I06 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Court of Chancery largely influenced by Sir H. Cairns' Act,^ an act of Parliament authorizing the court under certain circum- stances to grant relief by way of damages, instead of relief by way of injunction. This was done in Senior v. Pawson,^ where the de- fendant had erected a house which seriously interfered with the plaintiff's light and air. But as the plaintiff heard of the intended structure in April, and did not complain until November following, during which time defendant had laid out large sums; and the plaintiff had also, since the filing of the bill, offered to take a money consideration, — an injunction was refused and an inquiry of damages was ordered under the act just mentioned. The Vice- Chancellor, in passing on the case, said that he had no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to order the buildings to be pulled down, but considered it expedient under all the circumstances of the case to grant relief in damages instead. Reference has already been made to Beadel v. Perry.^ In that case the defendant had comntenced the erection of a wall which was likely to interfere with plaintiff's light and air, and plaintiff promptly sought the aid of the court for an injunction to restrain defendant from allowing the wall to continue of a height which would interfere with the access of light and air to plaintiff's win- dows, etc. An injunction was granted with leave to move for a mandatory injunction. Defendant continued his construction of the wall, and the motion for a mandatory injunction was made. Vice-Chancellor Stuart, having heard the evidence, said that de- fendant had built his wall much higher than he had the right to do, and to that extent must take it down. " There must be a mandatory injunction to that effect." Then follows the statement already quoted,^ and he continues : " Looking at all the circum- stances of this case, I feel that I am bound to make an order for a 1 21 & 22 Vict, ch. 27 (June 28, 1858). This act is also cited as "The Chancery Amendment Act, 1858," 98 Stat, at Large, 72. By the 2d section of the act it is pro- vided that : " In all cases in which the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to enter- tain an application against a breach of any covenant, contract, or agreement, or against the commission or continuance of any wrongful act, or for the specific performance of any covenant, contract, or agreement, it shall be lawful for the same court, if it shall think fit, to award damages to the party injured, either in addition or in substitution for such injunction or specific performance, and such damages may be assessed in such manner as the court shall direct." The remainder of the act provides for the mode of procedure in the assessment of damages. 2 (1866) L. R. 3Eq. Cas. 330. 8 (1866) L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 465.
- Ante^ page 102.
