case roswell against prior follow Todd v flight c b n S refer to Wheeldon v  burrow Ch d if tenant for year erect a nuisance for which damage be recover  and the nuisance be continue in the land of his lessee a action for the  continuance of it may be against either S c ante S c Mod S c salk S c comb S c  Carth S c holt S c ld ray S c lily Ent a action on the case for the  continuance of a nuisance by a lessee for year against the defendant who have  be also a lessee for year of the place where the nuisance stand upon a special  verdict the case be the defendant be possess for year of a piece of ground  adjoin to a ancient message with ancient light a whereof the plaintiff be  possess for year erect a house thereupon whereby the plaintiff say light be  stop for which the plaintiff bring a former action and recover damage after  which the defendant grant over the ground with the nuisance to another and  after the plaintiff bring this action against the defendant for the  continuance of that nuisance and whether it lie be the question which be often  argue first by Northey for the plaintiff and Brotherick for the defendant  second by darnel sergeant for the plaintiff and sir b shower for the defendant  and last by William for the plaintiff and well for the defendant a will mary c  but note this statute provide only to make such as be accessary after guilty  of felony and suppose one set another to be rob so that he be accessary before  yet he be not to be make a felon till conviction of the principal and if the  principal be admit to his clergy he shall be discharge that be such accessary  shall but note this be now remedy by a Act of parliament of this queen see  whether c S and whether c S note to former edition see hawk p c ch p king v  pollard Mod king v Wilkes case c l king v Baxter term Rep hawk p c ch S foster  cro law a see S c Mod modern report er p and for the plaintiff it be urge  first there can be no remedy by assize or quod to let pass against the  defendant or his assignee because they have but a interest for year and the  plaintiff have a wrong do he and ought to have some remedy and that only can  be by a action upon his case and against who shall be have it sure here it be  material who erect the nuisance for that be the original tort and ground of  the action for causan cause be causan allege an excuse and by the erection be  be become liable to the plaintiff for all the consequential damage happen to  he by mean of such tortuous erection and his grant it over to another be so  far from excuse he that it seem to aggravate against he for thereby be seem to  perpetuate the wrong for be put it out of his own power to abate it and  likewise raise himself a profit from it by enhance his rend and put it by  contract into the modern report hand of another who can justify to abate it  without commit waste and the erector by this act of his will be answerable  clear for all consequential damage if he have not assign over and it be most  unreasonable that it shall be in his power to do wrong and a continue wrong  and have it in his power to choose person against who the party wrong shall  have remedy and thereby clear himself if one be executor of his own wrong and  after take out administration be shall not thereby so purge the wrong so as to  deprive a creditor of the liberty of charge he as executor of his own wrong  ergo a strong here in Penruddocks case a a quod to let pass lie against the  erector of a nuisance without any request make but not against alienee without  request cro in point that a action lie against the lessor for a nuisance  continue by his lessee it be erect by he vide cro he that be hurt by a  nuisance though long after the do the act that occasion it shall have his  action against he that do such act Ro Abr leo leo the plaintiff remedy be of  necessity against the defendant or his assignee it will not lie against the  assignee without notice and request and that must be personal and that will  still be more absurd to favour a wrongdoer so far as to discharge himself of a  remedy against he for a wrong by put a far difficulty upon he to who he have  do the wrong beside it be doubtful whether the action will lie against the  underlessee and if it do not sure it will lie against the lessor for it will  not be say that by the grant over the plaintiff shall be deprive of all remedy  vide cro that the action will not lie against the assignee of land whereon  there be a nuisance Ro Rep and as to that the diversity be remember when the  continuance occasion a new nuisance as in case of a penthouse where every new  drop of the rain be a new nuisance and where the nuisance at first dash have  do all the mischief it can in the first case action will lie against the  assignee but not in the other cro and the case in   be strong urge seize make  a feoff over seize reenter he shall recover damage for the mean profit against  the seize though the feoff take they and so be hob and that be say to be a  strong case than the principal case now in question of the other side it be  say that this action either lie against assignee alone or at least it ought to  be bring against he modern report and the assignor joint for it be for the  continuance only and that after assignment over and to make the assignor  answer damage in such case be to charge he for a nuisance in a place which be  not his and as the assignee have the sole advantage of the continue so he  ought to be charge with the disadvantage likewise and for this be quote cro f  n b h I before the statute of Westminster the second c assize of nuisance lie  not against erector of a nuisance after grant over the freehold and the only  remedy be by quod to let pass and that lie only against the alienee Inst and  the alienee alone ought to answer for damage in a action on the case as he  shall in a quod to let pass or at least it ought to be bring against they both  as if two coparceners commit a nuisance and one of they die the assize or quod  to let pass must be bring against the survive aunt and the heir of the other  Inst the reason of a remedy for a nuisance be because of the maxim such skin  tuo ut one non voceas and here the thing which occasion the wrong be not the  defendant all a   a modern report er p that the defendant do be to erect and  for that damage have already be recover against he and since he have do no  nuisance for the erection can be say a continuance no more than the  continuance today can be a continence tomorrow this be to punish one for what  he can redress for he can justify the abate this nuisance and this case be put  by they if a man do false imprison another and afterward the imprisonment be  continue at other people contrivance the first wrongdoer shall not answer for  that in damage pron  interrog  opposite direction yes be if he be not  discharge of the first imprisonment he ought to answer damage for the  continuance who ought to abate it and at commonlaw the alienee in case of  freehold ought to abate for the quod to let pass lie against he alone ergo be  alone ought to answer damage upon a action upon the case and the same reason  hold in case of lease for year the continuance be the wrong complain of and  the sole foundation of the