Evening star., 1886-09-30
fHE INyuNCrroN DENIEO.
SoAIe James Gives In . Dec1sion N ~,
0ait Against Mr. Coecoraa.

0ait Against Wr. Corcoeoa.
To-day Judge James. In the Equity Court de-
ltvered his opinion In the case Of Joseph Will
lard against w. w. Corcoran, In which the
complainant sought 20 restrain tha defendant
nom constructing . vault In an alley In the
rear OF the Corcoran building. Judge James de-
MED the injunction and dismissed the BILL The
facts as stated are that the complainant holds
by lease for 90 years from December as, 1910,
and defendant 10 the owner of lots q, 9, 3 and
the greater part OF lot 6. which surrounds the
western part Of the court that under q permit
OF the Engineer of the District the defendant
mas made an excavation In the alley or court
boundaries of his own lots and nearly across
ana close TO the rear boundary of complainAnt's
i lot No. s, and the bill states that the right to
rear OF mis- lot IL q valuable incident to the
ownership TO which he is entitled, and that the
to the exteet he q proceednr to oc
cupy the alley because the District government
mas no authority to permit one abutting property
the surface In the rear OF other ubutting prop
erty belonging TO other owners.
The Judge says: "The first question to be con-
sidered IL whether any legal right OF the COM
plainant is invaded or Impaired by the occu-
patton OF the space under the surface OF the
a,ey she complained Of: Ne does not complain @ OF
struction Oh this vault, as an interruption OF his
access to the rear of his own property, nor
would such 9 trespass furnish ground Tor the
Interference OF . court Of equity, inasmuch as
complete remedy is understood to exist at
law The wrong complained OF Is said to be
permanent destruction Of conplainanrs
right to have such vault appurtenant to and
III In Inc rear OF his own property.
a.. .Tne legal right to this alley, or court IL In
the United States, from which the title to the
aOutilny lots was derived in this instance.
such alleys are reserved by the United states
as roadways which. Tor the purposes of :, ad-
a h0r arSr r,aC. ri IN.
cluent 10 the use OF the lots AZ places Of resi-
dence Or business, are subservient TO an ease
cupatiOn OF the soil, either upon or under the
surface, Is not an easement; at all events IL Is
not one OF the easements TO which the property
OF the United States used as roadways is suo-
servient. The owner of An abutting lot, there
fore, has no legal right as appurtenent to his
property to construct q vault which constitutes
such permanent occupation.
II appears that the Commissioners Of the Dis.
tIict have Two classes OF power: first, the control
OF H The paIidic streets secondly the power 10
either head OF power, the commissioners have
power 10 authorize the owner OF au abntting lot
20 occupy permanently, even under the surface
portion OF the property OF the United States
ior his individual benefit is a question which it
is not necessary in this case to decide. tits
very serious question, however, whether
they have power u matter OF building regu,a-
ton to authorize sucn occupation by the
owner of one lot IN front OF the premises OF AN
Other. am OF opinion that they nave no sucn
power, and that their power has been exceeded
i'll this case If they have power in the premises
as u breacn OF building regulation. 1t does not
ant has been invaded. Tue wrong Is against
the United States and private parties cannot
nave an injunction to restrain sucn wrong,
II may be admitted that the building resula-
tfons, which are declared 10y Congress 10 be
law, contemplated a right in each lot owner TO
make application for the privilege of construct
lug IA vault aOutting hls Premises, and that the
action Of The Commissioners In this case has
the effect to cut OF the hearing and due con-
slderation OF any Iuiure Application 10y the
c0mpiainants, but sucn rigut 10 apply TO the
Com issioners for the exercise of tueir discre-
lion Is not such a right rs court of equity will
protect by INJUNCTION. As find no riynt of this
complainant TO be interfered with by the de-
Ienuant's proceedings, however unauthorized
these may be, the uiuuc.iOn pray ed Tor is de-
MED, and c0mplainants bill Is dismissed"