The Washington herald., 1912-06-30
OF Interest to Party van Owners


Court of the District of Columbia, under
date June n, has rendered a decision
in case involving claim for the use
of what is commonly known as a
party" wall between two buildings
which will interest not only property
owners, but the host of builders in our
midst What makes the finding more re-
markable is that the justice has appar-
emily based it upon an "edict" issued by
George Washington in October, 1891,
in regard to building regulations.
The plaintiff had sued to recover con-
tribution for a party wall on the di-
vision line between the property of the
plaintiff and the defendant The wall
had been built as a part of the for
mer's house, not by the plaintiff, but by
his predecessor in title. The defendant,
who recently bought the adjoining lot,
erected thereon a house, making the
party wall do service for his own
house.
The questions at issue were these
Are the regulations relating to party
walls outside the limits of the original
city of Washington, where the two lots
lie, still in force? And If not, is the
defendant liable on general principles
The party wall regulations admittedly
in force in the old city of Washington,
the court held, include all that now is
known as the District of Columbia Ac-
cording to these regulations, which, as
stated, had been enacted by George
Washington, "a wall built upon the di-
viding line between adjoining premises
for their common use is party wall.
and each owner may avail himself of
the privilege of building such a party
wall, the center of which is the di-
viding line between the lots This is
embraced in the building regulations
now in force in the District, after re-
enactment by Congress in 1890 and 1922
When in 1871 a territorial form of gov
ernment was provided for the District
of Columbia, the charters formerly in
existence Washington and George
town. were repealed, but the act pre-
served the laws and ordinances Of the
defunct cities.
The salient points in Justice Stat
.ford's decision are these:
IF one sees his neighbor erecting a
party wall upon his land and makes no
objection, he must be taken to assent
1t stands there as a manifest Of
fer. He may reject It and have It re-
moved. AS long as it remains unused
it constitutes a continuing offer But
the moment it is accepted it binds him
to reimburse the owner. as justice re-
quires If one buys a lot upon
which a party wall has been erected,
the very presence of that wall is an
offer and it so remains II IS an offer
by the present owner of the lot on
which the building has been erected.
having this party wall. and when the
purchaser OF the vacant lot accepts the
offer he enters into relations with the
present owner, not with the original
owner or builder, if he be a different
person He is liable to him in such
an action as the present one. One who
builds on his neighbor'S land to the
extent of one-half of the party wall.
while thereby he may trespass, does not
proclaim himself the owner of the land
covered by that wall. He is not looking
for title for possession His act
is not adversely, but friendly, and i'm
pliedly recognizes the right of the neigh
Dor all the while"
This is a common-sense decision. If
the. owner of the adjoining land has not
availed himself of his right to object
to such a party wall, demanding its re-
moval then and there, and. instead,
is building into it, thereby availng him
self of the structure of his neighbor's
land and of the support afforded by
said wall. he accepts a tender and be-
comes one of the partners (or Gotten
ants) in the wall 1t follows logically
that the acceptance of the tender carries
with it the obligation to bear a pro-
portionate share of the burden; in other
words, to pay what is reasonable and
just to the neighbor whose labor and
means have gone into the common
structure. >,
OTHER EDITORS VIEWS.