New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-10-09
THE COURTS.
A FIFTH-AVENUE TENEMENT HOUSE"
THE APPEAL FROM JUDGE wEsrBRooKs DECISION
IN TILE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. SUIT.

| A FIFTH-AVENUE TENEMENT HOUSE"
| TIE APPE,L FROM JUDGE wEsrBRooKs DECISION
| IN THE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. SUIT.
John II. Sherwood, in 1878. owned four
lots on The northeast corner OF Fifthave and Forty
fourth aud lot the north side OF Forty-ioIisI
He devised his title through deeds forbiddng the cree
ton Of nuisances these lots, one OF which deeds
specifies as a nuisance "tenement house" on the
Fave lots there were four rsclass dwelling houses,
the walls between the houses being party Walls Oh
December 49, 1878. he sold the third house from tho
corner Fannie f. Musgrave, for Sl1oOoo ana
that she bought the house his assurances mat oher
houses would be retained rstclass dwelling houses
Iu 1875 he altered the two houses between Mrs MUS
graves house and the corner and also the house on
Fort y..ourth-st into connected apartment house or
family hotel as he calls It, In 1t AL the Kitchens ana
lauudries are combined in ordinary hotel ana the
dining Of occupants is in common as in ordinary no
tells but in other respects each suite OF apart
ments entirely private The occupants OF the apart
ments are shown to have been Of the best class Mrs
susgTaye at made slight objection to The change
in the dwellings but she qua nor press ~. S c
for this purpose the connecting rooi between DIS
house and Mrs. Musgraves house, and building on me
party wall between me houses, % sS =, hor
suit claiming ihat this would n1ure te Naut OF hei
house by destroying the symmetry OF the Dudhg anu
hy showing that tins corner house tenement house,
aud that there would bell her eQutape ghts vert not
sufficient for the Interference Of court OF awan IN,
friugneut Of neI technical IGnt ~ ne h T. Vi
the party wall I'm the condition in which she bought w.
pressed regret that the pressure or business precuded
elaborate discussion OF the questions intoNed ne
decided that party wall completed when Mrs
Mnsgrave bought her house any addition TO me party
wall infringement OF hcrrghts also NAV WHAT
ever the given the Sherwood House II was IN
fact a tenement house within tho dtllhltol, anu
that the term could not he confined 10 houses occutu
by poor families a. would lead TO questions when e
could not decide as there we're 10 nxed s'adaro
OF poverty wealth He therefore granted Ihe llunc
lion but required the nlant to give security In Sl50O
for any injuries arising 10 the defendant IN case he
injunction should be ultimately DECIDED 10 hA'o Dce"
Prom tina, decision the defendant appealed and his ap-
neal was argued yeste day IN supreme Court 1ehcrhI
Term at length. Mr. SherwOOds counsel Claimed thht
when "a wall once dedicated as party wan,
either owner gh IL 10 the f extent 50 IOg ~ ls
strength was not impaired burden put on " beyond
its strength The cutting Of the roof was nominal M
by an ava d OF damages. Ny'i"sti I',sas
Mr. Sherwood never PROMISED tnat n's , n"us,S
should be kept as sideuy pr'a"'e otn mouSSS:
that much Of tie value 81 the ftha'e property came
from possibility Of using IT Tor certain business pnr-
poses that the planuh by acgnescihs ia INC use LOT
Two years OF tile buildings Tor Aihiy bOtei hau
waived all right to bring This su and that as covenants
agaus tie use OF lands Tor particular PURPOSES VIZ
always strictly construed, the Phrase tenement mouse
should not be- extended Beg Ond Inc understanding OF rue
makers Of the covenant. which plainly ala not include
"tencmen house would make every house occupied ny
two families tenement house; -, ,,,
and complete thai the deien ant promised TO Keep ms
houses private dwellings, and that the paintih bought
uurupse Of having % residence in nrst-cass private
residence neighbOrhOOd; that whch party van hau
been built and "a purchase made on the falth OF its re-
naming state at that time, no further change could
De maze ia il that the defendants REPRESENTATIONS were
complete estopDe against NM ana lhai TIE covenants
IA the deeds under which the Defendant bought iofde
the plaintiffs of his premises, not only tcse nat
constituted tenement house" but also because that
noXious aud offensive to the neshoofins In
labfants" -
pearod for the plaintiff; Turner Lee Mcclure ana A.
i NauderpOcl for the defendant.