case THRUSTOUT against grey Qure whether the king can licence one person to  build a lighthouse on another soil or if a person erect a lighthouse on his  own soil it be a session of the land to the crown in a ejectment bring for  certain cottage otherwise lighthouses in Wintertoun modern er p in Norfolk the  jury find a special verdict contain the several patent under which the say  lighthouses be erect c two question arise on this special verdict first  whether the prerogative of the crown extend to licence a person to build a  lighthouse on another soil without the owner consent Qure whether the king can  grant to another power to erect lighthouses c upon my ground or build one  there himself without my consent see Inst vers fin Inst b Grotius lib c S  Molloy lib c S roll Abr e pl Br title pl more Huddi v Wellhouse cro Elizabeth  f n b e   bro title patent pl roll Abr   roll Abr pl   Henry a hale h p cor  vol raym case of the town of Winchelsea Plowd Com   child v Sans in sand Lutw  lev dyer b the corporation of Trinity house v Richard bowater the case of the  corporation of Trinity house by Lord Cowper the corporation of Trinity house v  sir malthus rial in the house of lord Inst Davis light sect cro James keb  Gibbs v Hoskinson dyer Br covenant roll Abr pl pl patent to erect lighthouses  on another soil upon record at the roll Henry James Dungeness lighthouse to  Howard two car Dungeness light to bullock car three light to car Dungeness  light to shipman car three light to smith car a lighthouse on sir Edward  turner ground to Trinity house f n b a note to ms a second whether the grantee  of a licence to erect lighthouses do by building one upon his own ground make  a session of the land to the crown clarke for the plaintiff argue that the  prerogative do not extend to licence a mail to build on another ground beacon  indeed can be erect without the king licence Inst b and at commonlaw none but  the king may erect seamark Inst c but there be only one instance of a general  power to build seamark modern and that can be give only by parliament  Elizabeth   a in easter term in the first year of James the first it be  resolve by the two chief justice the attorney and solicitor general that the  statute of Elizabeth be a general law extend to all lighthouses in this case  there ought to have issue a ad quod damnum Edward b the present question will  receive a great light from the general law of nation wherein the publican  usefulness be not understand to mean anything lucrative or to increase the  public coffer or treasure which will make property precarious but be who lose  his property for the public safety or service ought to be satisfy for it  Grotius de jure Belli et peace lib c sect lib cap sect lib cap sect lib cap  sect de fide publican how bellum limit c GrotiusGro de jure sect d say that  loss for the public good ought to be equal puffendorff in lib c S S lib de  jure physical scientist et a king of Illyria e who write about fifty year  after Grotius speak of the sovereign power over estate sum up all grotius  argument into one chapter and our law agree with these general reason in the  case of the prerogative of the crown in dig saltpetre   f it be say that the  inheritance must be leave as it be find that what be do out of necessity ought  to be repair and that it be but a purveyance and be not to be grant roll Abr  pl see also the case of i in Plowdens commentary g in hale h p cor there be a  record of a case where a county ransom themselves from the king enemy for  their common welfare but the party who pay the fine be recompense for it Inst  h this prerogative can hurt no nail inheritance the necessity which give the  crown a prerogative in the subject property must not be for the convenience of  a particular part of the subject as in this case or for profit to the crown  but to obviate general danger and then the owner ought to be satisfy second  the case where a man by open a road or street in his own modern er p ground or  use his chapel as a parishchurch be say thereby to have give they to the  public roll Abr I be instance whole of a public nature and make such a street  be for the benefit of the party be for the easement of his own tenant but no  such covenant be imply in the present case in cro James it be say that the  patentee when he take by the patent consent to all that be therein which shall  be take and interpret as a covenant on his part yet that will not reach the  present case for here the grantee be bind no long than during the term and the  covenant extend no far and therefore upon the expiration of the term in the  grant the land continue the owner in these patent wherever the soil be in the  crown it be always grant and where it be the owner it be take notice of in the  seventeenth year of Charles the second tinmouth lighthouse be grant to Edward  villers and the crown grant the soil in modern the twentyeighth year of  Charles the second the patent of Spurnepoint lighthouse at the mouth of the  Humber be grant to Justinian angel the proprietor of the ground and they can  grant a toll but upon equal term as where a benefit arise from it to those who  pay bro Abr toll a the case of Gibbs v Osbaston where it be say that a  ejectment will not lie for a lighthouse build in a different place from that  where the former stand seem from the record to be but a dictum of Mr Keble and  prove nothing but that