Ancient Lights

Windows or openings which have remained in the same place and condition twenty years or more. 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 477; 12 Mass. 157, 220. In England. A right to unobstructed light and air through such openings is secured by mere user. In the United States. Such right Is not acquired without an express grant, in most of the states. 2 Washb. Real Prop. 62, 63; 3 Kent, Comm. 446, note. See 11 Md. 1. See "Air."

Windows or openings which have remained in the same place and condition twenty years or more. Wright v. Freeman, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 477; Story v. Odin, 12 Mass. 157, 7 Am. Dec. 46; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220, 7 Am. Dec. 57. In England, a right to unobstructed light and air through such openings is secured by mere user for that length of time under the same title. Until the last forty years there was no right of action merely because there was less light than formerly, but only where material inconvenience was caused in ordinary occupations; 1 Dick. 163; 2 C. & P. 465; 5 id. 438. This rule was followed in L. R. 4 Eq. 421; [1897] 2 Ch. 214; Ir. Rep. 11 Eq. 541. It is held that one is entitled to as much light as his building may ordinarily require for habitation or business; [1900] of light, it is not enough that there be less light than before; there must be a substantial deprivation of light, — enough to render occupation uncomfortable according to ordinary notions of mankind." This has been said to be the leading case; 23 L. Q. R. 254. In [1902] 1 K. B. 15, the plaintiffs had an easement of light and needed an extraordinary amount in their business; a newly erected building cut off a substantial amount of it, but enough was left for all ordinary purposes of habitation or business; it was held they were entitled to relief. This case was approved; L. R. 6 Ch. 809; and disapproved; L. R. 4 Eq. 21; 28 L. T. 186. In [1907] A. C. 1, there had been a large obstruction of light by the erection of the defendant's house, and a large interference with the cheerfulness of a room in the plaintiff's house, so that the character of such room had been altered, and it had lost oue of its chief advantages, causing a substantial depreciation in the rental value. It was held that an actionable nuisance had been committed. It is said the decision of the House of Lords in [1904] A. C. 179, has left the obstruction of ancient lights still, as it always has been, a question of nuisance or no nuisance, but has readjusted the law in respect to the test of nuisance, and that the test now is, not how much light has been taken, and whether that is enough materially to lessen the enjoyment and use of the house which the owner previously had, but how much light is left, and whether that is enough for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the house according to the ordinary requirements of mankind; 74 L. J. Ch. 621; [1905] 2 Ch. 210. In the United States, such right is not acquired without an express grant, in most of the states; 2 Washb. R. P. (5th ed.) 62, 63; 3 Kent 446, n. See Cherry v. Stein, 11 Md. 1; Hulley v. Safe Deposit Co., 5 Del. Ch. 578; Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 309; Ward v. Neal, 37 Ala. 501; Pierre v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436, 46 Am. Dec. 573: Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204, 15 Am. Rep. 80; and cases under Air. This same doctrine has been upheld in Illinois and Louisiana; Gerber v. Grabel, 16 111. 217; Taylor v. Boulware, 35 La. Ann. 469. It is said not to be suited to the conditions of a growing country and that it never became part of our common law; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 537. Other courts decline to adopt the English doctrine; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204, 15 Am. Rep. 80; Randall v. Sanderson, 111 Mass. 119; Hoy v. Sterrett, 2 Watts (Pa.) 327, 27 Am. Dec. 313; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N. Y. 439, 21 Am. Rep. 629; Powell v. Sims, 5 W. Va. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 629; Ingraham v. Hutchinson, 2 Conn. 597; Gerber v. Grabel, 16 111. 217; and even where it is accepted, its application should be limited essary to the beneficial user of the property granted; Turner v. Thompson, 58 Gi 24 Am. Rep. 497; 15 Harv. L. Rev. 305. One who claims that the land adjoining his shall remain unimproved should show an express grant or covenant; Morrison v. Marquardt, 24 la. 35, 92 Am. Dec. 444. There can be no such easement by implication over adjoining unimproved land of the grantor; id.; Stein v. Hauck, 56 Ind. 68, 26 Am. Rep. 10; Keating v. Springer, 140 111. 481, 34 N. E. 805, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175; Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135, 2 Am. Rep. 379; Rennyson's Appeal, 94 Pa. 147. 39 Am. Rep. 777; Wilmurt v. Mc Grane, 16 App. Div. 412, 45 N. Y. Supp. 32. But it has been held that a grantee of land has an easement of light by implied grant over the adjoining unimproved land of his grantor; Sutphen v. Therkelson, 38 N. J. Eq. 318; Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 25, 26 Sup. Ct. 224, 50 L. Ed. 353; Janes v. Jenkins. 34 Md. 1, 6 Am. Rep. 300. In 15 L. Q. R. 317, it is said that American courts, in declining to follow the English doctrine, have assumed that it was unknown prior to Independence. It was so said by Bronson, J., in Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 309. But this is said to be incorrect. There is a dictum of Wray, C. J., in Mosely v. Bland (1611), cited in 9 Ptop. 58 6.. and a reference to it as an established doctrine in 1443 Y. B., 32 Hen. VI. f. 15, and in 4 Del. Ch. 643. it was hold that the doctrine was part of the common law of England and of the colonies at the time of American Independence, and as such continued to be the law of Delaware under the constitution adopted in 1776. See Are. As between landlord and tenant it is held that a lease of a tenement carries with it an implied grant of the right to light and air from the adjoining land of the landlord where the situation and habitual use of the demised tenement are such that the right is essential to its beneficial enjoyment; Darnell v. Show-Case Co., 129 Ca. 02. 58 S. E. 631, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 333. 121 Am. St. Rep. 206; Ware v. Chew, 43 N. J. Eq. 49.!. 11 Atl. 746; Case v. Minot. 158 Mass. 577, 33 N. E. 700, 22 L. R. A. 536 (where the tenant of an upper floor was held entitled to light and air from a well); Doyle v. Lord, 64 X. Y. 432, 21 Am. Rep. 629; Hazlett v. Powell, 30 Pa. 293; contra, Keating v. Springer, 146 111. 484, 34 N. E. 80.1, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175; Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 537. As to the right of an abutting owner to light and air over the highway, see Are.

