son, Robert Edward Johnson, and James Patrick Macdougall, who were the legal owners, subject to the lease after mentioned, of the inheritance of the messuage in question; the respondent Edward James Jackson being also equitable tenant for life, and, with the consent of the others, in possession of the rents and * 276 * profits of it; and George Dixon and John Smith the occupiers. The occupation was under a lease granted by the owner of the inheritance to one William Newman, who had for upwards of thirty years prior to the date of the lease carried on upon the premises what was, according to the allegations of the bill, a large business as a grocer and tea-dealer, a business which at his death he was carrying on in copartnership with the respondents George Dixon and John Smith. Under the articles of partnership subsisting between the three, the respondents Dixon and Smith were each entitled to a third as well of the business, which they were still carrying on on the premises, as of the premises themselves, with the right of purchasing their deceased partner's share in both the business and the premises. For the exercise of this right they were in treaty with the administratrix of William Newman, in whom the legal estate in the lease was vested; and she, under the circumstances, declined to join as a co-plaintiff in the suit, and was, by amendment, struck out from the list of plaintiffs in which she had appeared in the original bill. The case made by the amended bill was to the following effect: During the whole period of William Newman's occupation of the premises comprised in his lease, they had consisted of the ground-floor of a front shop looking towards the north towards Cockspur Street, and extending backwards towards the south forty feet or thereabouts, and communicating in the rear with a countinghouse, which projected fifteen feet or thereabouts beyond the main outer wall of the house, and looked towards the south upon a narrow roadway or passage called Red Lion Yard. *277 *The counting-house was, and always had been, lighted by a single window nine feet wide and four feet five inches high, and was separated from the front shop by a glazed partition, through which was admitted a borrowed light to the southern extremity of the shop, which but for that would have been too dark to allow the ordinary business of the trade to be carried on there without some artificial means of lighting. In the basement floor beneath the counting-house there was another window, also looking upon Red Lion Yard, and upon the flat, projecting roof of the counting-house there was, and had been for above thirty years, erected a small greenhouse or conservatory, the external framework whereof, towards the south, was immediately over and in a continuous line with the external southern wall of the counting-house beneath. Immediately behind the greenhouse, and opening upon the flat, projecting roof of the counting-house, there was, and always had been, the window of the back room on the first floor of the house, which received its light partly through the glazed casing or framework of the greenhouse, and partly through the open space between the top of the greenhouse and the main outer wall of the house, and above the window of the first floor back room were the corresponding windows of the back rooms of the second and third floors respectively. All the windows above described were ancient lights. Previously to the alterations after mentioned, there stood, and had for upwards of fifty years existed, on the north side of Red Lion Yard, immediately opposite the back premises belonging to No. 21 Cockspur Street, and at a distance of thirteen feet from the outer wall of the counting-house, a range of *278 stabling, the outer wall of which was nineteen feet four inches high to the eaves of the roof, over which the light had access to the whole of the windows belonging to the countinghouse at an angle to the horizon exceeding forty-five degrees. Some time in 1862 these stables were pulled down and their site cleared, and in 1863 the appellant obtained a lease of it. In July, 1863, excavations were commenced upon the cleared site, with a view to the erection of new buildings thereupon, and in consequence of information acquired by the respondents George Dixon and John Smith, and by them communicated to the solicitors of the respondent Edward James Jackson, the latter gentleman communicated with the architect of the appellant in the matter, and through him obtained an inspection of the plans for the proposed new buildings. From these it appeared that the height of the latter would be thirty feet high to the eaves, the roadway of Red Lion Yard being still kept thirteen feet wide. Upon the remonstrance of the respondent Edward James Jack son's surveyor, a revised plan was adopted on the part of the appellant, according to which the height of the proposed building was reduced to twenty-eight feet six inches, and the roadway of Red Lion Yard was widened to fifteen feet instead of thirteen feet; and this plan was definitively adhered to, and began to be carried into execution on the part of the appellants, notwithstanding the still existing and expressed dissatisfaction of the respondents. * 279 The latter thereupon filed this bill, submitting that *the building in course of erection by the appellant would, if completed according to the revised plans, be twenty-eight feet six inches high to the eaves of the roof, or nine feet higher than the building which formerly stood on the same site, and that the effect of such additional height would be so to darken and obscure the counting-house above referred to, and so to obstruct the passage of light therefrom to the southern end of the front shop, as materially to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the premises, either as a residence or for purposes of trade; that the proposed