Evening star., 1898-05-28
Recent Transactions in Business and
in Resident Property.
some INDICATION OF CURRENT PRICES
Party Wall Regulation as Applied
Outside the Old Urban Limits.
ERECTION OF BUILDINGS

During the past week several sales of
property were made or announced which,
on &C count of the price paid or the loca-
tiCn of the property, were of more than
ordinary interest. AS AN indication of
the current valtle of real estate these trans
actions are of some importance for while
some Of the properties were offered at
auction, others were disposed of at private
sale.
In the business section of the city there
were two properties sold; One was the
one-story brick building. On. the north side
of G street between 14th and 10Th streets
having a frontage of 2S feet inches, with
an average depth of 96 feet, and containing
2. .744 square feet. The highest bid obtain
ed for the property, which was offered at
auction, and at which 1t was knocked
down, was trifie over $40 per square foot.
The acquisition of large building site
adjoining the property Of the Havcnner
Baking Company, on street between AZ
and 9TH streets northwest, in order that the
pant may be enlarged, involved a transfer
of property In a section. of the city where
transaC tions have not been common of
late years. The, price which prevailed in
this particular instance will perhaps give
some idea Of the tendency of values in
that section. A frontage Of 100 feet was
secured, and the consideration given at
private sale was $35,OO0 which was at the
rate Of about $50 per sausfe foot.
Resident section. Values.
Quite good-sized piecesof land on the
south side of l. street between 18th and
1fth streets northwest was; sold at pri-
vate sale. 1t has a frontage of some SO
feet, and contains 1900 square feet At
the price given, which was $4,000, the
rate per foot was s..
A triangular lot at the northeast cor
rer Of Rhode Island avenue and NJ street
was sold during the week at private sale.
1t has frontage of ICE feet on the ave-
nue. and ninety-three feet on n street, and
contains 4 .e6s square Feet The price is
stated to be $4,000, which - at the rate
Of "a little, more than s. per square foot.
The purchaser was Mr.. John r. Dos Pas
SCS. .. :
An l. Street Inarpvement.
Plans are being prepared by Mr.. James
G. Hill, architect, for a large building,
which will be used as a hotel or boarding
tends to- erect on the property on the
south side of L street, between, 18th and
14th streets. The house whfch<flow stands
there, and which is known as the Hosmer
House, is to be torn down, and on the
ground, which has a frontage of some 50
feet, structure is to be erected five sto-
ries in height.
fuFty walls In the SuDurDS.
An important action was taken recently
by the Commissioners when they directed
the building inspector to issue permits for
buildings outside of the old limits of the
city with the right to the party wall priv
ilege. 1t seems that it has been the Gus
tom of the building department acting, of
course. under the prevailing Interpretation
OF the law, to refuse the party wall priv
ilege to builders contemplating the erec-
ticn of structures in what is known, for the
want of better term, the suburbs of the
city, meaning, Of course. the territory out
side of the old urban limits. Recently, how
ever. in faction the 10Th day of last March,
Judge Cole, sitting in Circuit Court No. 1,
rendered decision in suit brought by G.
l.. Wilkinson against Messrs. Barr and
Sanner to compel them to pay him one-half
the cost of the east party wall of his house
on Howard street, they having used such
wall In building on the adjoining lot. The
defendants refused to pay Mr.. Wilkinson,
alleging that the building regulations did
not apply to party walls outside the orig
inal city limits, and that they, therefore,
had the right to use his wall without con-
tributing their share of its cost.
Judge Coles Decision.
Judge Cole held in his decision, that the
building regulations plainly and positively
stated that they were for the District of
Columbia, and that the only question was
whether the District Commissioners had
the authority to regulate party walls with
in the District. The regulation of party
walls by statutes had been the rule from
almost time immemorial, the judge said,
and If the regulation of party walls was
properly building regulation, then Con-
gress had authorized the Commissioners to
make such regulation where by it's act
OF June "A, 1873. it had directed them to
make building regulations for the District
of Columbia
The judge held that the rep,,iation of
party walls was within the authority of