Hoffstot v. Voight

Citations

• 146 Pa. 632
• 23 A. 351
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1271

Syllabus

<p>1. The regulation of parly-walls, as it exists in this and most other states, is an interference with the rights and enjoyment of property sustainable only on the police power; and therefore, to be governed and measured by the rule of strict construction, and kept strictly within the limits of the statutory provisions on the subject: Per Mr. Justice Mitchell.</p> <p>2. Under the act of April 8, 1872, P. L. 986, when an existing party wall in the city of Pittsburgh is torn down and replaced, solely because it is unsuited for a new building to be erected by one of the adjoining owners, the other cannot be compelled to contribute to the cost of the new wall, so long as he makes no use of it different from his use of the old one.</p> <p>3. The supporting of the beams of his pre-existing building in the new wall, in the same manner and to the same extent that they were supported in the old, is not a new use, but a continuance of the old use. And when he begins to make a new use of the new wall, his liability is for his proportion of the cost of so much of the wall only as he uses, not of the whole.</p> <p>4. That the party erecting such new wall changed its plan and size, thus to some extent increasing its cost, at the request or suggestion of the adjoining owner, made with a view to the probable future use of the wall, and unaccompanied by any promise to pay at an earlier time than that fixed by law, will not alter the legal rights and liabilities of the parties.</p>