National Republican., 1886-10-01
AN INJUNCTION DENIED.
Tho District Commissioners Exceed
Their Power in Granting n Parmit.

Tho District Commissioners Exceed
Their Power in Granting Permit.
Justice James yesterday delivered an i'm.
portant opinion In the equity court in the
case,of Joseph @. Willard 10 restrain w. w.
Coreoran from building vaults in the rear
Of the Corcoran building for the purpose Of
putting in boilers and other machinery.
The powers OF the commissioners is touched
upon and ms Il may be useful hereafter, the
opinion is given IA full.
The judge said that the bill in this case
states that the complainant holds by lease
for ninty-nine years from Sept. %, 1910, re.
newable forever, lot No. 8, square 225,
fronting on Pennsylvania avenue and run
ming back to an alley or court parallel 10
the street; that the defendant, Corcoran,
owns lots Z, 8, o, and the greater part OF lot
o, which surround the western end OF said
court, shutting therein, at the rear, that,
under q permit OF the engineer commits
sioner Of the District, the defendant has
made an excavation in said alley or court
about fifteen feet deep and extending the
rear boundaries OF his own lots and nearly
across and close to the rear boundary OF
complanant's lot 3; that the right TO locate
vaults under the sidewalk or alley in the
rear OF his lot is valuable Incl
dent TO his ownership, which complainant
paired by the action OF the defendant, or
others, and that the authorities OF the Dis
trlct Of Columbia had no right 10 grant
said permit 10 the defendant TO the extent
to which defendant is proceeding TO occupy
said alley; because the District government
has no authority to permit one abutting
property 10 occupy the body Of said alley,
beneath the surface thereof, in the rear Of
the other abutting property belonging to
other owners.
The fret question to be considered is,
whether any legal right Of the complainant
Is invaded or impaired by the occupation
Of the space under the surface Of thfs alley
as complained Of. He does not complain
OF the temporary trespass existing during
the construction OF this vault, as an In
terruptiou Of his access to the rear of his
own property, nor would such Il trespass
furnish ground for the interference
| Of court OF equity, inasmuch as q com
plete remedy is understood to exist at law.
The wrong complained Of is said to be a
permanent destruction OF complainant's 8
| right to have such vault appurtenant TO
and In the rear OF his property. The legal
| title OF this alley or court Is In the United
States, from which the title TO the abutting
lots was derived in this instance. Such
alleys are reserved by the United States as
roadways, which, for the purpose OF road
| ways and such other uses as are necessarily y
incident TO the use Of the lots as places OF
residence or business, are subservient to an
| easement Of the lot owners. But permanent
| occupation OF the soil, either upon or under
the surface, is not an easement; at all events,
| II is not one Of the easements to which the
| property Of the United States reserved as
roadways Is subservient. The owner OF an
| abutting lot, therefore, has no legal right,
as appurtenant to bis property. to construct
vault which constitutes such permanent
occupation. 1t appears that the commits
| sioners Of the District have two classes OF
| powers: First, tho control Of the streets;
secondly, the power 10 make building regu-
lations. Whether, under the head OF pow.
er, the commissioners have power to au-
thoriZe the owner Of an abutting lot to
| occupy permanently, even under the sur.
face, a portion OF the property Of the United
States for his individual benefit, is a ques-
tion which 1t is not necessary in this case
to decide. 1t is very serious, question,
| however, whether they have the power,
as n matter OF building regulations
TO authorize such occupation by the Owner
OF one lot In front Of the premises of an
other. am OF the opinion that they have
no such power, and that their powers have
been exceeded in this case, II they have
power in the premises as branch Of build
Ing regulations. 1t does not follow, how
ever, that any right of the complainant hai
been invaded. The wrong is against the
United States, and private parties canno
have an Injunction to restrain such wrong
1t may be admitted that the building regu
lations, which are declared by Congress Il
be law, contemplate right in each lo
owner to make application for the privilege
Of constructing vault abutting on hi
premises, and that the action Of the com
missioners in this case has the effect to Gu
off the hearing and due consideration o
any future application by the complainant
but such right to apply to the commis
sioners for the exercise Of their discretion
is not such right as a court Of equity will
protect by Injunction. AS find no righ
OF this complainant TO be interferred wit
by the defendants proceedings, howeyc
unauthorized these may be, the injunction
prayed for Is denied, and complainant
| bill dismieaed