Part II.—In what Cases an Action will lie.
11
Sect. 3. Damnum absque injuria.
outlook or amenities (r); he may cut off light (s) or air (t) from an adjoining house and even "let it down" (u) by excavations on his own land, if no legal right to light or support has been acquired.
Trade rivalry.
9. Again, injury or loss occasioned to a man's trade, calling, or profession by the interference of others is not actionable, even though such interference be concerted, if the means used to inflict the loss are not unlawful. Thus damage resulting from the setting up of a rival shop or school to entice away the customers or scholars of the plaintiff (x), the underselling of a rival trader to get a monopoly of a trade (a), the offering of lower terms to such merchants as deal exclusively with one, whereby one draws away the customers of rival shipping companies (b), are all cases of damnum absque injuria. So is loss of trade caused to the owner of a ferry by the construction of a new bridge close at hand (c). And a workman has no cause of action against a fellow-workman who informs their common master that if the other's contract of service be not determined in due course, he himself will seek new employment (d), thus procuring the other's dismissal (d). It is not in all cases that the procuring a breach of contract is actionable; there must be interference of an active nature causing more than nominal damage (e).
Use of name.
10. The annoyance or inconvenience resulting from the assumption of another's name (f) or that of his residence (g), if not done for a fraudulent purpose, is damnum absque injuria, for no one has a right to the exclusive use of any name.
Seduction.
11. The basis of an action for seduction is the right (whether of a parent or a master) to enjoy the services rendered by the woman seduced (h); and unless this right is infringed (i) a parent or master
- (r) Day v. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294; Aldred's Case (1610), 9 Co. Rep. 57 b; Salvin v. North Brancepeth Coal Co. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 705, per James, L.J.
- (s) Tapling v. Jones (1865), 11 H. L. C. 290; Broomfield v. Williams, [1897] 1 Ch. 602.
- (t) Webb v. Bird (1863), 13 C. B. (N. S.) 841; and see Chastey v. Acland, [1895] 2 Ch. 389, and the same case in the House of Lords, [1897] A. C. 155.
- (u) Partridge v. Scott (1838), 3 M. & W. 220; though possibly in this case he must not dig negligently. See Dodd v. Holme (1834), 1 A. & E. 493; Bradbee v. Christ's Hospital (1842), 4 M. & G.714.
- (x) Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, fol. 47, pl. 21 ; Keeble v. Hickeringill (1706), 11 East, 574 (note), 576.
- (a) Ajello v. Worsley, [1898] 1 Ch. 274.
- (b) Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 598.
- (c) Hopkins v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 224; Dibden v. Skirrow, [1907] 1 Ch. 437.
- (d) Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1.
- (e) National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. (1906), 76 L. J. (CH.) 194.
- (f) Du Boulay v. Du Boulay (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 430; Burgess v. Burgess (1853), 3 De G. M. & G. 896; Cowley v. Cowley, [1901] A. C. 450. As to wrongful use of a trade name or description, see title Trade and Trade Unions.
- (g) Street v. Union Bank of Spain (1885), 30 Ch. D. 156; Day v. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294.
- (h) Maunder v. Venn (1829), Mood. & M. 323, per Littledale, J.; Terry v. Hutchinson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 599; Hedges v. Tagg (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 283; Whitbourne v. Williams, [1901] 2 K. B. 722. The services need not be rendered to a father under any legal obligation (Bennett v. Alcott (1787), 2 Term Rep. 166).
- (i) There must be service both at the date of the seduction and of the succeeding incapacity to serve, see Grinnell v. Wells (1844), 7 M. & G. 1033;
