The evening times., 1899-07-28

An important and much discussed point
OF law relative to the rights of owners Of
property in the District has been raised by
two property owners of Georgetown and
its adjustment will prove of interest to
many holders OF real estate who have been
and still are confronted by similar condi-
tions.
Louis Schneider recently bought lot on
Thirty-ffth Street, between @ and r
Streets. Mr.. Schneider graded the land,
which was elevated about five feet in front
and twenty feet in the rear, to the level
OF the street. The adjoining property
stands at practically the same elevation
at which Mr.. Schneider's lot stood preyi-
GUS to its being graded and on 1t stands
the residence of j. Barton Miller. who
OWNS the property. Mr.. Schneider has re-
quested Mr.. Miller to grade his property in
such a manner that there will be no danger
OF the land caving and so that the resi-
dence which Mr.. Schneider proposes to
erect will not have the appearance of be-
ing buried. In whatever way the land is
graded, it will be necessary to build an
extensive retaining wall.
The question has arisen in the adjust
ment of the matter as to who shall bear
the expense of constructing the wall The
thorities, where there seemed to he a
great diversity of opinion, as no case in
voiving the points at issue has ever teen
decided in the District of Columbia All
previous cases OF a similar nature have
been compromised. Mr.. Miller called upon
Attorney Jesse H. Wilson for an opinion in
the matter, and from the statement of the
lawyer IL is said that the retaining wall
will have to be constructed at Mr. Schnei-
der's expense unless that gentleman wishes
to become liable to suit proceedings in
case drainage should result to Mr.. Miller's
property as result of the land caving in
or being undermined.
The case is particularly interesting at
this time, as II bears upon the liability of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company
TO reconstruct part of the wall lining the
canal near Thirty y-second and Grace
Streets, which collapsed last winter, prac-
tically rendering foundationless the ad-
jacent lot belonging to A. Lee Lowe, which
case the Commissioners have now Under
consideration,
The opinion given Mr.. Miller by his at
torney is as follows:
''In regard to the question propounded
by you relating TO your rights or liabilities
in the excavations made of the property
adjoining your own / have 10 say:
1T is stated in law books in no uncertain
way that every person has a natural right
to the support of his land by the ada
cent soil. The right is incident to land
and the owner of il is as much entitled to
it as he is to the land itself. This natural
right of support seems to exist in respect
to land only and not in respect TO build
ings. 1t has been said TO deny this right or
principle would be incompatible with the
very security for property, as it is obvious
that, if the adjoining owners might exca-
yate their soil on every side of the bounda-
ry line, land thus deprived of support on
all sides could not stand by its own cohe-
renee alone. This doctrine of support has
always been strictly confined to cases in
which the owner of the land has not by
building or otherwise increased the lateral
pressure upon the adjoining soil. 1t fol-
lows from this principle that any injury to
his land resulting from the removal of the
natural support by means of excavation of
adjoining property, the owner has legal
remedy against the party by whom the
work has been done and it is not depend
ent upon negligence or unskillfulness but
simply upon the violation of the right of
property.
From recent English decisions it appears
that party who is about to endanger the
building OF his neighbor by a reasonable
Improvement on his own land is bound to
notice of his intentions, and to use ordi-
nary skill in conducting the same and that
it is the duty of the latter to shore or
prop up his own building. This practice
also has been followed in this country.
1t will be observed that this seems to
refer to buildings alone, and it is not in
controvention of the principle already stat
ed which is the common law principle and
does not seem to have been changed by
legislation in this District. How the courts
might view the subject respecting city lots
where grades are established by the NUM-
cipality remains to be seen and is not free
from doubt. / have been unable to find
any cases in this District hearing upon the
subject and therefore conclude that the
common law principle of lateral support pre-
walls in this District and that you are under
no liability to the owner of adjoining land
for the excavation which he himself made
beyond protecting your own buildings,
fences, etc., and if any danger results or
has resulted to your land the remedy is
with you