The case of Hill v Tupper (1863) 159 ER 51 is a landmark decision in English land law, primarily concerning the issue of whether a contractual right can be treated as an easement or a profit à prendre. The case involved a dispute over the exclusive right to hire out boats on a stretch of the Basingstoke Canal, and the court had to determine whether such a right, granted in a lease, could be enforced against a third party. This case established important principles regarding the nature of easements and profits in property law, and it clarified the limits of property rights, particularly in relation to business interests.
Facts of Hill v Tupper
The dispute in Hill v Tupper arose from a lease agreement made between the plaintiff, Hill, and the Basingstoke Canal Company. Under the terms of this lease, Hill was granted an exclusive right to hire out pleasure boats on the stretch of the Basingstoke Canal adjacent to his property. The right to hire boats was described as being exclusive, meaning Hill had sole control over the business activity of hiring boats on that section of the canal.
The defendant, Tupper, owned an inn located near the canal. He also began hiring out boats on the canal for use by his customers at the inn. This action by Tupper interfered with Hill’s business, leading to a loss of profits for the plaintiff. Hill argued that his right to the exclusive use of the canal constituted a profit à prendre, and that as such, he had a legal right to enforce this against Tupper.
Tupper, however, contended that Hill did not have an exclusive right to the canal. He admitted to hiring out boats on the canal but asserted that Hill’s right was merely a contractual licence and did not amount to a legal property right that could be enforced against third parties. This formed the crux of the legal issue in Hill v Tupper.
Legal Issues
The primary issue in Hill v Tupper was whether the right granted to Hill in the lease could be classified as a profit à prendre or as an easement. Hill argued that the right to hire boats exclusively from the canal could be treated as a profit à prendre, a type of property right that allows one to take something from another person’s land, such as fish or timber.
Tupper, on the other hand, contended that the exclusive right to hire boats was a personal right associated with Hill’s business interests, not a property right attached to the land itself. The question was whether this right could be classified as an enforceable property right under land law or if it was merely a personal privilege that did not create a right that could be asserted against third parties, like Tupper.
Court’s Decision in Hill v Tupper
The court, in its judgment, held that Hill’s right to the exclusive use of the canal for hiring boats was not a profit à prendre and could not be enforced against Tupper. The decision focused on the distinction between personal rights and property rights, particularly in the context of easements and profits à prendre.
The court found that the right granted to Hill was essentially a personal licence to operate a business on the canal, rather than a property right that benefited the land. This conclusion was based on the observation that a profit à prendre must be closely connected to the land and must provide a benefit to the land itself.
The exclusive right to hire boats did not benefit the land directly but was instead tied to Hill’s commercial venture. Thus, the right was deemed to be a personal business right, not a property right attached to the land.
Pollock CB, delivering the judgment, concluded that a new species of incorporeal hereditament, such as the right to hire out boats on the canal, could not be created at the will of the property owner.
The court noted that while traditional profits à prendre, such as the right to fish or to cut turf, were established property rights under the law, the right to hire boats was not analogous to these accepted rights. The decision emphasised that property rights must have a direct connection with the land and cannot be created arbitrarily or for personal business interests.
Conclusion
The case of Hill v Tupper (1863) 159 ER 51 provides an important precedent in property law, particularly in relation to the classification of business rights and their enforceability against third parties. The court’s decision reinforced the principle that property rights, such as easements and profits à prendre, must be closely connected to the land and must benefit the land itself, rather than merely serving the interests of a business.
