Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-12
A PARTY WALL CASE.
REAL ESTATE DEALS MAY BE RxvolrrIoxrzEp
BIT ITS DECISION AND NO END or Law SUITS
CREATED TO RECOVER MONEY THAT WAS PAID
TO THE WRONG PERSON.

TO THE NkoSo PERSON.
''In the Supreme Court Of the District Of Co
lumbia- At lsw-No. S272S. Halpin agt Barr
ct al. In account, sIsls9"
This is simply an extract from the latest
docket, under supervision of Clerk Young at
the city hall. Divested of it's legal phraseology
the extract amounts to nothing more than
declaration OF suit on the part Of Charles c.
Halpin to recover slsLs9 from l. A. Barr and
f. t. Sanner. That is the face value Of the
action only, however, and IL does not represent
what the business world would call an actual
debt as far rs the defendants are concerned
Messrs. Barr and Ssnner paid this particular
obligation long ago. but Mr.. Halpin claims that
Slsl.s9 OF coin of the realm was paid 70 the
wrong man. And thereby hangs a legal tale,
which may not only revolutionize real estate
deals in the District of Columbia, but create no
END OF law suits to recover, as well as make
otherwise unencumbered properties subject TO
debts ranging from $50 up to $500 or 81 600
always providing. though. that the Court in
General Term will see Mr.. Halpins side OF the
case in the same light as he does and decide for
the plaintiff.
The case hinges on party wall and the par
ticuiar point involved is one tina. members Of
the bar regard as among the most peculiar and
knotty ever decided in the District courts The
big white tribunal at the head of AZ street has
been the scene of legal rows iuuumerable,
where neighbors quarreled because their re-
sDectiye dwellings, had common stone Ovid
ing hne. Those suits were always for damages
and failure to pay the pro rata one-ha,f assess
ment, however, but Al Law No. 32725r stands
alone IN Its peculiarities among the thousands
Of 1udlciai struggles which have received their
nnai quietus in the courts
THE CASE IN A NUTSHELL.
NJ I.
nsh his right to receive payment for the half
OF party wall he erected several years ago and
since used by Messrs. Barr and Sanner although
Mr. Halpin sold his title to a property on 2OIh
street northwest-the locstion of the wall in
qnesnon-nearly year prior TO the time when
the defendants placed the first Cirders against
the barrier that was designed for common use
both by the original builder and any subsequent
dwelling constructor on adjoining property
The case is brought merely as a test, aside from
the comparatively small amount of money in
yolved, and IL on the General Term calendar
FOR argument within the next few weeks. hay-
ing been certified TO the higher body from the
Circuit Court. without trial there, in order to
establish a precedent in party wall cases of this
character as soon as possible.
Every builder and contractor in Washington
is familiar with the building laws in force here
But nine out OF ten average citizens are pruba-
bly, Just the reverse, Building Inspector En-
twlsle Is walking cyclopadia of the edicts
and regulations concocted at various times by
Congress and the Commissioners and he takes
but little time in enlightening an embryo con-
tractor to the effect that IL said individual de-
sires to put up building on a certain lot adj
laeent TO another vacant piece Of real estate then
he has the legal right TO erect a portion Of his
side wall across the boundary line and upon the
neighbors property, although this portion must
not exceed one-haf the thickness Of the whole
so an embryo party wall springs into existence
and If at any time the owner of the still vacaut
lot adjoining desires 20 improve his holding
with dwelling be is in turn privileged 70 con-
struct such building by making use of the
portion already upon his side OF the line
The party wall is then full fedged. but the
building inspector has still a large say in the
matter. One OF Capt. Entwisles assistants il
detailed TO estimate how many square feet of
the party wall have been used by the second
builder and the probable cost of the commodity
Is assessed against the latter in favor Of the
first man, who was public spirited enough to
beautify some thoroughfare by means Of q
handsome new dwelling The assessment is as
much lien on the second property as a iudg-
meat obtained in court, and the beneficiary has
no difficulty in recovering the amount he NAV
have expended on a second half OF the party
wall, although the first actual building opera
tons took place years before the final improve
ments next door.
THE MooTED QUESTION OF THE CASE.
Here is the mooted topic of the case. which
will soon engage the attention of the General
Term. The facts are clear at any rate, and the
particular instance Of party-waii obligations
selected as test viii make the opinion Of the
court decisive in one direction or the other
In the fall of 1889 Mr.. Halpin began the cree
ton of a three-story brick and brown-stone
dwelling on 10th street, just north Of Senator
savers residence. The structure was COM
p!eted within the next few months. including a
party wall, the usual half of which was ex-
tended over on a vacant lot directly beyond. A
year later the property. as improved, was pur-
chased by Mr.. Geo. @. Henninp. president
Of the Traders National Bank, and &C.
cupied by him a residence. A triae more
than year ago Messrs Barr and Sanner began
dwelling on the lot next Mr.. Henning's prop
erty and made use of the party wall. The
building inspector appraised the amount OF the
favor at SiSl.S9. and this sum Nessrs Barr
and Sanner. the present defendants. paid to Mr.
Henning as the adjoining owner. The ground
of Mr.. Halpin's action is that he, as original
builder OF the party wall, and not Mr. Henning.
was entitled to receive the assessment from the
later builders and owners.
Unlike the legal trickery occasionally resorted
to by contepding lawyers to win a case, AT
Law, No. 32725" is very much in the nature Of
an amicable arrangement for the purpose of test
ing the methods commonly used in Interpreting
the building laws of the District. Consequently
counsel on both SIDES have mutually submitted
in private discussion all their arguments pro and
con and, as outlined to STAR man. the plain
tiff's attorney will base their claims before the
General Term on a question Of easement. Had
Mr.. Halpin remained the owner Of the property
then there could have been no question as TO
whom Messrs. Barr and Sanner were under
obligations to furnish with S1sl. SO as their
share Of the involved expense, and in spite of
a deed in fee to Mr.. Henning the plain
tiff's allegation is that his right to such
compensation was never vitia.ed or an
nulled by the instrument which made
Mr.. Henning the new owner. The attorney
for the defendants asserts in his brief that fol-
lowing the usual formula pursued in warranty
deeds Mr.. Halpin transferred to Mr.. Henning
''all rights, easements. DC, well as his title
to the property, and, therefore. Mr.. Henning
wasentitled to receive the party wall money from
Messrs. Barr and Sanner, particularly a. Mr.
Halpin declared by his deed to have assigned
the last vestige of his interest when the pur-
chase money was paid in exchange.
THE BUILDING LAWS.
On the other hand, tho plaintiff meets this
contention Of the defense by reference 10 the
building laws. These state that the original
builder Of party wall cannot collect the ono
half cost from an adjoining owner until tbs
latter begins actual building operations in
which the party wall Is to figure, and not in
that case until pickax has been struck In the
barrier with the purpose Of arranging support
for toists or Orders Therefore. they argue,