Case Name: The National Commercial Bank of Albany, Appellant, v. Charlotte C. Gray and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-09
Citations: 78 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: The National Commercial Bank of Albany, Appellant, v. Charlotte C. Gray and Others, Respondents.
Judges: Putnam, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 78
Pages: 295–309

Head Matter:
The National Commercial Bank of Albany, Appellant, v. Charlotte C. Gray and Others, Respondents.
Party wall — practical location of a boundary line — acquiescence—ancient writing —windows in a party wall.
Tlie rule which forbids the disturbance of a practical location of a boundary line which has been acquiesced in for a long series of years applies to the practical location of such a line through the center of a building wall, constituting it a •party wall.
An agreement to that effect executed by the remote grantors of the adjoining owners, is admissible in evidence as an ancient writing although not acknowledged or recorded, where such location has been acquiesced in and the wall has been used as a party wall accordingly for a period of about seventy-five years, notwithstanding the fact that the wall may stand entirely within the line called for by the deed of one of the adj oining landowners. (Mayham, P. J., dissenting.) In such a case, one adjoining landowner has a right to close window spaces inserted in the wall on its elevation above his building by the owner within whose deed line the wall stands.
When a wall is made a party wall by the establishment of a boundary line through its center,- each owner owns in severalty so much of the wall as stands upon his lot, subject to the easement of the other owner for its support and the equal use thereof as an exterior wall of his building ; and no other use of the adjoining owner’s portion of the party wall is permissible.
.Windows have no place in a party wall.
Appeal by the plaintiff, the National Commercial Bank of Albany, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of Albany county on the 16th day of April, 1891, upon a decision of the court rendered after a trial by the court at the Albany Special Term.
The action was brought to restrain the defendants from building with brick or otherwise in spaces left open for windows in the west erly wall of tlie buildiiig standing on the plaintiffs’ premises, on the south side of State street, in the city of Albany, and from inserting or making any fastenings or connections with the wall, and from maintaining or continuing any fastenings or connections already made.
Abraham, Icmsmg, for the appellant.
Jacob II. Glute, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Parker, J.:
The controversy between plaintiff and defendants, who are adjoining lotowners, relates primarily to the location of a boundary line.
Defendants say that the line extends through the center of the wall, which has been for many years used in precisely the same manner as are party walls, the timbers of the building on either side resting in and being supported by it.
Plaintiff, admitting that defendant's user of the wall has been so long continued as to have created an easement which secures to him the right to such use as he now makes of. the wall, insists that it is not a party wall, but wholly on the lands of the plaintiff, and for that reason it cannot be interfered with in any action it may see fit to take with reference to the wall, so long as defendants are not interfered with in the enjoyment of their easement.
It seems that prior to about 1850, plaintiff's building was three stories high and seventy-two feet deep. Defendant's building was three stories high also, but only about fifty feet deep. Sometime in 1850, plaintiff raised its building, running ,.up the wall, which has been used as an easterly and westerly wall for plaintiff's and defendant's buildings respectively, to the requisite height, and inserted therein the beams for the added stories.
About the year 1871 the defendant extended his building so as to make its total depth seventy-t-wo feet, and raised it so much that he was obliged to build up the wall between him and plaintiff to a height of about fifteen feet above where plaintiff had built it in 1850.
In 1887 plaintiff again raised its building, using the fifteen feet of wall which defendant had added in 1871, in part to support the timbers of tlie added stories, and running up sucli wall about twenty-feet more, making tlie top of tlie wall nearly twenty feet above tlie roof of defendant's building. In tlie erection of tlie wall, plaintiff left five spaces for windows. Defendant then closed sucli window spaces on bis side, and for a depth of six inches, by brickwork.
Thereafter this action was begun to restrain the defendant from interfering with the window spaces, which resulted in a judgment for the defendant.
The determination of the learned' trial judge seems well founded.
It is true that plaintiff's deed, assuming its westerly boundary line to be correctly located, calls for a frontage that included the entire wall, instead of one-half of it. And as there is no record of conveyance from plaintiff or his predecessors in title of the six inches in controversy, plaintiff insists that its right to it cannot be questioned.
Defendant's contention is that, in 1815, plaintiff's and defendant's predecessors in title located the boundary line in the " center of the brickwork of said wall," and that from that time until the commencement of this action, a period of about seventy-five years, such practical location of the line was acquiesced in by the parties to the original location and their grantees.
If it is legally established in the record before us that the facts are as defendant contends in such respect, then the case is clearly brought within the settled rule which forbids the disturbance of a practical location which has been acquiesced in for a long series of years — a rule adopted as one of repose, and which rests upon the same reason as the statute prohibiting the disturbance of an adverse possession which lias continued for twenty years. (Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N. Y. 359 ; Reed v. Farr, 35 id. 113; Avery v. Empire Woolen Co., 82 id. 582.)
We are thus brought to a consideration of the evidence introduced for the purpose of establishing a practical location.