building would also intercept a considerable quantity of light and air which formerly obtained access to the conservatory over the countinghouse and the back room on the first floor of the house, and that the general result of the proposed alterations would be seriously to injure the market value of the house and premises as property. The prayer of the bill was (1), that the appellant might be restrained by injunction from erecting or continuing to erect the intended or any other wall or building upon the site of the stables. in Red Lion Yard, lately taken down as in the bill mentioned, of a greater height in any part thereof than the elevation of the old buildings as they formerly stood thereon, so as to darken or obscure any of the respondents' ancient lights, or to obstruct the free access. of light and air as theretofore to the respondents' premises, or any part thereof, and from building in any manner or doing any act upon the site of the old building in Red Lion Yard whereby the owners or occupiers of the house and premises No. 21 Cockspur Street might be prevented from enjoying the same amount of light and air as they had hitherto enjoyed without interruption from the owners or occupiers of the former stables in Red Lion Yard; * 280 (2) that the appellant* might be ordered to pay the costs of the suit, and (3) for further or other relief. The respondents moved for an interlocutory injunction in the terms of the prayer of the bill, which his Honor the Master of the Rolls granted, after having satisfied himself by personal inspection of the premises that the respondents had made out their case. From the injunction so granted the present appeal was brought. Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Fischer, for the appellant, having opened the case, the Lord Chancellor expressed some difficulty in hearing an appeal under circumstances where, as here, the Judge of the Court below, being a Judge not only of law but of fact, had informed himself of the facts, not solely by the evidence before him, but by the evidence of a personal inspection of the premises had by himself; but upon the counsel for the appellant urging that the Master of the Rolls could not have had any intention in making the personal inspection which he had made to preclude an appeal from his order, which would be the result if his Lordship declined to hear an appeal on the ground of the inspection having been had, and upon counsel for the respondents consenting to rely upon the evidence without praying in aid the conclusion of the Master of the Rolls derived from his personal inspection, the appeal proceeded on its merits. * 281 Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Fischer, for the appellant. The obstruction of light caused by the proposed buildings, if erected according to the revised plan, would not be enough to support an injunction. There *must be such a privation of light as would render the house less comfortable for occupation, or less convenient for the purposes of the trade carried on there than it had previously been. Back v. Stacey, (a) Parker v. Smith, (b) Pringle v. Wernham. (c) The effect of the obstruction must be material injury amounting to a nuisance, The Attorney-General v. Nichol, (d) Wynstanley v. Lee, (e) and of such a nature that it cannot be estimated in money. Isenberg v. The East India House Estate Company (Limited.) (g) The damage must be present damage, and not apprehended future injury. The Earl of Ripon v. Hobart. (h) The light left would be amply sufficient to illuminate a counting-house, or the back part of a grocer's shop, and it is immaterial that the premises may be hereafter used for purposes (a) 2 C. & P. 465. (d) 16 Ves. 338. (e) 2 Swanst. 333. requiring more light. Besides which, the erection of neighbouring buildings had already, before the obstruction now complained of, seriously altered the status of the respondents' lights. At the conclusion of the arguments for the appellant, the Lord Chancellor directed the case to stand over for either side to adduce further evidence as to the importance of the light derived to the respondents' shop through the counting-house window, as to which point his Lordship said that he was not adequately informed by the evidence already before the Court. As to the basement window and the greenhouse, and the first floor window, his Lordship intimated a present impression against the respondents' case, as also to the counting-house window, the counting-house being *282 regarded as a mere counting-house; and his Lordship added that he was not at all disposed to let the jurisdiction of the Court be exercised, except in cases in which it was impossible to do justice without the interference of the Court. March 19. The case now came on again for further argument on additional evidence, the Lord Chancellor stating that he had himself followed the example of the Master of the Rolls and made a personal inspection of the premises in the interval which had elapsed since the former hearing. Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Fischer, for the appellant, renewed their arguments on his behalf, and commented on the further evidence. now before the Court. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. R. Ryder Dean, for the respondents. - The result of the evidence in this case is clear, that injury here exists to residence, comfort, trade, and market value alike. The injunction, therefore, was rightly granted; Wilson v. Townend, (a) Herz v. The Union Bank of London; (b) and it is immaterial whether the injury is to what the property is in its existing state, or whether it is to what the property may hereafter become if used for any other purpose than its present purpose. With regard to the latter kind of injury, some of the respondents here are trustees, and if the result of the alterations now in progress is that their |