action and the only material question be by who it  be continue and sure that must be the occupier and damage ought to be recover  against he for who benefit it stand and that be the occupier and as the writ  of a demandant be alter by a alienation so may his remedy for damage if one  throw a log over a private way modern report which a have over his land and  afterward alien will a action lie against he for the continuance of this log  athwart the way in the hand of the alienee or if a man build a cottage without  allot so many acre of ground to it and then grant it over will action lie for  the continuance of it erect and continuance be several offence and every day  continuance of the nuisance be a new nuisance for it be the possession and  usage of this nuisance to the damage of another be the cause of the action and  that be do by the assignee and if the defendant be answerable for this  nuisance by the same reason his heir will if this be a lease out of the  inheritance for he may abate it as well as the defendant and he will be  advantage by it by increase of the rend there be a diversity between a act  that be in itself a direct wrong to another and a act in itself lawful but  consequential injurious to another the case of seize before put be of the  first sort and therefore the seize by make a feoff over be not quit of answer  the mean profit for otherwise the disseizee will be without remedy for he have  none against the feoff who be in by title and have do no wrong to he but the  do the thing on one own soil be primary and direct no wrong to another but may  be so consequential by the effect of it and for this vide roll Rep one set up  pole in his own ground in order to build a house which when erect will be a  nuisance to another he can abate they to prevent the nuisance and if a  trespasser build a nuisance upon my soil and I never use it qure whether the  other have any other remedy than by abate it and here the plaintiff have his  remedy against the assignee for the continuance so there be no necessity to  give he one against the assignor and the necessity be the reason of the case  of the seize so much insist on it be true one shall not transfer his wrong  over to another so as to discharge himself and that be also a reason of the  case of seize before put but here the erect the house be not in itself a  tortuous act but become so only ab execution and here be a recovery against  the defendant already for the tort arise from the erect and thereby the erect  be altogether become lawful for the recovery be a recompense for the wrong and  give the wrongdoer a right to that which before be wrongful as if a take away  the horse of b for which he recover modern report damage the property of the  horse be thereby vest in a and if in this case the assignee have assign over  will a action lie against he for the continuance after if it will not there be  no reason it shall in this case for the original tort be here purge by the  recovery per curium a quod to let pass must be bring against the alienees  because in its nature it must be bring against he that be tenant to the  freehold a assize of nuisance must be against the alienor and alienee but if  the alienee die the party must have a writ of entry in the per and not a  assize and sure this action be well bring against the erector for before his  assignment over he be liable for all consequential damage and it shall not be  in his power to discharge himself by grant it over and more especial here  where he grant over reserve rend modern report er p whereby he agree with the  grantee that the nuisance shall continue and have a recompense videlicet the  rend for the same for sure when one erect a nuisance and grant it over in that  manner he be a without further evidence with a witness and suppose in this  case the lessor or assignor have be seize in fee and have erect this nuisance  and then feoff another over he have convey this as a nuisance and causan cause  be causan allege an excuse and if a wrongdoer convey his wrong over to another  whereby he put it out of his power to redress it he ought to answer for it and  whereas it be object that the tort of erect be purge by the recovery for the  erect that be not so for then the erector may lawful continue the nuisance but  if the nuisance continue after recovery for the erection such continuance will  be such a nuisance as a new action will lie for and the put it out of one  power to abate a nuisance be as great a tort as not to abate it when it be in  your power to do it and it be a fundamental principle in law and reason that  he that do the first wrong shall answer for all consequential damage and here  the original erection do influence the continuance and it remain a continuance  from the very erection and by the erection till it be abate and the case of  the seize and disseizee be full in the point for what make the seize liable  for damage when the land be in the hand of his feoff but the original tort and  in case of seize trespass do not lie for the profit till reentry and by the  reentry though it be upon the four or five feoff the seize be purge and  whoever continue in after be a new trespasser and for continue in after such  entry damage shall be recover against the modern report feoff for the seize by  his reentry be purge and the title by which the feoff be in be defeat and the  feoff continue in after be a trespasser or seize as the disseizee please and  the distinction that the building be not mere a nuisance be very metaphysical  it be true if you abstract the building from the hurt that it occasion to the  neighbour it be no nuisance but sure the building a house which be a nuisance  be a malum in see for one must use his own so as not to hurt another and these  light be ancient the plaintiff have as much right to they as the defendant  have to the land and his user of the land be restrain by the interest the  plaintiff have in his light note it be far say by the court that if one take  another prisoner by wrong and then turn he over to another officer who detain  he the first taker shall answer for all the consequential damage but if this  action here be bring by a alienee of the land to which the nuisance be against  the erector and erection have be before any estate in the alienees the  question will be great because the erector never do any wrong to the alienees  but here they agree to give judgement for the plaintiff note holt chief  justice say in the debate of this case that he be not satisfy with the case of  Rippon v bowl a first that it will be waste in the lessee to abate the  nuisance second in case it be that therefore a action will not lie against he  for the continuance of it for it be the lessee fault to contract for a  interest in land on which there be a nuisance but the action lie against the  lessee be no reason why it shall not lie against the lessor for the party  shall have but one satisfaction for the plaintiff have his election against  which of they to bring it by commence it against one have determine his  election as if one may bring trover against two joint or several and be bring  it against one and have damage once ascertain he be for ever bar against the  other and so it be in battery