## Facts

- A plaintiff alleged a customary route from his house to a nearby close along the king’s highway used for carrying goods back and forth.
- The defendant allegedly obstructed the king’s highway.
- Because of the obstruction, the plaintiff claimed he could not pass on his side to reach the close and suffered damage.
- The matter was argued in an action on the case concerning nuisance/obstruction of a highway, focusing on whether the declaration supported a private suit.

## Issues

1. Whether a private person may maintain an action on the case for obstruction of the king’s highway, or whether the obstruction is only punishable as a common nuisance through public proceedings.
2. If a private action may lie, whether the plaintiff must plead and prove special damage beyond the general inconvenience suffered by the public.

## Decision

- The judges debated the sufficiency of a private action for obstruction of a public highway rather than recording a clear final judgment.
- Chief Justice Baldwin took the view that no private action lay for mere obstruction of the king’s highway because it is a common nuisance punishable by public process (presentment in the leet).
- Justice Fitzherbert took the view that a private action on the case may lie if the plaintiff suffers greater, particular harm distinct from that suffered by the public generally, allowing recovery of damages for that special injury.

## Legal Principles

- Obstruction of the king’s highway is a public wrong (common nuisance) ordinarily remedied through public enforcement rather than private suit.
- A private action on the case for a public nuisance is available only when the plaintiff suffers special damage different in kind or degree from the public at large.
- The rationale against allowing private suits for purely public harm includes avoiding repetitive punishments or duplicative litigation for a single public nuisance.
- Particularized injury from a highway nuisance (for example, distinct physical harm or unique interference with access) can supply the special damage necessary to support a private damages action.

## Conclusion

The report is treated as early authority for the rule that a public nuisance such as obstruction of a highway is generally addressed through public proceedings, but a private plaintiff may sue in case when the nuisance causes the plaintiff special damage beyond the common inconvenience experienced by other members of the public.


Anonymous, Y.B. Mich. 27 Hen. 8, f. 27, pl. 10 (C.P. 1536)