Opinion ID: 1531328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: encroachment.

Text: The appellant claims that she was entitled to increase the height of the party wall. In this contention she relies strongly upon the case of Sorensen v. J.H. Lawrence Co., 197 Md. 331, 79 A.2d 382, where a suit was brought to restrain a defendant from increasing the height of a party wall and to require the defendant to restore it to its original condition. Judge Delaplaine there stated that, Public policy favors the presumption that either owner of a party wall under an agreement has the right to make the wall higher than it was built originally.    The public interest is not promoted by putting impediments in the way of erecting buildings and the law will not be swift to construe the acts of parties so as to produce that effect. However, in the Sorensen case no encroachment was shown. The wall was built upon its original base, without being widened. In the present case the wall was widened so as to overhang the appellees' property, as was shown both by the testimony of one of the appellees, based upon observation, and by the surveyor's plat and the field notes upon which it was based. The trial court found as a fact that there was an encroachment; and the evidence is ample to sustain this finding.