Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co, 3
| Decision Date | 23 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
| Parties | JACKMAN v. ROSENBAUM CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. H. F. Stambaugh, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 23-29 intentionally omitted] Mr. A. Leo Weil, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, the original plaintiff, owned a theatre building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a wall of which went to the edge of his line. Proceeding under a statute of Pennsylvania the defendant, owner of the adjoining land began to build a party wall, intending to incorporate the plaintiff's wall. The city authorities decided that the latter was not safe and ordered its removal, which was done by the contractor employed by the defendant. The plaintiff later brought this suit. The declaration did not set up that the entry upon the plaintiff's land was unlawful, but alleged wrongful delay in completing the wall and the use of improper methods. It claimed damages for the failure to restore the plaintiff's building to the equivalent of its former condition, and for the delay, which, it was alleged, caused the plaintiff to lose the rental for a theatrical season. At the trial the plaintiff asked for a ruling that the statute relating to party walls, if inter preted to exclude the recovery of damages without proof of negligence, was contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. This was refused, the Court ruling that the defendant was not liable for damages necessarily resulting from the exercise of the right given by the statute to build a party wall upon the line, and, more specifically, was not liable for the removal of the plaintiff's old wall. There were further questions as to whether the work was done by an independent contractor and as to negligence, on which the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for $25,000; but the Court of Common Pleas held that the party employed was an independent contractor and that the defendant was entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding among other things that the statute imposed no liability for damages necessarily caused by building such a party wall as it permitted, and that so construed, it did not encounter the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 263 Pa. 158, 106 Atl. 238.
In the State Court the judgment was justified by reference to the power of the State to impose burdens upon property or to cut down its value in various ways without compensation, as a branch of what is called the police power. The exercise of this has been held warranted in some cases by what we may call the average reciprocity of advantage, although the advantages may not be equal in the particular case. Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, 5 Sup. Ct. 1086, 29 L. Ed. 229; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 111, 31 Sup. Ct. 186, 55 L. Ed. 112, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487. The Supreme Court of the State adverted also to increased safety against fire and traced the origin to the great fire in London in 1666. It is unnecessary to decide upon the adequacy of these grounds. It is enough to refer to the fact also brought out and relied upon in the opinion below,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. McDonald
...years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the fourteenth amendment to affect it ...." Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31, 43 S.Ct. 9, 9-10, 67 L.Ed. 107 (1922). Liberty, the Constitution, and the Federal Government have together survived in this country for close to 200......
-
Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. Cryan
...... adversary hearing on the issue of obscenity, and the parties agreed to view the films on February 3, 1975. The instant action was filed on January 31, 1975, one day after that agreement and four days ......
-
Monroe v. Pape
...67 'The Fourteenth Amendment, itself a historical product, did not destroy history for the States * * *.' Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31, 43 S.Ct. 9, 67 L.Ed. 107. 68 In the last twenty years the lower federal courts have encountered a volume of litigation seeking Civil Rights Ac......
-
Solesbee v. Balkcom
...from brutal action than we like to think is true of our time. Due process is itself 'a historical product,' Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31, 43 S.Ct. 9, 67 L.Ed. 107, and it requires no expansion of its purposes to find in the Fourteenth Amendment a restriction upon State action t......
-
Reciprocity of advantage: the antidote to the antidemocratic trend in regulatory takings.
...benefited by like restrictions burdening his or her neighbors." Coletta, supra note 13, at 356. (236.) NOVAK, supra note 4, at 36. (237.) 260 U.S. 22, 30 (1922). (238.) Id. at 30. (239.) 114 U.S. 606 (1885). (240.) 164 U.S. 112 (1896). (241.) 114 U.S. at 611. (242.) Id. at 614. (243.) Id. a......
-
CHAPTER 15
...case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it.’” Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 730 (1988), quoting Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922). As the Court in Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852), made clear, the common-law method for assessing punitive damages was well estab......
-
Eminent domain after Kelo v. City of New London: an argument for banning economic development takings.
...768 n.84 (1999) (noting that the term "average reciprocity of advantage" was first used by Justice Holmes in Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 30 (1922), and later in Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (334.) Id. at 769. (335.) Id. ("[R]eciprocity of advantage also has been rea......