| Mass. | Mar 15, 1815
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As to the first objection, we are satisfied, on the authorities cited for the plaintiff,
* The town of Boston, in the year 1795, owned the [* 160] two pieces of land, now owned by the plaintiff and defendant. They then sold to the plaintiff the piece now owned by him. This piece then had upon it a building, like that afterwards erected by the plaintiff upon the same foundations ; and with doors and windows corresponding to those in the new building. This grant being without any exception, or any reservation of a right to build on the adjoining ground, or to stop the lights in the building which they sold ; it is clear that the grantors themselves could not after-wards lawfully stop those lights, and thus defeat or impair their own grant. As they could not do this themselves, so neither could they convey a right to do it to a stranger.
No lapse of time was necessary to confirm this right to the plaintiff. He might have maintained his action for such a nuisance immediately after his purchase, as well as after a lapse of twenty or of forty years. This point was decided in the reign of Charles II., in the case of Palmer vs. Fletcher, which was cited in the argument, and is reported in many books.
We are therefore satisfied, upon authority as well as upon the •eason of the thing, that the action is well maintained, and there must be
Judgment on the verdict.
1 Vent. 237, 239. — Com. Dig., action upon the case for a nuisance, E.- 2 Saund. 175.
2 Saund. 113 a, to 114 b. — Compton vs. Richards, 1 Price, 27. — 1 Saund. on Plead and Evidence, 79, 80.
1 Lev. 122. —1 Sid. 167, 227. - Raym. 87. — 1 Keb. 553.
1 Mod. 116.
Coutts vs. Gorham, 1 M. & M. 396. — Compton vs. Richards, 1 Price, 27. —Riviere vs. Bowen, R. & M. 24. — 2 C. & P. 465. — Thurston vs. Hancock post, 220. — Grant vs. Chase el al., 17 Mass. Rep. 443.