New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-02-08
MAINTAINIHG HER RIGHTS ApI+R

W.
MRS T. b. MUsGRAvE WINS HER SUIT Al ....-|
JOHN II. SHERWOOD IN REGARD To MS Ap.sr
MENT HOUSE.
The wife of Thomas B. Muserave az
Lanaer several years ago purchased from John sa
wood the house at No $50 Fifth-aye for SlI0O0o ~,
house Of four similar buildings standfp, -
gether, having been erected by Mr. Sherwood Ia 9.
resented to DIR. Musgrave acting for his wheat s 49,
OF the sale that the other three houses were 10 he
pied frsIclass private houses There was aso N ~
covenant running with this land, inserted at ret.,s
sale. that 1t should not he used Tor any busnes or
ing obnoxious offensive to the neigbborng iph.,
tants"
Subsequently Mr.. Sherwood, against the protect az NJ
Musgrave began to raise the buildings south ofu
Musgraves house two stories higher, using the usys,
wall for the purposes he thep let the basehents .or 4
ice-cIcam saloon and banking house sna
turned The upper part OF the buildings into apartmen,
These high buildings connecting with another simu..
structure of Mr. Sherwood In the crOss-street shut os
Mr. Musrave's light 10 considerable extent not alo..
from the skvlights, but from the
Proceedings begun In the Supreme Court ON IN.
part of Mrs Musgrave to enjOin Dir. Sherwood fya,.
continuing the erection OF these superstructrres
temporary injunction was granted bur when the casa
trial Justice Van Worst vacated the uiuucton
Mr. sherwood then flushed the buildings and let thep
out for the purposes above named An appeal was akp
10 tie General Term, which, IA opinion Just handeA
down. written by Justice Brady the judgmssx
below, and grants @ new trial. w. A. Beach, hao An
peared Mrs. Musgraye, conteDded that perse5
no right TO a party.wa for the erection thOsea N
anything Injurious obnoxious 10 the other JOINT owner
without tue latfors He cited the Code AaSdos
10 show how under the French law the courts void
protect the RIGHT Of the injured part owner He also
commended thar Mr.. Sherwood had right TO use M
buildings for business purposes In any case.
The Court holds thai Mr. Sherwood had no right add
the two upper stories for u business puf
pose 7; that his representations OF the chasaelee
OF adjoining property before the purchase bound hun
"Tbe painI,a's house." the option. T" was htk
Nth easement, partywall. which consequently ex
listed at the time OF the negotiations for and che sxe
IL plainn and which referred to In tue COL
veyance her. Therefore. already suggested, n l.
the VI the existing easement for purposes antagen
tic the expressed design OF the defendant In nfdias
the hOnses made patent by his statements and repYese
taions which Is complained Of and by which the
shown by the evidence, enlarged, not prya1
residence but for business PURPOSES. namely, parted
a family hotel. We do not wish TO be understood how
declaring To he Judgment that The defend
would have right 10 Duild upon the party-wal
the object were 70 eJlarge his house az pryats
la uouy with the original designs ia ths
siucre OF the houses and the representation and 10
81 teton 20 which reference has been made. The
la geuen OF the LOuscs adjoining the plaintiffs premises
wa- ntemplaed WITH slch intention for any
suc purpose put already sugRestedwas for the pu
pose OF al IraIng accommodations for larger nuaba
of glies the hotel to which the defendants hzses
adjoining bad been appropriated"
The Court held how'yer that, Mrs. Musgraye hasRe
Ia the changes IN all tue houses eIcep. the
ore TO hers, abe could not compel Mr. shef-
wood 10 make over the Others into private houses.