there be scarce a case in that author which can be  depend upon Bootle for the defendant this ejectment be not maintainable there  be a session of the land to the crown which for the public benefit be consider  as a extinguishment of right lighthouses fire monitorii c be set up by the  crown only and can be erect by no other authority therefore the property in  they must necessary be in the crown Inst b after the term comprise in the  patent be expire the crown take the land as a reversioner like the case where  a tenant fix copper c to the freehold which be deem a gift in law to the  reversioner pool case salk c for though they may be remove during the term yet  if they be continue there after the term they become a gift in law to he in  reversion and be not removable so if the lessee build a new house on the land  demise the lessor may bring a action of waste against he for let it go out of  repair Lord darcy v Askwith hob d upon a equal claim of right the crown have  the preference uvoodward v fox vent e this be as much a gift of the ground to  the king as building a street be a gift of it to the public and there be no  difference the case of i Plowd see   f be so adjudge upon the reason of it be  for the public good of the realm and ballast may be dig in another soil it be  pro good public a tax may be lie upon person oblige to repair beacon before  they want it raym case of Winchelsea g by the civil law property may pass  without solemn act where the case be of a public nature by the commonlaw  property may pass without the ordinary ceremony of feoff livery c as by  exchange extinguishment session or dereliction of right a exchange of land in  the same county may be without deed   light roll Abr h if a infant exchange  land and after his full age occupy the land take in exchange that perfect it  for it be not void at first because it amount to a livery roll Abr pl I a  exchange in the king be good though be be seize in his public capacity and the  subject in his natural capacity   light king this cause be again adjourn it  come on original in Hilary term when it be adjourn to the present time l and  argue as follow in Trinity term modern on a special verdict in ejectment the  general question be state to be whether the acceptance of letterspatent to  create a lighthouse give the reversion of the soil to the crown proctor for  the plaintiff insist that the soil continue in the owner because it be a maxim  that pron  interrog  be solum he be usque ad clum and although no lighthouse  shall be erect without the king licence Inst Inst a it do not follow from  thence that be may erect they wherever be will the king licence be only to do  that which can be do without and if that licence be but for year there be no  reason why modern er p the land shall pass for ever fair market river ferry c  be for the benefit of the public and yet a grant of these to another prejudice  be void the case of i be cite on the other side from Plowden but the reason  there give do not extend to this case for lighthouses may as well help our  enemy as the subject but beacon be for the defence of the whole realm so be  dig saltpetre which must also be do in that way which be least prejudicial to  the subject the king may lie embargo but they be for the defence of the realm  and the subject property be not to be prejudice Carth b the king can give I  power to oust another of his land roll Abr d in darcy v AskwithHob SC hut e it  be say that anything essential to a grant shall pass as incident but that be  not applicable to this question when these erection cease to be lighthouses  they ought to be consider as building and the owner may use they as such  though not as lighthouses the case of uvoodward v fox vent f concern the king  prerogative in good no one be not applicable to this matter but Gibbs v  Osbaston keb g be with we a dispensationlicence passes no interest but only  make that lawful which will not be so without Vaugh h and this licence have  its effect for the time which be the lawful operation of it and this  prerogative be not to be erect for the benefit of a part of the kingdom but it  must be for the defence of the whole nation in general Floyd for the defendant  it must be grant to we that the whole ought to be prefer to a part and that  property be sacred until the public use require it which be the original  compact upon which property subsist and then property be not take away but  cease and yet pron  interrog  be solum he be usque ad clum in Inst there be a  commission to erect firebores c and to levy a toll for support the same fair  market ferry c be rather easement than anything else but lighthouses be of  necessity and as to their be liable to be make use of by our enemy our ship c  may be make use of by our enemy if take by they and therefore that can be no  argument against they session to the public as state in puffendorff de use  caption be not unknown to our law as in the case of set out a street to modern  the public which can be resume Mod Inst a so of a man private chapel roll Abr  b so in equity if a man see another build on his ground and say nothing  against it he shall not be suffer to pull it down again and this erection  under the grant be either a gift or a exchange of the soil and therefore  judgement ought to be give for the plaintiff page justice be absent this be  order to stand over for judgement till next term adjourn