Court Opinion

ID: 9830034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:49:55.935189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:11.271886
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellee' makes the following complaint:
“This honorable court in its opinion sustaining said éixth proposition of appellants says:
“ ‘The evidence negatives any bad faith on the part of appellants in their assurance to ap-pellee that, notwithstanding the claim of the realty company, appellee had the right to erect the wall of the enlarged building upon the east wall of the old building. Mr. Cohen, appellee’s president, who made the contract with appellant J. J. Settegast, expressly exonerates Mr. Settegast from any fraud or deception in the transaction; The evidence further shows that appellee, before it incurred the expense of un-deroinning the old wall, was fully informed of the easement agreement with the realty company, and that it consulted its attorney and was advised that the easement agreement did not prevent it from constructing the new wall upon the old one. In these circumstances, appellants should not be held liable for the costs incurred by appellee in underpinning the old wall. Appellee did not incur this expense in reliance upon any representations of appellants, nor under any guaranty of appellants to reimburse it for such expense in the event the easement of the realty company should be found to prohibit the use of the old wall for the new building, but, with full knowledge of all the facts, it agreed with appellants that the easement did not prevent its use of the old wall, and proceeded to do the work on the old wall, for which it now seeks compensation from appellants. We do not think it is entitled under any rule of law or equity to recover from appellants this item of damage.’
“II. We respectfully submit that in holding the above view this court committed error because :
“(1) There is no evidence in the record ‘that appellee, before it incurred the expense of underpinning the old wall was fully informed of the easement agreement with the realty company, and that it consulted its attorney and was advised that the easement agreement did not prevent it from constructing the new wall upon the old wall,’ * * * and that ‘appellee did not incur this expense in reliance upon any representation of appellants, nor under any guaranty of appellants to reimburse it for its expenses in the event the easement of the realty company should be found to prohibit the use of the old wall for the new building, but, with full knowledge of all the facts, it agreed with appellants that the easement did not prevent its use of the old wall.’ ”
Mr. Cohen, appellee’s president, testified:
“I did not hear about the easement agreement until the fall of 1921. That was when my architect said something about some measurements. That was before I tore down any of the building; before I started to work on the wall. I was advised with reference to the easement and the building that I was erecting or contemplating erecting. I had legal advice. My advice was to go ahead with my building. I was advised by my legal advisors with reference to my legal rights as against the Sette-gast Realty Company to go ahead with that building; to take the advice of Mr. J. J. Sette-gast and go ahead with his assurance that he would back us up. I got these assurances from Mr. J. J. Settegast and Mr. Epstein, appellee’s attorney. * * * I got this assurance daily for 30 days. For a month Mr. Settegast told me to ignore them more or less.”
This testimony, which is undisputed, fully sustained the findings above complained, of by appellee. We adhere to the conclusions expressed in our original opinion and refuse the motion for rehearing.