Case Name: Emma Gobeille vs. Joseph Meunier
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1898-12-21
Citations: 21 R.I. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma Gobeille vs. Joseph Meunier.
Judges: Present: Matteson, C. J., Tillingliast and Rogers, JJ.
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
Emma Gobeille vs. Joseph Meunier.
PROVIDENCE—
DECEMBER 21, 1898.
Present: Matteson, C. J., Tillingliast and Rogers, JJ.
(1) Lateral Support. Equitable Bemecly. Trespass. Injunction.
An owner of land is entitled to have it supported in its natural condition by the land of Ms adjoining proprietor.
If the adjoining proprietor remove such natural support, he becomes liable for all damages caused by the resulting disturbance or falling away of the soil of the former owner.
A. made excavations on complainant’s land and proceeded to erect a supporting wall partly thereon and partly on his own land, and purposed to continue to do so along the entire length'of the line between the two lots:—
Held, that an injunction was the proper remedy to restrain such continuing trespass.
Equity will not enjoin a land-owner from making excavations on his own land, unless serious injury to the adjoining land is imminent.
Bill in Equity for an injunction to restrain removal of the lateral support to complainant’s land, and the erection of a wall in place thereof partly on land of the complainant and partly on land of the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We think the complainant makes a case for relief. The testimony shows that the respondent is excavating the complainant's land and has,; erected in part a wall for the purpose of supporting the complainant's land, placing the wall partly on the complainant's land, and that he is continuing the erection of the wall along the, whole length of the line between him and the complainant. The law is well settled that the owner of land is entitled to have it supported and protected in its natural condition by the land of his adjoining proprietor, and that if such adjoining owner removes such natural support, whereby the soil of .the former is disturbed or falls away, he is legally liable for all damage so occasioned. Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99 ; Graves v. Mattison, 67 Vt. 630 ; McMaugh v. Burke, 12 R. I. 499 ; 2 Wash. R. P., 5 ed. 330 et seq. Though equity will not enjoin a land, owner from making excavations on-his own land unless serious injury to the adjoining land is imminent (McMaugh v. Burke, 12 R. I. 499), in the present instance the respondent has already excavated and is proceeding still further to excavate the complainant's land and to erect the supporting wall upon it. In these circumstances an injunction is the proper remedy to restrain the trespasses. Matteson v. Whaley, 19 R. I. 648.
Walter I. Ballou, for complainant. Adelarcl Arehambault and Alphonse Oaulin, Jr., for respondent.