case the eastindia company versus vinncent November see Harriman v Collins  Beav Hervey v smith king I Crampton v varna railway company lr Ch mmanus v  cook Ch d the statement of this case be in Reg lib a fol the fact there seem  perfect to coincide with and to warrant Lord hardwicke observation where a man  suffer another to build on his ground without set up a right till afterward  the court will oblige the owner to permit the person building to enjoy it  quiet lengthen of window or make more light in the old wall than former do not  vary the right of person Lord chancellor say there be several instance where a  man have suffer another to go on with building upon his ground and not set up  a right till afterward when he be all the time conusant of his right and the  person building have no notice of the other right in which the court will  oblige the owner of the ground to permit the person building to enjoy it quiet  and without disturbance but these case have never be extend so far as where  party have treat upon a agreement for building and the owner have not come to  a absolute agreement there if person will build notwithstanding they must take  the consequence and this be not such a acquiescence on the part of the owner  as will prevent he from insist on his right if I shall give a opinion that  lengthen of window or make more light in the old wall than there be former  will vary the right of person it may create innumerable dispute in populous  city especial in London and therefore I do not give a absolute opinion but I  shall rather think it do not vary the right where a agent of the eastindia  company be in treaty with a owner of ground for a liberty for the company to  build and the owner at the time of the treaty in consideration of his consent  insist upon term to which the agent make no answer or objection but immediate  afterward the company think proper to build the silence of the agent shall be  construe a acquiescence under the proposal of the owner of the ground and  shall bind the company his principal as be in the consideration of this court  the agreement of the agent I be of opinion that notwithstanding the company  dismiss Mr Vincent from their service as a packer contrary to their agreement  between he and the agent of the company yet he be not justify in building a  wall mere to block up the light but he may have bring his bill in this court  to establish the agreement between he and the company agent as a compensation  for consent the company shall build upon his ground upon the whole I must  decree the wall erect by the defendant to be pull down but then I must direct  in his favour atkins that the company do employ he double to any other packer  during his term in the estate provide he do it at the same rate that people of  the same trade will do