Allen v. Evans
| Decision Date | 19 June 1894 |
| Citation | 161 Mass. 485,37 N.E. 571 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. EVANS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William Caleb Loring and Robert S. Gorham, for appellant.
G.L. Huntress, for appellees.
The original owner of both lots built houses thereon, with a party wall between them, and afterwards sold the two houses to different purchasers, imposing no obligation upon either purchaser in respect to the party wall. A predecessor in title of the plaintiff, being the owner of one of the lots, strengthened the foundation, and built the party wall higher. The defendants, owning the adjoining lot, built their house higher, and used the wall so built by the plaintiff's predecessor in title. After this had been done, the plaintiff bought his lot, and now seeks to make the defendants pay for using the wall. There was no stipulation or agreement in any form that such payment should be made, and there is no implied contract to pay for such use of a party wall. The defendants had a right to use so much of the party wall as stood upon their own land, in the manner in which they did use it, without paying anything for such use. Wilkins v. Jewett, 139 Mass. 29, 29 N.E. 214; Joy v. Bank, 115 Mass. 60; Brooks v. Curtis, 50 N.Y. 639. The case is to be distinguished from those in which there was an agreement or stipulation for payment, like Maine v. Cumston, 98 Mass. 317; Standish v. Lawrence, 111 Mass. 111; Richardson v. Tobey, 121 Mass. 457. Judgment for the defendants affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swift v. Calnan
...There are some authorities which hold to a contrary doctrine. See Wilkins v. Jewett (Mass.) 139 Mass. 29, 29 N.E. 214; Allen v. Evans (Mass.) 161 Mass. 485, 37 N.E. 571; Traute v. White (N. J. Ch.) 46 N.J.Eq. 437, 19 196. What is said on the subject in this last case is purely dictum, and c......
-
Fleming v. Cohen
...must be held to be fairly included within the common easement. Phillips v. Bordman, ubi supra; Everett v. Edwards, ubi supra; Allen v. Evans, ubi supra; v. Curtis, 50 N.Y. 639-644, 10 Am. Rep. 545. The finding and ruling of the master 'that said thirty-five foot wall is not wholly or in any......
-
Miller v. Hyde
... ... restricted to one action against the same person for a single ... tort, we do not now decide. See Bannett v. Hood, 1 ... Allen, 47; Trask v. Railroad Co., 2 Allen, 331; ... Bliss v. Railroad Co. (Mass.) 36 N.E. 65. If he is ... so restricted, it is not because the ... ...
-
Swift v. Calnan
...1845, 2322, et seq. There are some authorities which hold to a contrary doctrine. See Wilkins v. Jewett (Mass.) 29 N. E. 214;Allen v. Evans (Mass.) 37 N. E. 571;Traute v. White (N. J. Ch.) 19 Atl. 196. What is said on the subject in this last case is purely dictum, and contrary to the Hunt ......