100 DAMAGE TO SUKFACE. 



Support to taiul from drownnt mine— Mi\\o\\i^\i as between conter- 

 minous owners the lateral support of a neighbour's soil can only be 

 claimeil for the surface of the land in its natnral state, yet where a 

 person sells land to another, to be used for an express purpose, he will 

 not be allowed to derogate from his own grant by doing anything on 

 tlie adjacent soil, which unfits the land sold for the purpose for which 

 it is sold ; and it makes no dillerence that the land so sold was taken 

 under compulsory powers; but the purchaser is not entitled to any 

 additional supj^ort afforded by the accidental state in which the adja- 

 cent soil ha[>pens to be, at the time of the purchase, however long it 

 may have Ijeen in that state prior to the purchase. Thus where the 

 owner of a drowned mine sold land to a railway company for the pur- 

 pose of building a bridge, and the land sold derived additional sup- 

 port from the water in the mine, it was held that the railway company 

 were not entitled to restrain him from pumping out the water, and 

 restorhig the mine to a working condition, although the mine had 

 continued in its drowned state, and the works had been abandoned for 

 a period of forty years prior to the purchase {North Eastern Railway 

 Company v. Elliot). 



Rigid of railway to support from ailjoining lands. — A railway company 

 is entitled to the vertical and lateral support of the adjoining lands of 

 the proprietor from whom the lands or casements required for the rail- 

 way were purchased; and such i)ro[)rietor is not at liberty to work the 

 minerals adjoining the railway in such a way as to cause damage to it; 

 and in the absence of statutory provisions he cannot compel the com- 

 pany to purchase them {North Eastern Railway Comiiany v. Crosland). 

 Title, of, owner of ancient house to lateral support from adjoininy 

 land. — '^tanble hy Wood V.C. : " The owner of an ancient house is en- 

 titled to the lateral support of his neighbour's land, as well for the house 

 as for the surface of tlie soil itself" {Hunt v. Peeh). 



Statute of limitations in case where damage has been done to the surface 

 by mininy. — The judgment in Bonomi v. Backhouse, (27 L. J. (N. S.) 

 Q. B. 378,) and that in Nicldin v. Williajns (10 Ex. 259), [see Law of 

 the Farm, pp. 80, 81,] on which it w-as based, were over-ruled in Error. 

 In the former, the defendant, owner of certain mines in 1849, with- 

 drew the pillars of coal which had been left as supports to roofs in 

 some of the old workings. The consequence was that the roof of the 

 mine fell, the adjacent strata subsided one after the other in slow suc- 

 cession, and at last, in 1854, the support of the intermediate strata 

 having given way, the plaintiff's land, which was 280 yards off de- 

 fendant's mines, sank, and tlic house on it was injui-ed. The plaintiff 

 brought his action in 185G. It was ultimately held, reversing the 



