Court Opinion

ID: 8655818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 21:15:49.834317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:42.577402
License: Public Domain

STBAUP, J.
I concur. The plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, purchased an interest, not in the defendant’s building, but a portion of the south wall of his building five stories high. The portion of the wall in which such interest was purchased was but three stories high, and in length that of plaintiff’s building. It was purchased to furnish the north wall for its building three stories high, and to support the north side of it. True, it purchased no interest in the soil. But the interest purchased in the wall and the purpose for which it was purchased necessarily gave the plaintiff an interest also in the soil upon which the wall rested, so long as it remained and was suitable for such purpose. Such interest was perpetual and unconditional. The defendant’s building was injured by fire. The south wall was injured to such an extent as not to be sufficient, as found by the court, *100to support a building as was formerly supported on the defendant’s land or such a building — ten or eleven stories high — as the defendant proposes and intends to erect. But that portion of the wall in which the plaintiff for a valuable consideration purchased an absolute and perpetual interest was not materally injured, and is sufficient to safely and properly support the plaintiff’s building in the future as it did in the past, and for such uses and purposes- is substantially as good now as it was before. That interest, that use, that purpose — the thing bought, the thing sold and for which the plaintiff paid its money — was not destroyed or materially impaired. The plaintiff still has what it had bought and what the defendant had sold. That the wall was damaged or impaired for other purposes is the defendant’s misfortune. The plaintiff is not to blame for that, nor should it be charged with it by compelling it to surrender that which it bought and paid for and still owns and possesses. Observations are made that the defendant should not suffer the whole loss occasioned by the accidental fire. Every one under such circumstances must bear his own loss-. What the plaintiff suffered in such respect it must bear. So, too, must the defendant. The plaintiff with respect to the question in hand suffered none, for it still has about all it had before the fire. That the defendant has not is his, not the plaintiff’s loss. And for this reason do I see a distinction between the case here and one where had the wall been wholly destroyed or damaged, or that portion of it in which the plaintiff has an interest. For, in the latter, the interest of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant would be destroyed or damaged. The thing in which they both had a common interest would no longer exist or be useful to either. But they had no common interest in the whole wall. The common interest was only to the extent of three stories and the length of plaintiff’s building. That was all the defendant sold and all the plaintiff bought. Above or beyond that, the defendant granted, and the plaintiff acquired, no interest. The thing so bought and sold and the purpose for which it was *101bought and sold was unrestricted and unconditional. Of course, they had the right to make their own bargain; but that is the bargain made by them. So above or below the third story, wind may blow and fire rage, but if they do -not damage or impair what the defendant sold and granted, and what the plaintiff unconditionally bought and paid for and still possesses and enjoys, I see no reason why it should be compelled to surrender it because the defendant. sustained a loss of property in which the plaintiff was given and had no interest whatever. Then it is also said that, if the plaintiff is permitted to use the new wall for the same purpose it used the old, it is granted or given something without consideration. Not so. It now has what it theretofore bought and paid for. The wall, for that purpose, is substantially as good now as it was before the fire. It, however, is not sufficient to support such a building as the defendant proposes and intends to erect. So the court, under its equitable powers, and as is proper, has given the defendant the right to remove it if he will erect another and give back to the plaintiff what he, by tearing down and removing the old wall, will take from the plaintiff. Thus, the surrender of what the plaintiff now has; and what it had theretofore bought of the defendant and now owns, possesses, and enjoys, is the consideration for requiring the defendant, if he takes down and removes the old wall, to erect a new one and give the plaintiff that right and interest in it which it owned, possessed, and enjoyed in the old wall at the time of its removal by the defendant. That is but equity, and is, I think, within the adjudged cases.