The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-11-18

settled upon her by which memorandum the terms upon
which the grantor should have the Of the wall In
building the adjoining iof stated Stephenson tho
gantor after the Wheatons went into possession, con
tnued 10 reside the residue Of his property there
having IL enclosed and part OF the enclosure being the
wall in question In 1921 the defendants house was
built having this for Of it, walls In 1888 the
plaintiff purchased the Wheaton title and took deed
conveying by netes and bounds the half Of lot H. adj
joining lot 49, The defendants deed and the deeds Of
those under whom he claimed described his property by
metes and bounds part of lot 49, with the appurte
nAnces After the plaintiffs purchase, in 1858,
survey Of the square showed that the division wall
stood wholly nine inches or more within lot IL. The
plaintiff claimed the land according to this survey Foo
the purpose Of building 1t he caused the old house to
be torn down. intending to build and TO make the wall
next 10 the defendant IA inches thick instead Of g. as
had been before and to place the centre Of the new wall
with the increased thickness precisely on the line ascer
tanned by the survey which would bring il some distance
inside of all the defendants freplaces On the other
hand the additional width 10 the plaintiff lot would add
greatly TO Its value 1t not unreasonable, there
fore that strip Of land In itself of small value
should have given rise to much litigation. In 1898
LebemAn procured injunction against Wilson 10 pre-
vent the taking down of the old wall, unless 1t should be
found unsound and TO prevent his building new wall
otherwise than the site of the old II it should be
taken down The old wall unsound, and taken
down. and rough boards nailed up in its place and 80
the premises vacated by Iebeman continued for about
u year, when Heberman rebuilt the wall and, rs was
stated by his counsel rebuilt it fourteen inches thick
instead of nine inches the other walls Of his house
are in order to be that it should be strong enough
to support Wilson's projected house But when the new
wall about ten feet above the pavement Leberman
stopped by injunction at the suit of Wilson, pre-
venting him from rebuilding any other than nne inch
wall. He thereupon dropped off to niae-iaca wall.
Wilson then brought this suit for trespass and Lie
herman brought his sutdo damages for cutting
away the side Of the house. and leaving it for year
without rebuilding it. ... 20. .......a... .....
The case tried is the former and it has resulted to
the law i'm the courts having restricted the plaintiff
Wilson, damages for the alleged trespass in occupying
for several days before the bringing of the suit much
of the ground as was not covered by the old inch
wall
The points of law interesting TO the public in this city
are, first, that may enjoy the comforts of his own
hearth when he has done than twenty years
without fear of action for damages founded upon an
accurate survey made by bis neghbors and, Secondly
that when inch party wall is torn down it cannot
be rebuilt ortesriaet wall, whatever the building
gulatons may be supposed to say to the contrary the
first builder being the person who exercises the power I'M
der these regulations Verdict for the plaintiff cent
damages.