Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Lateral-support-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:36:44+00:00

Document:
95. Trinidad Asphalt Co. v.
In England, and in some states in this country, it appears to be settled that, if the land would have fallen away, even without the building, as a result of the excavation of adjoining land, the owner may recover for damage to the building as well as to the land,97 and this would seem, on principle, to be a correct view of the matter, since the damage to the building is as much a proximate result of the violation of the natural right as is the damage to the land. It is difficult to distinguish in this regard between damage to a building erected on the land and damage to crops or plants grown on the land. In a number of states, however, the cases tend to support the view that, even though the land would have fallen without the building, there can be no recovery for damage to the building,98 in the absence of negligence.99 These cases ordinarily fail to distinguish this question, of the right to recover for damage to a building caused by a sinking of the land, which would have occurred even if no building had been erected, from the entirely distinct question of the right to recover for a sinking of the land with a building thereon, which would not have occurred had the building not been erected.
Ambard (1899) App. Cas. 594. See 13 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 299.
96. Wyatt v. Harrison, 3 Barn. & Adol. 873; Partridge v. Scott, 3 Mees. & W. 220; Northern Transportation Co. v. City of Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336; Moody v. McClelland, 39 Ala.
45, 84 Am. Dec. 770; Ceffarelli v. Landino, 82 Conn. 126, 72 Atl. 564; Starrett v. Baudler, - Iowa, -, 165 N. W. 216; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220; Gilrnore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199, 23 Am. Rep. 312; Gildersleeve v. Hammond, 109 Mich. 435, 33 L. R. A..
46, 67 N. W. 519; Horowitz v. Blay, 193 Mich. 493, 160 N. W. 438; Obert v. Dunn, 140 Mo. 476, 41 S. W. 901; Craig v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 271 Mo. 516, 197 S. W. 141; Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 92, 8 Am. Dec. 369; Dorrity v. Rapp. 72 N. Y. 307; Tunstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1. 56 Am. Rep. 581; Farnandis v.
Great Northern R. Co., 41 Wash. 486, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1086, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1027. 84 Pac. 18; Walker v. Strosnider, 67 W. Va. 39, 21 Ann. Cas. 1, 67 S. E. 1087. 97. Goddard, Easements (6th Ed.) 504, 580; Gale, Easements (8th Ed.) 403; Brown v. Robins, 4 Hurl. & N. 186; Hamer v. Knowles, 6 Hurl. & N. 454; Atty. Gen. v. Conduit Colliery Co., (1895), 1 Q. B. 301, per Collins. J.; Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464, 34 Am. Rep. 242; Langhorne v. Tur-man, 141 Ky. 809, 133 S. W. 1008; Stearns v. City of Richmond, 88 Va. 992, 29 Am. St. Rep. 758, 14 S. E. 847; Parke v. City of Seattle. 5 Wash. 1, 34 Am. St. Rep. 938, 31 Pac. 310, 32 Pac. 82; Farnandis v. Great Northern R. Co., 41 Wash. 486, 5 L. R. A. N. S. 1086, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1027, 84 Pac 18. See Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99, 86 Am. Dec. 693.
98. City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231, 20 Am. Rep. 243 (dictum) Moellering v. Evans, 121 Ind. 195, 6 L. R. A. 449, 22 N. E. 989; Schmoe v. Cotton, 167 Ind. 364, 79 N. E. 184 (dictum): Vande-grift v. Boward, 129 Md. 140, 98 Atl. 528; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen. (Mass.) 131, 79 Am. Dec. 771; Gilmore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199; Gildersleeve v. Hammond, 109 Mich. 431, 33 L. R. A. 46, 67 N. W. 519; Obert v. Dunn, 140 Mo. 476, 41 S. W. 901 (sem-ble); McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. Law 356, 67 Am. Dec. 49 (semble) Schultz v. Byers, 53 N. J. Law 442, 13 L. R. A. 569, 26 Am. St. Rep. 435, 22 Atl. 514 (semble); Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 356, 67 Am. Dec. 49 (semble); Sharpless v. Boldt, 218 Pa.
99. Post, this section, notes 1-4.
1. Moody v. McClelland, 59 Ala. 45, 84 Am. Dec. 770; City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231, 20 Am. Rep. 243; Block v. Hazel-tine, 3 Ind. App. 491, 29 N. E. 937; Shrieve v. Stokes. 8 B. Mon (Ky.) 453, 48 Am. Dec. 401; Shafer v. Wilson. 44 Md. 268; Gildersleeve v. Hammond. 109 Mich. 431, 33 L. R. A. 46, 67 N. W.
519; Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566, 66 Am. Dec. 642; Pullan v. Stallman, 76 N. J. Law 10, 56 Atl. 116; Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 92; Austin v. Hudson River R. Co., 25 N Y. 334; Davis v. Summerfield, 131 N. C. 552, 42 S. E. 818; Spohn v. Dives, 174 Pa. 474, 34 Atl. 192; Ulrick v. Loan & Trust Co., 2 S. Dak. 285, 49 N. W. 1054; Simon v. Nance, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 480, 100. S. W. 1038; Tunstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1, 56 Am. Rep. 581; Walker v. Strosnider, 61 W. Va. 39, 21 Ann. Cas. 1, 67 S. E. 1087.
2. Zilka v. Graham, 26 Idaho, 163, 141 Pac. 639; Winn v. Abeles, 35 Kan. 85, 57 Am. Rep. 138, 10 Pac. 443; City of Covington v. Geyler, 93 Ky. 275, 19 S. W. 741; Shafer v. Wilson, 44 Md. 268; Gerst v. St. Louis, 185 Mo. 191, 208, 105 Am. St. Rep. 580, 84 S. W. 34; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 169; Schultz v. Byers, 53 N. J. Law 442, 13 L.
R. A. 569, 26 Am. St. Rep. 435, 22 Atl. 514; Davis v. Summerfield, 131 N. C. 352, 63 L. R. A. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. 781, 42 S. E. 938; Walker v. Strosnider, 67 W. Va. 39, 21 Ann. Cas. 1, 67 S. E. 1087; Stockgrowers' Bank v. Gray, 24 Wyo. 18, 154 Pac. 593; Contra, Dorrity v. Rapp, 72 N. Y. 307 (dictum).
3. O'Neill v. Harkins, 71 Ky. 650; Bonaparte v. Wiseman, 89 Md. 12, 44 L. R. A. 482, 42 Atl. 918; Gerst v. St. Louis, 185 Mo. 191, 210, 105 Am. St. Rep. 580, 84 S. W. 34; Craig v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 271 Mo. 516, 197 S. W. 141; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99.
4. Schultz v. Byers, 53 N. J. L. 442, 13 L. R. A. 569, 26 Am. St. Rep. 435, 22 Atl. 514; Jamison v. Myrtle Lodge, 158 lowa, 264, 139 N. W. 547; Novotny v. Danforth, 9 S. Dak. 301, 68 N. W. 749.

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. 
 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.