Hayes v. Arcade Real Estate Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 566
• 101 A. 850
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 781

Syllabus

<p>Beal property — Party walls — Foundations — Lateral support — Laches — Equity technical trespass — Act of May 7, 1855, P. L. k6h-</p> <p>1. In. a suit in equity to compel defendant, an adjoining owner, to remove such portions of an underpinning party wall constructed by defendant as encroached on plaintiffs land to a greater extent than the ten inches allowed by the Act of May 7, 1855, P. L. 464, and to compel defendant to close certain openings and windows in the new portion of the party wall constructed by defendant, it appeared that on the lots occupied by plaintiff and defendant respectively there were originally two three-story buildings, having a party wall between them; that plaintiff had constructed a lining wall against the foundation wall to afford additional support to the interior construction of his building; that thereafter defendant had removed the three-story building on its lot and erected a thirteen-story office building. In excavating for the foundations defendant had built an underpinning wall beneath the party wall, which extended eighteen and one-half inches upon plaintiff’s ground. Defendant also built a steel frame and a lining wall against the party wall; the girders of the steel frame extended into the party wall, but were not supported by it; above the party wall defendant built a curtain wall, which joined the party wall. The lower court found that the underpinning wall was constructed in accordance with the best practice; that it was necessary to support the party wall and protect plaintiff’s building; and that it encroached on plaintiff’s premises no further than was actually necessary to support the building and the lateral pressure of the ground; that no use was made by defendant either of the underpinning wall or the party wall above the surface in connection with its building, which was constructed independently of such wall, and rested entirely on its own foundation, laid on defendant’s ground. The court also found that the exte