Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-345-Lateral-support.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:24:44+00:00

Document:
86. Penruddock's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 100b; Baten's Case, 9 Co. Rep. 53b; Fitzherbert's Nat. Brev. 1S4D; Comyn's Dig. Action upon the Case for Nuisance A.
87. Fay v. Prentice, 1 Com. B. 828; Chandler v. Lazarus, 55 Ark. 312, 18 S. W. 181; Shea v. Gavitt, Johns. 333; Jones v. Tankerville 89 Conn. 359, 94 Atl. 360; Bellows v. Sackett, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 96; Davis v. Smith, 141 N. C. 108, 53 S. E. 745, 144 N. C. 297, 56 S. E. 940; Huber v. Stark, 124 Wis. 359, 109 Am. St. Rep. 937, 102 N. W. 12. See Fitzpatrick v. Welch, 174 Mass. 4S6, 48 L. R. A. 278, 55 N. E. 178; Davis v. Niagara Falls Tower Co., 171 N. Y. 336, 89 Am. St. Rep. 817, 57 L. R. A. 545, 64 N. E. 4.
88. Armstrong v. Luco, 102 Cal. 272, 36 Pac. 674; Copper v. Dolvin, 68 Iowa, 757, 56 Am. Rep. 272, 28 N. W. 59; Hazeltine v. Edgmand, 35 Kan. 202, 57 Am. Rep. 157, 10 Pac. 544; Underwood v. Waldron, 33 Mich. 232; Philips v. Taylor, 93 Minn. 28, 100 N. W. 649; Bell v. Alzey Realty Co., 163 Mo. App. 361, 143 S. W. 859.
89. Wyatt v. Harrison, 3 Barn & Adol. 871; Humphries v. Brog-den, 12 Q. B. 739; Northern Transportation Co. v. City of Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336; Moody v. McCelland, 39 Ala. 45, 84 Am. Dec. 770; Chesapeake & O. Rwy. Co. v. May, 157 Ky. 708, 163 S. W. 1112; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 131; Gilmore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199, 23 Am. Rep. 312; Schultz v. Bower, 57 Minn. 493, 59 N. W. 631; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566, 66 Am. Dec. 642; Mosier v. Oregon Nav. Co., 39 Or. 256, 61 Pac. 453; Matulys v. Philadelphia Coal & Iron Co., 201 Pa. St. 70, 50 Atl. 823; Richardson v. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 465, 60 Am. Dec. 2S3; Tun-stall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1, 56 Am. Rep. 581.
90. Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 H. L. Cas. 503; Bonomi v. Backhouse, EL, Bl. & El. 654; Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, 11 App. Cas. 127; Kansas City Northwestern Rwy. Co. v. Schwake, 70 Kan. 141, 68 L. R. A. 673, 3 Ann. Cas. 118, 78 Pac. 431; Schultz v. Bower, 57 Minn. 493, 47 Am. St. Rep. 630, 59 N. W. 631; Rector, etc., v. Paterson Extension Ry. Co., 66 N. J. L. 218, 49 Atl. 1030; Houston Waterworks v. Kennedy, 70 Tex. 233, 8 S. W. 36; Smith v. City of Seattle, 18 Wash. 484, 63 Am. St. Rep. 910, 51 Pac. 1057.
But in Pennsylvania, in cases involving the right of subjacent support, which would seem properly to be governed by the same principles as govern the right of lateral support, it was decided that the right of action accrued upon the withdrawal of the natural support originally furnished by the neighboring land, without the substitution of any artificial support, and that the statute of limitations began to run from that time, and not from the subsidence of the land. Noonan v. Pardee, 200 Pa. 474, 55 L. R. A. 410, 86 Am. St. Rep. 722, 50 Atl. 255; Tischler v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 218 Pa. 82, 66 Atl. 988. One result of such a view would seem to be that, if the subsidence did not occur within the stat-tory period after the withdrawal of support, there could be no recovery, or, at most, a recovery of nominal damages only, and it would, of course, be difficult to say, ordinarily, that the support left was insufficient, until this was shown by the subsidence of the land. See, also, the criticism of the case in 15 Harv. Law Rev. 574.
Appeal 81 Pa. 203; 'Simon v. Niance, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 480, 100 S. W. 1038. See Lyons v. Walsh, 92 Conn. 18, 101 Atl. 488.
91. Corporation of Birmingham v. Allen, 6 Ch. Div. 284. And see Keating v. City of Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St. 141, 43 Am. Rep. 121.
92. Corporation of Birmingham v. Allen, 6 Ch. Div. 284. But see Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 131, 79 Am. Dec. 771.
93. Popplewell v. Hodkinson L. R. 4 Exch. 248; New York etc. Filtration Co. v. Jones, 37 Dist. Col. App. 511.
94. Jordeson v. Sutton etc. Co. (1899) 2 Ch. 217; Cabot v. Kingman, 166 Mass. 403, 33 L. R. A. 45, 44 X. E. 344 (three judges dissenting); Columbus v Willard, 7 Ohio Circ. Dec. 33. See edi-toria notes, 10 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 183; 20 Id. at p. 487.
In White v. Nassau Trust Co., 168 N. Y. 149 64 L. R. A. 275. 61 N. E. 169, the view was taken that the owner of a pier could not complain of the withdrawal of lateral support by a grantee of land under water in the course of the construction of a dry dock.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.