. B. U. 159.
(1869), L. R. i H. L. 377 ;
4 Per Lord Penzance in Dalton v. Angus (1881), 6 App. Cas. at p. 804.
6 See Chadwick v. Trower and others (1839), 6 Bing. N. C. 1 ; Magor and others-
v. Chadivick (1840), 11 A- & E. 571 ;
Bibby v. Carter (1859), 4 H. & N. 153.
*