## Facts

- A landlord leased land for the erection and operation of water-powered mills and related works; the tenant later assigned the lease to the plaintiff.
- The lease covenanted that the lessee would receive a supply of water from canals and reservoirs located on the landlord’s estates to operate the mills and works.
- The lease reserved to the landlord liberty to work existing and future collieries and to use the canals for boats and related purposes, but those reserved liberties were expressly subordinate to the water needed for the mills and works.
- The plaintiff alleged the landlord erected locks and managed or altered stop-gates, canals, and related structures in ways that impeded or diverted the water supply and interfered with the mill operations.
- The plaintiff sought equitable relief requiring the landlord to manage the water so as not to injure the plaintiff, to restore and repair specified waterworks (including gates, canals, and associated structures), and to bear or reimburse expenses allegedly incurred to secure adequate power.
- The matter came before the High Court of Chancery on an ex parte motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking relief that would, in substance, require affirmative repairs and restoration.

## Issues

1. Whether Chancery could grant interlocutory injunctive relief effectively requiring a landlord to perform affirmative acts (repairs/restoration) to give effect to water-supply covenants in a lease.
2. Whether such relief must be framed as prohibitory relief (negative terms) rather than as a direct command to repair or restore.

## Decision

- The court granted an interlocutory injunction protecting the tenant’s lease-based water rights.
- Although the court expressed concern about the practice of “ordering repairs,” it concluded it could frame relief in terms that would achieve that result.
- The injunction was drafted in negative (including “double negative”) form that, as a practical matter, compelled the landlord to repair and restore the relevant works so the promised water supply would not be obstructed.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may enforce lease covenants protecting an industrial water supply through injunctive relief when interference threatens the tenant’s contractual water rights.
- A court of equity can grant injunctions with mandatory effect at the interlocutory stage when necessary to prevent ongoing impairment of the claimant’s rights.
- Where direct commands to perform continuous affirmative acts are viewed as procedurally problematic, substantially equivalent relief may be framed in prohibitory terms that effectively require performance.
- Express lease priority provisions (making the landlord’s reserved uses subordinate to the tenant’s mill water needs) are enforceable in equity through orders preventing obstruction of the tenant’s superior use.

## Conclusion

The court issued an interlocutory injunction that effectively compelled the landlord to restore and maintain waterworks required by lease covenants, using negative wording to achieve mandatory results while protecting the tenant’s priority right to water for mill operations.


Lane v. Newdigate, 32 Eng. Rep. 818 (Ch. 1804)