Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-10-02
\ PARTY WALL QUESTION
The Views of the Attorney for the District
Commissioners.
Pennsylvania Decision md It's Bear.
inEs on the building Regulation
Which Came From That State.

opinion was called forth by the complaint
OF Messrs. Connolly, who represented to the
commissioners that violation Of the build
Ing regulations had been made by placing
windows In the wall of a livery stable.
The question to be decided was whether
wall wholly within the lot of the building
owner, but whose fou,dation is built on the
dividing line. is party wall Attorney
Thomas thinks it is, and his opinion upon
the subject is as follows:
i have given this matter careful consider
alton because of its Importance. A party
wall. in the ordinary meaning of the term,
Is wall between two adjoining owners,
Duiit at the common expense and used for
common advantage, and this Is the defni-
ton OF party wall given in the build
Ing regulations. The term, however, may
De used In four different SenseS-first, a wall
or which two. adjoining owners are tenants
IN common; second, a wall divided longi-
tudlnalIy into two strips. one belonging to
each OF the neighboring owners; third a
wall which belongs entirely to one of the
adJolnlng owners, but is subject to an ease
ment or a right of the other to have and
maintain 1t as dividing wall between the
TWO tenements. and, fourth, wall divided
lonsitudinally into two moietes, each
moiety being subject to a cross easement in
favor of the other moiety.
1t has been settled i'm this District in the
case of Corcoran against Nailor 9th
Mackey, 5SO that a party wall cannot be
erected with windows or openings over
looking the servient land. While in that
case the parties were adjoining lot owners
each owning to the center of the wall, the
coctrlne Is equally applicable to the case of
a wall built by one of two adjoining owners
upon the survey line of his lot.
A Pennsylvania Decision.
In Pennsylvania. from whence our build
ing regulations in regard to party walls
as brought by President Washington, the
doctrine haS haI N
built on the survey line of the adjoining
lot In Mines appeal Isl Pa. St., 5D,
where the foundation for party wall was
erected partly on both lots, and when the
foundation reached the grade the wall
was dropped to the survey line of the build
ing owners lot, it was held that this would
not prevent the wall from being a party
wall.
In delivering the opinion Of The court in
that case Paxson, judge. used this Ian
guage
Tine important point to be decided is
the plaintiff and defendant Is a party wall
IL 1t is. then the openings therein under
the authority of Vollmer's appeal III F. f.
Smith, 11s) are in violation of law and
nuisance, which court Of equity will abate.
Defendant is the owner of a lot and
factory on the south side of Lombard street
adjoining the lot and dwelling Of the plain
TN. Some years ago the father of the de-
PENDANT, from whom the latter derived
title, erected a wall OH the line between
bis property and that of the plaintiff The
foundation of the entire wall was laid as is
usual In the case Of party walls. upon the
line between the two properties. Upon this
foundation party wall was built from
Lombard street southwark forty feet AT
this point the said wall for the distance of
thirty-nine feet and one and one-half inches
southwark recedes westward for the space
OF four ard a half inches to the line of
defendants property. So that this portion
OF the WALL although the foundation thereof
is partly upon the plaintiffs ground, Is
built entirely upon Defendants lot cfter it
arises above the cellar. In this portion of
the wall thus set back have been placed
a number of openings or windows, which
are the cause OF the present complaint.
The Respective Rights.
That these openings are a source of
very serious annoyance to the PLAINTIFF and
his family Is apparent from the bill and
Is Conceded by the demurrer. Has the de-
PENDANT right to maintain these openings?
1t must be conceded that If the defendant
or those under who ne claims had con-
structed this portion of the wall entirely
upon his own property. he would have had
the right to leave openings therein But
having used his neighbours ground in part
for his foundation. can be- by receiing
at any point above to his own line. deprive
the adjoining owner of the substantial
benefit of party wall? One of those bene-
fits is the right to build thereto upon maxi
ing compensation; another is the right to
have solid wall without openings) of
brick or stone or other incombustible ma
terials. IF the first builder does not COM
ply with the law and make the wall a solid
one. he becomes a trespasser and wrong
doer.' In NOllmer'S appeal, and other cases
cited, In which the parties had been en-
joined from using openings, the walls were
admitted party walls, their entire length
and height. 1t would seem. however. as
IL the present case comes within the reason
of the rulings referred to. The character
of the wall must be determined in part
from its foundation. II the builder starts
the latter upon the line and thus takes the
land of the adjoining owner, he must carry
IL up strictly as party wall or at least
In such manner as to give the adjoining
owner all the benefits of such wall.
Otherwise the land of the latter would be
taken without any corresponding benefit"
A Parallel CAGE.
This decision, while not binding authority
in this District. yet being a well consid-
cred case by an able court. constituting a
law imported here from that jurisdiction,
it would undoubtedly be followed by our
courts IL any suit on the subject
1t seems to me the case in question, Is
exactly parallel with the case in Pennsyl-
vania. above referred to. 1t results that
the permit to Maloney. to build his wall
with windows openings in 1t, was i'm
providently issued. the wall In question
being in law a party wall. In my opinion
the permit having been issued on the i'm
preston that 1t was not a party wall, it
should be revoked so far as windows or
openings In 1t are concerned.
1t is proper. l think, before revoking the
permit to give the holder of it, Mr.. Ma
loney, notice, and an opportunity 10 show
cause, If he has any, why 1t should not be
revoked.