The defendant put in evidence a writing under seal, which was neither acknowledged or recorded, of which the following is a' copy:
" Whereas, the boundary line which divides the lot of ground on the south side of State street, owned by Joseph Alexander and his •wife, Ann Alexander, from the lot of ground owned by the heirs .of Henry Hogan, deceased, is not precisely ascertained and known, and, whereas, the said Joseph Alexander and Ann Alexander are about erecting a building on their said lot of ground, which renders it desirable that the said boundary line should be settled. Now, therefore, to the end that the said boundary line may be amicably ascertained, settled and established, the said Joseph Alexander and Anna Alexander, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, of the first part, and Nelly Hogan and 'William Brown, Dorothy Brown and Eleanor Brown, heirs of Henry Hogan and Martina Brown, deceased, which said Nelly Hogan, Henry Hogan and Martina Brown were and are the heirs of William Hogan, deceased, of the second part, do enter into the following articles of agreement, that is to say:
" First. The said party of the first part shall have full liberty to place the west wall of the building, which they are now erecting, as near to the east wall of the building, now occupied by the party of the second part, as they shall or may choose to do, and to build and finish the same in any manner they please without molestation or hindrance from the said party of the second part, or any person or persons by their direction or claiming under them.
" Second. The center of the brick work of the said wall, when so built by the party of the first part at their own expense, and a corresponding line drawn to the south bounds of said lots, shall forever hereafter be allowed and acknowledged by both the parties to this agreement, and all persons claiming under, to be the true division line between the aforesaid lots of ground.
" Third. The said party of the second part, or their heirs and assigns, shall have full liberty whenever they may choose to erect a building on their said lot of ground, to join the front and rear walls of such building to the wall built as aforesaid by the party of the first part, and to fasten thereto, and finish thereon in any manner they may choose to do. Also to build upon and raise higher the said division wall or extend the same further south so as to suit their own convenience in building, but at their own expense, without molestation or hindrance from the said party of the first part, or any person or persons by their directions or claiming under them. Provided, however, that the said party of the second part shall not break down any part of said division wall, or in any manner unnecessarily mar or injure the same.
"Fourth. Each of the parties to, this agreement shall keep in repair their own half of the said division wall, and neither party, or any person or persons by their direction or claiming under them, shall have liberty to pull down or demolish any part of the said division wall without consent of the other first had and obtained.
" In witness thereof, the parties to this agreement have severally set their hands and seals this- day of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, to these presents.
"JOSEPH ALEXANDER.
"ANN ALEXANDER.
"NELLY HOGAN.
"¥M. BROWN.
"DOROTHY BROWN.
"ELEANOR BROWN.
The words " or their heirs and assigns " in the first line of the third article, were interlined before execution.
" Signed, sealed and delivered 1 in presence of )
" James La Grange,
" Peter Lansing, Jr."
The plaintiff, in due season, objected to the introduction of the agreement, and the exception taken to the ruling admitting it will be first considered.
When offered, the testimony showed that the signature of plaintiff's grantor to the agreement of 1815 was in his handwriting; that each of the adjoining owners entered into possession of the half of the Avail next adjoining him by inserting therein the necessary timbers for his building; the agreement offered was found by defendant among his muniments of title in 1811 or 1875; and plaintiff, about the same time, found a duplicate thereof among the deeds and papers Avhich it had received at the time of taking title.
Under the circumstances proven, it was clearly not error to receive in evidence as an ancient writing, and without proof of execution, this agreement which purports to have been executed more than seventy-five years before that time.
The agreement was ample to support the finding that the parties undertook to practically locate the boundary line between them in the center of the wall shortly thereafter constructed.
And this location was not questioned, so far as the record discloses, from 1815 down to 1887; on the contrary, there are positive acts of acquiescence.
Plaintiff's remote grantor, who executed the agreement, took possession of only six inches of the wall, which he made use of to support the beams of the building erected by him.
Defendant's grantor thereafter erected a building, at which time he took possession of one-half of the wall next to him in the same manner as the other party to the agreement had done.
In 1850, plaintiff raised its building, and for that purpose ran the wall up several feet, but only took possession of one-half of the wall.
About twenty-four years later, defendant remodeled his building, increasing the height of each of the several stories and adding an extra story, in the doing of which, he extended the division wall some fifteen feet higher than it was before. And when this was done, if not before, plaintiff had knowledge of the existence of the agreement of 1815. The defendant at this time cut off six inches from the face of the partition wall, and rebuilt it, his purpose being to have the portion of it which he claimed, conform in appearance to the rest of the building front.
When plaintiff increased the height of its building in 1887, it claimed the right to use the half of the wall on defendant's side as well as its own, but then about seventy-two years had elapsed since the attempt of the owners to locate the division line, and the lapse of time, considered in connection with the facts referred to, fully establish a legal acquiescence in the location originally made.
Neither the parties to the original location, nor their successors in title, can now be heard to deny that such line constitutes the true boundary.
The agreement establishes that the wall is a party wall, and if the views so far expressed are correct, each owns in severalty so much of the wall as stands upon his lot, subject to the easement of the other owner for its support, and the equal use thereof as an exterior wall of his building. (Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 N. Y. 601.)
No other use of the adjoining owner's portion of the party wall is permissible. Windows have no place in a party wall. (Nash v. Kemp, 12 Hun, 592; Danenhauer v. Devine, 51 Texas, 489; St. John v. Sweeney, 59 How. Pr. 175 ; Sweeney v. St. John, 28 Hun, 634.)
Defendant was, therefore, doing as he lawfully might in filling up the openings on his half of the party wall.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Putnam, J., concurred.