Lights or windows in a house, which have been used in their present state, withbut molestation or interruption, for twenty years, and upwards. To these the owner of the house has a right by prescription or occupancy, so that they cannot be obstructed or closed by the owner of the adjoining land which they may overlook. Wright v. Freeman, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 477; Storv v. Odin, 12 Mass. 160, 7 Am. Dec. 8i.

Defined under Ancient in Black's Law Dictionary.

Lights or windows in a house, which have been used in their present state, without molestation or interruption, for twenty years, and upwards, To these the owner of the house has a right by prescription or occupancy, so that they cannot be obstructed or closed by the owner of the adjoining land which they may overlook.

or WINDOWS. In the law of estates. Lights or windows in a house, which have been exclusively enjoyed, without interruption, for twenty years and upwards. To these the owner of the house has a right by prescription or occupancy, so that they cannot be obstructed or closed by the owner of the adjoining land which they may overlook.* 1 Crahb s Real Prqp. 387, § 452. Z Kent's Ccm.UQ. 2BI. Com. 402. Stat. 2itS Will. IV., c. 73, s. 8. This doctrine of ancient lights, or " servitude of light or prospect," as it is called in the civil law, is reco^sed in several of the United States, thougn in some of the states it has been questioned. 12 Mass. R. 157, 220. 1 Dudley's S. C.Rep. 131. 1 Green's jy. J. Ch. Rep. 57. 19 Wendell's R. 309. 2 Watts' R. 331. 10 Alabama Rep, 63. 2 ICefit's Com. 448. 2 Hilliard's Real Prop. 81.